A Homeschooler's Perspective by John Paul Casiello

When my mother asked me to write 500 words for a new MHLA blog, I thought it sounded like the easiest writing assignment I’d ever been handed. After all, back when I had my own blog I would often spout over a thousand words about whatever was on my mind that week. A glance at the date reveals it is three weeks past the original due date for this informal article, and I’m just getting started. The problem, of course, was my familiar English class arch-nemesis, rising like a vampire resurrected by blood dripping from the scratch our cat gave me the other day: Picking A Topic. I almost opted to go with the “smart-aleck SAT essay topic” - writing an essay about how I had a hard time finding a topic about which to write the essay - but eventually decided that this was too much of a cop-out and that now that I’m not being graded or judged in any concrete way on this writing assignment, I actually care about it having some genuine substance at the very least (but not, however, about whether or not it contains run-on sentences).

As I searched my memory for ideas, it dawned on me that I still think of myself as a homeschooler. In this context that sounds about as surprising as an announcement that I consider myself to be a human being, but I realized that (unlike the latter; don’t get excited) the former opinion is not supported by fact. If I ignore college and kindergarten, I still spent an equal number of years in public school and homeschool, and my HS diploma is from a public school I physically attended. Having 50% human DNA would make me a honey bee or similar, so why does 50% homeschooling control my perception of my own academic background?
Simple answers jump immediately to mind, things that any outside observer would have noted. I enjoyed homeschool more, learned more, got to spend more time outside, learned at my own pace and in more interesting ways, didn’t have to deal with authoritarian public school discipline, and had sufficient time to eat my lunch (I’m a slow eater). Obvious reasons, each of them completely true, and all together not nearly enough to explain the depth of my identity as a homeschooler. They are a decent empirical explanation of why I might prefer homeschooling, and the years of attendance are not a factor because none of those points require much time out of school to become solid opinions, but after some self-examination it’s clear to me that they are not the whole picture.

Time out. I just looked back over what I’ve written so far, and it looks frighteningly like passable academic essay form. I see an intro, topic sentence, development of the idea, paragraph transitions linked by the closing and opening sentences… holy cow, I didn’t even realize I was doing it! Hey Mom, check it out - I actually learned how to write an essay! I could graduate from high school now! OK, I’m done. I’m getting to the point, I promise. Time in.
My mother ingrained in us a philosophy of education, an awareness that diplomas and degrees and grades and completing a textbook can be encouraging milestones, but not true goals in themselves. Education is simply a tool to allow us to do whatever it is we want to do after the education is complete; it should not envelop us and be the path and destination itself. Every step, every choice of what to study next, should be made to aim more directly at your life goals, which will certainly change along the way and require adjustments to how your education progresses. Maybe that sounds obvious or natural, but I think many people don’t see schooling this way. People finish high school because it seems necessary in our society, or go to an expensive private school so they can get into Harvard, so they can say they graduated from Harvard. Any homeschooler has by definition decided that the standard educational sequence does not satisfy their own plan; I believe most homeschoolers share this mindset towards learning. It is one attribute that defines us as a group, and it is the primary factor in my own strongly-perceived identity as a member of homeschooling society.

That might be anticlimactic, or perhaps an abrupt way to finish, but two things just occurred to me. One is that my mother needs this today, so I’d better wrap it up (it’s 10:00 pm); and the other is that my old essay heuristic of “one page single-spaced is about 500 words” is apparently a gross underestimate.

A final note before I let you go (assuming you got this far). My blog writing tends to be more energetic rants, arguments, or stories about things that are making me angry, rather than this ambling semi-academic discourse. So if I end up writing for this site again, I may sound different. Don’t be fooled, it’s still me.

Charles at Twenty;Casiellos at Fifteen

I remember being really nervous at first. There were sleepless nights, three AM checks to make sure I was really doing this well, and countless hours where I doubted my decisions. I can’t quite recall when I finally realized that officially homeschooling was not different from what I had been doing with my sons since birth; watching and facilitating their growth as human beings. Thanks to the homeschoolers before me who lived through Charles and other court decisions I was quite legally able to make the decision to homescool.

It was quite a leap within my family to do this homeschooling thing. I was breaking new ground, but then that wasn’t surprising to my siblings. Most of them considered it just another nutty thing that Joanne was doing like being a vegetarian, a pacifist, and wearing organic fabrics. I had my babies using natural child birth, nursed them much longer than their cousins had been nursed, and finally realized that homeschooling was a natural extension of our relationship and that going to school was the odd thing to do to a child.
Still, it took me until my oldest was in fourth grade to have the courage to make the decision to take them all out of school.

It was my sons who opened my eyes to the odd, contorted way a school child spends his day. We had gone to return textbooks we had borrowed from their old school. The kids were at recess and my sons ran to the cyclone fence surrounding the play area to say hi to their cousins. I immediately felt guilty that I had removed them from this common experience of playtime with their peers. I asked my sons if they missed being in school. They turned to me in surprise. My oldest told me to look more closely. The kids weren’t playing. They were racing around the enclosure like small animals released from close confinement, snatching off other kids’ hats and tossing them in the air. My youngest was sorry that he couldn’t hug his cousins but could only touch their fingers through the fence. My second son said watching the kids at recess made him feel sad, like when we were at the primate cage at the zoo and a crowd was yelling at the gorilla to get him to react. We went home where my sons could spend their days on the outside of the cages.

I have been privileged to watch my sons become men and have never regretted the decision to homeschool them. In my head I carry video shorts of our lives together in this adventure.

I see my youngest stamp his four year old foot because he wanted to be Peter Pan, and not a lost boy in his brothers’ play in our living room. Jump several years and he is the villain on a real stage, wearing a fake mustache in the play his brother wrote, directed, and got a grant to produce. One short jump and he is wearing another mustache (although able to grow his own) and appearing as the butler in a movie produced by homeschoolers, showing at a local theatre.

When my son calls from his internship in plastic materials research and development to tell me how he saved their current project results by jumping in with a pen top when the extruder started to act funny, I remember a small boy with dimpled cheeks and childish hands climbing onto the window sill to hang a science experiment he had designed mid-window; a bean plant growing in a yogurt cup, soil surface covered so he could hang it upside down to see if plants grow up because of gravity or light exposure.

The boy who hated to see the primates sitting in sad loneliness at the zoo calls to share his delight in getting the monkeys at UMASS Lab to accept human touch, solve puzzles for treats, and figure out how to watch him around the corner with mirrors.

I hang my oldest son’s favorite Christmas Ornament- a small boy writing a letter to Santa on his computer. I chuckle as I remember when I couldn’t find the curser on my computer because my four year old had decided to go into preferences and made it invisible. And I smile knowing the small boy grew into the man who was able to take his love of computer language into a career as a software engineer.

It has been fifteen years since we began homeschooling. It changed in the eyes of my family from a weird thing Joanne is doing to a highly successful thing that Joanne did. One son is still a vegetarian who eats organic food, though his brothers currently consider white, store-bought bread to be the epitome of gustatory delight. They all grew up slightly different from the majority of their schooled peers. They were the competitive athletes who also read books; the musicians and artists who loved computer programs and football; and the captains of their teams who loved spending time with their family. I still sometimes have sleepless nights when I doubt my own decisions but more often I fall into blissful sleep satisfied with the adventure.

Charles At Twenty (The Rest of the Story)

March 2, 2007 marked the 20th anniversary of arguably the most important decision for homeschoolers in the history of Massachusetts. Formally known as “The Care And Protection of Charles”, this case set the standard for thousands of homeschoolers as it offered guidance as to the items that a district may request (an educational plan, info about parent’s qualifications, a review of texts, and info on academic progress).

At such a significant milestone, I thought it would be fitting to attempt to locate some of the principals in the case and try to uncover any insights from two decades ago.

Unfortunately, within days of the anniversary, Supreme Court Justice Edward Hennessey who, in essence, established these guidelines passed away on March 10.

However, I was more fortunate in locating Paul Dillon, the counsel retained by the parents of “Charles”. Paul is currently an estate attorney practicing in Maine. I left him a brief message which obviously piqued his interest as he quickly returned my call. His first observation was that he could not believe twenty years had elapsed since that decision. Optimistically, I was hoping that Paul could shed some light on “Charles” himself as he would now be around 30 years old and perhaps could give me a lead to speak with him. But Paul related that he had not been in touch with the family since about a year after the case and, at their request, had not been in contact since.

Before proceeding, perhaps it is appropriate to provide some background material by revisiting the landscape of the mid-eighties. The seminal report Nation At Risk had been released several years earlier in 1983 which had lambasted the state of public education in America. The homeschooling “resurgence” was still in its infancy. While estimating the number of homeschoolers has always been problematic, it would not be unreasonable based on various articles to place the national total around 20 thousand in 1983. Likewise, by the time of the Charles decision, 200 thousand could be estimated. Regardless of the exact numbers, it was obvious that the trend was explosive growth during this time.

Meanwhile, national and local organizations were being established to support families in this educational choice. (HSLDA was formed in 1983, MHLA was established in 1987).
On the other hand, school districts (often under the political pressure of “educational reform” generated by the fallout from Nation At Risk) were responding to the increase in homeschoolers by arbitrarily imposing their own “requirements”. Until this time, the Perchemlides decision in 1977 was the only precedent. Although Perchemlides clearly recognized the parental right to homeschool, it also acknowledged an “approval” process. Traditional-minded superintendents were at times pushing the limits of this process. A court case was inevitable. And in 1986-87 the “Charles” case evolved.

Paul Dillon recalls that as a young attorney just out of law school at Oral Roberts in Tulsa (where he had met Chris Klicka, currently Senior Counsel for HSLDA) he had attended several HSLDA meetings regarding homeschooling in the mid-eighties. And, being a resident of Massachusetts, when the Charles case came along he was engaged to be the counsel.

Peter Capernaros was the Canton school superintendent. When the Canton school committee directed him to request the family sign a “Memorandum of Agreement” including teaching competency, hours spent, and monitoring/testing procedures, and when the family refused, the “Care and Protection” proceedings commenced.

Paul Dillon remembers bantering with the judge at the District Court level, providing the traditional homeschooling fodder and background. Abraham Lincoln was homeschooled recalls Paul. The judge retorted “Yes” but he was shot. Paul, unable to hold his tongue, responded “But we don’t know if Booth was homeschooled or publicly educated”.

Whether this was relevant or not, the case was lost, appealed, and quickly elevated to the Supreme Court.

Paul remembers being quite nervous and up all night before the court date. Taking the train into Boston with Charles’ dad he fell asleep. He thought his client must have been wondering what’s with this guy representing me.

But Paul had been working diligently in conjunction with HSLDA. Significantly, they did NOT see this as a “religious freedom” case. Paul termed it a “permissions” issue. The family of Charles did not believe that they, as parents, needed to ask “permission” to educate their children. Ironically, today Massachusetts is still one of two remaining “approval” states that essentially requires “permission” to homeschool.

Paul was also aiming to get an SJC ruling that would resolve the Charles situation WITHOUT getting any guidelines that could possibly affect future homeschoolers adversely.

He got neither. While Judge Hennessey vacated the lower court ruling against the parents on the “Care and Protection” decision, he remanded the case back to the lower court for resolution.

And, in addition, Hennessey laid the groundwork for the four items that a district can request by making recommendations on the issues outlined in the Canton “Memorandum of Agreement”.

The final resolution, as conveyed by Paul, was both fascinating and anti-climatic. Back at the district court and armed with the SJC directive, both sides were set to start over again. But with more than a full case load, the DA was anxious for a resolution. Paul dutifully explained the “permission” issue. The mother of “Charles”, who would be the primary instructor, had completed her high school equivalency in the interim that actually fulfilled one of the original elements in the “Memorandum of Agreement”.

When Paul added that the family was willing to provide the data on the materials being used, a solution seemed at least possible.

The DA then brought up the issue of court costs. Apparently, the town of Canton had been concerned that, should they lose the case, the family of “Charles” would be seeking reimbursement of their court fees. Paul assured the DA that this was not their intention at all.

At this point, it was clear that neither party wanted to go back into court. The “Care and Protection” order had been vacated. And the remand from the SJC had essentially told the parties to work it out themselves. The DA realized that the only remaining point of contention revolved around “permission”.

This was a critical issue to the family. Under their strong religious beliefs, the parents had the ultimate authority in educating their children. They would not render this to Caesar.

Yet, Perchemlides had established (and the SJC in its guidelines for Charles had reiterated) that district “approval” was required in Massachusetts under the Compulsory Attendance statute.

Paul Dillon’s account of the final resolution is as follows. The DA asked Canton if they had everything they needed. Since the literal “approval” had never been a prime concern for them, the court costs issue had been clarified, and the “Memorandum of Agreement” issues had been met to their satisfaction, the town agreed they had what they needed. The DA then asked Paul “Are we done here?” The case was resolved. Per the SJC directive. Both sides essentially agreed to disagree about the “permission”. And walked away.

To this day, the “approval” process is handled in many various ways throughout the Commonwealth. The “permission” term is rarely used.

Subsequently, I had a chance to talk with Chris Klicka, the Senior Counsel for HSLDA who had consulted with Paul Dillon throughout the process. He, too, was surprised that 20 years had passed and fondly recollected the “Charles” case.

Chris recalled that the 80’s were tough for homeschooling as superintendents were imposing their own rules and regulations unabated. Most districts centered on teacher qualifications and competency. He vividly remembered that the parents of “Charles” were not college graduates. And some districts required teacher certificates, college degrees etc. Truancy issues were coming to the fore. And the DSS involvement was starting to emerge.

Chris noted that following Charles, they actually thought that they had “won”. He now realizes that it was to be an ongoing struggle. Ironically, Chris had just completed writing a book about the 80’s and 90’s. He is the author of “Homeschool Heroes: The Struggle And Triumph of Homeschooling in America”.

Paul and Chris had not been in touch for years. I gave Chris the phone number I had for Paul and hopefully they have caught up on the many past memories.

I also had an opportunity to have a brief discussion with Ed Lenox who was the counsel for the School Committee of Canton. It was the School Committee that had directed the superintendent to send out the “Memorandum of Agreement”.

Ed was extremely gracious in offering his recollections. And also somewhat taken aback that 20 years had passed. He continues to represent municipalities and school systems.
It was clear from our conversation and interest that Ed expressed in homeschooling endeavors that education in whatever manner works best for the individual student was a strong priority for him.

Ed’s first comment was that there was never any animosity between the parties involved. Both sides, though philosophically opposed, handled the situation professionally and in a civil manner.

Ed confirmed that Canton never had any official guidelines. Their goal was a “Memo of Agreement”. But, although Paul Dillon did not believe it was a “freedom of religion” case, Ed recalls that the arguments were often framed in religious terms.

There are still a number of participants in this case that would be interesting to contact. But I was fascinated by some of the details that have been lost in the translation over the years. My appreciation goes out to those who spent the time to share their recollections and memories. And to “Charles” himself, who we can deduce will probably turn 30 year of age this year.

…Bill Heuer

Pat Farenga on Charles at Twenty

I remember this case well because it was the first local, high-profile homeschooling court case that I worked on without the advice of my friend and mentor, John Holt. John died in 1984 and, while there were skirmishes with local education officials who didn't want to allow parents to homeschool, no homeschooling case really claimed the attention of the MA court system with such intensity until Charles came up in 1987.

Until this decision, the reporting and testing requirements for homeschoolers were loosely defined by the Perchemlides decision, which Nicky writes about. Despite, or because of, the broad descriptions of what schools could and could not require from homeschooling families in Perchemlides, homeschooling grew in MA. The Charles decision was particularly distressing to me, and to many of those I consulted with at the time, because of the opportunity it provided the schools to gain more control over families who choose to learn outside of conventional schooling. The legal strategies of the MA lawyers I worked with up until then was to keep homeschoolers out of court as much as possible and to mediate homeschooling conflicts at the school level in order to prevent a negative court-level decision against one family from affecting all homeschoolers on the state-wide level. Since MA is the first state in the nation to create compulsory school laws and it takes enormous pride in its history of higher education and progressive education, it really seemed like a fluke to me to have the Perchemlides decision come down in favor of a family's right to homeschool without too many legal and educational hoops to jump through. Therefore, I didn't want to see the courts revisit that decision.

Charles provided the schools with the opportunity to tighten up Perchemlides, which it did. While the decision wasn't a slam-dunk for the schools (homeschooling is re-affirmed as a parental right in this decision), it wasn't a clear victory for homeschoolers, either. Charles affirmed the rights of school officials to regulate homeschooling, detailed some evaluation procedures (which continue to be an issue for us in MA!), and marked an increase of the process of using the courts and the threat of legal action to regulate and control homeschooling in MA.

Indeed, as the Charles case gained media attention, much of the coverage was about how loosely-regulated homeschooling in MA was and how important it was to make sure homeschoolers were "getting properly educated." The father/defendant in the Charles case and his lawyer came to my office at Holt Associates to be interviewed on local television about this case. I remember thinking then how fascinating it was that teaching one's children, something done since the beginning of time, could merit television coverage! I also remember thinking how this event marked a line in MA law for homeschooling's fight to be seen not as "school at home, done under the supervision of professional educators," but for homeschooling to be seen as a time-honored way for families to live and learn in society. Over the years, this line is being more strongly drawn with each state MCAS and federal education requirement, with more and more school attendance days being required to turn our children into good citizens. To me, though Charles marks a tightening of homeschooling regulation in MA, it also affirms a family's right to homeschool, which is no small thing in these times of educational conformity. I hope the anniversary of Charles reminds us why we can and should pursue different learning opportunities for ourselves and our children, and why we should be careful about asking the courts to settle our differences with local schools.

Charles at Twenty - Reflections

Charles is now twenty! The Charles case was decided exactly twenty years ago this past March. (Care and Protection of Charles)

In honor of this anniversary, MHLA is adding a new document to its website: a copy of the amicus curiae (friend of the court) submitted in the Charles case by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. This brief is referenced in the Court’s decision with these words:

Austin Broadhurst, Wendell Robert Carr, and, Laura M. Teopaco, Boston, for Massachusetts Ass'n of School Committees, Inc., amicus curiae, submitted a brief.

Since the case was a “care and protection” case, all the materials, including the amicus brief, were impounded. A while ago, I petitioned the Court and was granted permission to see the amicus document and to publish it, with names and any revealing information redacted. The redacted document, Brief of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, Inc.
As Amicus Curiae is now available on the MHLA website.

There is much of interest in this brief, but to me perhaps the most interesting point is the one that deals with whether or not “otherwise educated” students should be evaluated by the same standards with which private schools are evaluated.

The compulsory attendance statute says that school “attendance shall not be required of a child who is being otherwise instructed in a manner approved in advance by the superintendent or the school committee.”

The Charles decision, in its section on guidance to school committees, suggests that

In obtaining the superintendent's or the school committee's approval, the parents bear the responsibility of demonstrating that the home school proposal meets the requirements of G.L. c. 76, Sec. 1, in that the instruction will equal "in thoroughness and efficiency, and in the progress made therein, that in the public schools in the same town...."

That language of “equal in thoroughness and efficiency,” however, does not manifestly apply to those "otherwise educated." In a Superior Court decision, a nine years prior to the Charles decision, Perchemlides v. Frizzle, the judge determined that the private school standard may not actually apply to home education. From the decision:

The school committee members and superintendent have stated that "in evaluating plaintiffs' proposed plan, defendants applied the same standards used in approving any other form of alternative education. Such plan had to be equal in thoroughness and efficiency and in the progress made as that of the public schools... That is the s t a t u t o r y standard used in evaluating private school programs. Nothing in the statute makes this standard directly applicable to the "otherwise instructed" language in which the Supreme Judicial Court, in the Roberts case, found a right to home education. Indeed, the way the statute is written indicates that applying criteria used to evaluate private schools may not be appropriate to a home education request. The statute very carefully delineates the type of schools that form a permissible alternative to public day schools and then reserves alternate education as a separate, distinct classification in this language: ". . .or of a child who is being otherwise instructed in a manner approved in advance by the superintendent or the school committee.

The judge who issued this decision, John Greaney, later became a Justice on the Supreme Judicial Court. Justice, Greaney wrote the decision in the Brunelle case. Many of his words from the Perchemlides decision are echoed in the Brunelle decision. But, the words about the possible inappropriateness of “applying criteria used to evaluate private schools” were not echoed. At the time of the Brunelle decision, the practice of using the private school standard for home education was already well established by the dicta in the Charles decision.

Now that we can read the brief of the Association of School Committees, we see that the Association aimed to convince the Court that the private school standard should be used for homeschoolers. From the brief:

Indeed, if, as suggested above, the alternative instruction clause is interpreted in accordance with the principles of statutory construction enunciated by the Supreme Judicial Court, educational programs for children not attending public or an approved non-public school will be approved by the standards set forth in G.L. c.76, §1 for the approval of non-public school and on the basis of other provisions of the General Laws prescribing subjects required to be taught in the public schools.

Clearly, the Supreme Judicial Court reached the same conclusion, because, in the Charles decision, the SJC advised that “otherwise educated” students should be evaluated by the same standard that the Commonwealth’s compulsory attendance statute prescribes for the evaluation of private schools.

Nicky Hardenbergh