I just hate the public school

[Carol in Cal.]

FWIW, I'm SO not a school person at heart.

 

But when DD went to school, I did my best to embrace it.  I decided in advance that my kneejerk reaction was always going to be 'yes'.  (This does not come particularly naturally to me.)  Honestly, it paid off.  She had a far better experience there because I was active, supportive, and positive.  And actually, so did I, not that that was really important.  Food for thought.

[OneStepAtATime]

Wow. Poor kids. Did they get to the other school on time? Typically all busses I know get there within 15 minutes of starting time. It would be 30 minutes at least to get to the next closest school.

There were some issues with being late on occasion but I don't know how often. There were issues with not enough buses district wide though so sometimes High Schoolers might not get home until 5 or 6 since the buses had to take the elementary and middle school kids home first. It was rather a mess. As I understand it recent rezoning has addressed some of the issues.

[OneStepAtATime]

Or, at least, for the sake of the child in question, fake a sweeter attitude even if you don't really feel it.

Agreed. Hard as it may be, I have found being consistently very pleasant (even when I had to be very firm) netted better results than when I made it clear in action/tone/words that I was really ticked off/crabby/frustrated beyond belief. Sour attitude made them defensive. Pleasant but firm got them working with me.

 

No idea how you presented yourself OP so I'm not implying you were conveying a crabby attitude I'm just saying in my own dealings with schools most people really did want to help even if some of their help wasn't terribly helpful. When I was really pleasant and worked hard at maintaining a positive relationship I got more done.

 

Hoping that whatever happens for this next school year that it works out positively for your child and for you. Best wishes.

[Janeway]

Regardless of the school's reasons, if you're going to enroll your child you're going to have to let go of your rage at the school and the principal and try to find some common ground. Your son is going to know if you hate his school before he even starts going, and it's going to make it hard for him to have a good experience.

 

Whatever happened with the school before, let it go and give them a second chance once you get this sorted out and get your son enrolled. Do your best to think of them as an ally rather than the enemy.

THEY are not the ones letting it go. There is no just ignore this. This principal pushed it so far last time that I had to file legal complaints at the federal level.

[Janeway]

Agreed. Hard as it may be, I have found being consistently very pleasant (even when I had to be very firm) netted better results than when I made it clear in action/tone/words that I was really ticked off/crabby/frustrated beyond belief. Sour attitude made them defensive. Pleasant but firm got them working with me.

 

No idea how you presented yourself OP so I'm not implying you were conveying a crabby attitude I'm just saying in my own dealings with schools most people really did want to help even if some of their help wasn't terribly helpful. When I was really pleasant and worked hard at maintaining a positive relationship I got more done.

 

Hoping that whatever happens for this next school year that it works out positively for your child and for you. Best wishes.

Actually, I was nice to begin with. Now, no, not so much. The gloves are off.

[Janeway]

And the more I think about all that went down last time, I regret not suing.

[Janeway]

Amen. The attitude you have right now would turn me off as an administrator. It would make me look for loopholes to keep you out. You MUST change your attitude.

You think my rejecting his trying to reject my child from public school is a "bad attitude?" Do you also think my filing legal complaints against him in the past is a bad attitude and I should have allowed him to continue to treat my child with special needs so poorly? That child was so emotionally injured by how he was treated that he has sworn to never return to a clsssroom again, not even for college. This is a child who routinely tests 99th percentile on ITBS and Cogat. No, it is not a bad attitude to stand up against this abuse of authority and attack on your child. I should not have ever been put in the position of having to take legal action in the past. Or now.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Janeway

[Catwoman]

And the more I think about all that went down last time, I regret not suing.

What happened the last time? (If you'd rather not discuss it, I absolutely understand!)

[Mergath]

You think my rejecting his trying to reject my child from public school is a "bad attitude?" Do you also think my filing legal complaints against him in the past is a bad attitude and I should have allowed him to continue to treat my child with special needs so poorly? That child was so emotionally injured by how he was treated that he has sworn to never return to a clsssroom again, not even for college. This is a child who routinely tests 99th percentile on ITBS and Cogat. No, it is not a bad attitude to stand up against this abuse of authority and attack on your child. I should not have ever been put in the position of having to take legal action in the past. Or now.

If that's how you feel about the school, why in the world are you trying to enroll your child there?

[Janeway]

What happened the last time? (If you'd rather not discuss it, I absolutely understand!)

I tried to pm you, but it would not go through.

[Janeway]

If that's how you feel about the school, why in the world are you trying to enroll your child there?

 

 

Delusional. That must be why. Maybe it is menopause? Maybe it was my son's whining that made me have temporary insanity and forget how awful they are?

 

Ironically, I did not even actually try to enroll him. I sent an email asking a question about enrolling-anonymously. I did not sign my full name to it. My full name is not in the address, my surname is not. Yet, I guess it must have shown because I do have another child in the district (but not that school). I was trying to be as discrete and quiet as possible to get information on registration. I never even mentioned he was coming from home school. I said my son was coming from private education, and kept it that sterile in the explanation. I was very nice and everything. And I did not sign my full name.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Janeway

[Guest]

Hmmm. If the school treated my child so badly that I regret not suing, I'd move before sending another child there. It would be cruel to put a child in that environment.

[Catwoman]

I tried to pm you, but it would not go through.

Sorry about that! It should work now. :)

[Janeway]

Hmmm. If the school treated my child so badly that I regret not suing, I'd move before sending another child there. It would be cruel to put a child in that environment.

 

 

My younger child attends the elementary school now. I allowed myself to forget how awful they were I guess, because things seem fine for him. Now I feel like I need to go back and make sure he is not being abused there. He has never said anything and has not been coming home with bruises. 

 

Next time I suggest sending my children back, while I live here, hit me with a baseball bat and then ask me if I remember now how bad it was.

[Tammi K]

... some elementary schools here were way too full with just the districted kids. Like 35+ kids in the classroom. No lottery. Just too many kids. They ended up bussing late enrolled kids to other schools. They were taken to the school they were zoned for then transferred to a bus that took them to the other school.

 

:iagree:  My son was bussed to a school 20 minutes away even though our districted school was a 2 minute walk from our house. Every morning he walked to our local school where he and a handful of other kids were bused to a school with adequate space.   At the end of the day, they were bused back to th local school and they walked home. Probably not cost effective, but that's the way t was.

[SparklyUnicorn]

So anyhow, why aren't you homeschooling?

 

My district hasn't been quite as hostile, but they are clueless.  That's for sure.

 

 

[Spryte]

Janeway, I'm sorry you're going through this.

 

Who did you file the complaint with, last time? I'm confused by your words "at the federal level" - where did you file the complaint?

 

And if your email was anonymous, then don't stress. They didn't even know who you are, so don't take it personally.

 

I hope your son is enrolled easily and painlessly, when it's time, if that's still what you want.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Spryte

[eternalsummer]

I don't care how annoying or oppositional a parent is, a principal of a public school should never be looking for loopholes to evade the legal responsibility to enroll her children.  A private school principal, sure.  Public school principal - no.  I've seen this attitude in some charter schools, who get state funding precisely *because* they must enroll everyone equally. 

[Storygirl]

Janeway, it's not possible for me to understand what is going on with your situation, but I'm sorry it upsets you. I think you need to understand WHY the principal said your son could not enroll. Don't assume. Ask politely.

 

I don't care how annoying or oppositional a parent is, a principal of a public school should never be looking for loopholes to evade the legal responsibility to enroll her children.  A private school principal, sure.  Public school principal - no.  I've seen this attitude in some charter schools, who get state funding precisely *because* they must enroll everyone equally. 

 

I agree with you ananemone. My children are in private school, but when we moved here a couple of years ago, we did visit our local public elementary school and found the principal to be VERY unwelcoming. Her attitude made me angry. She questioned whether we truly lived in a neighborhood assigned to her school. She kept talking about how her classrooms were already full to capacity and that she didn't really have room for more. We brought up our children's learning issues, because we needed to understand how they would be addressed, and she was almost rude in her responses -- basically "our teachers will figure that out, and parents need to stay out of it." She did not say that my children could not enroll, but it was absolutely clear that she did not want them to. My children were touring with us, and she did not speak to them. I don't think she even asked them to tell her their names.

 

It was upsetting, and we didn't even really want to enroll our children there. We were just checking it out as a Plan B in case we didn't find a good private school fit.
 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Storygirl

[Carol in Cal.]

Special needs services usually cost the school and/or school district more than they receive in extra funds.

It's unscrupulous, but unfortunately not uncommon for schools and/or school districts to try to discourage families with special needs kids from enrolling, or to delay and/or deny a special needs diagnosis.  

 

It's disgusting but it happens every day.

[eternalsummer]

I think it's terrible, and I'm a very free-market person.  But that's the thing: public schools (and charter schools funded by taxpayers) aren't the free market.  They're the public option.  There is just no excuse to be working for the government and refuse or try to refuse service to part of the population!  If you can't serve all kids, time to go be a principal at a private school.  ugh

[DawnM]

Special needs services usually cost the school and/or school district more than they receive in extra funds.

It's unscrupulous, but unfortunately not uncommon for schools and/or school districts to try to discourage families with special needs kids from enrolling, or to delay and/or deny a special needs diagnosis.  

 

It's disgusting but it happens every day.

 

 

I thought she said this particular child did not have a special need or IEP.

[Guest]

What is a complaint about a school "on a federal level"? In my state, the state runs the public schools.

[eternalsummer]

We had a related thing happen several years ago in another district when my kids were in PS - the district decided they wanted funding from the city to give their teachers an hour a week of planning time, or something - basically an extra hour after school pay one day a week.  They put up a bond motion or whatever, residents voted, it didn't pass.  So you'd think, no planning hour, right?  Because residents pay for the schools, the schools wanted more money, residents didn't want to allot more money, end of story.

 

Nope.  Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual.  It's just so disrespectful.

[eternalsummer]

 

 

If your inclination is to refuse services (illegally) to someone who legally qualifies for those services, you must not take a job where you have the possibility of refusing the services.  It's not ethical.  Being annoyed or antagonized or frustrated is not an excuse for trying to get out of a legal obligation.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
Deleted quote from removed post.

[EKS]

We had a related thing happen several years ago in another district when my kids were in PS - the district decided they wanted funding from the city to give their teachers an hour a week of planning time, or something - basically an extra hour after school pay one day a week. They put up a bond motion or whatever, residents voted, it didn't pass. So you'd think, no planning hour, right? Because residents pay for the schools, the schools wanted more money, residents didn't want to allot more money, end of story.

 

Nope. Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual. It's just so disrespectful.

How is that disrespectful?

[QueenCat]

nm 

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
Don't pile on, please.

[regentrude]

Nope.  Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual.  It's just so disrespectful.

 

Our school does regular teacher professional development this way. Of course teachers should be paid for this time.

I fail to see how this is "disrespectful".

 

[DawnM]

nm 

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quoted deleted post

[EKS]

Our school does regular teacher professional development this way. Of course teachers should be paid for this time.

I fail to see how this is "disrespectful".

 

That, and planning time is likely dictated by the union. The choice was probably increase taxes or reduce instructional time.

 

Frankly, what is disrespectful is the mindset that the only time teachers put into teaching is when they're supervising students. Good teaching requires way more prep time than an hour a week!

[hjffkj]

We had a related thing happen several years ago in another district when my kids were in PS - the district decided they wanted funding from the city to give their teachers an hour a week of planning time, or something - basically an extra hour after school pay one day a week. They put up a bond motion or whatever, residents voted, it didn't pass. So you'd think, no planning hour, right? Because residents pay for the schools, the schools wanted more money, residents didn't want to allot more money, end of story.

 

Nope. Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual. It's just so disrespectful.

What is disrespectful about that? They found a way to get the teachers the planning time they needed while not making people pay more for it. I think it is disrespectful to expect teachers to work without pay during their free time.

 

The school our kids are districted for find that hour planning for the teacher by paying dh to teach martial arts to the students while the teachers have their planning time. That is great because the students still get instruction and aren't out an hour a week of school time. But the people in the district were willing to pay for that. Teachers should not have to work for free.

[QueenCat]

We had a related thing happen several years ago in another district when my kids were in PS - the district decided they wanted funding from the city to give their teachers an hour a week of planning time, or something - basically an extra hour after school pay one day a week.  They put up a bond motion or whatever, residents voted, it didn't pass.  So you'd think, no planning hour, right?  Because residents pay for the schools, the schools wanted more money, residents didn't want to allot more money, end of story.

 

Nope.  Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual.  It's just so disrespectful.

 

How is teachers getting paid time to plan disrespectful? Oh, wait, it's not! Our county has one day a month where students have a half day and teachers get the other half of that day for grade level planning. It's good for the teachers to have that time.

[Cinder]

We had a related thing happen several years ago in another district when my kids were in PS - the district decided they wanted funding from the city to give their teachers an hour a week of planning time, or something - basically an extra hour after school pay one day a week.  They put up a bond motion or whatever, residents voted, it didn't pass.  So you'd think, no planning hour, right?  Because residents pay for the schools, the schools wanted more money, residents didn't want to allot more money, end of story.

 

Nope.  Instead they started an hour late every Wednesday - teachers came in and were paid, but students couldn't come until an hour later than usual.  It's just so disrespectful.

 

Ok, this will sound silly but now I know why my siblings (who went to public school, I went to private) got out of school an hour early every Weds. As a kid I was annoyed because my school day was already an hour longer than theirs--and they got an extra hour off on Weds. lol. This was back in the 70's and 80's so this kind of scheduling isn't anything new.

 

The school district I live in now only takes off early one day per month and teachers work an extra day about every 6-8 weeks or so while the kids are out of school.

[eternalsummer]

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

[MomatHWTK]

I find it hard to believe so many people are suggesting that they wouldn't be venting mightily if a principal had said he would not approve their child's enrollment. I've read other stories of parents being given all kinds of grief about enrollment. We've just seen another parent remove her child due to the issue that probably rose to the level that would merit a lawsuit.

 

I made the choice to homeschool because I was relatively sure that I wouldn't get the accommodations I needed for my child without legal action. I know other parents with similarly situation children who had to take legal action. My parents had a reputation with my school system that haunted me throughout my time there from K to high school because they had to threaten a lawsuit to get my SN sister accommodated. It happens. Administrators don't like having to do things they don't want to do. And some of them take revenge.  

[Mergath]

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

 

Most taxpayers have no idea how much time it takes to be a good teacher. I had no idea before I started homeschooling and spent so much time researching education. I'm sure at least a few of those taxpayers would like to do away with the public school system all together. Thankfully, school districts aren't beholden to act on every single whim of the taxpayers and allow them to micromanage the school schedule. And honestly, I can think of far more useless things the school could have used taxpayer money for than an extra hour of planning time each week. Good grief, look at the multi-million dollar athletic fields some public schools have. When the school said to the taxpayers, "We need more money so the teachers have more planning time and can be more effective teachers," the taxpayers should have wept with joy that they didn't have to pay for a new soccer field or something.

 

[MomatHWTK]

I think some posters on this thread are being intentionally obtuse. Y'all really don't know that discrimination against students (for a long list of reasons) is a federal issue? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Educational_Opportunities_Act_of_1974

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuals_with_Disabilities_Education_Act

 

ETA: I have been corrected. A few folks didn't know about the intersection of federal and state issues. Sorry for assuming the worst. I hope the above links help a bit. The subject area is pretty complicated. Most states have their own civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Then federal laws govern similar issues. Then the U.S. Constitution incorporates additional rights. IMO, the topic is well worth spending a few months studying with your high school students if you have the time.

Edited March 8, 2017 by MomatHWTK

[Mergath]

I find it hard to believe so many people are suggesting that they wouldn't be venting mightily if a principal had said he would not approve their child's enrollment. I've read other stories of parents being given all kinds of grief about enrollment. We've just seen another parent remove her child due to the issue that probably rose to the level that would merit a lawsuit.

 

I made the choice to homeschool because I was relatively sure that I wouldn't get the accommodations I needed for my child without legal action. I know other parents with similarly situation children who had to take legal action. My parents had a reputation with my school system that haunted me throughout my time there from K to high school because they had to threaten a lawsuit to get my SN sister accommodated. It happens. Administrators don't like having to do things they don't want to do. And some of them take revenge.  

 

I think most of us are cautiously reserving judgement because the specifics of the story are a little thin so far.

[Reefgazer]

They did make it come from somewhere else - instructional time.  If the residents of that county don't like that option, that should have been discussed before as one of the downsides to rejecting the budget. 

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

 

[regentrude]

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

 

They are doing exactly what you request: they are not charging for an extra hour of paid teacher time. They make this hour come from the already paid school day.

 

"They all get an hour of paid planing time already"... oh my. Do you honestly think that is sufficient time to prepare a full day of teaching??? in what world?

 

ETA: our society not being willing to pay teachers for their work leads to the substandard public education that seems to be prevalent in so much of this country. You get what you pay for.

Edited March 8, 2017 by regentrude

[QueenCat]

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

 

That's not a lot of time. I substitute and none of the schools give teachers an hour during the day. All they get in elementary school is the time that the kids are at specials (art, music, pe, library, music). That's normally 50 minutes but once you take out the time to get the kids there, pick them back, and go to the bathroom, you are down to about 35 minutes. Then you start returning emails and phone calls from parents & there isn't much time left, if any to plan. I think it is awful that the taxpayers in your district have so little respect for the teachers that they don't want to pay them for solid, regular planning time. And if it's a regular thing, then parents know to plan for it with their schedules. All the schools here have before school and after school care.

[Mergath]

They are doing exactly what you request: they are not charging for an extra hour of paid teacher time. They make this hour come from the already paid school day.

 

"They all get an hour of paid planing time already"... oh my. Do you honestly think that is sufficient time to prepare a full day of teaching??? in what world?

 

Exactly. I need a good half hour of prep time each morning, and that's to teach ONE CHILD, whose work I don't even have to grade because I usually sit with her while she does it. If I had twenty to thirty kids and had to grade all their work, I would definitely need more than an hour a day, unless I wanted to spend all my free time doing unpaid work for the school.

[OneStepAtATime]

Exactly. I need a good half hour of prep time each morning, and that's to teach ONE CHILD, whose work I don't even have to grade because I usually sit with her while she does it. If I had twenty to thirty kids and had to grade all their work, I would definitely need more than an hour a day, unless I wanted to spend all my free time doing unpaid work for the school.

Yep.

 

My mom and half my family are teachers.  They cover elementary through University level instruction.  One measly hour of preparation is definitely not enough, not even remotely, to prepare for class instruction with a large group of kids.  Paying teachers for that one measly hour of instruction absolutely is something I would be willing to do, though.  If you want good teachers that stick it out you need to give them fair compensation and support for the ZILLIONS of hours of effort they put in at school, after school and at home to try and help their students.  The good ones put in that time.  Compensate them for at least some of it and they may stick it out for the long haul.  If you don't then eventually they may jump ship to something with better hours and better pay.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[kitten18]

nm 

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Susan Wise Bauer

[TechWife]

I think teachers getting paid to plan is great and reasonable.

 

However, if the people who are funding the public schools - that is, the residents of the district - don't want to pay for an extra hour of salary, then the schools need to either give up on the idea of the extra hour (they all get an hour a day paid planning time already, this was just an extra hour on Wednesdays) or make it come from somewhere else in the budget.

 

Instead, they basically said screw you to the taxpayers, who rejected the idea of the extra hour, by taking the hour anyway and making all parents figure out a way to get their kids to school an hour late one day a week, which is obnoxious.

 

The teachers would spend at least an extra hour planning whether or not they were paid for it. They do a lot of work "off the clock." By changing the school hours, the district is able to pay the teachers for their planning without affecting the budget. With this solution, no one is paying for an extra hour of planning. 

 

The taxpayers didn't reject the idea of the extra hour, they rejected the idea of paying for the extra hour. It was a bond referendum on payment, not a referendum on whether or not the teachers should have the planning hour. The taxpayers basically said "screw you" to the teachers - work without pay.

 

I have no sympathy for the parents who have to, you know, parent. I imagine busses run on a delayed schedule, it doesn't make walkers late, either. If parents are choosing to drop their kids off, well, that is their choice. Parents staying home with younger students may be something that has to be worked out at first, but people (and their employers) adjust. Neighbors pitch in to help each other out, older siblings help out. It isn't an insurmountable problem. If enough people run into difficulty, perhaps they will think a little bit harder the next time there is a school bond on the ballot because they will realize that this does, in fact, affect them and their children. 

[RenaInTexas]

He didn't. And legally, there is no reason he can give. I looked up the law and he can only deny admission if my child has been convicted of a crime.  But of course, his real reason is pretty obvious. He is ticked that I filed a complaint against him in the past, or he just doesn't want a child with an IEP, or he has something against home schoolers. I would have to find out if anyone else has had trouble enrolling a home schooler at this school. But it does not matter. I am sure it is because I filed the complaint in the past. Which I am thinking makes his actions, IF he has actions (right now, it is just words) would be illegal. He cannot deny admission to any child based on the fact that the child's parent has filed a complaint against him, in the present or past.

 

And again, my issue is not if he can do this, as he cannot. My issue is with..would I want my child at a school like that? 

 

For this, I can say that the classroom experience of the child can be extremely different than the office experience of the parent. You can have several great teachers at a school with a not-so-great principal. Alternatively, you can have a great relationship with the office folks while your child has an awful experience with the classroom teacher. So one does not equal the other. 

 

I guess it boils down to ... will your relationship with the office influence the child's experience in his classrooms. If not, and that is where he needs to be, then go for it. If he doesn't need to be there, then perhaps he shouldn't. It sounds like your district has open campus (which is why the principal thinks he can deny him entry --- he can for transfers but not for zoned), have you considered trying to enroll him as a transfer to another school that has space?

[Alessandra]

What is a complaint about a school "on a federal level"? In my state, the state runs the public schools.

Well, lots of cases reach the federal level, SCOTUS. Brown v Board of Education? Free speech issues -- check out 'School Speech' in wiki. Or, most recently, the famous in-service dog issue for a girl with cp. Violations of IDEA or things that fall under the Ed Dept's Office of Civil Rights could end up in federal courts.

 

But I agree with you. The first step, as far as I know, is a complaint to relevant state agency, even for violations of federal law. I think it takes a fair bit of litigation to get these to federal level. Please correct me if I am wrong!

[Garga]

I don't like allowing myself to get upset until I know for sure what's going on.

 

I'd cut the line that says the principal wouldn't allow enrollment and send back a two word reply:

 

"Why not?"

 

And see what happens.

[Spryte]

Well, lots of cases reach the federal level, SCOTUS. Brown v Board of Education? Free speech issues -- check out 'School Speech' in wiki. Or, most recently, the famous in-service dog issue for a girl with cp. Violations of IDEA or things that fall under the Ed Dept's Office of Civil Rights could end up in federal courts.

 

But I agree with you. The first step, as far as I know, is a complaint to relevant state agency, even for violations of federal law. I think it takes a fair bit of litigation to get these to federal level. Please correct me if I am wrong!

I think OP specifically said she didn't "sue." She said she filed a complaint at a federal level, but there was not court involvement - at least that's my understanding. I'm unclear on to whom she complained, at a federal level, maybe someone else caught that detail.