the Bryant family case
bluelotus
An interesting (and sad) case to think about...
http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/bryant_history1.html
Yol
--
Blue Lotus Therapeutics -
Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Yoga & Therapeutic Massage
http://www.bluelotustherapeutics.com
Dhyanyoga Center of NC -
Meditation - Kundalini Maha Yoga
http://www.dyc-nc.org
**********************************
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by
letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.
-- Tao Te Ching
**********************************
http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/bryant_history1.html
Yol
--
Blue Lotus Therapeutics -
Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Yoga & Therapeutic Massage
http://www.bluelotustherapeutics.com
Dhyanyoga Center of NC -
Meditation - Kundalini Maha Yoga
http://www.dyc-nc.org
**********************************
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by
letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.
-- Tao Te Ching
**********************************
[email protected]
Hey, Yol.. I read the articles and posts concerning the Bryant family. It is
indeed tragic and scary too. I wondered what kind of "education plan" they
came up with and why it was rejected.
It may be just you and me on this group.. lol.. Seems everyone else has
disappeared..I wonder if they found a new "watering hole" ..
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
indeed tragic and scary too. I wondered what kind of "education plan" they
came up with and why it was rejected.
It may be just you and me on this group.. lol.. Seems everyone else has
disappeared..I wonder if they found a new "watering hole" ..
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 12/30/02 11:13 AM, bluelotus at bluelotus@... wrote:
The case wasn't really about homeschooling. They used unschooling to make a
point about their views on how the only legal authority is the state
constitution. They insisted the state had no authority to ask for an
education plan because of the wording of the constitution.
Standing up for constitutional rights is a good thing :-) But submitting an
education plan isn't much of a burden so in essence they were using it as a
lever to get their constitutionalist views heard in court.
I tried to do my state duty and read the state HSing legal list -- it had
split off from the main list to basically give a forum for the Bryant case
-- but every time I tuned in Kim never discussed issues or bureaucratic
injustices for people to rally around. Every post came around to how the
constitution said the state couldn't do what it was trying to do.
Joyce
> An interesting (and sad) case to think about...Not nearly so sad and scary as they are able to make it sound.
>
> http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/bryant_history1.html
The case wasn't really about homeschooling. They used unschooling to make a
point about their views on how the only legal authority is the state
constitution. They insisted the state had no authority to ask for an
education plan because of the wording of the constitution.
Standing up for constitutional rights is a good thing :-) But submitting an
education plan isn't much of a burden so in essence they were using it as a
lever to get their constitutionalist views heard in court.
I tried to do my state duty and read the state HSing legal list -- it had
split off from the main list to basically give a forum for the Bryant case
-- but every time I tuned in Kim never discussed issues or bureaucratic
injustices for people to rally around. Every post came around to how the
constitution said the state couldn't do what it was trying to do.
Joyce
bluelotus
But wasn't the main issue that the school had no authority whatsoever to
ask them for "certain procedures" to homeschool (because there was no
regulation on hsing in MA and nowhere was to be found that the school
had legal rights to ask for them)?
And that even after the case was dismissed at some point the school
superintendent continued the harrassment?
I understand what you're saying but it seems to me that in this case the
court was giving the school comittee total control over hsing with no
legal ground. Or am I misunderstanding the case?
Yol
Blue Lotus Therapeutics -
Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Yoga & Therapeutic Massage
http://www.bluelotustherapeutics.com
Dhyanyoga Center of NC -
Meditation - Kundalini Maha Yoga
http://www.dyc-nc.org
**********************************
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by
letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.
-- Tao Te Ching
**********************************
ask them for "certain procedures" to homeschool (because there was no
regulation on hsing in MA and nowhere was to be found that the school
had legal rights to ask for them)?
And that even after the case was dismissed at some point the school
superintendent continued the harrassment?
I understand what you're saying but it seems to me that in this case the
court was giving the school comittee total control over hsing with no
legal ground. Or am I misunderstanding the case?
Yol
>>An interesting (and sad) case to think about...--
>>
>>http://www.educationalfreedom.com/pages/bryant_history1.html
>>
>>
>
>Not nearly so sad and scary as they are able to make it sound.
>
>The case wasn't really about homeschooling. They used unschooling to make a
>point about their views on how the only legal authority is the state
>constitution. They insisted the state had no authority to ask for an
>education plan because of the wording of the constitution.
>
>Standing up for constitutional rights is a good thing :-) But submitting an
>education plan isn't much of a burden so in essence they were using it as a
>lever to get their constitutionalist views heard in court.
>
>I tried to do my state duty and read the state HSing legal list -- it had
>split off from the main list to basically give a forum for the Bryant case
>-- but every time I tuned in Kim never discussed issues or bureaucratic
>injustices for people to rally around. Every post came around to how the
>constitution said the state couldn't do what it was trying to do.
>
>Joyce
>
>
Blue Lotus Therapeutics -
Ayurveda, Homeopathy, Yoga & Therapeutic Massage
http://www.bluelotustherapeutics.com
Dhyanyoga Center of NC -
Meditation - Kundalini Maha Yoga
http://www.dyc-nc.org
**********************************
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone. The world is ruled by
letting things take their course. It cannot be ruled by interfering.
-- Tao Te Ching
**********************************
Fetteroll
on 12/31/02 12:26 PM, bluelotus at bluelotus@... wrote:
the judges' rulings on two cases: "Charles" and "Brunelle".
There are bits that are open to interpretation, and, as in most states,
there are superintendents that ask more than the (case) law permits. But
overall the language emphasizes parental rights over state rights and the
need for the state to *prove* -- not just say -- that what the parents
propose is inadequate before refusing to grant approval to homeschool.
The requirements don't interfere with unschooling. We have to send in an Ed
plan. (I use Carol Narigon's.
http://sandradodd.com/unschoolingcurriculum.html) And then superintendents
can ask for a form of evaluation that is agreeable with the parents. I send
in a few sentences indicating progress in each subject.
It's clear that the Bryants could argue that the state doesn't have any
legal right to ask anything if there are no laws. (And apparently their
stance was the only laws binding are the state constitution.) But if what
the state asks isn't burdensome then fighting against it becomes, in my mind
and in the minds of many MA homeschoolers, a matter of legal principle
rather than homeschooling principle.
and frankly boring) but seems to jive with others' understandings -- is that
the school board asked for an ed plan and the Bryants refused claiming the
board had no right to ask. It gets a bit gray on who to believe after that.
There was some legal wrangling over a couple of years and the Bryants said
they submitted a plan and the board said they either didn't or that it was
inadequate. Since it stretched over a few years the Bryants obviously owed a
number of ed plans and if they were submitting a plan that was asked for 2
years previous and not for the current year then they can say they submitted
a plan and the school board can both say they didn't and that it was
inadequate. I don't know that that is what happened but it's plausible
because it should be so simple for the Bryants to come out publicly and
present what they submitted and when to show how unreasonable the town was
being. But they never did. It was just a bunch of "Yes we did"s and "No they
didn't"s. The Bryants were eventually taken to court and they lost. They
appealed. They lost again. And DSS got involved and the children came under
state protection but remained in the custody of their parents.
There were obviously things going on that those outside the case don't have
knowledge of that were affecting the decisions being made and what was being
said. All I know is that throughout the whole mess the Bryants weren't
nearly as clear about what they had done and the timing of it as they were
about their claims that the school board was harassing them and about their
stance on the state constitutuion and legal issues.
I'm just being skeptical. There isn't enough information to say who is right
and who is wrong. But what little information there is -- especially since
it's mostly the Bryants version of what was going on -- doesn't add up
clearly to a homeschooling family being wronged by the school board. There
may be things that would explain why it looks that way. But the information
just isn't there.
Joyce
> But wasn't the main issue that the school had no authority whatsoever toThere are no homeschooling laws in MA. Homeschooling procedures are based on
> ask them for "certain procedures" to homeschool (because there was no
> regulation on hsing in MA and nowhere was to be found that the school
> had legal rights to ask for them)?
the judges' rulings on two cases: "Charles" and "Brunelle".
There are bits that are open to interpretation, and, as in most states,
there are superintendents that ask more than the (case) law permits. But
overall the language emphasizes parental rights over state rights and the
need for the state to *prove* -- not just say -- that what the parents
propose is inadequate before refusing to grant approval to homeschool.
The requirements don't interfere with unschooling. We have to send in an Ed
plan. (I use Carol Narigon's.
http://sandradodd.com/unschoolingcurriculum.html) And then superintendents
can ask for a form of evaluation that is agreeable with the parents. I send
in a few sentences indicating progress in each subject.
It's clear that the Bryants could argue that the state doesn't have any
legal right to ask anything if there are no laws. (And apparently their
stance was the only laws binding are the state constitution.) But if what
the state asks isn't burdensome then fighting against it becomes, in my mind
and in the minds of many MA homeschoolers, a matter of legal principle
rather than homeschooling principle.
> And that even after the case was dismissed at some point the schoolMy understanding -- and it could be off (since the case was long, drawn out
> superintendent continued the harrassment?
and frankly boring) but seems to jive with others' understandings -- is that
the school board asked for an ed plan and the Bryants refused claiming the
board had no right to ask. It gets a bit gray on who to believe after that.
There was some legal wrangling over a couple of years and the Bryants said
they submitted a plan and the board said they either didn't or that it was
inadequate. Since it stretched over a few years the Bryants obviously owed a
number of ed plans and if they were submitting a plan that was asked for 2
years previous and not for the current year then they can say they submitted
a plan and the school board can both say they didn't and that it was
inadequate. I don't know that that is what happened but it's plausible
because it should be so simple for the Bryants to come out publicly and
present what they submitted and when to show how unreasonable the town was
being. But they never did. It was just a bunch of "Yes we did"s and "No they
didn't"s. The Bryants were eventually taken to court and they lost. They
appealed. They lost again. And DSS got involved and the children came under
state protection but remained in the custody of their parents.
There were obviously things going on that those outside the case don't have
knowledge of that were affecting the decisions being made and what was being
said. All I know is that throughout the whole mess the Bryants weren't
nearly as clear about what they had done and the timing of it as they were
about their claims that the school board was harassing them and about their
stance on the state constitutuion and legal issues.
I'm just being skeptical. There isn't enough information to say who is right
and who is wrong. But what little information there is -- especially since
it's mostly the Bryants version of what was going on -- doesn't add up
clearly to a homeschooling family being wronged by the school board. There
may be things that would explain why it looks that way. But the information
just isn't there.
Joyce