“If anyone wants to come into my bedroom … it’s not going to happen. I’m
not going to let the government in my bedroom — period.”
Is this the latest salvo fired in the Clinton-Starr investigative war? Not
at all.
The above statement was made by Michael Farris, president of the Home
School Legal Defense Association. You see, Farris’ 13 children are home schooled by their mother in Mom and Dad’s bedroom.
If authorities in Lynn, Massachusetts have their way, public school representatives will be able to enter residences of home-schooling families to observe their educational practices. Farris is currently representing two
families in a civil suit against Lynn, seeking the elimination of a rule
that requires home-schooling parents to allow visitation by public school
officials. If Lynn wins the suit, Farris says that other school districts
will be emboldened to order home visits also.
HSLDA, which provides legal representation and advice for its thousands of
members nationwide, has established through litigation that home schooling
families do not have to be subjected to visits by officials who want to make sure that children are being educated. These unwritten rules have been
instituted based on several court victories by HSLDA protecting individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless searches.
That hasn’t stopped the Lynn Public School District from establishing their
own standard. The coastal city northeast of Boston has written the requirement into their formal home school regulations. According to Farris,
Lynn is the only school district in the United States to require periodic
visits to monitor home schooling families.
Farris is now awaiting a decision, on behalf of the families of Michael
Brunelle and Stephen Pustell, from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The case is an appeal of a lower court ruling which found
that home visits “are a reasonable regulation to further the compelling interest of education” and that they “do not infringe the plaintiffs’ freedom of religion and they do not constitute illegal searches.”
Michael and Virginia Brunelle have five children and moved to Lynn in 1993.
Virginia is certified to teach elementary education and Michael has a Master of Arts degree in Christian Education. Stephen Pustell is certified
in secondary education in Massachusetts, and his wife Lois is certified in
elementary education. They have three children.
The Brunelles and Pustells agreed to all school district requirements for
home schoolers, including providing standardized test achievement results.
Likewise, the school district is satisfied with the parents’ qualifications, curriculum, and evaluation proposals. The only subject of
disagreement between the two parties is over the issue of home visits.
The school district requires that home-schooling parents consent to two
visits per year by the school superintendent or principal. Parents would
receive at least seven days’ notice prior to a visit. The purpose for the
visits would be to “observe and evaluate the instructional process and to
verify that the home instruction plan is being implemented as authorized by
the (School) Committee.”
“We don’t believe local school districts should have any decision-making
(power) over home schools,” says Farris. He believes that home schoolers
should have freedom in their educational practices.
“Local school districts are not neutral and detached. They are our competitors — or, we are their competitors,” he adds.
Home schooling is growing rapidly across the country, drawing students away from public schools. Public school systems usually receive money based on student enrollment.
The Pustells filed a lawsuit against Lynn Public Schools in 1992 claiming
that nonconsensual home visits violated their constitutional rights. In that suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court and later went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court decided to allow Massachusetts state courts to decide whether or not home visits were authorized by state law.
The Lynn School District prosecuted the Brunelles in September 1994 for
their failure to comply with the compulsory school attendance law. Both parties agreed to suspend that criminal case until the civil case regarding
home visits was resolved by the Massachusetts state courts. Lynn enforces
the home visitation requirement under cover of the compulsory attendance
law.
In his brief for the court, Farris argued that home visits, which they call
searches, are standardless and unauthorized. They said that administrative
searches must be authorized by a statute which sets objective standards and
limitations upon the search. No such statute exists in Massachusetts, therefore rendering the request for home visits invalid.
He says that the Lynn visitation requirement simply amounts to a warrantless search.
“‘Y’all come over and be my guest’ — that is a visit,” says Farris in his
best Southern twang. “When government wants to come and inspect things — that’s a search.”
Farris also cited a prior Massachusetts court ruling in another civil case,
in which the state judicial court stated that “the U.S. Supreme Court has
made it clear that the liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extend to activities involving child rearing and education.”
Farris further claimed that “no other school district finds home visits
essential to protect its interest in the education of its citizens. None of
the relevant statutes for any of the 50 states (including Massachusetts)
contains a home visit requirement for home schoolers.”
Dr. Lewis Perullo, the Assistant Superintendent of Lynn Public Schools,
testified in defense that “we are not just dealing with the Pustells and
the Brunelles, but we’re dealing with all kinds of people … who can write a
plan and do nothing with it. The state has got an interest … in making sure
that that cannot happen … we don’t educate our kids just for the students;
we do it for society and that’s the whole point of why we’ve got a compelling interest in this issue … and why I implement this policy.”
“(The visits) are all really low key and laid back and relatively informal
because we don’t want to cause a problem,” added Perullo.
Farris contends that those concerns are alleviated by providing standardized test results. Further, he is concerned about the danger of such visits because they are subjective. The very fact that they are “low
key and laid back” means decisions could be made based solely on the opinions of the observer.
The lower Massachusetts (Superior) Court ruled that visits are reasonable
because they insure that actual education is ongoing, and perhaps may be
helpful to parents. “Such inspections do not attempt to interfere with the
method by which the subjects are taught and do not attempt to place restrictions upon the instructional process,” the court decided in its summary judgment.
However, the Brunelles and Pustells aren’t pressing the case solely based
on educational interference, but on their constitutional rights. Stephen
Pustell believes that how he educates his children is an inherent part of
his civil liberties as an American.
“They don’t have any right to tell us what to do. That’s the whole point of
home schooling.”
