Lynda

FYI, here's the other case that is making headlines.

Lynda
----- Original Message -----

> > Subject: Bryant case update...
> >
>
http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/waltbryants12142001.htm
> >
> > Bryants lose court battle: Social Service now guardian of Waltham
children
> > in homeschooling case
> >
> > By DeAnna Putnam
> > Friday, December 14, 2001
> >
> > WALTHAM - The two children of George and Kim Bryant have been placed in
> > the custody of the Department of Social Services because their parents
refuse
> > to submit a home-schooling lesson plan to the Waltham School Department.
> >
> > The children, Nyssa, 12, and George, 13, remain at home.
> >
> > In the latest twist to a long-running dispute, Framingham Juvenile Court
> > Judge Kathryn White said that DSS will be the children's legal guardian
> > until they are 16. The Bryants can't take their children out of state.
> >
> > In her decision, White noted that the children have not been abused and
> > their home life is good.
> >
> > The Bryants yesterday offered DSS area Director Margaret Monnie a lesson
> > plan to satisfy White's court order. But Monnie said she did not want
the
> > plan and that the couple should submit it to the Waltham School
> Department.
> >
> > Monnie told the Bryants that Waltham School officials will inform DSS if
> > the lesson plan is acceptable.
> >
> > The School Committee, an elected board separate from the school
> > administration, has approved the couple's plan and said it would like
such
> > plans submitted every year.
> >
> > The Bryants yesterday went to the DSS office in Arlington to talk about
> > their case. An assistant area director said DSS had just been informed
of
> > the judge's decision and had not yet assigned a caseworker.
> >
> > The couple has battled with the School Committee and Waltham School
> > Department over home-schooling their children for five years.
> >
> > The School Department this year filed a Care and Protection complaint
> > against the couple because they did not submit a lesson plan for the
> > 2000-2001 academic year.
> >
> > The Bryants say no law requires them to do so.
> >
> > Waltham Assistant City Solicitor Howard Rock agrees that no law requires
> > the couple to submit a lesson plan, but he said the School Committee has
the
> > right to create legal requirements by its own authority.
> >
> > To date, city attorneys have handled 16 cases related to the Bryants,
> > including cases the city has filed against the couple and counterclaims
> > the Bryants have filed against the city.
> >
> > The Bryants submitted a lesson plan three years ago when the city went
> > through similar measures to have custody of the children turned over to
> DSS.
> >
> > Monnie told the Bryants that DSS would insist on visiting the children
at
> > home.
> >
> > But White's order says "home visits, however, may not be required for
the
> > approval of a proposed home schooling plan. Home visits are not
> > presumptively essential to protect the state's interest in ensuring the
> > education of children."
> >
> > Monnie told the Bryants it was obvious that they "don't want to play the
> > game" that the city of Waltham has set up for them regarding schooling
> > requirements.
> >
> > People who resist opposed norms sometimes are to be commended, Monnie
> > said, but for now, the state is requiring the couple to conform.
> >
> > Although DSS had no part in bringing Care and Protection charges against
> > the couple, DSS has to comply with the court order, she said.
> >
> > George Bryant said he and his wife would drop off a lesson plan at the
> > Waltham School Department by today.
> >
> > Meanwhile, they are appealing White's decision, and pursuing other
> > complaints they have filed, because they feel their constitutional
rights
> > have been violated many times, George Bryant said.

Helen Hegener

Thanks for posting that link, Lynda. I'd planned on forwarding it
myself, as I believe this case is an important one, raising some
critical questions which we as homeschoolers should be seriously
thinking about and discussing. Anyone interested in this case might
be interested in joining the NHEN-Legislative list and reading the
last three days' archives for an in-depth discussion of the case and
the issues it brings up:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHEN-Legislative/

Subscribe via email: [email protected]

Helen

At 3:38 PM -0800 12/17/01, Lynda wrote:
>FYI, here's the other case that is making headlines.
>
>Lynda
>----- Original Message -----
>> > Subject: Bryant case update...
> > >
>http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/waltbryants12142001.htm
>> >
>> > Bryants lose court battle: Social Service now guardian of Waltham
>children in homeschooling case
<snip>

Fetteroll

Though I'm from Mass I haven't been following this case on the state HSing
group's list because of the legalistic nitpicking. (It makes me realize why
people get fed up with unschooling nitpicking ;-)

It seemed shockingly uncaring to me that MA homeschoolers weren't supporting
the Bryants but apparently their case is based around their contention that
the compulsory attendance law goes against state constitutionally guaranteed
parental rights so the law itself is unconstitutional. There's a hugely
steep learning curve involved in figuring out what in the world anyone is
talking about in order to try to decide if such a law can be (legally)
unconstitutional and if so whether it is and whether that really has
anything to do with the legalities of homeschooling in MA. Basically the
rallying cry is too muddled to get everyone to answer the call.

(The Bryants stance is they don't have to submit an education plan to be
approved by the Superintendent since the compulsory attendance law is
unconstitutional. One of the problems that prevents people from rallying
around the case is that the education plan is not a much of a hoop to jump
through (I use Carol Narigon's which I can pass on if anyone's interested)
and the case law is very clear that the state can't dictate the manner of
education so unschooling is very easy in MA.)

There's been a good summary of the two Mass homeschooling points of view on
the case and why the Bryants aren't being backed universally by
homeschoolers in MA on the MHLA email list. (The second list has had many
ongoing discussions about it and others.)

masshomelearningassoc at Yahoo Groups (supposedly the MHLA list for
nonpolitical homeschooling discussions but a good summary)
MAhomeschoolers at Yahoo Groups (the MHLA list for political talk)

Whether the Bryants have helped the homeschooling atmosphere in Mass as they
claim, or hindered as MHLA claims, apparently no real changes can happen if
the foundation of the changes keeps coming back to the argument of whether
to work with what is there (compulsory attendance laws and others) or
whether that's ridiculous because the laws are unconstitutional. :-/

The scary/sad part is the DSS involvement in what is by-the-legal-book
educational neglect and therefore child neglect, but which doesn't match
reality since the kids are clearly being well educated. (They probably know
a lot more about law than a lot of lawyers!)

Joyce



on 12/17/01 7:32 PM, Helen Hegener at HEM-Editor@... wrote:

Thanks for posting that link, Lynda. I'd planned on forwarding it
myself, as I believe this case is an important one, raising some
critical questions which we as homeschoolers should be seriously
thinking about and discussing. Anyone interested in this case might
be interested in joining the NHEN-Legislative list and reading the
last three days' archives for an in-depth discussion of the case and
the issues it brings up:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NHEN-Legislative/

Subscribe via email: [email protected]

Helen




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

kayb85

I thought their stance was that they didn't have to submit an
education plan because it wasn't required by law, and that the school
district was requiring what was above and beyond the law.

Of course, I agree that compulsory education laws are unconstitutional
and I support all attempts to have them declared as so. I just didn't
realize that was the case in the Bryant situation.
Sheila

> (The Bryants stance is they don't have to submit an education plan
to be
> approved by the Superintendent since the compulsory attendance law
is
> unconstitutional. One of the problems that prevents people from
rallying
> around the case is that the education plan is not a much of a hoop
to jump
> through (I use Carol Narigon's which I can pass on if anyone's
interested)
> and the case law is very clear that the state can't dictate the
manner of
> education so unschooling is very easy in MA.)