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

[Anonymous]

If anyone know of cases of people engaging in educational neglect of their children, you can call CFS: (202) 671-SAFE or [phone].

https://cfsa.dc.gov/service/report-child-abuse-and-neglect

[Anonymous]

Remember Backdoor Virtual poster? She got what she wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember Backdoor Virtual poster? She got what she wanted.

disgusting. truly. imagine what an utter drain she’ll be on the school all the while delusionally believing she has some kind of moral high ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

What happens if the school does not allow it? As PP said there is no standard other than that the parent has safety concerns. Now instead of the default being children must attend, they can spend *three months* out of school and the burden effectively shifts to the school to figure out if it is abuse or bona fide. Note that there is NO requirement that the child actually be receiving ANY education during this time - which is the really crazy part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can you link to that?

https://lims.dccouncil.us/downloads/LIMS/47923/Meeting1/Enrollment/B24-0403-Enrollment3.pdf

So please explain the difference between the signed resolution versus this, in terms of which takes precedent.

Also this does not include the specific language in the OP quoted resolution, but does allow for schools to permit any absence as excused. It seems to apply to short term scenarios here (family members being close contacts, etc). What would stop the back door virtual option person from just saying her family was in close contact repeatedly until January (or beyond)?

Yeah I don’t see how this changes anything.

the resolution provides evidence of how the statute is supposed to be interpreted & what the council meant. it absolutely imposes and obligation on principles to excuse absences based on flimsy assertions of “it’s unsafe!!” no matter whether the kid is getting any schooling or not. truly extraordinary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

[Anonymous]

The conspiracy theory in me believes this got passes with charter money, part of the charters' ongoing efforts to weaken the education system so money gets redirected to charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The conspiracy theory in me believes this got passes with charter money, part of the charters' ongoing efforts to weaken the education system so money gets redirected to charters.

Good lord no. This only impacts charters negatively. It creates unfunded demands on charters to create virtual academies, and then allows them (forces?) them to do this messed up thing with kids without medical needs (or in families without medical needs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Hmmm...do you believe this vocal minority will actually vaccinate their children, or even be satisfied with the safety once they are vaccinated? Certainly there are some, but there will be others who will argue that it still isn't safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those posters saying three months isn’t a big deal, please spend some time volunteering or subbing in a high FARMS school. Three months is critical in many kids’ education. It would be eye opening for many and hopefully help you understand why this legislation is so dangerous.

You don’t even know what this legislation says, as evidenced by the past 12 pages. Spare me the lectures.

Please enlighten us since all of us clearly don't know what the legislation says and you are the expert here. I can't wait to read how I am wrong.

the legislation effectively says principal’s hands are tied if parents claim the are keeping their kids home due to “safety concerns.”

No it doesn’t. Cite the paragraph.

Not the PP but the resolution pretty much says this, and doesn't provide a rubric for when the schools can not allow an unexcused absence. (citation on the first page of this thread)

The legislation says it with fewer words. (.e.g, the school can allow excused absences beyond the normal ones in 5A DCMR § 2102.2, unrelated to a parent or family member being a close contact). (201.a.3.B.iv.)

Now your turn: What is the Council intending these additional absences be about, other than what the resolution says they are about? Are you being obtuse or disingenuous enough to suggest that the resolution never existed and its language isn't subject to interpretation?

The key words you seem to be missing is that the school can allow it. Just like the school currently allows folks to take a “heritage vacation” for 2 weeks without reporting them. Or Janney allows for any number of excuses absences. If the school has concerns the school is not at all prohibited from referring to CPS.

Oh and it ends in January.

Why does it end in January? There is no reasoning why, in the resolution or the legislation, that it would end in three months.

Why is even three months of no requirement for education acceptable to the Council?

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Hmmm...do you believe this vocal minority will actually vaccinate their children, or even be satisfied with the safety once they are vaccinated? Certainly there are some, but there will be others who will argue that it still isn't safe.

Notably, the Council provides no justification for that January date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because the 2-11 vaccines will have come out November-ish and this gives people enough time to get their kids vaccinated. Plus the end of term is in January. It’s a one semester exception based on the fact that WE’RE IN A F-ING PANDEMIC.

Does yelling and swearing work for you? Well, I guess you all did yell and swear at the Council long enough to get potential child neglect legalized.