Compulsory Schooling: Chronology of the Death of the Freedom of Instruction

Compulsory Schooling

Chronology of the assassination of the right to freedom of instruction

by Valérie Dole, member of CICNS

The purpose of this article is to inform about the methodical putting in place of a system of children’s education which imposes on every French person a single manner of dispensing instruction to them. The alternatives enjoyed by our contemporaries in Europe, America and a great part of Asia are today in France more and more difficult of access, by reason of constraining administrative procedures established to discourage any holistic and spiritual vision of the world, reflection of the diversity of human experience.

In December 1998, the National Assembly met in session to debate a bill of M. Jean-Pierre Brard, adopted unanimously by the Senate, tending to reinforce the control of compulsory schooling. The motive invoked at the outset was to “protect children against dogmatic manipulations” by reducing the liberty of the members of a spiritual movement to educate their children according to their convictions. We see in what follows that the implementation goes far beyond the displayed intention, as this extract from the Official Bulletin of National Education of 20 May 1999 shows: “Instruction in the family, which is subject to a declaratory regime, must be of an exceptional character, answering in particular to the cases of sick or disabled children or to certain particular situations.” … Or “how to pass unnoticed from the scapegoat to the whole flock”.

You will find the complete text of this session at:

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/cri/leg11/html/19990115.asp

We reproduce here only the most illuminating passages.

The law no. 98-1165 of 18 December 1998 tending to reinforce the control of compulsory schooling was adopted unanimously by the National Assembly.

National Assembly OFFICIAL ANALYTIC RECORD

Ordinary session of 1998-1999 - 45th day of sitting, 115th sitting

1st SITTING OF THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER 1998

M. Patrick Leroy

At least 6,000 children from six to sixteen years old are said today to be removed from the school of the Republic and subjected to the hold of cults. Besides the menaces weighing on their physical and mental health, these children are victims of cult propaganda and subjected to a dogmatic manipulation under cover of original educational programmes. They risk being marginalised and regimented, for they do not yet possess the critical spirit that would allow them to preserve their freedom of conscience.

(…) This text concerns solely the grave problem of children educated by the cults. It is in effect impossible to target the cult organisations explicitly, for they have no precise legal definition. Nor is it a matter of opening a more general debate on compulsory schooling.

The Senate’s text provides that the control of compulsory schooling will first of all be reinforced by making stricter the modalities of the declaration that parents who choose to instruct their child in the family must make. This declaration must henceforth be made each year, at each change of domicile and also when a child is withdrawn from an educational establishment during the year.

Children instructed in the family will also be subjected, from the first year and at least once a year, to a control by the academic authority to verify that their right to instruction is respected. Moreover, the mayors will conduct every two years a social inquiry into the conditions of the instruction dispensed in the family. In case of negative conclusions and at the end of an adversarial procedure, the parents will be put on notice to enrol their child in the educational establishment of their choice.

(…) It would not do, however, for the deadlines fixed to be too long, so as not to delay the triggering of judicial action when it is necessary.

Finally, the text adopted by the Senate provides for hardening the criminal sanctions (…) Also provided is the possibility of engaging the criminal liability of legal persons, that is to say of the cult organisations supporting such teaching.

This text will mark an important stage in the fight against the cults. (…) But we must move fast, for the future of thousands of children is at stake. That is why the commission asks you to adopt this text without modification.

The school of the Republic must be privileged to promote the autonomy of the child, the flourishing of his personality and his opening onto the outside world. It alone makes it possible to transmit the spirit of the Enlightenment in the face of the obscurantism of the cults.

Mme Ségolène Royal, minister delegate in charge of school education -

(…) the debate which is opening goes beyond partisan divides; it concerns, in effect, the protection of all our children against cult regimentation. And, an exceptional fact, if the Assembly adopts this bill in terms identical to those of the Senate, the text will be immediately applicable.

(…) Each year, several thousand children are deprived of the elementary right to instruction by the failure of the control mechanisms.

Very often (…) in the name of instruction in the family, children are maintained in a state of ignorance and lack of culture, or worse still, regimented, alienated, ill-treated. Gurus assert the necessity of awakening the child to pleasures the better to abuse him; some deprive them of their autonomy the better to enslave them, and others, finally, do not hesitate to sacrifice their lives. In fundamentalist or obscurantist milieux, the schooling of girls is also opposed.

It is necessary to ensure instruction as a priority within educational establishments. In effect, the school is the crucible of citizenship.

The schooling of children within institutions teaching them that citizens recognise the authority of the laws of the Republic, and not the absolute power of an individual, a group or a caste, and teaching them respect for differences and the sense of equality, is a fundamental right of the human person.

(…) As soon as a child reaches the age of 6, the family must enrol him in an educational establishment or explain to the mayor and the academy inspector why he is not.

(…) The academy inspector, who will have the mayor’s report, must once a year, within three months of the start of the school year, verify that the teaching provided does conform to the child’s right to instruction, defined in article one.

The control may be carried out, notably but not exclusively, at the domicile of the child’s parents. That will make it possible to summon the minor to a place other than his domicile, where he will be much freer to express himself.

In the absence of sufficient measures, the academy inspector may refer the matter to the public prosecutor on the basis of the offence of endangering minors, exposing the persons responsible for the child who have refused to enrol him in an educational establishment to a penalty of six months’ imprisonment and a 50,000-franc fine.

(…) The national representation, if it adopts this bill, can count on me to take very rapidly the necessary implementing texts, notably to give the academy inspectors the means to enforce these fundamental rights

M. Jean-Pierre Brard

(…) Things have certainly changed in the matter of cults. I no longer see, in one of the most prestigious galleries of our assembly where she had managed to gain entry, Mme Gounord, the “she-guru” of Scientology.

It took the death of a 29-month-old baby in a “community” of the Hautes-Pyrénées, following malnutrition and lack of care, to pose again the problem of the situation of children living within the cults.

Experience proves that the school can contribute to protecting children against the cults. But there is in France only an obligation of instruction and not an obligation of school attendance.

Children can therefore be instructed in a family belonging to a cult.

Moreover, the cult organisations rely on the facilities offered by our legislation to open non-contracted schools, which favours the establishment on our soil of all sorts of cult communities.

Children born in a cult, or brought there by their parents, are completely cut off from the outside world and first of all from the school system.

On 29 June last at the Senate, the rapporteur, Jean-Claude Carle, spoke of 1,000 children instructed in families belonging to cults and 3,600 instructed in private establishments said to maintain links with cults, that is, 4,600 children in all.

Evidently, many children escape these statistics for want of having been declared at the town hall by their parents.

Moreover, hundreds of children are enrolled at the national centre for distance learning for reasons said to be religious, but which in fact sometimes arise from cult behaviour.

Finally, at least 30,000 to 40,000 children of families that are members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, schooled in establishments of National Education, receive a double schooling in the all too famous “Kingdom Halls”.

The child ought to be able to benefit from an education allowing him to become a full member of society. The Jehovah’s Witnesses practise on the contrary a confinement which translates into numerous prohibitions, such as taking part in any association whatever, being a class delegate or taking part in a vote, or again celebrating birthdays and holidays.

That harms the flourishing of the children, which implies openness to the world.

Long is the list of the cults whose children are the first victims.

The children subjected to these groups in rupture with the social and school environment are regimented and placed under the control not of their natural parents, but of a guru. Thus, Mme Narootai Salve, alias Sri Mataji, the “she-guru” of the Sahaja Yoga cult, says to mothers: “You must not attach yourselves to your child: that is my work. These children are mine, not yours. Too much attachment to children is a sign of degradation”.

The pseudo-reverend Moon says as much: “Every mother should consider her child as her enemy”.

Moreover, many testimonies report insufficient medical follow-up, sleep deprivation, irregular meals, and attacks on physical integrity.

At the cult of the Citadelle, the children are subjected to very frugal food, with repetitive fasts.

Among the devotees of Krishna, under the pretext of a vegetarian diet, the children are victims of a deficient diet.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite the genial air of their preachers, have a criminal attitude when they refuse blood transfusion, even if the life of their children is in danger.

Children are beaten in the cult “Tabitha’s Place”; in that of the “Citadelle” they are struck with a belt to drive out demons, or again among the “Children of God”.

Rapes have been perpetrated on minors in the Mandarom cult and among the Raelians. Children were subjected to the practice of prostitution in the cult of the Children of God. Finally, the crime of incest has been observed among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Three of its members, accused of non-denunciation of this crime, benefited from favourable treatment by the courts, since they were sentenced to only three months’ suspended prison.

It was therefore becoming urgent to equip ourselves with more effective tools to improve the protection of minors.

The reinforcement of the control of the obligation of instruction in conformity with the values of the Republic constitutes a first concrete step in this fight against the liberticidal hold of the cults (Applause on all benches).

M. Bourg-Broc - This bill, presented in the Senate by the opposition, was adopted there unanimously, and it is placed on our agenda by the communist group: it is the symbol of an intelligent consensus of the national representation to fight against the cult phenomenon and, more precisely, against the regimentation of the youngest, who have no means of resisting or escaping.

The provisions planned will allow the public authorities to grasp better the number of children concerned and will give them good tools. Even beyond the problem of the cults, they will make it possible to control better the level of home education for the disabled, itinerants and the other children raised by their families. This aspect is important at a time when the development of the new technologies will doubtless multiply the number of pupils studying at home.

If this text on the whole answers the expectation of the RPR group, I nevertheless wonder how, practically, the mayors and the academy inspectors are going to apply it. The law already obliges families who want to instruct their child themselves to declare it at the town hall when the child reaches the age of 6, and the mayor is supposed to order an inquiry at 8, 10 and 12 years. Every mayor here knows that nothing of the kind happens. At Châlons-en-Champagne, the town of which I am mayor, we have recorded only two declarations in ten years and we have not ordered the slightest inquiry.

There is no real means of verifying that all parents make the declaration imposed by law. The obligation of control extending to collège age, would it not have been more judicious to entrust it to the prefect?

The academy inspectors must control both the acquisition of knowledge and the development of the personality of children raised in families and in non-contracted establishments. How are they going to carry out these annual controls? By what norms is the development of the personality to be verified?

One must see clearly that this is no longer an obligation of means, but an obligation of result: now, as concerns the basic skills - reading, writing, counting -, public and private teaching do not guarantee that result: the number of pupils entering 6th grade without mastering these skills is estimated at 20%. What will be the consequences of article 1A on these children?

If one considers that there is an obligation of means for public and contracted private teaching and an obligation of result for non-contracted private or family teaching, that is a treatment inequitable to say the least. I would like, Madame the minister, your answer on this point.

(…)

Mme Catherine Picard - It is urgent to protect the thousands of children who, under cover of education in the family, are in fact schooled in cult schools. Jean-Pierre Brard has just described the exactions committed there.

Following the work done by our Senate colleagues, and by the parliamentary study group on the cults, we are going to be able to develop the fight against the abuses of those who, under cover of educational practices, harm the instruction and flourishing of children.

(…) We cannot content ourselves with school requirements dating from the 19th century: knowing how to read, write and count. That does not make it possible to remove several thousand children from fundamentalisms, from violence, from voluntary stupefaction and from regimentation.

(…) this text reaffirms that educational establishments provide compulsory instruction as a priority.

Nor is it a matter of sanctioning the few hundred parents who make the choice of educating their children themselves, provided they do so in the real interest of the latter: the public authorities have the duty to make sure of it.

(…) in certain cases, recourse to correspondence teaching serves to remove children from compulsory schooling. It would be particularly useful to fix the criteria justifying recourse to distance teaching and to control, for example, the invocation of “school phobia” on a simple medical certificate. We shall have to be vigilant, for the cults are very prompt to use every gap in the control.

(…) By involving the municipal authorities for the general follow-up of the family and the inspection corps of National Education for the pedagogical control, we are going to build an effective system. By requiring that the parents’ declaration and the controls be renewed each year, we shall prevent many children from being left in a state of educational abandonment, and by extending the controls to non-contracted establishments - which represent no more than 5% of private establishments -, we shall limit the “swindles” of which too-credulous parents are victims, all the more so as the sanctions provided are dissuasive.

Our combat against the cults is founded on the idea that the State, without substituting itself for the individual in his choices of life, must guarantee to the child that he will be able to make them freely. It is therefore in strict respect of laïcité that our work as legislators is placed.

M. Christian Kert

(…) The school is the place where the child discovers the world and learns citizenship; instruction in the family, whether cult-related or not, must remain an exception. In this regard, certain clarifications will have to be brought.

It was not possible to keep to more flexible arrangements which, for the most part, we have tried without success. It appears in particular that the fact of suspending the payment of family allowances not only is not effective, but gives families the feeling of being freed from any constraint towards society.

(…) It remains to give proper responsibility to the various actors of the planned apparatus. I do not doubt the capacity of the ministry to give the academy inspectors the means to fulfil their role. On the other hand, I worry about the possibilities the mayors will have of playing theirs, for they already have a multiplicity of missions. Perhaps it would be good, Madame the minister, for you to make contact with the great associations of the mayors of France to sensitise them to this problem.

M. Gilbert Gantier

(…) If the cult phenomenon must be fought because it infringes the dignity of the person and public order, and if children must be preserved from the excesses of adults, nevertheless the controls must not be carried out in contempt of the constitutional requirements of freedom of teaching and freedom of conscience.

Freedom of teaching is a fundamental principle recognised by the laws of the Republic, according to the decision of the Constitutional Council of 23 November 1977. It includes notably respect for the proper character of private establishments. Freedom of conscience, itself also a fundamental principle recognised by the laws of the Republic, extends to religious freedom and to the freedom of philosophical opinions. It is therefore only in case of infringement of public order that sanctions ranging from the closure of classes to six months’ imprisonment and a 50,000-franc fine may be taken.

The fight against phenomena dangerous for the dignity of the person could not endanger the liberties which make the greatness of our Republic. It is only under these reservations that the Démocratie Libérale group will vote for this bill

M. Jean Le Garrec, president of the commission for cultural, family and social affairs

I congratulate myself that this text was adopted unanimously by our commission, its conforming vote making possible its immediate application. I think, Madame the minister, since decrees are doubtless not necessary, that you will very rapidly give instructions to your administration by way of circular.

(…) This work is indispensable, by reason of a risk of contagion it would be wrong to underestimate.

Mme the Minister delegate

I rejoice at the unanimity which has just manifested itself in favour of this bill adopted by the Senate: due to the initiative of a UDF parliamentarian, it was taken up here by the communist group (…) and its discussion was brought to a successful conclusion thanks to the work done by M. Brard and by Mme Picard. Everything therefore leads one to think it will be adopted in conformity, thus becoming immediately applicable - which is exceptional for a text of parliamentary origin.

During the preparatory work and the debate at the Senate, I myself wondered about the role to give the mayors. The possibility had been envisaged of entrusting to the prefects alone the power to trigger an inquiry, after a report by the CCAS, by the DDASS, by a doctor or by a neighbour. We preferred to leave this power to the mayors, insofar as it is at the town hall that enrolments in primary school are made. Moreover, the social services of the municipalities are in a position to hold useful information.

That said, I reassure you: the mayors will not be bound by an obligation of result. They will simply have the possibility of contributing to the lifting of the law of silence. In case of difficulties, the prefect may substitute himself for them, requiring the assistance of the police or the gendarmerie, as has already been done in the Drôme, for example.

(…) The whole of the bill, put to the vote, is adopted unanimously.

Emile d’Albret, member of CICNS, commented thus on this “Apparatus for the fight against the cults put in place within national education”:

“The population of a country, like a child, reacts to supposed danger by a demand for the reinforcement of authority. An old mechanism, or atavistic reflex of “power” to increase its power, a tendency embodied strongly and sometimes obsessively by certain leaders to reinforce the control of individuals, systematically profits from these “states of emergency”.

For example, the reinforcement of controls on non-contracted teaching was done under the pretext of urgency in the face of cult problems. However, one cannot ignore that it answers the much older desire of some, and a hegemonic policy of republican National Education.

The “cult phenomenon” could be used as an ideal tool for passing from liberties to restrictions. It is totally subjective and can be applied to any domain of society. The opening of an important breach in the liberties of associations, by instituting the possibility of dissolving a legal person for the doings of one of the individuals composing it (the About-Picard law), could be an example of this.

These mechanisms are not unknown, of course, to those who, in the governing bodies of the State and the world, pursue objectives more personal than humanist.”

This law was followed by a decree no. 99-224 of 23 March 1999, which defines the content of the knowledge required of children instructed in the family or in non-contracted private educational establishments.

Most of the provisions of the laws of 28 March 1882 and 18 December 1998 are now codified in the Education Code (legislative part).

The code can be consulted at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/.

The provisions concerning instruction in the family are codified in articles L. 131-1 to L. 131-12, which also refer to the following article L. 122-1:

“The child’s right to instruction has as its object to guarantee him, on the one hand, the acquisition of the fundamental instruments of knowledge, basic knowledge, the elements of general culture and, according to choices made, professional and technical training and, on the other hand, the education allowing him to develop his personality, to raise his level of initial and continuing training, to insert himself into social and professional life and to exercise his citizenship. This compulsory instruction is provided as a priority in educational establishments.”

These new directives were the subject of a special issue number 3 of the Official Bulletin of National Education, dated 20 May 1999 and entitled: Reinforcement of the control of compulsory schooling, which was addressed to the rectors of academies; to the department prefects; to the academy inspectors, directors of the departmental services of national education; to the members of the inspection corps; to heads of establishments; to school directors.

See the complete text at http://www.education.gouv.fr/bo/1999/hs3/som.htm

To consult also:

http://ecolesdifferentes.free.fr/APPELCOOP.html

A page of a website which sets out the remedies against National Education: “If you receive a formal notice to school your child in a public or private establishment, there exist against this injunction three types of legal remedy which must be exercised within a period of two months.”

http://cise.asso.free.fr/pages/page%20question%20recours.htm

“National Education, crucible of the pensée unique”

pensee-unique.htm

“…all the services of the State have been informed that educational alternatives - and in particular instruction in the family - form part of the ‘indicators of cult behaviour’. From then on, families who want to avail themselves of the freedom of instruction - though guaranteed by more than ten international texts ratified by France - must accept undergoing a thorough social inquiry, ordered by the Mayor at their domicile and renewed every two years. An official directive even specifies that schooling in the family ‘must be of an exceptional character’, which empties of its meaning the very existence of a liberty.”

Read also the article by the president of “créer son école”

Valérie Dole is a member of CICNS. An independent journalist, she has studied the New Spiritualities since 1977. Press contact at CICNS. Cicns9@aol.com