Bureaucracy Bans 6 yo from School

New Posts

G

golfmom

Former Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
7,188
Reaction score
30
Website
Visit site
Willow School booted a 6 yo over residency requirements. Although his mom, who lives in the district has primary residency for Sebastian, she's an RN and works a number of night shifts. His father lives in another suburb close by and is a firefighter. Since both work extended shifts, the boy often spends the night with his dad which the school district took exception too and kicked him out. The district the dad lives in won't enroll the boy since it's not the child's primary address. So, he's been school less since removed in Dec.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich has now intervened and is paying for the child to go to school until a decision is made by a judge.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-school_flap_08feb08,0,1044140.story

First-grader Sebastian Fortson gets to stay in school -- at least until his case is back in court later this month.

Sebastian, a student at Willow School in Homewood, was granted a reprieve Thursday as Cook County Circuit Judge Mary Rochford ordered that the youngster be allowed to attend class while his residency case is pending.
.......
"The judge is making a decision just to hold things in place before she even looks at the facts," said John Izzo, a lawyer for the district.

"It is gratifying to know that the family will owe the back tuition if the district ultimately prevails," he added
 
Our property taxes include taxes that goes to the school district. If that's the same case with this boy, and his mom pays taxes then he should be able to go to school where she lives regardless of where he "lays his head" down at night.

Honestly, aren't there more pressing issues in life? This is so disruptive for the child. :mad:
 
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Don't we want to ENCOURAGE children to go to school?
 
What if ... the father wasn't in the picture and the mom had to hire someone to watch her child nights who didn't live in the district? Would that mean that the little boy would have to go to school in the babysitter's school district? :waitasec:

It's so outrageous that this school has now spent more money on trying to remove this child than what it would have cost for him to remain. And it's beyond ridiculous that they are penalizing this family because the parents both work non-traditional work hours.
 
Taximom said:
Our property taxes include taxes that goes to the school district. If that's the same case with this boy, and his mom pays taxes then he should be able to go to school where she lives regardless of where he "lays his head" down at night.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The adults of this school system...did they spend too much time watching MTV and smoking those funny cigarettes?
 
I had to laugh at this one, I went to the district website and their motto is:


"All children will learn & all children will be served."
 
That's a good point, golfmom. I had a friend who worked nights and had her child in a nighttime child care place. I don't remember if it was in the same city, but that would have been ridiculous for a school to look at it that way!

I get so aggravated with all these people we elect wasting their time on this crap!!
 
Masterj said:
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Don't we want to ENCOURAGE children to go to school?
Click to expand...


No kidding. And don't we want to encourage parents who are no longer married to both spend time with their children? This poor kid is being penalized because his parents are divorced and he spends equal time with both AND has a loving grandparent he spends time with too. The court order granting mom primary residency should be enough.

What a shame this school district is discriminating against single parents.
 
Cubby said:
No kidding. And don't we want to encourage parents who are no longer married to both spend time with their children? This poor kid is being penalized because his parents are divorced and he spends equal time with both AND has a loving grandparent he spends time with too. The court order granting mom primary residency should be enough.

What a shame this school district is discriminating against single parents.
Click to expand...

:clap:
And why is the school inserting themselves into the family's life to begin with? This is beyond absurd.

Well, my kids would love to live in this school district. Since the ex and I agreed on 50/50, they go to school in his district even though they spend about half the time here. Our agreement. Not just different districts. . different counties even. From my doorstep to the high school is one hour.

My kids would be jumping around like fools at a ruling like this. They are lucky enough to have both of their parents in their lives, As nasty as custody cases can be, why penalize those that are truly working together, really penalizing the kid in the process?! Silly.
 
Here's the actual law that they're running afoul of:

II. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED PARENTS

In cases of divorced or separated parents, when only one parent has legal guardianship or custody, the district in which the parent having legal guardianship or custody resides is the resident district. When both parents retain legal guardianship or custody, the resident district is the district in which either parent who provides the student's primary regular fixed night-time abode resides; provided, that the election of resident district may be made only one time per school year.

I think the mistake the school district made is that in this particular situation, since both parents work non-traditional hours, there is no primary regular fixed night-time abode.
 
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.
 
In Texas I was a child care provider and some of my kids were school aged. They were sent to the same school my kids went to even though it was not in their district based on where they lived. We never had any problems we just had to fill out a certain form saying that I was their care giver and this is the district that I lived in...
 
This school district acts like this is the first and only child of divorced parents they have ever had in their district and the district was caught with no contingency plan regarding this. And now they need a court case to enable them to fight updating their archaic system. This is absurd. This is 2008! :mad:
 
Mygirlsadie said:
In Texas I was a child care provider and some of my kids were school aged. They were sent to the same school my kids went to even though it was not in their district based on where they lived. We never had any problems we just had to fill out a certain form saying that I was their care giver and this is the district that I lived in...
Click to expand...
Oh wow. This would never fly here.
 
Meanwhile millions of children of illegal aliens attend our schools everyday. Brilliant.
 
Sally said:
Meanwhile millions of children of illegal aliens attend our schools everyday. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

That's actually a very good point. We don't penalize children based on their immigration status, but somehow it's o.k. to penalize this poor 6 year old because his divorced parents get along and work non-traditional hours.
 
golfmom said:
Here's the actual law that they're running afoul of:

II. DIVORCED OR SEPARATED PARENTS

In cases of divorced or separated parents, when only one parent has legal guardianship or custody, the district in which the parent having legal guardianship or custody resides is the resident district. When both parents retain legal guardianship or custody, the resident district is the district in which either parent who provides the student's primary regular fixed night-time abode resides; provided, that the election of resident district may be made only one time per school year.

I think the mistake the school district made is that in this particular situation, since both parents work non-traditional hours, there is no primary regular fixed night-time abode.
Click to expand...


Thanks Taximom. This is goofy, because the courts genuinely grant one parent "primary residency" regardless of how parents split time. IMO, if the courts have legally given the mother primary residency they have no business interferring regardless of where the child sleeps.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 73 more.
Total: 3,820 (members: 74, guests: 3,746)

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
3,746
Total visitors
3,820
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,919
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top