Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema

To make this conversation on one family's struggle with the
constitutionalism of homeschooling in MA more palatable to anyone on the
unschooling list who hasn't been interested to date: I don't find anyone
involved in the case 'doable'. My hubby just got home though, and he is
eminently doable! (grin)

<Heidi hands Joyce a bag of ice to lower the swelling from banging her head
on the monitor.)

Joyce, I'm sorry if what I'm writing seems dense to you. To be fair
though, frankly, you don't seem to get what *I'm* saying either. (and I
won't be going on about this anymore after this, 'cause if we don't 'hear'
each other now, it's probably not going to improve anytime soon!)

Joyce said: Waltham's original position was not that the Bryant children
had to test. It
>was that the Bryant parents needed to submit an education plan each year.
>The Bryants refused. There were legal procedings and the Bryants were
>ordered to submit a plan. The Bryants said they did. Waltham said they
>didn't. The Bryants said they did. Waltham said it was inadequate. The whole
>story there is a mess and involves whether or not they received
>notifications for this and that or not. The information was filtered by the
>Bryants so who knows what the truth was.
>
>The Bryants ended up back in court. They lost again. For whatever reason.
>Since they weren't complying the state ended up taking legal custody of the
>children.

Even though I don't live in MA, somehow what you wrote is already my
understanding of what happened in the Waltham case. (except for the part
about was/wasn't the assessment received. I'd thought it wasn't sent in
the first place.) (As a side note, it's a little unfortunate to think that
a person has to live somewhere to have empathy for or know something about
someone in a bad spot legally.) (Yes, even if that person put themselves
there.)

While it may cause you to tear out large patches of your beautiful glossy
hair, I still think the family is gutsy in doing what they feel is
right. (Naive, maybe. Optimistic, maybe. Unfortunate in short-term
outcome, definitely.) I understand that you believe adamantly that the
issue is a constitutional one, and only educational by chance. Okay. I
can see your point. Unfortunate that the chance landed on educational
choice and it's relationship to the possible differences between a state
and its constitution, but there it is. It has impact on home education
legalities, even if the main gist is constitutionalism.

Part of my whole Unschooling thing is supporting complete freedom in
educational pursuits for both my kids and other families. This can
sometimes have legal implications. I happen to believe that it is not (or
rather, should not be?) the business of the state (ANY state!) to 'assess'
or to require assessment or to take legal guardianship of homeschooling
kids away should there not be state-deemed-suitable 'assessment' of a
homeschooled kid's education, be it in any form, yes, even a few sentences
from the parent on thier ed plan. That the state required std. testing
after presuming to foist themselves as legal guardians (when the DSS
reportedly admits that the kids are loved and well-taken care of) adds only
insult to injury. If some folks don't mind submitting a
state-deemed-suitable assessment or plan, then no bother. If some folks
find that state-deemed-suitable assessments or plans go against their
educational beliefs (or constitutional rights), then I support their right
to challenge such. My only hope is that it doesn't legally adversely
affect other homeschoolers in that state or any other state.

Do I deify them or put them on a pedestal? Naw. Admire them
some? Sure. They've got fortitude, that's for sure. But I admire the
actions of lots of folks, some mainstream, some not, mostly obscure folks
who just struggle through life.

> > Many states
> > look at other states as a model.
>
>A model of what? The state constitution?

No. A model of how to handle homeschoolers who challenge educational laws
they believe to be unconstitutional or just plain wrong. A model of which
educational laws they 'should' consider having.

I'm sorry it all upsets you so.
Fini.
HeidiWD


"Self-reliance is the antidote to institutional stupidity." JTGatto,
Monarch Notes guide to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

Fetteroll

on 6/18/03 11:25 PM, Heidi Wordhouse-Dykema at heidi@... wrote:

> To be fair
> though, frankly, you don't seem to get what *I'm* saying either. (and I
> won't be going on about this anymore after this, 'cause if we don't 'hear'
> each other now, it's probably not going to improve anytime soon!)

I heard you. But if you want to be paid attention to it's helpful to be more
aware of the environment you're speaking in and the subtext you're
communicating.

If you want to talk about the aspects of homeschooling this case reminds you
of, then the discussion is going to be frustrating for someone who is trying
to get across the point that the case has nothing to do with homeschooling.

There are *plenty* of other relevant branching off points to talk about what
you want to talk about. You could even bring the subjects up out of the
blue.

Using this case to discuss homeschooling only ties it more firmly in
people's minds that it is about homeschooling. And it can *only* be about
homeschooling if people make up fantastical scenarios about why what
happened happened that have no basis in what really happened.

> Even though I don't live in MA, somehow what you wrote is already my
> understanding of what happened in the Waltham case. (except for the part
> about was/wasn't the assessment received. I'd thought it wasn't sent in
> the first place.)

Originally they refused to submit an ed plan (not an assessment). And I
think they didn't submit an ed plan until ordered to do so by a judge or
some mediator. Then it gets confusing on what happened. From my
understanding they were asked many times for the ed plan -- actually many ed
plans since the case dragged out over 4 yeras and they have 2 kids -- with a
variety of outcomes: ignoring it, never received the request, town never
received their ed plan, town rejected the ed plan. (But MA case law says if
the town rejects a plan they need to prove how, not just say, it's
inadequate.)

> (As a side note, it's a little unfortunate to think that
> a person has to live somewhere to have empathy for or know something about
> someone in a bad spot legally.) (Yes, even if that person put themselves
> there.)

Nothing wrong with having empathy for the Bryants. I hope everyone who is
concerned will join the MA state list
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MAhomeschoolers/) or visit the website
supporting the Bryants and do what they can to help them.

If all you were expressing was empathy, there wouldn't be much to argue
about. But you weren't just expressing empathy. You were using the case to
talk about homeschooling. (Much as the Bryants used homeschooling to "get a
dialog going" about the state constitutution.)

But the case can't be a useful rallying point for homeschooling discussion
without making up motivations for the Bryants and the state that don't match
reality in order to turn the case into something about homeschooling.

That's one of the subtext's I'm talking about. You may have valid general
points but there can't be a meaningful dialog about those points when you
have to make up the motivations and facts in order for your points to make
sense. There are real motivations. There are real facts. And those
motivations and facts can't be ignored in order to make a point without
frustrating the heck out of someone who's trying to point out that you're
using a false foundation to argue your points from.

You're basing your opinions on what obviously must be true for the case to
have happened. But the obvious isn't true in MA. Your understanding of how
homeschooling works in MA is wrong so the sensible scenario you've created
is wrong. And, therefore, your points, when you use the case to support
them, are meaningless.

> While it may cause you to tear out large patches of your beautiful glossy
> hair, I still think the family is gutsy in doing what they feel is
> right.

If you've been following what I'm saying there's no logical connection
between the idea of what is upsetting me and you thinking the Bryants are
gutsy. Your sentence says I'm irritated that anyone would think the Bryants
gutsy. Where did I say that? It suggests -- it's one of those subtexts I
mentioned above -- that you haven't understood what I'm saying.

Hopefully you have understood. Hopefully those were words that just sounded
good cobbled together. And you cobble words together well. But the ideas
need to hang together as well as the words for meaning to come through.

Since you've used many sentences throughout your posts that don't hang
together logically based on what I'm trying to get across, it's frustrating
to respond.

> I happen to believe that it is not (or
> rather, should not be?) the business of the state (ANY state!) to 'assess'
> or to require assessment or to take legal guardianship of homeschooling
> kids away should there not be state-deemed-suitable 'assessment' of a
> homeschooled kid's education, be it in any form, yes, even a few sentences
> from the parent on thier ed plan.

Again, you're trying to point out how wrong a regulation is and using the
case to discuss that point.

But the regulation to take children away from homeschooling parents for
noncompliance doesn't exist in MA. We don't have regulations. We have case
law. So there isn't a way to discuss a regulation like that based on the
Bryant case. (And no, I'm not just word wrangling. Regulations and case law
are different.)

The Bryants *forced* the state to examine a situation the state hadn't
examined. No one had set down in writing what would happen if homeschoolers
refused. When the Bryants refused to comply, the state was backed into a
corner and forced to use *other* regulations that were written for *other*
situations, like child neglect, to apply to a situtation it hadn't handled
before. (And had the state followed the letter of those regulations, they
would have taken physical custody of the children too.)

Our homeschooling "requirements" are based on case law. There isn't anything
carved in stone about what we must do and what will happen if we don't. All
we have is what a judges decided in two cases: Charles and Brunell. It's
basically a lot of "this seems reasonable" type of stuff. MA homeschoolers
are able make the judge's decisions work with minimal trouble to ourselves.

The Bryants threatened what works by using homeschooling to make arguments
about the state constitution. What they did could have forced the state into
making state laws about homeschooling. And those laws could easily be not
friendly. Especially to unschoolers which the Bryants claim to be.

> If some folks don't mind submitting a
> state-deemed-suitable assessment or plan, then no bother. If some folks
> find that state-deemed-suitable assessments or plans go against their
> educational beliefs (or constitutional rights), then I support their right
> to challenge such.

And had easier homeschooling regulations been their goal, that would have
been fine. But that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to make the state
realize the state didn't have a right to create laws beyond the
constitution. Though I assume the Bryants had no intention of harming
homeschooling, or making their lives more difficult, their primary goal was
about the constitution. Which means if faced with a decision between making
their point and harming homeschooling, they could easily have determined
their goal was more important.

And they *did* end up making homeschooling more difficult for themselves.
They could have backed off at many points over the 4 years. But they chose
the route that led to more difficult homeschooling because their goal wasn't
easier homeschooling.

> A model of how to handle homeschoolers who challenge educational laws
> they believe to be unconstitutional or just plain wrong. A model of which
> educational laws they 'should' consider having.

And this case can't be used as a model for that. The case is more akin to a
situation where someone was challeging dog regulations in order to make a
point about car regulations. They in essence saw a path to easier car
regulations but taking that path meant they might end up making their lives
(and perhaps other's lives) as dog owners more difficult. They chose the
path that threatened their relatively easy lives as dog owners. And they
lost.

Hopefully the Bryants choice of path won't negatively impact the rest of us
homeschoolers.

Joyce