Massachusetts at War with Home Schoolers

Home schoolers in Massachusetts are not frightened into submission by the constant intimidation and assaults on their rights from school committees, superintendents, and teachers’ unions – and their ranks continue to grow.

Massachusetts News uncovered a long history of attempts to stop home schooling, or at least make it extremely difficult for most families.

1998-99 ACT Average Composite Scores

Mass. Home Schooled            24.1
Mass. Public Schooled            22.0
National Home Schooled            22.7
National Public Schooled            21.0

ACT (American College Testing) is designed to assess the general educational development of high school students and their ability to complete college-level work. The test covers four skill areas: English, mathematics, reading and science reasoning. ACT test scores are used as a national standard for college admissions. www.act.org

Michael and Jenny Brunelle made the mistake of moving to Lynn in 1993 and trying to home school their children. They were criminally prosecuted in Essex County for failing to send their children to public school.

The Brunelles had refused to sign an agreement with the Lynn Public Schools that would give permission for random home inspections.

Other parents, Stephen and Jeanne Pustell, had refused to sign the agreement in 1991 as well. They were already engaged in a legal battle with the Lynn schools, so the two families joined forces and with the help of the Home School Legal Defense Association they began a long legal battle.

“The Brunelles and the Pustells have agreed with all other school district requests including a requirement to provide the school district with standardized test achievement results,” explained HDSLA spokesman Rich Jefferson in a release at the time.

Mrs. Brunelle was certified to teach elementary education and Mr. Brunelle had a master’s degree in Christian education. Mrs. Pustell was certified to teach elementary education and Mr. Pustell was certified to teach in secondary education. The Brunelles have five children and the Pustells have three.

The HSLDA came to their defense as a benefit of their membership in the national organization.

There were a number of legal defeats along the way, but the Pustells and Brunelles refused to give up, or give in. They appealed every decision, and after seven long years reached the Supreme Judicial Court.

In December 1998 the court reversed the earlier decision of the lower courts, holding that home education proposals “can be made subject only to essential and reasonable requirements.” The court in the 7-0 unanimous decision does not regard home inspections as “essential.”

The ruling was historic and prevented similar abuse and totalitarian tactics throughout the country, according to Michael Farris, HSLDA chief counsel and home school parent of 10 children.

“This decision decisively nails the coffin lid shut on the practice of home visits, since the Lynn, Mass., school district was the only district in the nation to demand such intrusions. But it is even more remarkable for the Massachusetts high court’s clear understanding of home schooling and positive treatment of parental rights,” said Farris, who argued the case.

Farris said the attempt to force home inspections on home school families was unconstitutional for two reasons:

1) There is no law in Massachusetts authorizing home inspections by school officials.

2) Home visits violate a 1987 ruling that educational requirements placed on home school families must be “essential and reasonable.”

“The court assumed that parents will do the right thing for their children and that there is no need to invade homes to check on all parents just because an occasional parent might do the wrong thing,” said Farris in a statement at the time of the ruling.

The court made it clear in the historic decision that it is “the basic constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children.”

“Home education proposals can be made subject only to essential and reasonable requirements. The home visits sought to be imposed on the education proposals of the plaintiffs are not essential,” said the court.

According to the opinion, “While the State can insist that the children’s education be moved along in a way which can be objectively measured, it cannot apply institutional standards to this non-institutionalized setting. Furthermore, a requirement of home visits may call into play issues of family privacy in seeking to keep the home free of unwarranted intrusion.”

In a similar case that is currently underway, an unidentified HSLDA member in Fall River recently refused to accept a requirement for numerous face-to-face meetings with school officials to review their home school program.

The letter that approved the family’s plan for home schooling did so with the condition that the family attend regular meetings for a review of the student’s work. HSLDA has advised the school officials that the family does not wish to attend any of the meetings, but will respond appropriately to any written request, according to HSLDA attorney Scott A. Woodruff.

“There is no statute or judicial decision that gives blanket approval for a school system to demand a meeting. Unfortunately, meetings have sometimes been used to intimidate or harass home school parents. If the school system has a legitimate need for information, this can be obtained through appropriate written correspondence, thus avoiding the opportunity for the harassment or intimidation that can occur in a face-to-face meeting,” said Woodruff in a written statement.

Often the challenges faced by home schoolers take place because administrators and officials are unaware of the law and don’t want to admit their mistakes, according to HSLDA attorney Scott W. Somerville.

In October 1999 a home school family in Brighton was ordered to appear in juvenile court on charges that their child was “persistently and willfully failing to attend school.”

The family had a signed acceptance of their home school program and was shocked by the charges. HSLDA was able to get the case dismissed. The truant officer involved had failed to consider the possibility that the child was attending a home school.

The Massachusetts Court of Appeals ruled against an unidentified home school family in the October 1999 case of Care and Protection of Ivan. The HSLDA was not involved in the case, which the parents tried to argue without an attorney.

The parents took an idealistic view and refused to provide any information about their home school to their school district. The parents defended themselves based on the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which is part of the state constitution. They lost the case.

Their idealistic effort was criticized by the HSLDA in a statement issued in February 2000.

“Home School Legal Defense Association consistently tries to balance the maximum achievable liberty with real concern for the home school community as a whole. When families exercise their legal right to challenge the system, it is in the interest of every home schooler that they win. A loss for one hurts all of us,” said Somerville.

“With almost 70,000 families across America united to defend our rights to educate our own children in our own homes, the chance of losing a significant case is very low. When one individual challenges the system by himself, the chance of loss is great,” said Somerville.

Recently HSLDA attorney David Gordon took a typical call for help from a home schooler in Massachusetts.

A family was being victimized by a social services investigation of an allegation of spanking. The family wanted to know their rights and how to handle a request for an interview of their child.

“Massachusetts law is silent with respect to an interview of the child,” said Gordon in an article in Court Report, the HSLDA magazine for members.

“It says only that the investigation must include the observation of the child. If an interview is permitted, it should not extend beyond the boundaries of the allegation – namely discipline. Any questions about home education, parental supervision, medical treatment, (and so on), should not be allowed,” explained Gordon.

He also said that parents in Massachusetts do not have the right to be present with their child during questioning, but an attorney can attend.

Parents in Chelmsford were given further reason to consider home schooling their children when the public schools gave a presentation to children by “Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc.”

During this “group sexual experience,” a boy was told to lick a condom and a girl then placed it over his head and blew into it.

In Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer, Inc., the Massachusetts Court of Appeals held that the parent’s rights were not violated just because they were not told in advance of the event.

The court decision said the actions were not sufficiently “conscience shocking.”

Concerns over morality, or rather the lack of it, in public schools continues to prompt many parents to home school their children. The continuing scandal over Fistgate has been a significant motivation for parents to take their children out of public schools, according to Somerville.

Massachusetts has “misapplied the law” dealing with teacher qualifications, according to Chris Klicka, HSLDA senior counsel. He said school districts have used the vagueness of the law to impose a college degree or certification requirement on home school parents, which, if successful, would shut down over half of all home schools, he said in a report.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court put a stop to the certification issue when it said: “While we recognize that teachers in public schools must be certified, certification would not be appropriately required for parents under a home school proposal.... Nor must parents have college or advanced academic degrees.”

Despite significant evidence that home schoolers do not benefit from certification and high education qualification standards, the National Education Association continues to make demands for such requirements. Their vested interest in certified teachers may explain their blindness to the facts, according to a report by Klicka.

Another method used to intimidate home schoolers has been the attempt to prevent them from using school facilities, participating in school clubs, sports teams, and so on.

A number of court decisions have ruled that home schoolers must be able to participate based on the fact that superintendents are allowed to approve home schooled programs. The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association does allow home schoolers to participate on public school teams.

One of the most recent efforts to challenge home schoolers has been the tendency for school committees to require home schoolers to apply for approval.

West Bridgewater recently began sending to home schooling parents a document entitled “Application Form – Home Schooling Request.”

“The form further suggested that the school district has the power of approval over the home school program. In keeping with our conviction that the source of our rights is God, and not man, HSLDA advises families to file a notice of intent rather than ‘apply’ for or ‘request’ the government’s ‘approval,’” advised Woodruff in a notice sent to members.

Massachusetts is one of only four states that have an approval process before home school parents are granted permission to teach their own children, according to Somerville who spoke with Massachusetts News.

That process is vague and school administrators have often used it to find ways to make life difficult for home schoolers.

In the 1987 Supreme Judicial Court case of Care and Protection of Charles, the court upheld a law requiring the approval process. The ruling was detrimental to parents asserting their 14^th Amendment parental rights, and the court did not require the state to prove, with evidence, that the approval process is the least restrictive means as required by the compelling interest standard.