Human rights were created to protect individuals from arbitrary government action. In this context, it is worth noting the following statement, which is all the more appropriate given that freedom of education must be exercised with respect for the values of a democratic society founded on fundamental rights and public freedoms under the Luxembourg Constitution.

If the highest ideals of truth can only be sought in a free society, it is extremely important that education, the official cradle of truth-seekers, reflects an awareness of the factors in our society that can impede the free flow of individual thought and action. Democracy implies the freedom to think, to disagree and to make lawful changes in the interests of all. It is a flexible and responsive form of government, difficult to describe in fixed terms. Democracy is not the result of imposed or structured political practices, but a dynamic and liberating force, fuelled by the people themselves. It can only thrive and flourish if its citizens are free to constantly seek out new ideas, new models and new theories to replace outdated knowledge, in an effort to serve an ever-growing population in the future..

A true democracy is a free and responsible society, and one aspect cannot exist or make sense without the other.

This statement comes from the committee set up in 1965 by the Ontario government to study the aims and objectives of education in the province. The authors begin a chapter entitled "The search for truth in a democratic society".

In its opinion of 18 March 2008¹ the Conseil d'État noted the need to develop alternative methods and deplored fifteen years later "that attractive alternative teaching methods are still not being introduced for all young people subject to compulsory schooling and, in particular, for those at risk of dropping out".²

While all education should encourage self-fulfilment and autonomy of the individual, his creativity, confidence in his abilities, the development of his gifts and his mental and physical aptitudes, what we observe in practice is that teachers, whether in institutions or "at home", are all too often reduced to sacrificing teaching freedom on the altar of a diktat of bureaucratic and dogmatic standards.

How can we teach autonomy without allowing autonomy? ³

Contents

A. The most frequent cases of disagreement

a) Students with special needs
b) Assessment practices
c) Mastering the skills in the study plan
d) The issue of multilingualism

B. The issue of justiciability

In Luxembourg, generally speaking, to our knowledge, there are very few refusals of authorisation and school enrolment orders are also rare.
Families often said they were very satisfied with their dealings with the people responsible for monitoring home schooling at primary level, but less so with certain head teachers. Opinions are more mixed regarding monitoring at secondary level.

In the event of disagreement, the family's stance and commitment will be decisive. Dialogue based on mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation is essential. Backed by their experience, families are generally able to defend their educational choices and values. Most of them will therefore be able to avoid having an educational approach imposed on them that they do not agree with and that they feel is harmful, while at the same time being able to listen to what might be relevant and beneficial to promote learning in each situation, in the best interests of the child.

A. The most frequent cases of disagreement :

a) Students with special needs

The directorate sometimes feels it has to impose schooling for young people with special needs because, in its view, its teams of experts are more competent than parents to deal with certain categories of special needs, particularly in the case of learning disabilities.

It is then up to parents to show that remedial action, if necessary, can also be taken outside school, or that a specific need can be better catered for thanks to their involvement, supplemented by external private help, or even managed in a very different and effective way, thanks to the particularities of the learning environment outside school.

To mark Dyslexia Day, our association interviewed a number of unusual educational players who shared their experience of supporting dyslexia and learning to read.

These interviews can be viewed in French and English⁴ and Youtube's automatic translations are available in many languages.
We haven't had the opportunity to do this work for other specific needs, in non-standard contexts, but it would undoubtedly be enriching and any testimonies are welcome.

In a society that claims to be democratic, it is important to defend the right to be different and to allow families to explore other avenues, so as to inspire change in the interests of all.

b) Assessment practices

Many families who do not attend school are highly critical of the way in which some headteachers carry out assessments and control tests.

It has been reported that:

a control interview was conducted solely in French, the secondary language, for a Luxembourgish-speaking learner in the first year of Cycle 4 (10-year-old child);
tests carried out in the first year of nursery school were not adapted to the child's age or to the expectations of the curriculum. This led to an abusive schooling injunction being brought before the court in summary proceedings, which is still awaiting judgment;
a maths test was carried out in French for a young Luxembourg secondary school pupil, despite a derogation for learning French as part of his home schooling.
This led to an abusive schooling injunction being brought before the court, which is still awaiting judgment;
Some directorates carry out tests lasting several hours on young people in the second year of primary school, or even nursery school (spillschoul);
checks are very often experienced as intrusive and authoritarian, stressful and distressing, especially for young people, and also questionable from the point of view of fulfilling the right to education.

The practice of standardised assessment is widely questioned in schools as a deleterious practice that can have a negative impact on self-esteem when imposed in an authoritarian manner⁵ and therefore undermine the right to education.
Self-assessment practices are quite possible but not systematically implemented according to the directorates, which do not necessarily make the effort to adapt to the situation as required by article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) ratified by Luxembourg.

At a recent conference⁶ organised by Harvard University in the USA, representatives of microschools and charter schools, which have proliferated in recent years as more agile alternatives to state schools, while being supported and controlled by public funds, say that what hampers their performance is clearly the incompatibility of assessment practices and the imposition of an overly rigid curriculum.

Across the world, this observation is similar and deplorable.

c) Mastering the competences set out in the syllabus

Although the Luxembourg basic education curriculum was made more flexible in 2011 and is currently being modernised (see FAQ), it is still far from being sufficiently flexible in relation to what would be needed to better realise the right to education.

For example, the private study programme offered by the American organisation Clonlara can be adapted to suit the student, so that learning takes place at the right time, according to the student's interests, needs and objectives.

Some Ministry of Education officials are demanding that families undertake to "respect the study plan". Article 21 of the law of 6 February 2009 on the organisation of basic education states that :
"Home schooling must aim for acquisition of core skills defined by the study plan".

In the context of home schooling in Luxembourg, what is meant by "respecting the study plan" is therefore at the mercy of the Ministry of Education staff's appreciation, their open-mindedness and their ability to overcome their own fears in order to let go and trust, so as to enable the path to autonomy.

Although recognition of non-formal learning has gained ground, independent learning is still a cause for concern. Yet the slogan of Summerhill School, where independent learning has been practised for over 100 years, is explicit in this respect: "Freedom not licence".
Freedom does not mean that everything is allowed. In this school, everyone is free to behave as they wish, as long as their behaviour is not excessive and remains respectful of others. And because they have been given a sense of responsibility in this way, the pupils become autonomous and responsible adults.

This stance is entirely consistent with the spirit of human rights. The important thing is not to prevent learning and to do what is necessary to enable it to take place, and not to impose what must supposedly be learned, under such conditions, at such time and in such order, while continuing to believe that it is effective, despite empirical evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately, in Luxembourg, some families continue to pay the price for a rigid and bureaucratic application of the skills base expectations, left to the free will of a directorate supported by its ministry, which does not really try to make a distinction, even though this would be in everyone's interest.

d) The issue of multilingualism

Article 4 §1 of the Luxembourg Constitution states that the language of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is Lëtzebuergësch and that the law regulates the use of the Lëtzebuergësch, French and German languages.

In order to meet the needs of the population and society, the range of schooling options has diversified in terms of languages of instruction and continues to become more flexible.⁷. However, the development of multilingual skills remains on the agenda (Art. 3 §2(1°) law of 20 July 2023) and makes sense from the point of view of social cohesion.

In the past, allophones have been refused permission to leave school, and school enrolment orders have been issued on the grounds that a young person does not have a sufficient command of German or French, for example (except in the case of 'visiting' families).

Since basic education in state and public schools can also be provided in German, French or English, by analogy and fairness, this option should also be available to families outside schools.

However, the authorities encourage the learning of the Luxembourg language. Only those families who are genuinely committed to learning the language make the effort to do so.⁸ and maintain multilingual social contacts, will ensure that their children have a real command of Lëtzebuergesch, which will promote their social inclusion in Luxembourg society. So it's a question of choice and will.

But not everyone is equal when it comes to learning languages.
To add insult to injury, this imposed multilingualism leads some young people to fail at school, so the diversity of choice of languages of instruction is a real boon to individual development.

B. The issue of justiciability

In particular:

- UN protocols are not really respected and young people are not heard impartially, nor in a context of ideological neutrality. They are insidiously influenced and manipulated in their choices, and when this results from state representatives, it is very problematic.

- In the event of a request for an appeal for clemency in the face of a refusal by a director, the Ministry is not impartial and takes the side of its officials. In response to precise questions adapted to each case, we receive evasive answers that make no attempt to distinguish between the best interests of the child.

- in the event of a dispute in summary proceedings⁹the legal process is long and costly¹⁰ and in the meantime, the child has to go to school even though the case has not been tried, without any consideration for the rights of the child or the parents.

- The children's rights organisation, okaju, although responsive and fair, is virtually powerless in the face of such situations.

- School mediators also have to have their cake and eat it too, and don't really have much power to change the situation.

In the end, these two bodies, which are supposed to act as safeguards against the arbitrariness of the State, are relatively ineffective and under-represented, so that by the time they take their case to the European Court of Human Rights, the children are adults.

So what can we do to hasten justice, so that children's right to education is preserved, according to their needs, throughout their childhood?

Imagine challenging the construction of a building to ensure compliance with environmental laws. As long as the court has not handed down its summary judgment, the building continues to be built and the environment destroyed.

It's the same situation for this child: a headmaster is presumed to be abusing his power, the family lodges a complaint, but the 5-year-old child has to go to school.

After two and a half months of summary proceedings, still without a ruling, he is wasting away, losing weight, sinking and no one cares, except his parents, who are left unable to protect him.

A child who was doing perfectly well is made ill because a headmaster and the Ministry think they know better than he does what he needs and are only concerned about his academic development, not his personal development. Is this really in his best interests?¹¹ ?

By what right? How can we not talk about oppression and authoritarianism?

Parents are caught in a trap: if they don't take their child to school, despite the suffering that schooling causes them, they risk having to deal with the youth court. But there is no guarantee that the court will be impartial, and the fear of losing custody of their child is far too great.

In short, the family is the victim of an absurd and oppressive system.

What's the only way out?

Working on the political front to change society's perception of what education could and should be, constantly and relentlessly demanding respect for fundamental rights. But for this young man, it will be too late.

In a state that calls itself democratic, this is absolutely unacceptable.

A state that violates human rights
will never be a good educator.

What can we do but continue to fight, denounce and demand ever more loudly what should be. Power corrupts if it is not held accountable.

(NB The term child is used in our texts in the legal sense of "minor".)