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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

But that portion of the bill DOES refer to the virtual schooling that medical-needs kids/families can take. So it makes sense (I guess) in that context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

[Anonymous]

here's the scenario I can see:

Someone is afraid of their 13-year-old getting covid at school, so they aren't sending them in. The kid is not vaccinated, and the parent has no intention of vaccinating themselves or the kid. The parent say they are educating their kid at home. The school accepts that, for reasons. However, the kid isn't actually getting any education at home. The parent is working out of the house and so leaves the teenager at home daily. Teenager plays video games, watches TV, etc.

January 2022 rolls around. The parent is still worried about covid in schools and demands that their kid continue to not attend school. The Council says ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

This poster must be deeply ignorant or has never seen parents go bananas when a school “just says no” with no statutory back up. Lawsuit time. Discrimination! racism! prejudice!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

This poster must be deeply ignorant or has never seen parents go bananas when a school “just says no” with no statutory back up. Lawsuit time. Discrimination! racism! prejudice!

So you admit that schools can reject these "requests" (they don't really seem to be requests), just that they won't want to because parents are whiny a$$holes? (I grant this is reasonable.)

What about the flip side where if a school DOES allow these excused absences, and a child is abused and killed as a result? Are they concerned about the liability there?

Look, I'm deeply opposed to this portion of the legislation. I'm just wondering what could be done, and whether schools still retain the power to protect kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

This poster must be deeply ignorant or has never seen parents go bananas when a school “just says no” with no statutory back up. Lawsuit time. Discrimination! racism! prejudice!

Right? All it takes is one parent to feel aggrieved and serve DCPS with a lawsuit. And the parent will be in the right, based on this legislation. Once this is done, DCPS would be foolish not to allow everyone to just drop out of school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

[Anonymous]

Council people contact info in case you want to write them about this portion of the bill:

Chair: Phil Mendelson [e-mail]
Mendelson's staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

At-large: Anita Bonds [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

At-large: Elissa Silverman [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

At-large: Robert White [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

At-large: Christina Henderson [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 1: Brianne Nadeau [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 2: Brooke Pinto [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward3: Mary Cheh [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 4: Janeese Lewis George [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 5: Kenyan McDuffie [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 6: Charles Allen [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 7: Vince Gray [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

Ward 8: Trayon White [e-mail]
Staff: [e-mail], [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

Damn. Well then the Council sucks even worse than I thought, and this really is legalized child abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

Damn. Well then the Council sucks even worse than I thought, and this really is legalized child abuse.

Yes. I honestly think this was half-baked legislation. The hastily-written and unproofread amendment indicates that they really didn't think this through. It is not too late for the Council to create a new amendment to fix this glaring issue. Frankly, I am fine with the rest of the legislation. I don't think it's GOOD legislation, but not too harmful otherwise. This issue however needs to be fixed. Perhaps they intended for schools to be able to pick and choose among parents, but unfortunately the letter of the law doesn't indicate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the linked document is actually the legislation, it's totally incoherent and standardless. Doesn't the council have any legislative drafters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

Damn. Well then the Council sucks even worse than I thought, and this really is legalized child abuse.

Yes. I honestly think this was half-baked legislation. The hastily-written and unproofread amendment indicates that they really didn't think this through. It is not too late for the Council to create a new amendment to fix this glaring issue. Frankly, I am fine with the rest of the legislation. I don't think it's GOOD legislation, but not too harmful otherwise. This issue however needs to be fixed. Perhaps they intended for schools to be able to pick and choose among parents, but unfortunately the letter of the law doesn't indicate that.

This legislation doesn't indicate anything about schools' rights. Only parents' rights. The school has no right to refuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

doesn't it? If the school can provide the excused absence, can they also withhold the excused absence?

I agree it doesn't provide a rubric for why they would or wouldn't grant the excused absences, and that alone is a problem. But it does seem to allow them to just say "no".

The problem is that this legislation says parents should be able to. This produces an affirmative right for parents to have this option.

To have the option, but not necessarily be granted the option.

That is not what the legislation indicates. "Should" has an important meaning here, and there are no grounds for rejection (or a mechanism to do so) indicated.

Damn. Well then the Council sucks even worse than I thought, and this really is legalized child abuse.

Yes. I honestly think this was half-baked legislation. The hastily-written and unproofread amendment indicates that they really didn't think this through. It is not too late for the Council to create a new amendment to fix this glaring issue. Frankly, I am fine with the rest of the legislation. I don't think it's GOOD legislation, but not too harmful otherwise. This issue however needs to be fixed. Perhaps they intended for schools to be able to pick and choose among parents, but unfortunately the letter of the law doesn't indicate that.

I wrote to my council member about this portion of the bill, and noted my concerns about neglect and child abuse. Her office basically said, "it'll be fine."

Man I hate the Council.