An INSANE situation up in Waltham, Massachusetts

Conservative Alerts.Com ^ | Chuck Muth

[webber]

An INSANE situation up in Waltham, Massachusetts

This one's so Outrageous, it makes our blood boil just to think of it. Take a look at his message:

ISSUE: Kim and George Bryant have been home-schooling their two kids, George (15) and Nyssa (13), much to the chagrin of the Waltham Public School (WPS) system. The Bryants thus far have refused to force their children to take a government-mandated standardized test to assess their education level.

The WPS empire struck back last year, obtaining a court order giving custody of the kids to the Department of Social Services (DSS), which ever since has been threatening to take the kids away from their parents.

As the MetroWest Daily News reported on Friday, "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." They were ruled to be "unfit" for not filing educational plans with the government.

Unfit. For not filing paperwork. With the government school system. Over the education of their OWN children.

In fact, George Bryant was actually ARRESTED six years ago for failing to comply with the government's dictates over the home-schooled education of HIS children.

Arrested!!...Thrown in jail!!...Like a criminal!!...For taking personal responsibility for the education of HIS kids.

This six-year legal battle exploded on Thursday as bureaucrats from the DSS showed up at the Bryants' home with police escorts at 7:45 a.m. and attempted to remove the children from their home and force them to take the mandated tests.

Once again, the Bryants told the government agents to pound dirt, resulting in a seven-hour standoff.

"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," said Bryant.

How DARE these parents stand up to the government and defend their right to raise their children as they see fit? Who do they think they are?

At least, that's the attitude of one outrageous government bureaucrat involved in this brouhaha. "We have the legal custody of the children and we will do with them as we see fit," DSS trooper Susan Etscovitz told the Bryants Thursday morning. "They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."

It is near impossible to describe the rage I feel inside every time I read those chilling words. WE will do with them as WE see fit. They do what WE tell them to do.

The sheer audacity of a bureaucrat to make such a statement about someone else's children who are in no way abused in any shape, form or fashion is beyond comprehension to me.

Comrade Etscovitz maintained on Thursday that, "No one wants these children to be put in foster homes. The best course of action would be for (the Bryants) to instruct the children to take the test."

One can just imagine her words being delivered with a thick East German accent: "undt now, all vee need eez dee kidz!"

This isn't about education. It's about control. It's about an imperial government trying to crush a movement in its infancy which could one day spell the end of the public school monopoly over our kids' educations.

Home-schooling means children might start learning again. REAL learning. Not "whole language" and "self-esteem." Learning about radical notions such as freedom, liberty and personal responsibility. Notions such as limited government and the Constitution and the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Yeah, we can't have THAT!

ACTION ITEM: As it appears that DSS is getting its marching orders from the Waltham Public Schools, it seems the best place to start is with the School Superintendent there. Her name is Dr. Susan Parrella. She can be reached via email at:

parrellas@k12.waltham.ma.us
or by phone at:
(781) 314-5400
or fax at:
(781) 314-5411.

Emails are great... but nothing quite ruins a bureaucrat's day like dealing with a flood of phone calls. I know. I just called. The woman who answered the phone hung up on me when she found out what I was calling about. They do NOT want to answer any questions about this.

Oh, and by the way. I reached Ms. Etscovitz this morning. She was not a happy camper once she found out what I was calling about. Refused to comment on her "we will do with them as we see fit" statement, saying only, "I'm terminating this conversation now," before slamming the phone down.

I think it would really bug her if a lot of people called (781) 641-8500, so please, please don't rattle her cage, OK? That number not to call again to reach Susan Etscovitz is (781) 641-8500. That's (781) 641-8500. (You could also fax her at 781-648-6909.)

-- Chuck Muth, ConservativeAlerts.Com

---

We normally set up a website with a pre-written letter to Congress, etc. However, we thought it would be much more effective for our members to make contact as described above, in their own words. If you get a response you'd like to share, be sure to drop us a note. As this issue develops and is "bumped up the ladder" of responsibility, we'll let you know who to contact next.

NOTE: The situation in Waltham has gotten WAY out of hand.

Outraged Americans across the country need to contact these bureaucrats NOW to express their outrage and demand they do the RIGHT thing. Be sure to forward this email to everyone you know who wants to help save parental choice in America, starting in Massachusetts. p> Thank you!

--Chuck Muth, ConservativeAlerts.Com

---

[RobbyS]

The best solution is to have a third party come in and interview these kids for an hours. As a teacher with 40 years experience,I can say that this would tell if the kids can read, write , calculate and demonstrate some knowledge of the world outside. To hell with the tests. As for keeping up with their peers? What are they going to do if they aren't?Put them in a public school where --in some cases--more than half are lagging behind?

[freebilly]

But no, people want to thumb their noses at society, the society that provides safety and decent neighbors, and police and fire departments, and then all of FR has to mail endless petitions for someone to have the luxury of living in the US and flaunting the few obligations put on a parent, by the state, for his child.

You're actually a liberal democrat, dear. How have managed to be registered with freerepublic since 1997?

[freebilly]

But if this family is allowed to thumb their nose to state testing, then I see this as setting a precedent for all the lazy, low-life project mentality parents to "claim" that they are homeschooling their children.

Punish one for the good of the many. That's the spirit! Another statist!

[freebilly]

insert "you"

[OrioleFan]

If I were homeschooling I would ask Dr. Susan Parrella in a public forum to provide me with a copy of the schools guidelines on socialist brainwashing so that I may homeschool my children to their standards. Only then would I have them take the test because I would be able to discern the answers and the goals they were trying to achieve.

[freebilly]

"All the government wants is to know they are really being educated."

That was the laugh of the day. In any event, they can start by disbanding the National Education Association if they really want to educate children....

[The Iceman Cometh]

Just take the standardized tests and shut up!

Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhtttt.

Just fill out the forms, just comply to their wishes, just submit to their will, suuuuurrreeeeee. I guess that part in our founding documents about 'Liberty' is outdated.

The true issue here is that these standardized tests in no way benefit the children. These tests simply allow the redistribution of Federal funds and cover the burueacrats collective butts.

[Liberal Classic]

Arrested!!...Thrown in jail!!...Like a criminal!!...For taking personal responsibility for the education of HIS kids.

Note that under socialism, refusniks are criminals.

[ThomasMore]

DSS trooper Susan Etscovitz

DSS or just plain ole' SS Trooper?!!!

<sarcasm> Don't you just love tolerant liberalism? </sarcasm>

[knuthom]

Requiring standardized tests means that the government can dictated the curriculum. They can decide what is taught and when it is taught. If you don't follow their agenda, you risk having your kids fail the test. It doesn't matter what they know or can do if it is not on the test.

An example: I homeschool my children. My second son was a late talker and a late reader. He learned quickly when he was ready, but not before. He needed to follow his own timetable for education. If I had been required to use standardized testing, he would not have passed in the primary grades.

He had never attended school prior to college. He took the ACT test (voluntarily) when he was ready for college. He scored at the 95th percentile. I would say that his education was very successful, although standardized testing at certain times would have led to another conclusion.

[srweaver]

You wrote

"But if this family is allowed to thumb their nose to state testing, then I see this as setting a precedent for all the lazy, low-life project mentality parents to "claim" that they are homeschooling their children. And they would no longer have to prove it. Then, as one of you stated, these children will grow up and be turned loose on society."

Our founding fathers understood that God gave inalienable rights to people that legitimate governments are intended to protect and preserve (life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness" [which was a change from the earlier "right" of property]). God did not give the responsibility of education to the state, but to parents, and for the state to assume it is a usurpation of power.

Even "low-life project mentality parents" usually want something better for their kids than they have, but even if they don't, should they be forced to surrender their parental responsibility to the state. If the kids grow up uneducated and are turned loose on society, there are legitimate remedies for their "criminal activity." If they are merely poor and choose not to better themselves, don't they have the right to be so?

If I have to prove my kid can perform at a certain level that the "state" determines, then I exist for the state, and not the state for me.

On a practical note, here in San Francisco, I see the housing project kids have their needs routinely ignored while homeschoolers have been repeatedly told by the state that their activities are illegal. I have been lied to for several years in a row by my school district, but it now looks as if the climate is becoming more favorable for homeschooling, due to the diligence of homeschoolers and their willingness to withstand the state's incursion into their area of parental rights.

On Memorial Day I attended a picnic where a young teacher (in her 20's) related she is in charge of a class of twenty housing project kids (usually alone, but occasionally she has an aide) which includes two kids who are autistic (since the state now feels it is not good to stigmatize and separate special needs kids).

Do you think these kids are getting an adequate education by the state?

[dark_lord]

Driving should be a right until you mess up just like owning a firearm.

I don't recall a "right to drive" in the Constitution -- unlike the 2nd amendment.

[tutstar]

Mass has to "approve" your homeschool. They are very highly regulated.

http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/MA.asp

MASSACHUSETTS
Updated August 2002

Compulsory Attendance Ages: 6 by December 31 of that school year to 16 years of age. Mass. Regs. Code tit. 603, § 8.02. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 1.
Required Days of Instruction: None required, but school districts will use the public school's required number of days and hours of instruction time for purposes of comparison, i.e., 180 days; 900 hours at the elementary level and 990 hours at the secondary level. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, §§ 1, 4; Mass. Regs. Code tit. 603, § 27.03 and .04.
Required Subjects: Reading, writing, English language and grammar, geography, arithmetic, drawing, music, history and constitution of United States, duties of citizenship, health (including CPR), physical education, and good behavior. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 1.

Home School Statute: None.

Alternative Statutes Allowing for Home Schools: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 1. A "child who is otherwise being instructed in a manner approved in advance by the superintendent or the school committee."

1. A Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts case, Care and Protection of Charles, 399 Mass. 324, 333 34, 504 N.E.2d 592, 598-99 (1987), ruled that parents have a right to educate their children at home, but it must be reconciled with the state interest in the education of its citizenry. According to Care and Protection of Charles, the school committee must give parents an opportunity to explain their home school plan and present witnesses on their behalf. The school has the right to inquire in four areas (this information should be included in a home schooler's initial letter to the school district):

# The school committee may examine the competency of the parents to teach their children, but may not require certification, advanced degrees or college degrees.

# The school committee must have access to textbooks and lesson plans, but "only to determine the types of subjects to be taught and the grade level of the instruction for comparison purposes with the curriculum of the public schools." The school committee or superintendent may "not dictate the manner in which the subjects will be taught." 504 N.E.2d at p. 602.

# Also, information on the number of hours and days (180) of instruction may be requested.

# The school committee may require periodic standardized testing; the school authorities may decide where and with what test testing will be done, "in consultation with the parents." Other means of evaluating the progress of the children, such as progress reports or home visits, may be substituted for the formal testing process, but only "subject to the approval of the parents." 504 N.E.2d at pp. 601 02.

Home visits are unconstitutional if imposed against the parent's objection. HSLDA challenged a school district's policy mandating home visits. As a result, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that "the school committee ... cannot, in the absence of consent, require home visits, as a condition to the approval of home education plans." Brunelle v. Lynn Public Schools, 428 Mass. 512, 702 N.E.2d 1182 (1998). The court also ruled that "the approval of the home school proposal must not be conditioned on requirements that are not essential to the state interest in assuring that all children be educated." Home visits are not essential.

2. In the Matter of Johnna M. Searles, No. 9037CH0017, District Court of the Amesbury Division, Sept. 4, 1990, the Court considered the school district's "request that the [home schooled] child be ordered to enroll in the … public schools pending the approval of a home education program." Slip Op. at p. 2 3. The Court agreed with HSLDA and ruled the child did not have to be in public school while waiting for the school district to approve the home school and that "the interests of all parents are best served if they proceed expeditiously in a serious effort to resolve the matter by agreement." Slip Op. at p. 3 4. The Court also remarked if an order to put children in school was to be obtained, the school district would first have to prove children were not receiving regular and thorough instruction. p. 4.

3. If a home school is rejected after seeking approval, the burden of proof shifts to the school authorities to show that the proposed home school instruction fails to equal "in thoroughness and efficiency, and in the progress made therein, that in the public schools in the same town." Charles, at p. 601. Home education is a "right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." (p. 598). The object of the statute is "that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular way." (p. 600).

4. Nearly each one of the 481 school districts has different rules for home schools, demonstrating the vagueness of the law.

5. "School committees shall approve a private school when satisfied that the instruction in all the studies required by law equals in thoroughness and efficiency, and in the progress made therein, that in the public schools in the same town, but shall not withhold such approval on account of religious teaching…." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 1

Teacher Qualifications: None.

Standardized Tests: Parents have two choices (according to the Charles case--see 1(d) above): 1) A parent could submit standardized test results (school officials may insist that a neutral third party administer the test); or, 2) Parents could submit an alternative form of assessment. This typically consists of progress reports, dated work samples, portfolio review, assessment by a certified teacher of the parent's choice.

[donmeaker]

So taking a driving test shows that you know to drive on the right, not that you promise to do so in the future. That is an interesting concept.

[donmeaker]

What is the "We" kemosabe?

who are you to care? You think you care more than the parents? You presume the parents are ill?

[muskogee]

Exactly, you can count me out of the "we" crowd too. I don't want to be a sheep. I want to be a goat.

[donmeaker]

you have an interesting idea about vaccination. Some people should be vaccinated, and deal with any side effects, so that others may be protected. Statist crap.

although true that high levels of vaccination do prevent epidemics, they also lead to epidemics, by providing the illusion that the disease has gone away. Then public health officials cut back on vaccinations, so they can hire their idiot half brother as inspector of dirty dishwater or some such, and bang, the disease comes back.

[SpinyNorman]

Massachusetts is a study in contrasts:

While the state is persecuting these people about taking the MCAS tests, a goodly number of high school students and teachers are SUING the state to rescind the requirement in order to graduate.

Even better, several districts are issuing "certificates of achievement" to students that fail the MCAS, rendering it irrelevant.

Funniest thing: the invitation to the University of Massachusetts had the word Massachusetts spelled incorrectly. So much for tests.

[dmz]

If you don't want to follow home-school threads, there is a solution. It is a little red X in the corner of your screen.

_______

respectfully, I think you're missing the point (IMHO). those of us who don't home school are following these threads. we are interested. however, we may not always agree with the positions taken by the homeschoolers.

Is that a problem for you?

[SpinyNorman]

An unfortunate extrapolation of this might be that the Mass. DSS will assume the right to gain guardianship of any student that flunks the MCAS. How is this different? Would not the parents in the case of a failing student be as responsible for that failure and subject to loss of custody of their children? Is not failing the test considerably worse than not taking it at all? Should people that graduated without taking the MCAS be tested to see if they really graduated, and if not, become wards of the state?

Food for thought. Welcome to the People's Republic of Massachusetts.