Bureaucracy Bans 6 yo from School

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I agree...there must be more to the story. Sounds like it's special education being he's only 6. Districts will do just about anything to avoid the additional costs of sp ed!!
I think the point of the law was to keep people from taking advantage of the fact that they can conceivably have 2 home schools, which is unfair to the rest of us. This will come into play later when you have older children that are in sports and what not ,where residency and eligibility are critical factors.

Here, they would just apply for a hardship and that would pretty much be it.

What is interesting to me is the fact that they even monitored this boys whereabouts. They do it here only in the case of student athletes that are trying to skirt the rules and go to non-home schools that are superior in their sport.
ETA: I just wonder if there is more to the story which is why the school is taking such a hardline stance.
 
I think I understood the article correctly, which is saying that neither school district wants the child enrolled and the true home school is trying to extort tuition from the mom because she works nights and the boy stays at his dad's. I hope they fight this til the bitter end and that the boy gets to attend school in the meantime so that he won't be damaged by all this stupidity.
that is pretty much how i read it. the first school district says the boy must sleep in mom's house more than he currently does and base it on where he spends the night so he was removed. the second district where dad lives says it is based on who has primary custody so he can not attend school in his fathers district.
 
Well, a quick fix to the problem would be either for the mother to
1. leave her son alone nights,
2. hire someone to come in,
3. let the father spend the nights at her house.

But obviously, I don't think that will fix the real problem, which is the school district.
 
And if the boy stays out of school, the parents could be charged for truancy.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I am willing to bet a dozen donuts that this child has something going on (special needs, anyone?) that neither school wants to pay for.

ETA:

I just watched the above link and I am rescinding my bet. This kid looks so normal and charming. BUT, the quote below rang a bell. That's how this all got started.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-school-flap_02feb01,0,7390619.story?page=2

Administrators became suspicious in October when Sebastian "told someone at his school that he really doesn't live in town, he just comes here for school," according to a district hearing officer's report.

"Shockingly, the offhand comment from a 6-year-old boy was enough to trigger an investigation," said Jennifer Hansen, the Fortsons' attorney.

Conflicts over residency are not uncommon, but what makes this case unusual is the length of time the child has been out of class, said Matthew Vanover, a spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Education.

At a district hearing in November, John Carney, Homewood's residency officer, testified the house was first watched on Oct. 31, from 6 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., with no sign of Sebastian, yet the youngster was in school that day.

Surveillance over the next three school days by a retired police officer who works for the district yielded similar results, according to the report.
 
And if the boy stays out of school, the parents could be charged for truancy.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I am willing to bet a dozen donuts that this child has something going on (special needs, anyone?) that neither school wants to pay for.

Did you check out the video of him? He looks absolutely adorable. From what I understand Homewood is very strict about residency requirements and removes a number of students each year. I certainly understand a school district not wanting to shoulder the cost of educating a student that is not a resident, but in this case, I think they made a big mistake.
 
Surveillance over the next three school days by a retired police officer who works for the district yielded similar results, according to the report.[/COLOR]

Yep, but the mom brought in proof that two of her co-workers were on leave requiring her to work additional shifts during the time that she was under surveillance.
 
The bottom line is that every child in this country is entitled to a free appropriate education... So the school is violating the law...
These parents can look forward to the county paying for their sons college.
 
The bottom line is that every child in this country is entitled to a free appropriate education... So the school is violating the law...
These parents can look forward to the county paying for their sons college.


AMEN! and lmao on the county paying anyones college tuition.
 
Yep, but the mom brought in proof that two of her co-workers were on leave requiring her to work additional shifts during the time that she was under surveillance.

Oh, I totally believe them after watching that little boy. But until I read that the investigation was triggered by a comment by a 6yo I was almost thinking that someone didn't like her and "turned her in". I just couldn't understand how it got started.

But when you see that the comment plus a lot of absences added up to an investigation plus Mom's fluky schedule those days, you can see how they might have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Now that they understand the situation, though, they need to admit it and get that boy back in school!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
249
Total visitors
412

Forum statistics

Threads
609,304
Messages
18,252,430
Members
234,608
Latest member
Gold70
Back
Top