Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:33:35.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equal Protection, Legitimacy, and the Legalization of Education: The Role of the Federal Constitutional Court in West Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Hans A. Weiler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article reviews the role of the Federal Constitutional Court in the shaping of educational policy in the Federal Republic of Germany. It identifies two related, but different, constitutional norms which the Court brings to bear upon its views of the relationship between education and the state: (a) the norm of “equal protection,” which has had a particularly precarious role in the German constitutional tradition as far as education was concerned; and (b) the norm of legitimacy as it relates to the decision-making processes through which educational policy objectives are set and the means for achieving them elaborated. The Court's efforts to make current practices in West German educational policy comply with these norms led the Court to develop its own notion of “legalization” in the twin principles of “statutorization” and “parliamentarization.” Against the background of this development, the article argues that the Court succeeds reasonably well in terms of satisfying the “equal protection” norm, but that it may have underestimated the seriousness and precari-ousness of the legitimacy issue.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 66 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Research for this article was supported by funds from the National Institute of Education (Grant No. OB NIE G 78 0212), the Spencer Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. The analyses and conclusions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of these organizations. The author would like to acknowledge the assistance and comments on earlier drafts by Klaus Faber, Lawrence Friedman, Donald Jensen, David Kirp, Henning Köhler, Henry Levin, Ingo Richter, and the participants in the Stanford-UC Berkeley Seminar on Law and Governance in Education.

2 I am using quotation marks in referring to “equal protection” in the German context in order to avoid any automatic equation with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A more detailed discussion on the similarities and differences between these two constitutional guidelines is provided in a later part of the article. I am grateful to David Kirp and Donald Jensen for helping me to sort out this issue.

3 For general information on the Federal Constitutional Court within the overall judicial and political system in the Federal Republic, see McWhinney, Edward, Constitutionalism in Germany and the Federal Constitutional Court (Leyden: Sythoff, 1962)Google Scholar; Heyde, Wolfgang, The Administration of Justice in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn: Press and Information Office of the Federal Government, 1971)Google Scholar; Kommers, Donald P., Judicial Politics in West Germany: A Study of the Federal Constitutional Court (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1976)Google Scholar; Kommers, Donald P., “The Jurisprudence of Free Speech in the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany,” Southern California Law Review, 53, 2 (01 1980), 657–95.Google Scholar

4 Cappelletti, Mauro and Cohen, William, Comparative Constitutional Law: Cases and Materials (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1979).Google Scholar

5 Kommers, Judicial Politics in West Germany, pp. 35–42Google Scholar; cf. also the right of the BVerfG to dismiss federal judges in Art. 98, 2 GG.

6 Kommers, , “The Jurisprudence of Free Speech,” pp. 663–64.Google Scholar

7 von Beyme, Klaus, Das politische System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (München: Piper, 1979), p. 216.Google Scholar

8 Richter, Ingo, Bildungsverfassungsrecht: Studien zum Verfassungswandel im Bildungswesen (Stuttgart: Klett, 1973), p. 35.Google Scholar

9 von Beyme, , Das politische System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, p. 223.Google Scholar

10 Robinsohn, Saul B. and Kuhlmann, J. Caspar, “Two Decades of Non-Reform in West German Education,” Comparative Education Review, 11, 3 (10 1967), 311–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 For more detailed information on developments during that period, see Hüfner, Klaus and Naumann, Jens, Konjunkturen der Bildungspolitik in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Volume 1: Der Aufschwung (1960–1967) (Stuttgart: Klett, 1977)Google Scholar; Weiler, Hans N., “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation: Strategies of Compensatory Legitimation in Educational Policy,” Comparative Education Review, 27, 2 (06 1983), 259–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Reviews of National Policies of Education: Germany (Paris: OECD, 1972)Google Scholar; Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, ed., Bildung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Daten und Analysen (2 volumes) (Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1980)Google Scholar; Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education, Between Elite and Mass Education: Education in the Federal Republic of Germany (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983).Google Scholar

12 The Gesamtschule, which was designed to overcome the social stratification inherent in the traditional German three-tiered system of Hauptschule, Real schule, and Gymnasium; see Raschert, Jürgen, Gesamtschule:Ein gesellschaftliches Experiment (Stuttgart: Klett, 1974)Google Scholar; Weiler, , “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation.”Google Scholar

13 Hameyer, Uwe, Aregger, Kurt and Frey, Karl, eds. Bedingungen und Modelle der Curriculuminnovation (Weinheimn: Beltz, 1976)Google Scholar; Baumert, Jürgen and Raschert, Jürgen, Vom Experiment zur Regelschule: Schulplanung, Curriculumentwicklung und Lehrerfortbildung in Zusammenarbeit von Lehrern und Verwaltung bei der Expansion der Berliner Gesamtschule (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1978).Google Scholar

14 BVerfGE 33/303; see also 37/104. BVerfGE refers to the published decisions by the Federal Constitutional Court; they are cited with the first number indicating the volume, and the second the page on which the decision starts; thus, the first of the two decisions cited in this note is found in volume 33 and starts on page 303. The decisions are published regularly as Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr). All quotations from Court decisions in this article have been translated by the author.

15 BVerfGE 26/246.

16 BVerfGE 45/400.

17 BVerfGE 41/251.

18 In Kirp, David L. and Yudof, Mark G., Educational Policy and the Law: Cases and Materials (Berkeley: McCutchan, 1974), p. xxxv.Google Scholar

19 For some very pertinent observations on the field of energy policy, see Nelkin, Dorothy and Pollak, Michael, The Atom Besieged: Extraparliamentary Dissent in France and Germany (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1981), pp. 155–66Google Scholar; Kitscheit, Herbert, Kernenergiepolitik: Arena eines gesellschaftlichen Konflikts (Frankfurt: Campus, 1980), pp. 272–79Google Scholar; see also the Court's decision on the “fastbreeder” at Kalkar, , BVerfGE 49/89.Google Scholar

20 See, for the U.S., Kirp, and Yudof, , Educational Policy and the LawGoogle Scholar; Kirp, David L., “Law, Politics, and Equal Educational Opportunity: The Limits of Judicial Involvement,” Harvard Educational Review, 47, 2 (05 1977), 117–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Greenberg, Jack et al. , Schools and the Courts, Volume 1 (Eugene, Ore.: ERIC, 1979)Google Scholar; Feeley, Malcolm M. et al. , Schools and the Courts, Volume 2 (Eugene, Ore.: ERIC, 1979)Google Scholar; for West Germany, see Richter, , BildungsverfassungsrechtGoogle Scholar; Richter, Ingo, Grundgesetz und Schulreform (Weinheim: Beltz, 1974)Google Scholar; Oppermann, Thomas, “Nach welchen rechtlichen Grundsätzen sind das öffentliche Schulwesen und die Stellung der an ihm Beteiligten zu ordnen?” Verhandlungen des einundfünfzigsten Deutschen Juristentages, Band I, Teil C (München: Beck, 1976) C5–C108Google Scholar; Nevermann, Knut and Richter, Ingo, ed., Verfassung und Verwaltung der Schule (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1979)Google Scholar; Staupe, Jürgen, “Die ‘Verrechtlichung’ der Schule: Erscheinungsformen, Ursachen und Folgen,” Leviathan, 10, 1 (1982) 273–305Google Scholar; Max Planck Institute, Between Elite and Mass Education, pp. 83–106Google Scholar; Laaser, Andreas, “Die Verrechtlichung des Schulwesens,” Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Bildung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Volume 2, pp. 1343–1375.Google Scholar

21 Kirp, , “Law, Politics, and Equal Educational Opportunity,” p. 120.Google Scholar

22 Laaser, , “Die Verrechtlichung des Schulwesens”Google Scholar; cf. Nevermann, Knut, “Überlegungen zur Bürokratisierung des Schulwesens,” in Wohin steuert die Bildungspolitik? ed. Raith, W. (Frankfurt: Campus, 1979), p. 132Google Scholar; Richter, , Grundgesetz und Schulreform, pp. 11–18.Google Scholar

23 See, for examples and further discussion, Laaser, , “Die Verrechtlichung des Schulwesens,” pp. 1354–57Google Scholar; Oppermann, , “Nach welchen rechtlichen Grundsätzen,” pp. C81–C104Google Scholar; Nevermann, and Richter, , Verfassung und Verwaltung der Schule, Part II.Google Scholar

24 It should be noted that this discussion leaves out the important issue of the relationship between federal and Land authority in matters of educational policy. For more information and analysis on this issue, see Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft, Bericht der Bundesregierung über die strukturellen Probleme des föderativen Bildungssystems (Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft, 1978)Google Scholar; Oppermann, , “Nach welchen rechtlichen Grundsätzen,” pp. C64–C74Google Scholar; Faber, Klaus, “Vielfalt und Einheitlichkeit im Bildungswesen, bundesstaatliche Aufgabenverteilung und parlamentarische Verantwortung,” Bildung und Erziehung, 31, 3 (06 1978), 211–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bothe, Michael et al. , Die Befugnisse des Gesamtstaates im Bildungswesen: Rechtsvergleichender Bericht (Bonn: Der Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft, 1976).Google Scholar

25 E.g., BVerfGE 45/400; 47/46.

26 See also Richter, , Bildungsverfassungsrecht, pp. 44–76.Google Scholar

27 Corwin, Edward S., The Constitution and What It Means Today (Revised by Harold W. Chase and Craig R. Ducat), 14th ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 492–528.Google Scholar

28 Laaser, , “Die Verrechtlichung des Schulwesens,” p. 1350Google Scholar; Max Planck Institute, Between Elite and Mass Education, pp. 86–88.Google Scholar

29 This is not the place for a more extended comparison of these somewhat different usages of the notion of “equal protection” in the German and American constitutional discussion. It should be noted, however, that even in the American context there is a recognized “link” between the “due process of law” norm of the Fifth Amendment and the “equal protection of the laws” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment—as Corwin points out with reference to the U.S. Supreme Court's Boiling decision in 1954 (Corwin, , The Constitution and What It Means Today, p. 390Google Scholar and passim).

30 E.g., BverfGE 33/1 in the case of prisoners.

31 BVerfGE 41/251, pp. 259–60.Google Scholar

32 BVerfGE 41/251, p. 259.Google Scholar

33 BVerfGE 45/400, p. 418Google Scholar; 47/46, p. 79; see also Juristentag, Deutscher, Schulrecht, Kommission, Schule im Rechtsstaat, Volumes l and 2 (München: Beck, 1980–81).Google Scholar

34 BVerfGE 47/46, pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

35 Oppermann, , “Nach welchen rechtlichen Grundsätzen,” p. C48.Google Scholar

36 BVerfGE 41/251, p. 260.Google Scholar

37 BVerfGE 41/251, p. 263.Google Scholar

38 Crozier, Michel J., Huntington, Samuel P. and Watanuki, Joji, The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission (New York: New York University Press, 1975).Google Scholar

39 Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf, ed., Legitimationsprobleme politischer Systeme (Sonderheft 7/1976 of Politische Vierteljahresschrift) (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ebbighausen, Rolf, ed., Bürgerlicher Staat und politische Legitimation (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1976).Google Scholar

40 E.g., Offe, Claus, Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1972)Google Scholar; Habermas, Jürgen, Legitimation Crisis (Boston: Beacon, 1975)Google Scholar; Wolfe, Alan, The Limits of Legitimacy: Political Contradictions of Modern Capitalism (New York: Free Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Lindberg, Leon N. et al. , ed., Stress and Contradiction in Modern Capitalism (Lexington, Mass.: Heath, 1975)Google Scholar; Rose, Richard, ed., Challenge to Governance: Studies in Overloaded Politics (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980)Google Scholar; Freedman, James O., Crisis and Legitimacy (Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Wolin, Sheldon S., “Reagan Country,” The New York Review of Books, 18 12 1980Google Scholar; Weiler, , “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation”Google Scholar; Dahrendorf, Ralf, Life Chances (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).Google Scholar

41 Freedman, , Crisis and Legitimacy, p. 262.Google Scholar

42 Berger, Suzanne, “Politics and Antipolitics in Western Europe in the Seventies,” Daedalus, Winter 1979, pp. 27–50.Google Scholar

43 Weiler, , “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation.”Google Scholar

44 Freedman, , Crisis and Legitimacy, p. 262.Google Scholar

45 BVerfGE 47/46, p. 79.Google Scholar

46 E.g., BVerfGE 41/251, dealing with a student's expulsion from school, or 47/46 on the introduction of sex education.

47 BVerfGE 45/400, pp. 417–20Google Scholar; this decision was confirmed in 1980, see BVerfGE 53/185.

48 BVerfGE 34/165, pp. 192–94.Google Scholar

49 Oppermann, , “Nach welchen rechtlichen Grundsätzen,” pp. C48–C62.Google Scholar

50 BVerfGE 47/46.

51 BVerfGE 47/46, p. 83.Google Scholar

52 Juristentag, Deutscher, Schulrecht, Kommission, Schule im Rechtsstaat.Google Scholar

53 BVerfGE 45/400, pp. 418–19.Google Scholar

54 BVerfGE 41/251, especially pp. 262–66Google Scholar. In a related decision, the Court distinguishes between expulsion (where statutory regulation is required) and mere nonpromotion from one grade to the next (which can be regulated by administrative rules): BVerfGE 58/257.

55 Against the then-candidate for chancellor of the Christian Democrats, Bavarian Minister President Franz-Joseph Strauss.

56 Schueler, Hans, “Eine Posse wird zum Politikum,” Die Zeil (North American edition), 31 10 1980Google Scholar. The Bavarian Landtag has since responded to the Court's challenge by adopting appropriate legislation. Similar interactions between courts and legislatures at the Land level have occurred in recent years in North Rhine-Westphalia and Hesse; at issue were such matters as subsidies for private education, the legal status of Gesamtschulen, and the role of History and German in the curriculum of upper secondary schools (personal communication from Ingo Richter).

57 Juristentag, Deutscher, Schulrecht, Kommission, Schule im RechtsstaatGoogle Scholar. See also Niehues, Norbert, Schul- und Prüfungsrecht. Zweite, überarbeitete Auflage (München: Beck, 1983).Google Scholar

58 BVerfGE 49/89.

59 BVerfGE 48/210.

60 BVerfGE 56/1.

61 Rose, , Challenge to GovernanceGoogle Scholar; Berger, , “Politics and Antipolitics.”Google Scholar

62 Ibid., p. 38.

63 E.g., Nelkin, and Pollak, , The Atom BesiegedGoogle Scholar; von Alemann, Ulrich, ed., Partizipation, Demokratisierung, Mitbestimming (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Offe, Claus, Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates, pp. 153–68.Google Scholar

64 Kirp, David L., “Judicial Policy-Making: Inequitable Public School Financing and the Serrano Case (1971),” Policy and Politics in America, ed. Sindler, Allan P. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973)Google Scholar; Kirp, , “Law, Politics, and Equal Educational Opportunity,” pp. 118–20.Google Scholar

65 E.g., Clune, William H. III, with Lindquist, Robert E., “Serrano and Robinson: Studies in the Implementation of Fiscal Equity and Effective Education in State Public Law Litigation,”Google ScholarFeeley, Malcolm M. et al. , Schools and the Courts, Volume 2 (Eugene, Ore.: ERIC, 1979), pp. 67–120.Google Scholar

66 Richter, , Bildungsverfassungsrecht, pp. 183–99Google Scholar; on the Court's general record in dealing with equity issues, see also McWhinney, , Constitutionalism in Germany and the Federal Constitutional Court, pp. 49–51Google Scholar; Kommers, , Judicial Politics in West Germany, pp. 243–46.Google Scholar

67 Kirp, , “Law, Politics, and Equal Educational Opportunity,” pp. 121, 135.Google Scholar

68 Weiler, , “Legalization, Expertise, and Participation.”Google Scholar

69 On this characteristic of judicial review, see also Cappelletti, and Cohen, , Comparative Constitutional Law.Google Scholar

70 Linde, Hans A., “Due Process of Lawmaking,” Nebraska Law Review, 55, 2 (1976), pp. 197–255.Google Scholar

71 McGowan, Carl, “Congress, Court, and Control of Delegated Power,” Columbia Law Review, 77, 8 (12 1977), 1119–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 Wright, J. Skelly, “Beyond Discretionary Justice,” Yale Law Journal, 81, 3 (1972), 575–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 133Google Scholar and passim.

74 Kaase, Max, “The Crisis of Authority: Myth and Reality,”Google ScholarRose, Richard (ed.), Challenge to Governance, pp. 175–98.Google Scholar

75 Wolin, , “Reagan Country.”Google Scholar