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

---

[BSunday]

I agree. I homeschool my kids and have them take the tests each year, so I can gauge their progress. I don't share the results with the school system, though.

[TigersEye]

... the Massachusetts Constitution. That document, written by John Adams (no lesser a founding father than Jefferson), clearly sets the foundation for today's laws governing the interests of the state in the education of the public.

So show us the relevant passages. Or do you also expect every FReeper to research the points you make?

If the Mass. constitution truly gives the State authority over children that surpasses parental authority, in education, then perhaps the Mass. constitution exceeds the authority granted to the States by the federal Constitution, the author be damned. I doubt that it does though.

[BSunday]

The standardized tests in question are just that - stndardized tests. Meaning, the school can't mess with them. We are talking about tests such as the Stanford Achievement Test, Iowa Basic Skills Test, California Achievement Test, etc. We homeschool our children and have them take the Stanford test every year, so we can gauge our progress. Since I'm the one paying for the tests, I don't feel the need to share the results with the school system. It's not their business.

This is not about tests anymore. It's about who has the control over a child's education.

[ConstitutionLover]

Getting back to this situation involving the Bryants, the school system is not the one looking for test results or even asking the Bryants to take the test. It is DSS that wants those things because a long time ago the Bryants lost legal custody of their children.

[mtbopfuyn]

"Just take the standardized tests and shut up!" And they let you vote .... It's not about the tests anymore .... it's about the freedom to live your life away from a government intervention. I'm sure those kids can ace the tests.

Do you know these kids? If not, then you must be Miss Cleo or how else would you know the kids would ace the test? Ah, there's the rub. No one knows if the kids could or couldn't pass the test, but if the law says you must follow 1, 2, 3 rules (i. e. take a test) to homeschool then so be it. It's not as if the parents don't have a choice - public school, private school, or move to a more accomodating district. The parents opted to homeschool thereby they are obligated to have their ace kids take the test. Frankly, I feel its the parents along with Ms. Control Freak who need some sort of testing. We can only *assume* the parents are against the public school system (hey, there's private school) and governmental interference. The one should ask is this about the parents' stance against the government (why do I envision back woods snaggle tooth hillbillies with this bunch?) more than loving parents wanting only the best education for their children? Having a stand off in their front yard and the kids being taken away will cause more trauma to them than taking a silly little ol' test. Take the freakin' test and keep your family intact.

[ConstitutionLover]

I already quoted the relevant passages days ago. You can read them yourself.

You seem to forget that this country is a union of states each with its own rights to govern as it sees fit. Your claim that the U.S. Constitution grants rights to the states shows your ignorance of Constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution claims certain rights that take precedence over state law but the states are not dependent on the Federal Constitution to grant their rights to them. The Federal Constitution says nothing about public education because the founding fathers clearly and properly felt it was a concern of the states. The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant in the Bryant case.

But you ignore any constitutional authority that doesn't concur with your perceptions of how things should be so you damn John Adams and anyone else who disagrees with you. Stop claiming constitutional rights that don't exist!

[Centurion2000]

No one knows if the kids could or couldn't pass the test, but if the law says you must follow 1, 2, 3 rules (i. e. take a test) to homeschool then so be it.

Not every law should be obeyed. The parents decided that they will NOT test their children by Mass. standards.

Frankly, I feel its the parents along with Ms. Control Freak who need some sort of testing

People here don't care what you feel, we care about what people THINK.

[TigersEye]

Your claim that the U.S. Constitution grants rights to the states shows your ignorance of Constitutional law.

I did not claim that.

The U.S. Constitution claims certain rights that take precedence over state law but the states are not dependent on the Federal Constitution to grant their rights to them.

Didn't say that either. However, the federal Constitution does prohibit some things to the States.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But you ignore any constitutional authority that doesn't concur with your perceptions of how things should be so you damn John Adams and anyone else who disagrees with you. Stop claiming constitutional rights that don't exist!

This isn't about education it's about parental authority. It's about who decides what is best for each child. In other words who is actually the legal guardian of a child, the individual, be they parent or other legal guardian, or the State?
Rights that don't exist?

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is obvious who you think does and should retain legal custody of all children.
Heil Hitlery! It takes a village!

[TigersEye]

Having a stand off in their front yard and the kids being taken away will cause more trauma to them than taking a silly little ol' test.

Oh the trauma of it all!!!

Sounds like a very good lesson in how much control the government thinks it has and how far they will go to exert it. These kids won't grow up with the illusion that the government respects the family.

[ConstitutionLover]

Here are your words: "...perhaps the Mass. constitution exceeds the authority granted to the States by the federal Constitution". That sounds to me like you're claiming that the Federal Constitution is granting rights to the states and that the states are dependent on the Federal government for those rights.

Nothing you've presented here places the U.S. Constitution in conflict with the Massachusetts Constitution. I certainly don't believe that "It takes a village..." crap but there are certain situations when the state has to take some responsibility. Certainly when parents abuse their children, the state must step in. And if John Adams was correct when he wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that education "among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties", then the state has a clear responsibility here to insure that parents are providing some form of adequate education to their children.

[TigersEye]

Here are your words: "...perhaps the Mass. constitution exceeds the authority granted to the States by the federal Constitution". That sounds to me like you're claiming that the Federal Constitution is granting rights to the states and that the states are dependent on the Federal government for those rights.

I don't know why it sounds like that to you. It didn't sound like that to me when I wrote it. ; )

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What does this sound like ... to you? You believe that government has the power to dictate educational standards to parents. I don't. The excerpt of the Mass. constitution, written by John Adams, that you posted does not clearly state a power of the State to control education, IMO. It sounds to me like it defines a duty to help and gives a good reason to do so. We will probably disagree about that and it is doubtful that either of us will change our minds unless some more compelling information is presented one way or the other.

[ConstitutionLover]

It not only sounds to me but it is, in fact, referring to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment, prohibiting certain powers from being exercised by states. It has nothing to do with granting authority to the states, only with restricting states from exercising their authority. The U.S. Constitution is moot on public education, doesn't prohibit Massachusetts from exercising its authority and therefore has no bearing on the issue.

I happen to agree with the Massachusetts Constitution when it states that an educated public is "NECESSARY for the preservation of their rights and liberties." It says "necessary", not "desirable", not "adviseable" but "necessary"! If the education of the public is "necessary" and if the government is, as I believe, primarily entrusted with preserving our "rights and liberties", then it is the duty of the government not only to help but to insure that each citizen is being educated to some extent.

[savedbygrace]

Extremely well stated. Thank you.

We homeschooled ours all the way through, and are grateful to God for it.

[TigersEye]

...and if the government is, as I believe, primarily entrusted with preserving our "rights and liberties", ...

You do make a good case for forced education.

[ConstitutionLover]

Thanks. I knew you'd come around ; ) I was thinking we should discuss something that we can both agree on but then that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

[TigersEye]

No it wouldn't. But we probably will one of these days.