Hardly any German-language documentary film in recent years has been as controversial as "Elternschule" (Parent School). Parents and educators were horrified and criticized the methods shown as outdated. Others expressed enthusiasm for the approach of lovingly consistent parenting. However, the dispute is being fought bitterly and the fronts are hardened. The Grimme Prize nomination for "Elternschule" added even more fuel to the fire.
Grimme Prize nomination meets with fierce resistance
Fierce discussions have unfolded around the documentary "Elternschule", which focuses on the department for pediatric psychosomatics at the Gelsenkirchen Children's Hospital, since its premiere in 2018. In mid-2019, the nearly two-hour film was broadcast for the first time on German television, which reignited the controversy. The recent nomination for the Grimme Prize is unlikely to help calm the waters.
#keinepreisefürgewalt (no prizes for violence) – this is the hashtag under which critics of the film are organizing on social media to prevent it from being awarded the Grimme Prize. The Grimme Institute itself seems to have been surprised by the vehemence of the criticism. It responded somewhat awkwardly with the statement: "The form of therapy is partly brutal and outdated. Nevertheless, it was only through this film that a discussion about the dignity of the child was set in motion".
But this line of reasoning does not hold up because it implies that "brutal and outdated" methods are acceptable as long as they stimulate discussion.
The film Elternschule and why it causes such a stir
The major shortcoming of the film is that it does not comment or provide context. The camera is a pure observer and is right there during therapy sessions, case discussions, and parent training. Critical voices are not heard. Yet it is by no means the case that the Gelsenkirchen method has only been under fire since the film. As early as 2005, Spiegel published a highly critical article about Professor Ernst August Stemmann, who, as the predecessor of today's responsible protagonists Kurt-André Lion and Dietmar Langer, was a pioneer of the therapy. While it was originally focused purely on the treatment of neurodermatitis following Stemmann's teachings, behavioral problems, sleep issues, and regulation disorders were added later. The practitioners rely on an integrative approach consisting of educating parents about child psychology on the one hand and behavioral therapy measures on the other. In the film itself, the documented scenes result in a questionable image of the child: The child is naturally interested exclusively in its own survival, while the parents are completely irrelevant to it. To enforce its interests, any means is justified. Children are cunning manipulators who lead their parents by the nose. It is up to the parents to regain initiative and leadership. This requires "loving consistency," which also manifests itself in not giving the child seeking attention through its behavior exactly what it wants, and letting its crying, defiance, and tantrums run into a void.
In the bubble of the film, all of this seems quite plausible. The camera team follows a few selected cases over a year, and the viewer witnesses how the condition and behavior of the small patients gradually improve, even if some scenes are quite heartbreaking.
And it cannot be denied: Children test their limits. Children try to manipulate their parents to get their way. The lead psychologist speaks of "mutual control behavior" between parent and child. And undoubtedly, it is not the children's fault if their parents are overwhelmed by them. This is also why the approach of addressing both the children and the parents makes absolute sense.
But does that make it right to forcibly separate small children from their parents and leave them to cry alone in the cage of a crib? Is it not cruelty from long-gone times when parents are urged not to let themselves be softened?
It is precisely such methods that cause critics to storm:
"The film shows numerous scenes in which children are exposed to psychological and physical violence." This is the statement from the German Child Protection Association.
However, the Civil Code also insists on the child's right to a non-violent upbringing. But: Where does violence begin, and what is a therapy allowed to do if the parents have consented to it?
The topic of parenting – a double-edged sword
The conflict is being fought bitterly and both sides face each other irreconcilably. Cinema operators were pressured to prevent the screening of the film, a shitstorm raged on social media, and both the publisher and those responsible for the department of psychosomatic pediatrics faced heavy verbal attacks. After the film, the clinic was flooded with criminal complaints.
Die Zeit wrote in an article from October 25, 2018:
"Anyone trying to fathom how these accusations come about and what is justified about them encounters serious misunderstandings. But also little interest in resolving them. The dispute over Elternschule shows that people in this country are not only irreconcilably opposed to each other on the refugee issue, refusing to listen to one another. That discussions are often no longer about the matter at hand, but about opinions, about one's own life plan, one's own identity."
However, when ideology comes into play, objectivity often falls by the wayside. Today, it is well known that you cannot spoil a child in their first year of life and should always respond directly to their needs whenever possible. However, this phase also passes at some point, and sooner or later children actually start to test their boundaries.
This can demand a certain level of consistency and, accordingly, "unyieldingness" from parents. For a spirited child, this may lead to situations that are difficult to endure for strict followers of Attachment Parenting. Because when does the transition occur? At what point must one detach from the image of the child as a completely defenseless and needy being towards a personality that wants to assert its own interests, which are no longer about basic needs? How to deal with screaming fits at the supermarket checkout? What to do when the child defiantly throws themselves on the floor?
In an ARD interview about the film, the responsible psychologist Dietmar Langner emphasizes that the parents and children shown in the film are extreme cases that by no means represent the usual therapeutic everyday life.
Testimonials from parents
On the other hand, there are shocking testimonials from parents whose children were treated there. They describe how their children's will was broken and how they themselves as parents were reprimanded or even made responsible for their misery. They were made to feel guilty and given the blame for their child's behavior. Quite a few broke off the therapy, others suffered just as much as their offspring from the after-effects, sometimes even years later.
The credibility of such posts on the internet is difficult to assess. However, the well-known educator Katja Saalfrank has published some of them on her website and thus given them weight.
On the other hand, positive feedback predominates on the review portal for the children's clinic.
It ended in September 2020
In the end, the Grimme Prize was not awarded, and in the meantime, the department for pediatric psychosomatics at the Gelsenkirchen Children's Clinic has discontinued the program. Purely economic reasons are given on the homepage. Patients would not be able to take advantage of the offer because the three-week stay represented too great a hurdle for many families. But although it is emphasized that it was a "purely economic decision," the managing director at the time, Werner Neugebauer, did not miss the opportunity to address the dispute surrounding the film "Elternschule" in the press release on the closure of the department:
"For the highly professional psychosomatics team, this was an unbearable situation. The sometimes discrediting polemics made an objective discussion impossible. The film is not a film about upbringing. It shows the therapy of children with severe psychosomatic illnesses who are under severe psychological and often physical strain. We were often the last chance [sic!] for the children and their families when everything outpatient had been exhausted."
In the end, the Grimme Institute was right after all with its claim that the film's achievement lay in having started the discussion. Even if the clinic management denies it, it can be assumed that the film and the resulting controversy at least contributed significantly to the closure of the department. At the same time, the mudslinging and the manner of the debate leave one somewhat perplexed. It is almost absurd that in a dispute over a clinic that is dedicated, among other things, to the treatment of regulation disorders, the emotions of the opponents flare up so freely that one wonders whether a little regulation would not have been beneficial to the debate.
Affected parents who are desperately looking for a solution for their domestic situation would certainly have been better helped by a balanced debate that also strives to show alternatives for extreme cases.
This opportunity was wasted in the ideological trench warfare.
Other blog articles that might interest you:
