Home-schooling standoff in Waltham, WOW!!!!!!!!!
[email protected]
This came from another group but I had to share it. I love this family!
Home-schooling standoff in Waltham
By Melissa Beecher / CNC Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2003
WALTHAM -- A legal battle over two home-schooled children
exploded into
a seven-hour standoff yesterday, when they refused to take a
standardized test ordered by the Department of Social Services.
George Nicholas Bryant,
15, and Nyssa Bryant, 13, stood behind their
parents, Kim and George, as police
and DSS workers attempted to collect
the children at 7:45 a.m. DSS demanded
that the two complete a test to
determine their educational level.
After a court
order was issued by Framingham Juvenile Court around 1
p.m., the children were
driven by their parents to a Waltham hotel.
Again, they refused to take the test.
"The court order said that the children must be here. It said nothing
about
taking the test," said George Bryant.
The second refusal came after an
emotion-filled morning for the family,
when DSS workers sternly demanded the Bryants
comply with their orders.
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with
them as we
see fit," DSS worker Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants in their Gale
Street home. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."
Four police
officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the
Bryants to listen to
the DSS worker.
"We are simply here to prevent a breach of the peace," said
Waltham
Youth Officer Detective James Auld. "We will will not physically remove
the children."
Yesterday's events are the continuation of a six-year legal battle
between the family and Waltham Public Schools and the state.
The Bryants
contend that the city and state do not have the legal right
to force their children
to take standardized tests, even though DSS
workers have threatened to take
their children from them.
"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to
that bullying
by the state and the legal system," said George Bryant.
"But this
has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools
and our family
over who is in control of the education of our children,"
Bryant continued. "In
the end the law of this state will protect us."
The Bryant children have never
attended public school.
Both sides agree that the children are in no way abused
mentally,
physically, sexually or emotionally, but legal custody of the
children
was taken from Kim and George Bryant in December 2001. The children will
remain under the legal custody of DSS until their 16th birthdays.
The parents have
been ruled as unfit because they did not file
educational plans or determine a
grading system for the children, two
criteria of Waltham Public School's home
schooling policy.
"We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number
or
letter. Their education process is their personal intellectual
property,"
said Bryant.
George Bryant said he was arrested six years ago, after not
attending a
meeting that the city contends he was summoned to. The meeting was
called by
the Waltham School Department for his failure to send his
children to school.
"We want these issues aired in the open, in public. The school system
and DSS
have fought to keep this behind closed doors," said Bryant.
Superintendent of
Schools Susan Parrella said she was unaware of
yesterday's incident and that,
currently the school department approves
of the education plan filed by DSS for the
Bryant children.
"An acceptable home school plan is in place right now," said
Parrella.
"I was not aware of any testing occurring today."
The Bryant children
freely admit that they have no intention of taking a
test.
"We don't want to
take the test. We have taken them before and I don't
think they are a fair
assessment of what we know," said Nyssa Bryant.
"And no one from DSS has ever asked us
what we think."
Kenneth Pontes, area director of DSS, denied that workers have
never
talked to the children privately, but admitted that this type of case
isn't often seen by his office.
"This is an unusual case. Different school systems
require different
regulations for home-schooled children. Waltham requires
testing," said
Pontes.
Pontes said that a possibility exists that the children will
be removed
from their home, but that was a last course of action.
"No one wants
these children to be put in foster homes. The best course
of action would for
(the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the
test," said Etscovitz.
The
Bryant family is due in Framingham District Court this morning, to
go before a
juvenile court judge. According to DSS, this session will
determine what their
next course of action will be and if the children
will be removed from the
Bryants' home.
"These are our children and they have and always will be willing
participants in their education," said Kim Bryant.
--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter
Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street |
Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@...
LA Email:
admin@...
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site:
http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website:
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum:
groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Home-schooling standoff in Waltham
By Melissa Beecher / CNC Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2003
WALTHAM -- A legal battle over two home-schooled children
exploded into
a seven-hour standoff yesterday, when they refused to take a
standardized test ordered by the Department of Social Services.
George Nicholas Bryant,
15, and Nyssa Bryant, 13, stood behind their
parents, Kim and George, as police
and DSS workers attempted to collect
the children at 7:45 a.m. DSS demanded
that the two complete a test to
determine their educational level.
After a court
order was issued by Framingham Juvenile Court around 1
p.m., the children were
driven by their parents to a Waltham hotel.
Again, they refused to take the test.
"The court order said that the children must be here. It said nothing
about
taking the test," said George Bryant.
The second refusal came after an
emotion-filled morning for the family,
when DSS workers sternly demanded the Bryants
comply with their orders.
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with
them as we
see fit," DSS worker Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants in their Gale
Street home. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."
Four police
officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the
Bryants to listen to
the DSS worker.
"We are simply here to prevent a breach of the peace," said
Waltham
Youth Officer Detective James Auld. "We will will not physically remove
the children."
Yesterday's events are the continuation of a six-year legal battle
between the family and Waltham Public Schools and the state.
The Bryants
contend that the city and state do not have the legal right
to force their children
to take standardized tests, even though DSS
workers have threatened to take
their children from them.
"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to
that bullying
by the state and the legal system," said George Bryant.
"But this
has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools
and our family
over who is in control of the education of our children,"
Bryant continued. "In
the end the law of this state will protect us."
The Bryant children have never
attended public school.
Both sides agree that the children are in no way abused
mentally,
physically, sexually or emotionally, but legal custody of the
children
was taken from Kim and George Bryant in December 2001. The children will
remain under the legal custody of DSS until their 16th birthdays.
The parents have
been ruled as unfit because they did not file
educational plans or determine a
grading system for the children, two
criteria of Waltham Public School's home
schooling policy.
"We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number
or
letter. Their education process is their personal intellectual
property,"
said Bryant.
George Bryant said he was arrested six years ago, after not
attending a
meeting that the city contends he was summoned to. The meeting was
called by
the Waltham School Department for his failure to send his
children to school.
"We want these issues aired in the open, in public. The school system
and DSS
have fought to keep this behind closed doors," said Bryant.
Superintendent of
Schools Susan Parrella said she was unaware of
yesterday's incident and that,
currently the school department approves
of the education plan filed by DSS for the
Bryant children.
"An acceptable home school plan is in place right now," said
Parrella.
"I was not aware of any testing occurring today."
The Bryant children
freely admit that they have no intention of taking a
test.
"We don't want to
take the test. We have taken them before and I don't
think they are a fair
assessment of what we know," said Nyssa Bryant.
"And no one from DSS has ever asked us
what we think."
Kenneth Pontes, area director of DSS, denied that workers have
never
talked to the children privately, but admitted that this type of case
isn't often seen by his office.
"This is an unusual case. Different school systems
require different
regulations for home-schooled children. Waltham requires
testing," said
Pontes.
Pontes said that a possibility exists that the children will
be removed
from their home, but that was a last course of action.
"No one wants
these children to be put in foster homes. The best course
of action would for
(the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the
test," said Etscovitz.
The
Bryant family is due in Framingham District Court this morning, to
go before a
juvenile court judge. According to DSS, this session will
determine what their
next course of action will be and if the children
will be removed from the
Bryants' home.
"These are our children and they have and always will be willing
participants in their education," said Kim Bryant.
--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter
Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street |
Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@...
LA Email:
admin@...
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site:
http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website:
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum:
groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tim and Maureen
WOW !!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: HMSL2@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Home-schooling standoff in Waltham, WOW!!!!!!!!!
This came from another group but I had to share it. I love this family!
Home-schooling standoff in Waltham
By Melissa Beecher / CNC Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2003
WALTHAM -- A legal battle over two home-schooled children
exploded into
a seven-hour standoff yesterday, when they refused to take a
standardized test ordered by the Department of Social Services.
George Nicholas Bryant,
15, and Nyssa Bryant, 13, stood behind their
parents, Kim and George, as police
and DSS workers attempted to collect
the children at 7:45 a.m. DSS demanded
that the two complete a test to
determine their educational level.
After a court
order was issued by Framingham Juvenile Court around 1
p.m., the children were
driven by their parents to a Waltham hotel.
Again, they refused to take the test.
"The court order said that the children must be here. It said nothing
about
taking the test," said George Bryant.
The second refusal came after an
emotion-filled morning for the family,
when DSS workers sternly demanded the Bryants
comply with their orders.
"We have legal custody of the children and we will do with
them as we
see fit," DSS worker Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants in their Gale
Street home. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."
Four police
officers were also at the scene and attempted to coax the
Bryants to listen to
the DSS worker.
"We are simply here to prevent a breach of the peace," said
Waltham
Youth Officer Detective James Auld. "We will will not physically remove
the children."
Yesterday's events are the continuation of a six-year legal battle
between the family and Waltham Public Schools and the state.
The Bryants
contend that the city and state do not have the legal right
to force their children
to take standardized tests, even though DSS
workers have threatened to take
their children from them.
"There have been threats all along. Most families fall to
that bullying
by the state and the legal system," said George Bryant.
"But this
has been a six-year battle between the Waltham Public Schools
and our family
over who is in control of the education of our children,"
Bryant continued. "In
the end the law of this state will protect us."
The Bryant children have never
attended public school.
Both sides agree that the children are in no way abused
mentally,
physically, sexually or emotionally, but legal custody of the
children
was taken from Kim and George Bryant in December 2001. The children will
remain under the legal custody of DSS until their 16th birthdays.
The parents have
been ruled as unfit because they did not file
educational plans or determine a
grading system for the children, two
criteria of Waltham Public School's home
schooling policy.
"We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number
or
letter. Their education process is their personal intellectual
property,"
said Bryant.
George Bryant said he was arrested six years ago, after not
attending a
meeting that the city contends he was summoned to. The meeting was
called by
the Waltham School Department for his failure to send his
children to school.
"We want these issues aired in the open, in public. The school system
and DSS
have fought to keep this behind closed doors," said Bryant.
Superintendent of
Schools Susan Parrella said she was unaware of
yesterday's incident and that,
currently the school department approves
of the education plan filed by DSS for the
Bryant children.
"An acceptable home school plan is in place right now," said
Parrella.
"I was not aware of any testing occurring today."
The Bryant children
freely admit that they have no intention of taking a
test.
"We don't want to
take the test. We have taken them before and I don't
think they are a fair
assessment of what we know," said Nyssa Bryant.
"And no one from DSS has ever asked us
what we think."
Kenneth Pontes, area director of DSS, denied that workers have
never
talked to the children privately, but admitted that this type of case
isn't often seen by his office.
"This is an unusual case. Different school systems
require different
regulations for home-schooled children. Waltham requires
testing," said
Pontes.
Pontes said that a possibility exists that the children will
be removed
from their home, but that was a last course of action.
"No one wants
these children to be put in foster homes. The best course
of action would for
(the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the
test," said Etscovitz.
The
Bryant family is due in Framingham District Court this morning, to
go before a
juvenile court judge. According to DSS, this session will
determine what their
next course of action will be and if the children
will be removed from the
Bryants' home.
"These are our children and they have and always will be willing
participants in their education," said Kim Bryant.
--
Dr. Chris R. Tame, Director
Libertarian Alliance | "The secret of Happiness is Freedom, |
25 Chapter
Chambers | and the secret of Freedom is Courage" |
Esterbrooke Street |
Thucydides, Pericles' Funeral Oration |
London SW1P 4NN
England
Tel: 020 7821 5502
Fax: 020 7834 2031
Personal Email: chris@...
LA Email:
admin@...
LA Web Site: http://www.libertarian.co.uk
Free Life Web Site:
http://www.btinternet.com/~old.whig/freelife/fl.htm
The Hampden Press Website:
http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
LA Forum:
groups.yahoo.com/group/libertarian-alliance-forum
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/17/2003 1:45:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
tmthomas@... writes:
wonderful when people stand up for what they believe in, but SURELY there are
less damaging ways of dealing with this than having your children taken away
from you. I think it's scary that these people would rather risk losing their
children than move or invalidate the tests.
More power to them if they succeed. But at what price?
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tmthomas@... writes:
> WOW !!!!!!They've been in & out of the news since we started unschooling. I think it's
>
> This came from another group but I had to share it. I love this family!
wonderful when people stand up for what they believe in, but SURELY there are
less damaging ways of dealing with this than having your children taken away
from you. I think it's scary that these people would rather risk losing their
children than move or invalidate the tests.
More power to them if they succeed. But at what price?
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 6/16/03 10:19 PM, HMSL2@... at HMSL2@... wrote:
about homeschooling at all. It's about whether the state has a right to make
laws beyond the state constitution. (At least as far as I'm able to
understand the legal mumbo jumbo. I think the term for their beliefs is
Constitutionalists.) The Bryants have been using their homeschooling for
years as a vehicle to make a point about the constitution.
They lost. Because they still refused to comply with Mass case law on
homeschooling, the state took over legal (but not physical) custody of their
children.
the type needs to be approved by the parents. (I just send in a couple of
sentences on each subject each year.) Since the state is the children's
legal guardians the state, therefore, according to the case law, gets to
determine the form of assessment. The Bryants lost their right to make
decisions for their children when legal custody was taken away.
parents (or legal guardians) get to approve the form of assessment.
(The case law isn't totally clear on many homeschooling issues. Perhaps when
backed into a corner a school district can pull out wording that implies
they can offer a limited number of assessments and the parents get to pick
from just those.)
The whole thing's a mess. In their determination to make other points the
Bryants could end up forcing the state to create clear -- and more difficult
-- homeschooling regulations. :-/
Joyce
> George Nicholas Bryant, 15, and Nyssa Bryant, 13, stood behind their parents,This case isn't what it seems from the surface. They Bryants's stance isn't
> Kim and George, as police and DSS workers attempted to collect the children at
> 7:45 a.m. DSS demanded that the two complete a test to determine their
> educational level.
about homeschooling at all. It's about whether the state has a right to make
laws beyond the state constitution. (At least as far as I'm able to
understand the legal mumbo jumbo. I think the term for their beliefs is
Constitutionalists.) The Bryants have been using their homeschooling for
years as a vehicle to make a point about the constitution.
They lost. Because they still refused to comply with Mass case law on
homeschooling, the state took over legal (but not physical) custody of their
children.
> "We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number or letter.In Mass the school district can ask for some form of yearly assessment, but
> Their education process is their personal intellectual property," said Bryant.
the type needs to be approved by the parents. (I just send in a couple of
sentences on each subject each year.) Since the state is the children's
legal guardians the state, therefore, according to the case law, gets to
determine the form of assessment. The Bryants lost their right to make
decisions for their children when legal custody was taken away.
> Kenneth Pontes, area director of DSS, denied that workers have never talked toThis is incorrect. In Mass a school district can't require testing. The
> the children privately, but admitted that this type of case isn't often seen
> by his office.
>
> "This is an unusual case. Different school systems require different
> regulations for home-schooled children. Waltham requires testing," said
> Pontes.
parents (or legal guardians) get to approve the form of assessment.
(The case law isn't totally clear on many homeschooling issues. Perhaps when
backed into a corner a school district can pull out wording that implies
they can offer a limited number of assessments and the parents get to pick
from just those.)
The whole thing's a mess. In their determination to make other points the
Bryants could end up forcing the state to create clear -- and more difficult
-- homeschooling regulations. :-/
Joyce
Fetteroll
Will discussing footwear lead to a breakthrough discussion on how to
unschool or parent better? Maybe! Maybe not. But only after a high-volume
thread peters out can someone say that thread served the needs of too few at
the expense of too many.
The average number of emails -- and members -- have been slowly rising over
the years. (I like statistics :-) 700, 800, 1300, 1700 (that last one is
discounting the anomalous "Ned month" ;-). But so far this year we're
averaging 3800! That's more than double the volume of last year.
Is the list serving it's purpose at that volume? Can people get unschooling
information with 125 emails to read every day?
For some people the answer is yes because they're connecting with other
unschoolers. By peeking into people's lives, they're gaining an
understanding of what natural learning is. For some people the answer is no.
The list isn't working for them if they pick up one piece of information
after an hour's worth of reading.
There are things we as posters and readers can each do to help the list be
useful. (These are suggestions to judge our own behavior by, not the
behavior of others.)
As a poster,
1) keep in mind the purpose of the list is unschooling discussion. Ask
yourself if what you're about to send will help anyone unschool better.
That would, of course, eliminate all the chit chat and that would be bad!
Chit chat makes the place friendly. But it would help the list be more
useful if the chit chat was a gentle friendly murmur rather than an
overwhelming roar.
The list will appreciate it if you keep the one line posts to a minimum.
Posts with nothing more than "Good idea!" and "Thanks!" just increase the
volume without adding to anyone's understanding.
Try not to repeat yourself. If 3 people are making the same point, you don't
need to respond to all 3 with separate emails containing the same arguments.
Combine it into one post.
2) It's lots easier and more fun to respond to breezy posts about life than
about unschooling. But the list isn't so useful if people spend their time
posting on the easy stuff and end up, because of lack of time, giving
cursory answers to the unschooling questions.
As a reader, it's useful to learn how to cut down on what you pay attention
to. As in all aspects of life, we're suffering information overload. The
list is no different. Just as we can't* stop publishers from publishing too
many good books, or TV producers from making too many good TV shows, we
can't stop people from saying things on the list they feel are important.
Learning how to filter is a useful skill with the list and with life in
general.
(*Well, actually, I can stop people. And the list can stop people but it
disrupts the usefulness of the list. When the list is useless, sometimes
further disruption to get it back on track is useful.)
1) Learn how to filter your messages. Set up your email program to send all
the Unschooling-dotcom mail to it's own folder.
2) Learn how to thread your messages. (For Outlook Express, Thread is under
View in the menu bar.) Most (if not all) email programs will allow you to
sort messages by topic which is even more useful than sorting
alphabetically. Threading them will keep all the messages from a thread
together regardless of how many Re:'s and other garbage is tacked on the
front of the subject line. That way you can delete entire threads that don't
interest you easily.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
unschool or parent better? Maybe! Maybe not. But only after a high-volume
thread peters out can someone say that thread served the needs of too few at
the expense of too many.
The average number of emails -- and members -- have been slowly rising over
the years. (I like statistics :-) 700, 800, 1300, 1700 (that last one is
discounting the anomalous "Ned month" ;-). But so far this year we're
averaging 3800! That's more than double the volume of last year.
Is the list serving it's purpose at that volume? Can people get unschooling
information with 125 emails to read every day?
For some people the answer is yes because they're connecting with other
unschoolers. By peeking into people's lives, they're gaining an
understanding of what natural learning is. For some people the answer is no.
The list isn't working for them if they pick up one piece of information
after an hour's worth of reading.
There are things we as posters and readers can each do to help the list be
useful. (These are suggestions to judge our own behavior by, not the
behavior of others.)
As a poster,
1) keep in mind the purpose of the list is unschooling discussion. Ask
yourself if what you're about to send will help anyone unschool better.
That would, of course, eliminate all the chit chat and that would be bad!
Chit chat makes the place friendly. But it would help the list be more
useful if the chit chat was a gentle friendly murmur rather than an
overwhelming roar.
The list will appreciate it if you keep the one line posts to a minimum.
Posts with nothing more than "Good idea!" and "Thanks!" just increase the
volume without adding to anyone's understanding.
Try not to repeat yourself. If 3 people are making the same point, you don't
need to respond to all 3 with separate emails containing the same arguments.
Combine it into one post.
2) It's lots easier and more fun to respond to breezy posts about life than
about unschooling. But the list isn't so useful if people spend their time
posting on the easy stuff and end up, because of lack of time, giving
cursory answers to the unschooling questions.
As a reader, it's useful to learn how to cut down on what you pay attention
to. As in all aspects of life, we're suffering information overload. The
list is no different. Just as we can't* stop publishers from publishing too
many good books, or TV producers from making too many good TV shows, we
can't stop people from saying things on the list they feel are important.
Learning how to filter is a useful skill with the list and with life in
general.
(*Well, actually, I can stop people. And the list can stop people but it
disrupts the usefulness of the list. When the list is useless, sometimes
further disruption to get it back on track is useful.)
1) Learn how to filter your messages. Set up your email program to send all
the Unschooling-dotcom mail to it's own folder.
2) Learn how to thread your messages. (For Outlook Express, Thread is under
View in the menu bar.) Most (if not all) email programs will allow you to
sort messages by topic which is even more useful than sorting
alphabetically. Threading them will keep all the messages from a thread
together regardless of how many Re:'s and other garbage is tacked on the
front of the subject line. That way you can delete entire threads that don't
interest you easily.
Does anyone have any other ideas?
Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator
Heidi
> 2) Learn how to thread your messages. (For Outlook Express, Threadis under
> View in the menu bar.) Most (if not all) email programs will allowyou to
> sort messages by topic which is even more useful than sortingthread
> alphabetically. Threading them will keep all the messages from a
> together regardless of how many Re:'s and other garbage is tackedon the
> front of the subject line. That way you can delete entire threadsthat don't
> interest you easily.Is this only for people receiving emails? I go to the website and
have often wished for more clearly delineated threads. But, on the
website, my "view" button doesn't give me a thread option.
HeidiC
>
> Does anyone have any other ideas?
>
> Joyce
> Unschooling-dotcom moderator
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/17/2003 7:56:47 AM Eastern Standard Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
send the thank you in a private email.
address, and Subject. If you hit subject, all the "whatever" threads are bunched
together and you can easily delete threads you are not interested in all at
once. Makes things much easier!
original intention!! Nothing's worse than having to wade through 20 emails
that are supposed to be about (for instance) homeschool groups to find 15 of
them are about religious views on spanking or modest dress.
And be specific!! Instead of posting, "A Question" on your subject, how
about something like: "Question: state requirements" or "Question: good
unschooling books." I can probably offer nothing to either subject, then I can just
delete and go on.
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> The list will appreciate it if you keep the one line posts to a minimum.If it's something that REALLY helped you and you want the person to know,
> Posts with nothing more than "Good idea!" and "Thanks!" just increase the
> volume without adding to anyone's understanding.
send the thank you in a private email.
>AOL has a bar across the top of your email that says, "Type, Date, E-mail
> 1) Learn how to filter your messages. Set up your email program to send all
> the Unschooling-dotcom mail to it's own folder.
address, and Subject. If you hit subject, all the "whatever" threads are bunched
together and you can easily delete threads you are not interested in all at
once. Makes things much easier!
> Does anyone have any other ideas?For goodness sake, change the subject line when the topic veers away from the
>
>
original intention!! Nothing's worse than having to wade through 20 emails
that are supposed to be about (for instance) homeschool groups to find 15 of
them are about religious views on spanking or modest dress.
And be specific!! Instead of posting, "A Question" on your subject, how
about something like: "Question: state requirements" or "Question: good
unschooling books." I can probably offer nothing to either subject, then I can just
delete and go on.
Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/17/2003 2:00:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
themselves into a ridiculous position. But these people lost legal custody of their
children because they refused to submit paperwork. They believe that the court
decisions regarding homeschooling are not law, and that the state Constitution
does not cover homeschooling. It didn't start out to be about testing; that's
just the latest issue.
They can't move anymore, because they may no longer take their children out
of state until their 16th birthdays. To me, it doesn't seem worth it.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected] writes:
> >WOW !!!!!!I agree. Admittedly, the Waltham school district and DSS has gotten
> >
> > This came from another group but I had to share it. I love this family!
>
> They've been in &out of the news since we started unschooling. I think it's
> wonderful when people stand up for what they believe in, but SURELY there
> are
> less damaging ways of dealing with this than having your children taken away
>
> from you. I think it's scary that these people would rather risk losing
> their
> children than move or invalidate the tests.
>
> More power to them if they succeed. But at what price?
>
themselves into a ridiculous position. But these people lost legal custody of their
children because they refused to submit paperwork. They believe that the court
decisions regarding homeschooling are not law, and that the state Constitution
does not cover homeschooling. It didn't start out to be about testing; that's
just the latest issue.
They can't move anymore, because they may no longer take their children out
of state until their 16th birthdays. To me, it doesn't seem worth it.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Have A Nice Day!
Heidi,
The yahoogroups. website does have a "thread" option. Its near the top on the right hand side near "date".
Kristen
The yahoogroups. website does have a "thread" option. Its near the top on the right hand side near "date".
Kristen
----- Original Message -----
From: Heidi
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 9:25 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Is the list too successful?/tell me more about threading
> 2) Learn how to thread your messages. (For Outlook Express, Thread
is under
> View in the menu bar.) Most (if not all) email programs will allow
you to
> sort messages by topic which is even more useful than sorting
> alphabetically. Threading them will keep all the messages from a
thread
> together regardless of how many Re:'s and other garbage is tacked
on the
> front of the subject line. That way you can delete entire threads
that don't
> interest you easily.
Is this only for people receiving emails? I go to the website and
have often wished for more clearly delineated threads. But, on the
website, my "view" button doesn't give me a thread option.
HeidiC
>
> Does anyone have any other ideas?
>
> Joyce
> Unschooling-dotcom moderator
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema
I dunno, but I'd have to disagree with the notion that what the family in
Waltham is doing is wrong.
They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. They
trusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to find that the court
took away legal guardianship of their children (THAT must've been a
shocker!) and now that that's happened, they're continuing to safeguard
their children's right to a child-focused education. They're making the
best they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. (and, the kids don't
seem to be adversely affected by what's gone on. The quotes in the article
were from the kids, weren't they?)
If the family does as the state wants, then they lend authenticity to the
state's current belief that the state, not the parents, have charge of each
child's education. This can harm independent homeschoolers in the years to
follow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty that the state may get
punative because of this dedication and demand for legal rights.)
If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education. Thankfully, I live in California where I can do away with
intervention by declaring myself a private school.
Thank goodness for that.
HeidiWD
Waltham is doing is wrong.
They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. They
trusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to find that the court
took away legal guardianship of their children (THAT must've been a
shocker!) and now that that's happened, they're continuing to safeguard
their children's right to a child-focused education. They're making the
best they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. (and, the kids don't
seem to be adversely affected by what's gone on. The quotes in the article
were from the kids, weren't they?)
If the family does as the state wants, then they lend authenticity to the
state's current belief that the state, not the parents, have charge of each
child's education. This can harm independent homeschoolers in the years to
follow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty that the state may get
punative because of this dedication and demand for legal rights.)
If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education. Thankfully, I live in California where I can do away with
intervention by declaring myself a private school.
Thank goodness for that.
HeidiWD
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/17/03 1:13:00 PM, heidi@... writes:
<< They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. They
trusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to find that the court
took away legal guardianship of their children >>
They knew that was a possibility, from what I've seen. They risked custody
of their kids to make a point. They COULD have gone to another state and
written a scathing letter for publication and been with their kids. They could
have doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in a public
place, like Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war. That would have been "right" in
some people's estimation, from some points of view.
First, priorities.
I don't think their children's peace was their first priority. I think they
used their children as tools to change the state laws, and not in the
smoothest way they could have done.
They weren't representing homeschoolers in the state, because lots of
homeschoolers didn't want them to push that far.
-=- now that that's happened, they're continuing to safeguard
their children's right to a child-focused education. They're making the
best they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. -=-
They did some of the fubafuckation.
-=-If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an
out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education. -=-
Depends what your real priorities were.
I'm positive they were aware of their options.
Sandra
<< They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. They
trusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to find that the court
took away legal guardianship of their children >>
They knew that was a possibility, from what I've seen. They risked custody
of their kids to make a point. They COULD have gone to another state and
written a scathing letter for publication and been with their kids. They could
have doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in a public
place, like Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war. That would have been "right" in
some people's estimation, from some points of view.
First, priorities.
I don't think their children's peace was their first priority. I think they
used their children as tools to change the state laws, and not in the
smoothest way they could have done.
They weren't representing homeschoolers in the state, because lots of
homeschoolers didn't want them to push that far.
-=- now that that's happened, they're continuing to safeguard
their children's right to a child-focused education. They're making the
best they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. -=-
They did some of the fubafuckation.
-=-If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an
out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education. -=-
Depends what your real priorities were.
I'm positive they were aware of their options.
Sandra
[email protected]
I agree with HeidiWD. I think that people like this have paved the way for
some of us. If it wasnt for those that HS the earily years we wouldnt have what
we ahve now.
I commend all that they ahve done and am beside myself as to the state taking
over custody. There are so many other families in distress they need to help
rather than "try" to ruin the sprit of the child and family unit.
I support and applaud them,Ill even go so far as to say Id like to meet this
family in person. I watched the daughter on the news last night she appears
very well spoken.
Laura D
They're standing up for what they believe are
education.
HeidiWD
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
some of us. If it wasnt for those that HS the earily years we wouldnt have what
we ahve now.
I commend all that they ahve done and am beside myself as to the state taking
over custody. There are so many other families in distress they need to help
rather than "try" to ruin the sprit of the child and family unit.
I support and applaud them,Ill even go so far as to say Id like to meet this
family in person. I watched the daughter on the news last night she appears
very well spoken.
Laura D
>Waltham is doing is wrong.
>>>I dunno, but I'd have to disagree with the notion that what the family
> in
They're standing up for what they believe are
> their legal rights. Theytrusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to
> find that the courttook away legal guardianship of their children (THAT
> must've been ashocker!) and now that that's happened, they're continuing to
> safeguardtheir children's right to a child-focused education. They're making
> thebest they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. (and, the kids don't
>seem to be adversely affected by what's gone on. The quotes in the article
> where from the kids, weren't they?)If the family does as the state wants,
> then they lend authenticity to thestate's current belief that the state, not
> the parents, have charge of eachchild's education. This can harm independent
> homeschoolers in the years tofollow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty
> that the state may getpunative because of this dedication and demand for
> legal rights.)If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an
> out-of-stateunschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few
> sentences of'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education.
> Thankfully, I live in California where I can do away withintervention by
> declaring myself a private school.Thank goodness for that.
HeidiWD
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/17/2003 3:34:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
>Laura D
> They knew that was a possibility, from what I've seen. They risked custody
> of their kids to make a point. They COULD have gone to another state and
> written a scathing letter for publication and been with their kids.>>>>>
>
> They are with their kids. The state took custody of them but did not remove
> them. I being a former foster kid do not think I could see my self letting
> it get to the point of removal. The state I think is going about it all wrong.
> Maybe the family is too but I think they are with in the law.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
<<They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights.>>
I agree on this also.
<<If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education.
HeidiWD>>
Heidi, I hear so much about this especially in New Hampshire about
unschoolers going underground. What exactly does that mean?
Kim
I agree on this also.
<<If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-state
unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
education.
HeidiWD>>
Heidi, I hear so much about this especially in New Hampshire about
unschoolers going underground. What exactly does that mean?
Kim
Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema
To my understanding, 'going underground' means doing homeschooling in a
manner that one never 'complies' with any gov't education regulations which
would identify oneself as a homeschooler AND to not draw attention to ones
(now-gov't-illicit) homeschooling activities. In California, if we were to
homeschool underground, we would do what we always do, but not send in the
R-4 (which tells the state you own a private school.) ...and I might use a
pseudonym for my homeschooling lists if I was really wanting to stay below
radar.
Think of it maybe like the Underground Railroad for slaves way back
when... only now, the people tend to stay in one spot and educate their
kids instead of pursue freedom, which, in many ways, is the same thing, eh?
Usually folks do it when they live in a state that 'requires' they do
something against the family's philosophical understandings - like
administer standardized tests or validating the 'need' for a
curriculum. What are the ed-yourself rules in NH?
That's my understanding anyway. Maybe someone else can expand on it?
HeidiWD
Monarch Notes guide to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
manner that one never 'complies' with any gov't education regulations which
would identify oneself as a homeschooler AND to not draw attention to ones
(now-gov't-illicit) homeschooling activities. In California, if we were to
homeschool underground, we would do what we always do, but not send in the
R-4 (which tells the state you own a private school.) ...and I might use a
pseudonym for my homeschooling lists if I was really wanting to stay below
radar.
Think of it maybe like the Underground Railroad for slaves way back
when... only now, the people tend to stay in one spot and educate their
kids instead of pursue freedom, which, in many ways, is the same thing, eh?
Usually folks do it when they live in a state that 'requires' they do
something against the family's philosophical understandings - like
administer standardized tests or validating the 'need' for a
curriculum. What are the ed-yourself rules in NH?
That's my understanding anyway. Maybe someone else can expand on it?
HeidiWD
>Heidi, I hear so much about this especially in New Hampshire about"Self-reliance is the antidote to institutional stupidity." JTGatto,
>unschoolers going underground. What exactly does that mean?
Monarch Notes guide to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Fetteroll
on 6/17/03 3:56 PM, HMSL2@... at HMSL2@... wrote:
wants people to believe is happening in MA.
homeschooling to champion their beliefs about the state constitution.
think the Bryants have done. But you're giving more weight to what you want
to believe the Bryants done than what they actually did do.
would have seen the state homeschooling list split into 2 because the list
was overwhelmed by the court case. And had you read the legal issues list
you would *not* have read about how oppressive the laws in MA are towards
homeschooling. You would have read how the state has no right to make laws
beyond the state constitution. It wasn't about homeschooling. It wasn't
about her kids. It wasn't about her battle to do what was right for her
kids. It was all about the constitution.
I don't want to bad mouth the Bryants. They've stuck by what they believe in
and fought a hard battle. Their kids seem to be doing well with the life
their parents have chosen for the family. But I do want to make it clear
that they weren't battling to make homeschooling easier in MA.
If you want a hero and want to raise them on a pedastal, don't erect it in
the homeschoolers hall of fame. Do it in the constitutionalists hall of
fame.
Joyce
> I agree with HeidiWD.Heidi isn't in MA. She's only responding to what someone who isn't in MA
wants people to believe is happening in MA.
> I think that people like this have paved the way forThey are not championing the cause of homeschooling. They are using
> some of us. If it wasnt for those that HS the earily years we wouldnt have
> what we ahve now.
homeschooling to champion their beliefs about the state constitution.
> I commend all that they ahve done*What* have they done? It's pretty clear what some people want everyone to
think the Bryants have done. But you're giving more weight to what you want
to believe the Bryants done than what they actually did do.
> I support and applaud them,Ill even go so far as to say Id like to meet thisHad you been in MA during the time they were battling this in court, you
> family in person. I watched the daughter on the news last night she appears
> very well spoken.
would have seen the state homeschooling list split into 2 because the list
was overwhelmed by the court case. And had you read the legal issues list
you would *not* have read about how oppressive the laws in MA are towards
homeschooling. You would have read how the state has no right to make laws
beyond the state constitution. It wasn't about homeschooling. It wasn't
about her kids. It wasn't about her battle to do what was right for her
kids. It was all about the constitution.
I don't want to bad mouth the Bryants. They've stuck by what they believe in
and fought a hard battle. Their kids seem to be doing well with the life
their parents have chosen for the family. But I do want to make it clear
that they weren't battling to make homeschooling easier in MA.
If you want a hero and want to raise them on a pedastal, don't erect it in
the homeschoolers hall of fame. Do it in the constitutionalists hall of
fame.
Joyce
Fetteroll
on 6/17/03 3:05 PM, Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema at heidi@... wrote:
homeschooling.
beyond the constitution. The courts are there to uphold the laws the Bryants
don't believe should exist.
They aren't wrong for holding strong beliefs. But it is wrong to
characterize them as poor naive homeschoolers being beaten up by the big bad
bureaucracy. Anyone who believes the constitution doesn't give the state the
right to create laws beyond the constitution and then chooses to take a
legal stand about it is savvy about legal matters!
while giving their children the attention they needed. (Or so it appears. We
can't really know.)
But they chose the battle. They chose to take a stand on the constitution
while raising a family.
But how would it feel if I, as a resident of MA, using misinformation and
guesswork and wishful thinking, told you what the atmosphere was like and
what the future held for homeschoolers in California?
They aren't naive. They went into this with open eyes. They could have moved
to another town when they started having difficulties with Waltham. (Waltham
didn't start it. The town asked for what they believe the state says they
can ask for. (And if they were wrong, it's easy enough to point out the
relevant parts of the case law to them.) The Bryants *chose* not to submit
an education plan because they believed the state didn't have the right to
make any laws beyond the constitutuion. *Not* because the request is
burdensome. It's very easy to comply. So, again, the Bryants weren't caught
unaware.)
The Bryants could have bailed at many points during the 4 years. The first
court case ended with them being ordered to submit an education plan. (Right
back where they started, except they had to submit retroactive education
plans. Stupid, yes, but their initial stance about the ed plans didn't have
a basis in reality either.) They chose to keep battling. Unlike the western
states which are so large, it's easy to work in MA and live in another
state. They could have done that. Why didn't they?
I seem to have met a good many unschoolers in MA. Or at least relaxed
homeschoolers who claim to be unschoolers ;-) Anyway there are quite a few
of us. We're the home of John Holt and Growing Without Unschooling after
all. If it was difficult to unschool in MA and the Bryants were fighting to
make it possible, they would have had a lot of support. But they weren't
fighting for that. So they didn't get a lot of support.
We too are not stupid. We don't need outsiders to tell us after the fact how
to interpret what was happening right in front of us. We *lived* it. We
didn't read about it in some biased alert.
Joyce
> I dunno, but I'd have to disagree with the notion that what the family inI didn't say they were wrong. I said they weren't fighting for
> Waltham is doing is wrong.
homeschooling.
> They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. TheyUh, no. They believe the constitution doesn't allow the state to create laws
> trusted the courts to maintain those rights
beyond the constitution. The courts are there to uphold the laws the Bryants
don't believe should exist.
They aren't wrong for holding strong beliefs. But it is wrong to
characterize them as poor naive homeschoolers being beaten up by the big bad
bureaucracy. Anyone who believes the constitution doesn't give the state the
right to create laws beyond the constitution and then chooses to take a
legal stand about it is savvy about legal matters!
> - only to find that the courtNot possible. The case was in and out of court for over 4 years.
> took away legal guardianship of their children (THAT must've been a
> shocker!)
> and now that that's happened, they're continuing to safeguardI admire them for having been able to balance a very time consuming project
> their children's right to a child-focused education. They're making the
> best they can of a seriously fubar'd legal situation. (and, the kids don't
> seem to be adversely affected by what's gone on. The quotes in the article
> were from the kids, weren't they?)
while giving their children the attention they needed. (Or so it appears. We
can't really know.)
But they chose the battle. They chose to take a stand on the constitution
while raising a family.
> If the family does as the state wants, then they lend authenticity to theThese are wonderfully rousing words.
> state's current belief that the state, not the parents, have charge of each
> child's education. This can harm independent homeschoolers in the years to
> follow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty that the state may get
> punative because of this dedication and demand for legal rights.)
But how would it feel if I, as a resident of MA, using misinformation and
guesswork and wishful thinking, told you what the atmosphere was like and
what the future held for homeschoolers in California?
> If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-stateSo you need to ask yourself why they didn't do that. They aren't stupid.
> unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
> 'curriculum' or whatever they want to 'overview' of my kids
> education. Thankfully, I live in California where I can do away with
> intervention by declaring myself a private school.
> Thank goodness for that.
They aren't naive. They went into this with open eyes. They could have moved
to another town when they started having difficulties with Waltham. (Waltham
didn't start it. The town asked for what they believe the state says they
can ask for. (And if they were wrong, it's easy enough to point out the
relevant parts of the case law to them.) The Bryants *chose* not to submit
an education plan because they believed the state didn't have the right to
make any laws beyond the constitutuion. *Not* because the request is
burdensome. It's very easy to comply. So, again, the Bryants weren't caught
unaware.)
The Bryants could have bailed at many points during the 4 years. The first
court case ended with them being ordered to submit an education plan. (Right
back where they started, except they had to submit retroactive education
plans. Stupid, yes, but their initial stance about the ed plans didn't have
a basis in reality either.) They chose to keep battling. Unlike the western
states which are so large, it's easy to work in MA and live in another
state. They could have done that. Why didn't they?
I seem to have met a good many unschoolers in MA. Or at least relaxed
homeschoolers who claim to be unschoolers ;-) Anyway there are quite a few
of us. We're the home of John Holt and Growing Without Unschooling after
all. If it was difficult to unschool in MA and the Bryants were fighting to
make it possible, they would have had a lot of support. But they weren't
fighting for that. So they didn't get a lot of support.
We too are not stupid. We don't need outsiders to tell us after the fact how
to interpret what was happening right in front of us. We *lived* it. We
didn't read about it in some biased alert.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/18/03 3:26:57 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< You would have read how the state has no right to make laws
beyond the state constitution. It wasn't about homeschooling. >>
I know zip about the state constitution of Massachusets, but I know some
about the U.S. constitution and the state constitution of New Mexico, and both of
them discuss how laws are to be made.
If they want to argue the constitution, they should become lawyers, and help
their kids learn law (which I suppose the kids are doing, but I wonder if they
WANT to?).
If people want to glorify individuals in one state, could it please be done
on a different list, since it's not about unschooling?
Sandra
<< You would have read how the state has no right to make laws
beyond the state constitution. It wasn't about homeschooling. >>
I know zip about the state constitution of Massachusets, but I know some
about the U.S. constitution and the state constitution of New Mexico, and both of
them discuss how laws are to be made.
If they want to argue the constitution, they should become lawyers, and help
their kids learn law (which I suppose the kids are doing, but I wonder if they
WANT to?).
If people want to glorify individuals in one state, could it please be done
on a different list, since it's not about unschooling?
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/18/2003 10:48:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
sure! It certainly gave me a perspective that I haven't had before and made me
THINK and READ to truly see what was happening in the situation.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> If people want to glorify individuals in one state, could it please be doneIt's closer to unschooling that a lot of what is discussed here, that's for
>
> on a different list, since it's not about unschooling?
>
> Sandra
>
sure! It certainly gave me a perspective that I haven't had before and made me
THINK and READ to truly see what was happening in the situation.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema
>I didn't say they were wrong. I said they weren't fighting for(smiling gently)
>homeschooling.
Joyce, I didn't meant to imply that *you* said they were *wrong* for doing
what they are doing. I was replying more to the general sentiment of 'but
at what cost'. I read very clearly that you feel that what they are doing
isn't about homeschooling so much, but is against possibly-false,
possibly-valid legal restrictions (that in this case, happen to impact
their homeschooling.)
> > They're standing up for what they believe are their legal rights. TheyOkay, so they're standing up for what they believe are their
> > trusted the courts to maintain those rights
>
>Uh, no. They believe the constitution doesn't allow the state to create laws
>beyond the constitution. The courts are there to uphold the laws the Bryants
>don't believe should exist.
*constitutionally* legal rights? (grin)
>They aren't wrong for holding strong beliefs. But it is wrong toMaybe, but I (and others?) don't necessarily think they're 'poor naive'
>characterize them as poor naive homeschoolers being beaten up by the big bad
>bureaucracy. Anyone who believes the constitution doesn't give the state the
>right to create laws beyond the constitution and then chooses to take a
>legal stand about it is savvy about legal matters!
homeschoolers. I happen to think they're pretty gutsy. I also happen to
think that the situation might have gotten worse than they initially
expected it would. Tim already spoke to the constitutional question with
one of his 'thots', which I thought was pretty interesting.
> > - only to find that the courtOh, I'd have been pretty shocked that they'd choose to take away
> > took away legal guardianship of their children (THAT must've been a
> > shocker!)
>
>Not possible. The case was in and out of court for over 4 years.
guardianship of my kids because I held the belief they did not have the
legal authority to require me to send in a curriculum review of my kids
each year. Even if it took four years. I'd have figured that eventually,
they'd need to get a clue and realize that *I* am the parent. The state is
not the parent. (goodness, am I sounding like a libertarian? What is the
world coming to?!!)
> > If the family does as the state wants, then they lend authenticity to theDoes this issue have some background stuff going on for you?
> > state's current belief that the state, not the parents, have charge of each
> > child's education. This can harm independent homeschoolers in the years to
> > follow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty that the state may get
> > punative because of this dedication and demand for legal rights.)
>
>These are wonderfully rousing words.
>
>But how would it feel if I, as a resident of MA, using misinformation and
>guesswork and wishful thinking, told you what the atmosphere was like and
>what the future held for homeschoolers in California?
I'm from Cali, sure. We basically have no homeschooling rules here (so
far) and that's the way we like it. I find it distasteful when other
states have any sort of homeschooling-restrictive laws (like Washingtons'
(or is it Oregon) where a homeschooling kid has to take a standardized test
three or four times before graduation. Ick.) Other states could take a
look at what's going on there and say, "Hey, let's do that too! That's a
great idea!"
I don't think I (or others) made any statement or implication about how
things are in MA (or any other state) for homeschoolers, nor what the
future holds for them in particular. It is my belief that if the state
(meaning not-the-federal-gov't, and not any one state in particular) is not
in charge of ANYBODY's education, but having such a fairly-high-profile
family complying with a state request to oversee a child's education lends
legal authenticity to a states belief that they can control private/home
education. (and yes, I do realize that at the moment the kids are 'wards
of the state', but refusing to comply as a family also sends a message
about that particular court decision as well!)
> > If I were them, I'd probably have gone underground or found an out-of-stateI don't think I implied that they were caught unaware, did I? I was pretty
> > unschooler to umbrella me instead of submitting even a few sentences of
>(snipped)
>So you need to ask yourself why they didn't do that. They aren't stupid.
>They aren't naive. They went into this with open eyes. They could have moved
>to another town when they started having difficulties with Waltham. (Waltham
>didn't start it. The town asked for what they believe the state says they
>can ask for. (And if they were wrong, it's easy enough to point out the
>relevant parts of the case law to them.) The Bryants *chose* not to submit
>an education plan because they believed the state didn't have the right to
>make any laws beyond the constitutuion. *Not* because the request is
>burdensome. It's very easy to comply. So, again, the Bryants weren't caught
>unaware.)
clear that they made a decision and that I respected their decision. I
think maybe this case is bringing some stuff from other
areas/lists/previous conversations with other people, over to here and
affecting how you perceive what I wrote?
>We too are not stupid. We don't need outsiders to tell us after the fact howI don't think anybody here is a homeschooling outsider, and I also don't
>to interpret what was happening right in front of us. We *lived* it.
think anybody here is writing with the intention of telling someone in MA
how to homeschool or if it's a good/bad place to homeschool. (Except for
that ANYPLACE that has ANY restrictions on homeschooling is not as nice as
a state with NO restrictions! I think we happen to be sharing our own
impressions and thoughts on what we have read and heard here about the
situation, and even then, it's been in pretty general terms.
In any event, I'm feeling that maybe you're not much concerned by what I'm
thinking, but that the whole Waltham issue brings up *bad history* for you?
I could be wrong. It's happened before! (grin)
HeidiWD
"Self-reliance is the antidote to institutional stupidity." JTGatto,
Monarch Notes guide to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/18/03 9:33:47 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:
<< It's closer to unschooling that a lot of what is discussed here, that's
for
sure! It certainly gave me a perspective that I haven't had before and made
me
THINK and READ to truly see what was happening in the situation. >>
Thinking and reading is good.
I don't even think the family is unschooling.
Our discussing what structured homeschoolers do with the government in one
single state is a waste of an unschooling list. There are state lists and
there are politics lists and there are thousands and thousands of other lists.
When the moderator of this list is from the state in question and people want
to keep on and keep on glorifying something that isn't glorious, it's
disruption.
Sandra
<< It's closer to unschooling that a lot of what is discussed here, that's
for
sure! It certainly gave me a perspective that I haven't had before and made
me
THINK and READ to truly see what was happening in the situation. >>
Thinking and reading is good.
I don't even think the family is unschooling.
Our discussing what structured homeschoolers do with the government in one
single state is a waste of an unschooling list. There are state lists and
there are politics lists and there are thousands and thousands of other lists.
When the moderator of this list is from the state in question and people want
to keep on and keep on glorifying something that isn't glorious, it's
disruption.
Sandra
[email protected]
Joyce, thank you for what you wrote about this case. I agree it's not
particularly about homeschooling rights at all. And I personally would not risk my
kid's well-being. I'd move first.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
particularly about homeschooling rights at all. And I personally would not risk my
kid's well-being. I'd move first.
Kathryn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 6/18/03 10:52 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... at rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:
And it's really, really hard to help people understand that it isn't about
homeschooling.
Do you remember the young girl pilot who crashed and died a few years abo?
She was a homeschooler. Lots of the press wanted to make it about
homeschooling. But it wasn't. Homeschooling probably allowed her more time
to fly so she was trusted earlier. Her parents probably trusted her so
*therefore* they homeschooled. But as far as the outcome, her homeschooling
was as irrelevant to what happened as her religion.
The Bryants used their homeschooling to make a point about the state
constitution. But, like the girl, it wasn't about homeschooling.
but that doesn't mean it needs to be on an unschooling list. Usefulness or
interest isn't the criteria to judge what's appropriate to this list.
Usefulness in helping people unschool is the criteria. Most people aren't
using that to judge what they send, but as long as a topic isn't disrupting
the list, that's okay. But when a topic does disrupt the list, then that's
the criteria to judge by.
Joyce
wrote:
> It's closer to unschooling that a lot of what is discussed here, that's forUh, no, it isn't.
> sure!
And it's really, really hard to help people understand that it isn't about
homeschooling.
Do you remember the young girl pilot who crashed and died a few years abo?
She was a homeschooler. Lots of the press wanted to make it about
homeschooling. But it wasn't. Homeschooling probably allowed her more time
to fly so she was trusted earlier. Her parents probably trusted her so
*therefore* they homeschooled. But as far as the outcome, her homeschooling
was as irrelevant to what happened as her religion.
The Bryants used their homeschooling to make a point about the state
constitution. But, like the girl, it wasn't about homeschooling.
> It certainly gave me a perspective that I haven't had before and madeAnd a treatise on the history of philsophy could make you think and read too
> me THINK and READ to truly see what was happening in the situation.
but that doesn't mean it needs to be on an unschooling list. Usefulness or
interest isn't the criteria to judge what's appropriate to this list.
Usefulness in helping people unschool is the criteria. Most people aren't
using that to judge what they send, but as long as a topic isn't disrupting
the list, that's okay. But when a topic does disrupt the list, then that's
the criteria to judge by.
Joyce
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/18/2003 3:31:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
homeschooling/unschooling lists.
Every list but this one finds it relevant to homeschooing/unschooling. I'm
not saying they are right. I'm still reading.
Do you think that they would not be homeschoolers IF they were not trying to
change laws?
So far with my reading it seems to ME anyway, that they are homeschoolers and
don't like having to have their children tested according to the law so they
want to do whatever it takes to change that law.
It's gotten ugly for sure, that much isn't in dispute. Is it sorta like
which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did they want to challenge the
Constitution so they choose to do it by unschooling/homeschooling their children by
not meeting the laws but defying them?
Did they unschool/homeschool and find the laws/Constitution unfair to them as
parents and to their children so they decided to challenge them?
If they are acting on this as homeschoolers/unschoolers who want their
children not to be in the control of the State, it seems to me it has everything to
do with unschooling/homeschooling. But then I've been wrong before.
Either way, on the simplest of levels it doesn't affect me personally but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues.
Yes, it's all about challenging the Constitution but WHY? Because they don't
like being told their children HAVE to be tested because they are
homeschooled. If it were about not wanting to license their dogs or get the rabies
vaccinations and they were ALSO homeschoolers then I could understand how it is NOT
about homeschooling at all.
I also want to add that while I used homeschool/unschool in the above post I
recognize that they are very different but are sometimes used interchangeably
by someone who does not send their children to a private or public school.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> And it's really, really hard to help people understand that it isn't aboutSo, I've been reading, and reading some more about this, even on other
> homeschooling.
>
homeschooling/unschooling lists.
Every list but this one finds it relevant to homeschooing/unschooling. I'm
not saying they are right. I'm still reading.
Do you think that they would not be homeschoolers IF they were not trying to
change laws?
So far with my reading it seems to ME anyway, that they are homeschoolers and
don't like having to have their children tested according to the law so they
want to do whatever it takes to change that law.
It's gotten ugly for sure, that much isn't in dispute. Is it sorta like
which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did they want to challenge the
Constitution so they choose to do it by unschooling/homeschooling their children by
not meeting the laws but defying them?
Did they unschool/homeschool and find the laws/Constitution unfair to them as
parents and to their children so they decided to challenge them?
If they are acting on this as homeschoolers/unschoolers who want their
children not to be in the control of the State, it seems to me it has everything to
do with unschooling/homeschooling. But then I've been wrong before.
Either way, on the simplest of levels it doesn't affect me personally but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues.
Yes, it's all about challenging the Constitution but WHY? Because they don't
like being told their children HAVE to be tested because they are
homeschooled. If it were about not wanting to license their dogs or get the rabies
vaccinations and they were ALSO homeschoolers then I could understand how it is NOT
about homeschooling at all.
I also want to add that while I used homeschool/unschool in the above post I
recognize that they are very different but are sometimes used interchangeably
by someone who does not send their children to a private or public school.
glena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 6/18/03 11:28 AM, Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema at heidi@... wrote:
to explain how much this case is not about homeschooling when, from the
outside, it seems so obviously to be about homeschooling.
People expressed their opinions based on what they'd been told and treated
that knowledge as though it were equal to my local knowledge. And you're
doing the same.
an issue of wanting to control something that isn't yours to control. By
being angry you imply you want to go in and help them because they obviously
can't -- or they wouldn't have the laws they do -- help themselves. I think
they'd resent the implication that they are incapable of helping themselves
and need you to do it for them.
What cave do you think people are living in that they wouldn't realize they
could take action and change things if they wanted to?
When people feel the regulations are getting in their way, they will. They
don't need you to determine for them that they're suffering and should have
something better.
MA are Kathryn and me. No one else can know enough to make their opinions on
the rightness or wrongness of what happened mean anything.
The worthwhile comments from others seemed to be respectful of the extent of
what they could and couldn't know about the case.
But you're addressing the subject as though there were some universal
principles about homeschooling involved. The case is about the wording in
the state constitution of Massachusetts. The motivations of all parties
involved are based on that.
We could discuss the principle of how far we would stand up for what we
believe in but you can't draw on what the Bryants did or didn't do or why
the did what they did because it's unknowable outside the state and only
vaguely guessable by people inside the state. And guesswork based on
woefully limited knowledge is as meaningful as gibberish.
homeschooling. They made it about homeschooling. They used homeschooling to
try to get their point across.
innocent and naive means unaware, ignorant in response to your "shocker"
statements. Neither excludes being gutsy.
And since the case isn't about homeschooling, the fact that they're
homeschoolers, whether gutsy or not, is irrelevant.
What are you basing that opinion on? On the emails flying around? On the
news reports?
See, this is what's bothering me. You can't form valid opinions based on the
little information available to you. If you'd read the state list during the
4 years the Bryants were battling this, there's no way you would conclude
that Kim Bryant was caught unaware. And you can adamantly believe she was
caught unaware all you want but it doesn't make it valid.
I can't recreate 4 years of 1000's of emails of heavy duty legal discussion.
And unfortunately it's all gone from the archives on the state list so no
one has access to it :-/
as you imagine it could be and projecting how you imagine you'd behave in it
and what you imagine your motivations would be if you were in that imaginary
situation.
The situation you're imagining isn't what happened. You don't know MA laws
and don't know what the Bryants knew or didn't know about what would happen.
You don't have the same motivations as Kim Bryant. The scenario you're
creating is meaningless. Therefore the conclusions you're drawing from it
are even more meaningless.
restrictive homeschooling laws have to do with Waltham?
You used the word homeschool 11 times in your post. And yet the case isn't
about homeschooling. But your post is saying loudly that it is about
homeschooling and that's what's irritating my sense of logic.
lend authenticity to something you can't know? How can you know a case that
isn't about homeschooling will have any impact on homeschoolers in years to
come when you don't know what it's like to homeschool in MA right now?
about the MA constitution, not homeschooling. Most everyone is under
informed.
trying to argue points they don't realize they don't have enough knowledge
about to have informed opinions on.
It's about logic and sound arguments and awareness and validity.
Joyce
> Does this issue have some background stuff going on for you?I went through the Bryant case with Ned Vare last fall. It's annoying to try
to explain how much this case is not about homeschooling when, from the
outside, it seems so obviously to be about homeschooling.
People expressed their opinions based on what they'd been told and treated
that knowledge as though it were equal to my local knowledge. And you're
doing the same.
> I find it distasteful when otherWhy should what other adults choose to put up with bother you? It seems like
> states have any sort of homeschooling-restrictive laws
an issue of wanting to control something that isn't yours to control. By
being angry you imply you want to go in and help them because they obviously
can't -- or they wouldn't have the laws they do -- help themselves. I think
they'd resent the implication that they are incapable of helping themselves
and need you to do it for them.
> Other states could take a(I feel a deep longing to say "DUH!")
> look at what's going on there and say, "Hey, let's do that too! That's a
> great idea!"
What cave do you think people are living in that they wouldn't realize they
could take action and change things if they wanted to?
When people feel the regulations are getting in their way, they will. They
don't need you to determine for them that they're suffering and should have
something better.
> Joyce, I didn't meant to imply that *you* said they were *wrong* for doingI believe the only two people who've commented about the case who are from
> what they are doing.
MA are Kathryn and me. No one else can know enough to make their opinions on
the rightness or wrongness of what happened mean anything.
The worthwhile comments from others seemed to be respectful of the extent of
what they could and couldn't know about the case.
But you're addressing the subject as though there were some universal
principles about homeschooling involved. The case is about the wording in
the state constitution of Massachusetts. The motivations of all parties
involved are based on that.
We could discuss the principle of how far we would stand up for what we
believe in but you can't draw on what the Bryants did or didn't do or why
the did what they did because it's unknowable outside the state and only
vaguely guessable by people inside the state. And guesswork based on
woefully limited knowledge is as meaningful as gibberish.
> I read very clearly that you feel that what they are doingWhy are they the only homeschoolers it impacted? Because it wasn't about
> isn't about homeschooling so much, but is against possibly-false,
> possibly-valid legal restrictions (that in this case, happen to impact
> their homeschooling.)
homeschooling. They made it about homeschooling. They used homeschooling to
try to get their point across.
> Maybe, but I (and others?) don't necessarily think they're 'poor naive'People can be poor and naive and still be gutsy. I used poor to suggest
> homeschoolers. I happen to think they're pretty gutsy.
innocent and naive means unaware, ignorant in response to your "shocker"
statements. Neither excludes being gutsy.
And since the case isn't about homeschooling, the fact that they're
homeschoolers, whether gutsy or not, is irrelevant.
> I also happen toWhich implies the Bryants were naive.
> think that the situation might have gotten worse than they initially
> expected it would.
What are you basing that opinion on? On the emails flying around? On the
news reports?
See, this is what's bothering me. You can't form valid opinions based on the
little information available to you. If you'd read the state list during the
4 years the Bryants were battling this, there's no way you would conclude
that Kim Bryant was caught unaware. And you can adamantly believe she was
caught unaware all you want but it doesn't make it valid.
I can't recreate 4 years of 1000's of emails of heavy duty legal discussion.
And unfortunately it's all gone from the archives on the state list so no
one has access to it :-/
> Oh, I'd have been pretty shocked that they'd choose to take awayAgain, you're arguing from a point of ignorance. You're creating a situation
> guardianship of my kids because I held the belief they did not have the
> legal authority to require me to send in a curriculum review of my kids
> each year. Even if it took four years. I'd have figured that eventually,
> they'd need to get a clue and realize that *I* am the parent. The state is
> not the parent. (goodness, am I sounding like a libertarian? What is the
> world coming to?!!)
as you imagine it could be and projecting how you imagine you'd behave in it
and what you imagine your motivations would be if you were in that imaginary
situation.
The situation you're imagining isn't what happened. You don't know MA laws
and don't know what the Bryants knew or didn't know about what would happen.
You don't have the same motivations as Kim Bryant. The scenario you're
creating is meaningless. Therefore the conclusions you're drawing from it
are even more meaningless.
> I'm from Cali, sure. We basically have no homeschooling rules here (soAnd since the case isn't about homeschooling, what does your feelings on
> far) and that's the way we like it. I find it distasteful when other
> states have any sort of homeschooling-restrictive laws (like Washingtons'
> (or is it Oregon) where a homeschooling kid has to take a standardized test
> three or four times before graduation. Ick.) Other states could take a
> look at what's going on there and say, "Hey, let's do that too! That's a
> great idea!"
restrictive homeschooling laws have to do with Waltham?
You used the word homeschool 11 times in your post. And yet the case isn't
about homeschooling. But your post is saying loudly that it is about
homeschooling and that's what's irritating my sense of logic.
> I don't think I (or others) made any statement or implication about howIt was in your quote above what you quoted from me:
> things are in MA (or any other state) for homeschoolers, nor what the
> future holds for them in particular.
>> If the family does as the state wants, then they lend authenticity to theHow do you know what the state believes? How can you speculate that they'd
>> state's current belief that the state, not the parents, have charge of each
>> child's education. This can harm independent homeschoolers in the years to
>> follow. (and yes, there is also the difficulty that the state may get
>> punative because of this dedication and demand for legal rights.)
lend authenticity to something you can't know? How can you know a case that
isn't about homeschooling will have any impact on homeschoolers in years to
come when you don't know what it's like to homeschool in MA right now?
> I don't think I implied that they were caught unaware, did I?Here:
>> TheyBut most everyone on the list is a Massachusetts outsider. And the case is
>> trusted the courts to maintain those rights - only to find that the court
>> took away legal guardianship of their children (THAT must've been a
>> shocker!)
> I don't think anybody here is a homeschooling outsider
about the MA constitution, not homeschooling. Most everyone is under
informed.
> In any event, I'm feeling that maybe you're not much concerned by what I'mNothing to do with Waltham and everything to do with a history of people
> thinking, but that the whole Waltham issue brings up *bad history* for you?
> I could be wrong. It's happened before! (grin)
trying to argue points they don't realize they don't have enough knowledge
about to have informed opinions on.
It's about logic and sound arguments and awareness and validity.
Joyce
[email protected]
>I am actually formerly from MA.
> <<<Had you been in MA during the time they were battling this in court, you
> would have seen the state homeschooling list split into 2 because the list
> was overwhelmed by the court case. And had you read the legal issues list
> you would *not* have read about how oppressive the laws in MA are towards
> homeschooling. You would have read how the state has no right to make laws
> beyond the state constitution. It wasn't about homeschooling. It wasn't
> about her kids. It wasn't about her battle to do what was right for her
> kids. It was all about the constitution.>>>
A list splint in two sounds like more than a few feel differently.
Im not going to sit here an Unschool then stick a test in my kids face that
doesn't sound too Unschooly.
Their choice to HS/Unsc and the constitution is directly related.
If they where fighting a battle over taxes then no it would not be.
>They took a stand they stuck to it. They didn't back down because some law
> I don't want to bad mouth the Bryants. They've stuck by what they believe in
> and fought a hard battle. Their kids seem to be doing well with the life
> their parents have chosen for the family. But I do want to make it clear
> that they weren't battling to make Homeschooling easier in MA.
>
> If you want a hero and want to raise them on a pedestal, don't erect it in
> the homeschoolers hall of fame. Do it in the constitutionalists hall of
> fame.Joyce
says they should test because the schools test and their kids are not learning.
When laws are bad they get changed, they do not get changed unless they are
challenged.
I dont think they moved to Massachusetts with the intention of changing the
constitution.
I do not have them on a pedestal I respect their will power.
For those interested...... The Bryants will be on the O'Reilly Factor
tonight.
I dont think this is a one state issue. I for one would *not* force my child
to take a test. It's all or nothing isn't that what has been said? Not choose
which ones apply from the basket of stuff. This is where to me it looks like
ones convictions may be just as valid as another as they should be.
They are the Bryants from the US that's all that matters to me. Many states
look at other states as a model. If testing was required here I would not move
and I would not force my children to test. Certain grades test here but not
HS/UN or private schools.
Laura D
Laura D
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 6/18/03 3:43 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... at rubyprincesstsg@...
wrote:
homeschooling list? Did they read what Kim Bryant had to say about the case?
If not then their opinons are based on ignorance.
If the negatives cancel out then you're asking "Do you think that they would
be homeschoolers IF they were trying to change laws?"
frustration.
That sounds sensible so people will keep offering that type of opinion. But
it has no basis in MA reality. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TEST. We have an end
of year assessment and parents must approve the form. If testing isn't
appropriate to the style of homeschooling, then parents would reject that
form of assessment and choose another one.
Seems to me I've explained the MA process about 5 times. And for some reason
people are giving more weight to opinions offered by people outside the
state and nonhomeschoolers inside the state than they are to an unschooler
in the state.
I think people are listening to these opinions of outsiders because the made
up scenarios make more sense to people. The scenarios match what they
imagine must be true for this case to have happened and for it to be about
homeschooling.
But it isn't true. The scenarios are made up. They're fiction.
The state is choosing testing for the Bryant kids because the Bryant kids
are now in the state's legal custody. The state is serving as parents so the
state gets to choose the form of assessment.
Their kids seem okay so I suspect they saw an opportunity that already
existed in their life that they could use to make a legal point.
That's a guess based on more knowledge, but I dont know how much it's really
worth.
the laws only unfair to the Bryants? Why? And if the laws are unfair to all
homeschoolers, then why are the Bryants the only ones who care?
You're presuming there must be control in order for this case to be about
homeschooling. That's what everyone is doing. They've concluded the case
must be about homeschooling and then they're making up what must be true in
order for it to be about homeschooling.
The control in MA is minimal. The case isn't about homeschooling.
Peaple outside of MA can only offer opinions on the scenario they've made up
to fit the facts. Their scenario is wrong and their opinions are
meaningless.
This isn't about homeschooling. It doesn't affect the laws in MA. And it has
even less impact on homeschooling laws outside of MA.
believe.
If their homeschooling has given them a different perspective on the
constitution, does it have any more meaning for homeschooling than if
someone's homeschooling gave them a different perspective on Libertarianism
and they began fighting for Libertarianism? It would be about
Libertarianism, not about homeschooling. If the results of their battle for
Libertarianism had a positive side effect on homeschooling, it's a pretty
round about chancy route if their intent was to effect homeschooling.
If the Bryants wanted to fight to change homeschooling laws they would have
chosen a route that would have rallied the support of homeschoolers in MA.
The route they chose irritated more homeschoolers than it inspired.
But the Bryants don't get to choose now because they lost the right.
live in MA. And you don't understand because you're giving more weight to
the undoubtedly greater number of seemingly sensible sounding opinions of
others who also don't live in MA.
Joyce
wrote:
> Every list but this one finds it relevant to homeschooing/unschooling.Are the members of these lists living in MA? Were they signed onto the state
homeschooling list? Did they read what Kim Bryant had to say about the case?
If not then their opinons are based on ignorance.
> Do you think that they would not be homeschoolers IF they were not trying toHuh?
> change laws?
If the negatives cancel out then you're asking "Do you think that they would
be homeschoolers IF they were trying to change laws?"
> So far with my reading it seems to ME anyway, that they are homeschoolers andAnd it's opinions like this that make me beat my head against my screen in
> don't like having to have their children tested according to the law so they
> want to do whatever it takes to change that law.
frustration.
That sounds sensible so people will keep offering that type of opinion. But
it has no basis in MA reality. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO TEST. We have an end
of year assessment and parents must approve the form. If testing isn't
appropriate to the style of homeschooling, then parents would reject that
form of assessment and choose another one.
Seems to me I've explained the MA process about 5 times. And for some reason
people are giving more weight to opinions offered by people outside the
state and nonhomeschoolers inside the state than they are to an unschooler
in the state.
I think people are listening to these opinions of outsiders because the made
up scenarios make more sense to people. The scenarios match what they
imagine must be true for this case to have happened and for it to be about
homeschooling.
But it isn't true. The scenarios are made up. They're fiction.
The state is choosing testing for the Bryant kids because the Bryant kids
are now in the state's legal custody. The state is serving as parents so the
state gets to choose the form of assessment.
> Is it sorta likeWell, I hope not!
> which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did they want to challenge the
> Constitution so they choose to do it by unschooling/homeschooling their
> children by not meeting the laws but defying them?
Their kids seem okay so I suspect they saw an opportunity that already
existed in their life that they could use to make a legal point.
That's a guess based on more knowledge, but I dont know how much it's really
worth.
> Did they unschool/homeschool and find the laws/Constitution unfair to them asThat would only make sense if there were no other homeschoolers in MA. Are
> parents and to their children so they decided to challenge them?
the laws only unfair to the Bryants? Why? And if the laws are unfair to all
homeschoolers, then why are the Bryants the only ones who care?
> If they are acting on this as homeschoolers/unschoolers who want theirIF. HUGE "IF" that you're basing on what knowledge of MA homeschooling?
> children not to be in the control of the State, it seems to me it has
> everything to
> do with unschooling/homeschooling. But then I've been wrong before.
You're presuming there must be control in order for this case to be about
homeschooling. That's what everyone is doing. They've concluded the case
must be about homeschooling and then they're making up what must be true in
order for it to be about homeschooling.
The control in MA is minimal. The case isn't about homeschooling.
> but I::: beating head on screen again :::
> do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an
> emotionally
> charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change laws
> regarding homeschool/unschool issues
Peaple outside of MA can only offer opinions on the scenario they've made up
to fit the facts. Their scenario is wrong and their opinions are
meaningless.
This isn't about homeschooling. It doesn't affect the laws in MA. And it has
even less impact on homeschooling laws outside of MA.
> Yes, it's all about challenging the Constitution but WHY?Because they're constitutionalists and they're fighting for what they
believe.
If their homeschooling has given them a different perspective on the
constitution, does it have any more meaning for homeschooling than if
someone's homeschooling gave them a different perspective on Libertarianism
and they began fighting for Libertarianism? It would be about
Libertarianism, not about homeschooling. If the results of their battle for
Libertarianism had a positive side effect on homeschooling, it's a pretty
round about chancy route if their intent was to effect homeschooling.
If the Bryants wanted to fight to change homeschooling laws they would have
chosen a route that would have rallied the support of homeschoolers in MA.
The route they chose irritated more homeschoolers than it inspired.
> Because they don'tHOMESCHOOLING PARENTS DON'T HAVE TO TEST.
> like being told their children HAVE to be tested because they are
> homeschooled.
But the Bryants don't get to choose now because they lost the right.
> If it were about not wanting to license their dogs or get theIt is not about homeschooling. And you don't understand because you don't
> rabies
> vaccinations and they were ALSO homeschoolers then I could understand how it
> is NOT
> about homeschooling at all.
live in MA. And you don't understand because you're giving more weight to
the undoubtedly greater number of seemingly sensible sounding opinions of
others who also don't live in MA.
Joyce
Betsy
**Either way, on the simplest of levels it doesn't affect me personally
but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an
emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change
laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues.**
Do you/we have the time and bandwidth to discuss and understand the
details of the hottest homeschooling story in Mass *and* in each the 49
other U.S. states and the dozen or so Canadian provinces *and* all the
countries in the European union *and* Australian *and* Japan and many
other places that have members on this list? I don't think so.
Very detailed local stories with very detailed histories will "fit"
better on geographically focused lists. I think it's a good idea to
join one's state and local homeschooling organizations and stay informed
through their lists.
Thanks,
Betsy
ps
**Yes, it's all about challenging the Constitution but WHY? Because
they don't
like being told their children HAVE to be tested because they are
homeschooled. **
If you read Joyce's posts carefully, it seems clear that what you assume
is the "why" for this family is not actually their main or only reason.
but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an
emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change
laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues.**
Do you/we have the time and bandwidth to discuss and understand the
details of the hottest homeschooling story in Mass *and* in each the 49
other U.S. states and the dozen or so Canadian provinces *and* all the
countries in the European union *and* Australian *and* Japan and many
other places that have members on this list? I don't think so.
Very detailed local stories with very detailed histories will "fit"
better on geographically focused lists. I think it's a good idea to
join one's state and local homeschooling organizations and stay informed
through their lists.
Thanks,
Betsy
ps
**Yes, it's all about challenging the Constitution but WHY? Because
they don't
like being told their children HAVE to be tested because they are
homeschooled. **
If you read Joyce's posts carefully, it seems clear that what you assume
is the "why" for this family is not actually their main or only reason.
[email protected]
In a message dated 6/18/03 2:26:12 PM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:
<< Either way, on the simplest of levels it doesn't affect me personally >>...
true!
<<but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an
emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues. >>
Wrong.
You're really, honestly (as usual) not reading well.
It doesn't affect you and you don't understand it, so maybe just discuss it
on those OTHER lists you're on, and save this one for unschooling!
Sandra
<< Either way, on the simplest of levels it doesn't affect me personally >>...
true!
<<but I
do find it interesting to hear what others think/feel about such an
emotionally
charged issue, particularly since their hope in all of this is to change laws
regarding homeschool/unschool issues. >>
Wrong.
You're really, honestly (as usual) not reading well.
It doesn't affect you and you don't understand it, so maybe just discuss it
on those OTHER lists you're on, and save this one for unschooling!
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 6/18/03 5:32 PM, Betsy at ecsamhill@... wrote:
MA state list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/
Kim is there (Kim E). She has suggestions on what people can do if they want
to help.
Joyce
> Very detailed local stories with very detailed histories will "fit"Good idea! If anyone would like to discuss it or do something about it, the
> better on geographically focused lists. I think it's a good idea to
> join one's state and local homeschooling organizations and stay informed
> through their lists.
MA state list is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/
Kim is there (Kim E). She has suggestions on what people can do if they want
to help.
Joyce