Does Council bill just let people keep their kids home and not educate them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

for the last time - those people can HOMESCHOOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you all read the legislation? It’s not a free-for-all keep your kids home/no learning. It expands the category for virtual learning to families who have immunocompromised adults in the home, for example; and allows quarantining kids to have excused absences vs. in excused. Talk about living in a bubble. Lots of families have multiple losses due to COVID. If a family wants to do virtual school to reduce risk of transmission to vulnerable caregiver, that’s what this does.

Read the first post which is a direct quote from the legislation. It allows schools to grant excused absences to anyone if they are just worried about Covid, until January 2022.

Virtual school would mean not mean absences.

Maybe you should read the legislation. It does what you say but it also allows anyone to just stay home (without virtual and without applying for homeschool), if the school allows.

Schools were asking for this, bro. They have long time families who they have been in contact with who they know are not getting neglected and who they did not want to have to disenroll because they know they’ll be back in Nov/Dec after vaccines.

Are you sure they'll be back after vaccines? Or will they decide that xxx means it still isn't safe? Breakthrough cases? Non-universal testing? Then they will just petition the Council again and keep their kids home for another year, burdening teachers and schools and CPS. All the while opening the door for actual neglect.

OMG the histrionics.

I continually laugh at the people who just forced the Council to declare emergency legislation deride 'histrionics' in others.

You mean the people who could die of Covid because they’re on chemo but were forced to choose between sending their kid to in-person learning or losing their school community because the mayor doesn’t consider immunocompromised family members to be a good enough reason to enroll in virtual? Yeah those people are real drama queens.

for the last time - those people can HOMESCHOOL.

I actually don't care about the expansion of virtual school to people with medical needs (or in families with medical needs). It's the people that AREN'T in that situation that shouldn't be catered to. THEY can homeschool. Or at least they can get the Council to let them apply to homeschool AND keep their home school spot until the 5-11 vaccine is available.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, the availability of the vaccine at least should mean this privileged-class joke should end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, the availability of the vaccine at least should mean this privileged-class joke should end.

but I wonder how many families with 12-15 year olds are taking advantage of this, because they just don't want to get the vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

It does not at all.

[Anonymous]

to be equitable and to prevent possible neglect, all schools should deny all parents the ability to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

[Anonymous]

wow. what strangled logic.

"As families choose to take advantage of the expanded virtual learning option, it’s imperative that students remain enrolled in their current LEA, even if the student has not physically attended the LEA, so that they do not experience an interruption in schooling."

If a child has not been to school and is not in virtual school, then their education is disrupted. So we don't want to disrupt the disruption? This is illogical nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read all of these pages, but can one of the pro-legislation people help me understand how the law would handle this scenario?

A parent has a kid who didn't log in or participate in school at all last year. They're sadly uninvested in their child's education, and they don't send their kid to school or participate in virtual. How does the legislation prevent this type of neglect?

I'm not pro-"this portion of the legislation" but they'd tell you that the school could just say no to those parents. So the onus is still on the school to decide who is good or bad. With some mystery rubric.

Oh, is there a mechanism for that? I'm not being like a "citation please" person, but I would like to read that part of the legislation.

Read the first post of this thread.

I did look through it but didn't see that part. Admittedly, I am not great at reading legal-ese, so maybe it just didn't jump out at me.

"Further, students whose families who have made the choice to keep them home due to concerns around the safety of the school environment and school buildings should be able to receive an excused absence from their school. The bill grants the school the ability to provide this excused absence through January 15, 2022."

The school can grant the excused absence or not.

this quote doesn't establish a rubric or even provide grounds through which the school could say no.