Bill and Diane

Fetteroll wrote:

>on 8/9/02 8:00 PM, Luz Shosie and Ned Vare at nedvare@... wrote:
>
>>In Massachusetts, there is a homeschooling family whose children are under
>>the jurisdiction of the state dept of something, not for abuse or neglect of
>>any kind -- it has never been about inadequate parenting -- but for not
>>submitting a curriculum to the local school district.
>>
>
>This would be a sensationalist misrepresentation of what happened. It
>suggests a picture of parents blindsided by the system because of missed
>paperwork.
>
>The Bryants fully realized what they were doing when they refused to submit
>an education plan. They claimed that the school committee's process of
>approval runs counter to their unschooling appraoch.
>
>(The paperwork is not at all burdensome. I use Carol Narigon's letter of
>intent and send in a list of subjects and a sentence or two on each for
>evaluation. Some towns ask for more but the case law says the method of
>assessment must be approved by the parents.)
>
>The committee had no objection to the Bryants homeschooling or even
>unschooling. They just wanted their paperwork. They had 2 years to work it
>out. This was a stand on a principle -- Kim Bryant claimed the
>"Massachusetts Constitution protects her from needing to comply with the
>state's home education regulations." (quote from Nicky Hardenbergh of MHLA,
>the state HS group) (Kim Bryant discussed her position at *very* great
>length -- so great it split the state list in 2 -- on the MAHomeschoolers
>group on Yahoo.)
>
>They lost.
>
>The decision is at http://mhla.org/ivandecision.htm
>
>Joyce
>
The
parents' principal contention is that the committee's process of approval
of their home schooling activity runs counter to their "learner-led" approach
to education, which they claim permits them to facilitate the child's
exploration of his or her own interests. (/A/) _*As the judge indicates in her
*_ _*findings on this point, "This educational philosophy militates against
*_ _*the development of a concrete 'curriculum.'*"_ At the same time, the judge
found that (/B/) _*the committee had no objection to the "parents using this method
*_ _*of education," only that they had to provide the school committee with
*_ _*a home schooling plan that was sufficiently detailed to allow the committee
*_ _*to assess** the children's educational level and their progress
*_ _*on the parents' home schooling program.*_ It is settled that "the approval
process, under /G. L. c. 76, § 1/, ... must not be conditioned on
requirements that are not essential to the State interest in insuring
that 'all the children shall be educated.'" /Care and Protection of
Charles, 399 Mass. at 337./ (/C/) _*However, prior approval of the superintendent
*_ _*or committee is a prerequisite to removal of children from school and
*_ _*to the commencement of a home schooling program.*_ /Commonwealth v. Renfrew,
332 Mass. 492, 494, 126 N.E.2d 109 (1950)/ (interpreting a predecessor
statute). Care and Protection of Charles, supra at 330.




With the first part of the finding underscored:

(/A/) the "Judge" notes that given a learner led approach
(/unschooling/ ) a curriculum is illogical.

Given the second underscored:

(/B/) The "Judge" littigated that a committee's interest in
illogical persuits is more important
than the parents interest in association with family. Further by
implication that such an illogical
committee is capable of assessment. (if you will illogical
paperwork for the state committee)

Given the third underscored:

(/C/) Unschooling is unrecognized and your family will be
dissociated (parents from children) if
you tresspass.

/So putting it all together/:


We will destroy your family if you attempt to unschool.
We do assure however:

_*the committee*__* had no objection to the "parents using this method
*__*of education,*_"
_**_

_**_


It does strike as being a little more involved than the reading that Luz
Shosie and Ned Vare gave it.
It is pretty indicative of the current reguard the various governments
hold to residents, and
more and more so the other way around.


Bill

Fetteroll

on 8/10/02 5:13 AM, Bill and Diane at cen46624@... wrote:

> /So putting it all together/:
>
> We will destroy your family if you attempt to unschool.

I think pointed jokes work best in an audience well informed about the
nuances of the topic. Then the over the top generalizations can be see as
either funnily on the mark or unfunnily off the mark rather than potentially
misleading and confusing.

If you'd like to post this at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/
please do feel free! :-)

Joyce