Catch-22: Denied Assessment Access Under the Same Law That Granted Enrollment

My daughter is partially enrolled at Oak Park’s Mann Elementary under Illinois statute 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24.

The district approved this arrangement in April 2025.

She attends school for reading, writing, science, and social studies. She homeschools for math—because the district denied her acceleration application and couldn’t provide appropriate challenge.

Now we’re trying to apply for acceleration again for the 2026-2027 school year. To do that, we need assessment data.

The district says she can’t access assessments because she’s “homeschooled” in math.

But she’s not homeschooled. She’s partially enrolled. Under the same statute that granted her enrollment.

And that statute says she “must be allowed to participate in any activity or program for which the child is eligible.”

Assessment is part of the regular program.

The district is violating the statute they used to approve her enrollment.

The Timeline: From Approval to Denial

Let me walk you through how we got here.

March 2025: Mid-Year Partial Enrollment Denied

In March 2025—halfway through first grade—we requested mid-year partial enrollment. Sonia wasn’t being challenged in math, and we needed to provide homeschool instruction while keeping her enrolled for other subjects.

March 21, 2025 - Acting Superintendent Patrick Robinson:

“While we understand the extenuating circumstances shared, Principal Ali’s decision aligns with D97’s Board policy… Therefore, the request for a mid-year partial enrollment is not approved.”

The statute (105 ILCS 5/10-20.24) gives boards discretion. The district exercised that discretion and said no.

Fine. We understood: board discretion for mid-year requests.

March-April 2025: Request for 2025-2026 School Year

We immediately submitted a request for partial enrollment for the next school year (2025-2026), submitted before the May 1st statutory deadline.

March 30, 2025 - My request to Principal Ali:

“Ahead of the May 1st deadline, I’m officially submitting our request for Sonia’s partial enrollment for the 2025-2026 school year, contingent upon the outcome of her current application for math acceleration.”

Translation: If acceleration gets approved, we won’t need partial enrollment. If it gets denied, we’ll need to homeschool math while keeping her enrolled for other subjects.

April 3, 2025 - Principal Ali approves:

“We appreciate your proactive approach to supporting Sonia and her academic growth. We will certainly take your request into account as we consider the potential for math acceleration and her overall academic plan for the 2025-2026 school year.”

The acceleration application was denied in September 2025.

Partial enrollment went forward as planned.

As of August 2025, Sonia is partially enrolled at Mann Elementary under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24.

She attends daily. She’s enrolled. She’s on the roster. She participates in reading, writing, science, social studies, art, music, PE, and recess.

She leaves before the math block for homeschool instruction.

Fall 2025: The Assessment Access Request

By October, we were thinking ahead to the spring 2026 acceleration application cycle.

Sonia is currently in 2nd grade math at home (Eureka Math). We’re preparing to apply for her to skip to 4th grade math in fall 2026.

To build the acceleration application, we need assessment data.

The acceleration rubric requires:

• Report card grades (Trimesters 1 & 2)
• Assessment scores (MAP, AimsWeb+, or whatever the current platform is)
• Teacher input

Since Sonia leaves before math, she won’t have:

• District math report card grades
• District math assessment scores

But there’s an obvious solution: Let her take the Eureka Math mid-module and end-of-module assessments with her 2nd grade class.

These assessments already exist. The class takes them anyway. Sonia can show up those days, take the tests with her peers, and the district can score them just like any other student’s work.

This generates the assessment data we need for the acceleration rubric—equivalent to the “Report Card Grades” line that other students have.

October 27, 2025: Initial Offer

Sonia’s 2nd grade teacher:

“I wanted to follow up with you regarding Sonia taking the mid and end of module math tests. I spoke with Principal Ali about it and we can provide you with links where you can access the Eureka tests, but Sonia should take them at home.”

She provided links to the Eureka assessment PDFs.

This was helpful—but raised a question: Would at-home assessments count for the acceleration rubric?

I responded the same day with two options:

Option A (preferred): Sonia takes the assessments in school with the class, proctored by any staff member. This creates auditable, district-administered assessment data that directly substitutes for report card grades.

Option B: If in-school isn’t possible, provide written acceptance criteria for at-home administration—what verification does the district need? (Parent attestation, scanned work, item-by-item scoring, video capture if needed for test security?)

I also asked: If neither option works, what will the district use instead of “Report Card Grades” on the rubric for partially enrolled students?

October 28, 2025: Neither Option Will Be Used

Principal Ali:

“We wouldn’t be using either option for the rubric. That portion of the rubric would just be excluded from her overall acceleration evaluation (it would be worth 0 points), so she wouldn’t be penalized.”

Wait.

The rubric has a “Report Card Grades” line worth several points.

For every other student, this line has data.

For Sonia, it would just be… blank? Worth 0 points?

That’s not “no penalty.” That’s a data gap where other students have evidence.

And it’s a gap we can easily fill—if she’s allowed to take the assessments with her class.

October 29, 2025: Citing the Statute

I responded, citing the partial enrollment statute:

“Under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, Sonia’s partial enrollment entitles her to participate in ‘any activity or program for which the child is eligible.’ Assessment is part of the regular math program—we’re just asking for equal access to generate the same evidence line everyone else gets.”

I offered both options again: in-school assessment, or clear criteria for home assessment to be accepted.

I also suggested a meeting to work through logistics.

October 30, 2025: Trying to De-Escalate

After a brief chat at pickup, I sent another email trying to de-escalate before this went to the district:

“When you mentioned needing district input on Sonia’s math assessments, I realized we might be overcomplicating this. Under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, Sonia’s partial enrollment entitles her to participate in ‘any activity or program for which the child is eligible’—that includes math assessments. This shouldn’t need district approval.

Before we escalate this, could we meet for 45 minutes to work out the logistics? The Eureka tests are already there. We just need to decide: does she take them at school with a proctor, or at home with clear criteria?”

October 31, 2025: Escalation to District

Principal Ali:

“I appreciate you bringing that context forward. Unfortunately, I need to escalate to our district teaching & learning team. I’m not fully certain of the correct process for administering and recording Eureka assessments for a partially enrolled student, and I want to make sure we handle eligibility, test security, scoring, and record-keeping correctly and consistently.”

Fair enough. Partial enrollment situations may be uncommon. Get district guidance.

I waited.

November 4, 2025: The Homeschool Misclassification

Principal Ali, reporting back from the district:

“I heard back from our District Office, and they confirmed what I previously thought.

They shared, when a family chooses to homeschool their child in a specific subject, such as mathematics, they do not have access to District 97’s curriculum materials. As such, this parent would not be provided access to our Eureka Math resources, including assessments.”

He included a link to ISBE’s homeschool guidance page, highlighting sections that say:

• Public schools are under no obligation to share materials with homeschool programs
• Homeschool students may not take state accountability tests used in public schools

The Problem: Sonia Isn’t Homeschooled

Sonia is partially enrolled under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24.

She didn’t withdraw to homeschool. She’s enrolled at Mann Elementary. She attends daily.

The ISBE homeschool guidance does not apply to partially enrolled students.

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 is a different legal framework with different requirements.

That statute says:

“A child participating in a partial enrollment… must be allowed to participate in any activity or program for which the child is eligible.”

Assessment is part of the regular math program.

We’re not asking for materials to take home. We’re asking for Sonia to take assessments in school, with her class, during regular testing times.

My Response (November 4, 2025):

“Thank you for checking with the District and for the ISBE link. I agree ISBE says districts are not required to share materials with homeschool programs - that section applies when a student withdraws to homeschool. Sonia is enrolled at Mann Elementary, that is her verifiable status under 105 ILCS 5/10‑20.24, and we’re not asking for materials to be sent home. In‑school assessments are part of the regular program she may access…”

I requested either:

1. In-school assessment with the class, or
2. A meeting to resolve this

I also filed a FOIA request the same day asking for all communications about whether Sonia could be permitted to take Eureka Math assessments.

November 11, 2025: Deferred to the District

Principal Ali:

“Because this touches on the interpretation of partial enrollment and district assessment procedures, I need to defer to our District 97 Core Instruction team, specifically Patrick Robinson, to ensure our approach is compliant and consistent across schools. Could you please work directly with the district office on this question?”

So it went back to Patrick Robinson—the same administrator who denied mid-year partial enrollment in March, but then approved partial enrollment for 2025-2026 in April.

November 14, 2025: Formal Reconsideration Request

I sent a formal request for reconsideration to Dr. Robinson:

“Sonia is partially enrolled at Mann Elementary under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 (the partial enrollment statute), which was approved by the district on March 30, 2025. She attends school daily and remains an enrolled student—she did not withdraw to homeschool…

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24(a) states that partially enrolled students ‘must be allowed to participate in any activity or program for which the child is eligible.’ This is a different legal framework than the ISBE homeschool guidance.”

I emphasized:

• We’re asking for normal classroom participation during assessment times
• No special proctoring, no separate testing, no additional staff resources
• Just let her take the tests with her class when they take them

I also noted:

“I would welcome a 30-45 minute meeting to discuss this further. I am committed to working collaboratively with the district to resolve this issue. However, I want to be transparent that if we are unable to reach a resolution through direct communication, I will need to pursue other avenues to ensure Sonia’s statutory rights are honored.”

As of November 16, 2025, I have not received a response.

The Catch-22

Here’s the impossible situation the district has created:

To qualify for math acceleration, Sonia needs:

• Assessment data
• Report card grades
• Evidence of readiness for the advanced grade

But the district says:

• She can’t access assessments because she’s “homeschooled” in math
• She won’t get report card grades because she leaves before math
• The rubric will just exclude those lines (worth 0 points)

How do you apply for acceleration without assessment data?

You can’t.

And why does she need acceleration?

Because the district couldn’t provide appropriate challenge in the first place—which is why partial enrollment became necessary.

The Legal Contradiction

The same statute that granted partial enrollment requires assessment access.

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24(a):

“A child participating in a partial enrollment… must be allowed to participate in any activity or program for which the child is eligible.”

The district approved Sonia’s partial enrollment under this statute.

Now they’re denying assessment access in violation of the same statute.

Assessment is part of the regular math program. Sonia is eligible for the program—she’s enrolled at the school, she’s on the roster for 2nd grade.

The statute doesn’t say: “must be allowed to participate in any activity except assessments.”

The statute doesn’t say: “must be allowed to participate unless they homeschool one subject.”

It says: “must be allowed to participate in any activity or program for which the child is eligible.”

Assessment is an activity. Sonia is eligible (she’s an enrolled 2nd grader).

The district is violating the statute.

The Irony of Last Year’s Denial

Remember March 2025? When the district denied mid-year partial enrollment?

Patrick Robinson cited “board policy” and said the request didn’t align with district practice.

The statute gives boards discretion for when to accept partial enrollment requests. The district exercised that discretion and said: “Not mid-year. Submit before May 1st for next school year.”

Fine. That was their prerogative.

So we submitted before May 1st for 2025-2026. And they approved it.

But now—after using that same statute to approve enrollment—they’re violating it by denying assessment access.

You can’t have it both ways.

You can’t approve partial enrollment under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 and then deny access to programs that the same statute requires you to provide.

What This Reveals About the System

This isn’t an isolated failure—it’s a pattern of procedural barriers that make acceleration functionally impossible even when students are ready. Last year, after the district denied acceleration, we sought partial enrollment to provide appropriate challenge. The district approved that arrangement in April 2025 under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24. Now they’re denying the assessment access required by the same statute, creating data gaps that make future acceleration applications impossible.

The system ensures students can’t escape: if you’re not challenged, you seek acceleration. If acceleration is denied, you seek partial enrollment. If partial enrollment is granted, you’re denied assessment access. If you’re denied assessment access, you can’t build evidence for the next application. You’re stuck.

And here’s the absurdity: the district doesn’t even have updated acceleration rubrics for 2025-2026. The published rubrics still reference MAP and AimsWeb+—assessments discontinued in 2023-2025 (see The Ghost Rubric). Even if they allowed assessment access, we don’t know what assessments matter or what the scoring thresholds are. But they won’t get to that question because they’re blocking access entirely.

What We’re Actually Asking For

We’re asking for Sonia to take Eureka Math assessments in school, with her 2nd grade class, when the class takes them—under normal district proctoring, scored by district staff just like any other student’s work. We’re not asking for special proctoring, separate testing times, materials sent home, or anything beyond what every other 2nd grader gets. This requires zero additional burden. Sonia adjusts her schedule to be present for assessment days, takes the tests with her peers, and the district records the results. That’s it.

What Should Happen

The district should grant assessment access under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, confirm which assessments will be administered and when, and allow Sonia to take them with her class. They should publish updated acceleration rubrics aligned with STAR (the current assessment platform), clarify how partially enrolled students will be evaluated, and develop clear policies on partial enrollment that train staff on the distinction between homeschool and partial enrollment. None of this is optional—the statute requires it.

Why This Matters Beyond One Student

Partial enrollment is uncommon, but it’s legal. The statute exists because some students need different instructional arrangements. But if districts can deny assessment access, partial enrollment becomes meaningless for any student considering future acceleration—you’re trapped, not challenged enough to stay full-time but blocked from building evidence to escape. This affects any family that might need partial enrollment: gifted students not getting appropriate challenge, students with specialized needs, families using homeschool for some subjects while wanting public school for others. If the district can violate 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 with impunity, the statute means nothing.

What I Want to Know

To Oak Park Elementary School District 97:

1. Under what legal authority are you denying assessment access to a partially enrolled student when 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24(a) requires you to allow participation in programs for which the child is eligible?

2. How do you reconcile approving partial enrollment under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 in April 2025 while denying program participation required by the same statute in November 2025?

3. What is the district’s policy on assessment access for partially enrolled students, and where is that policy documented?

4. How do you expect partially enrolled students to build evidence for acceleration applications when assessment access is denied?

5. When will updated acceleration rubrics be published showing current assessment requirements and how partially enrolled students will be evaluated?

What Comes Next

I filed a FOIA request on November 4, 2025 asking for all communications regarding Sonia’s assessment access. I sent a formal reconsideration request to Dr. Robinson on November 14, 2025. As of November 16, I have received no response.

If the district does not grant assessment access in compliance with 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, I will pursue formal complaints to Illinois State Board of Education, legal consultation regarding statutory violations, and continued public documentation of the district’s refusal to comply with state law. I would prefer to resolve this at the district level—but the district approved partial enrollment under this statute. They cannot now violate it. The statute says partially enrolled students “must be allowed to participate.” Not “may be allowed.” Not “at the district’s discretion.” Must.

The Bigger Picture

This is the third major post documenting Oak Park District 97’s acceleration barriers. In When Ready Isn’t Enough, the rubric measured first-grade performance instead of third-grade readiness—Sonia had direct evidence of readiness but didn’t qualify because she got “Meets” instead of “Excels” on first-grade report cards. In The Feedback Loop, the district responds to acceleration struggles by raising bars on the wrong measures, blocking ready students while still accelerating unprepared ones. Now, after denying acceleration, the district approved partial enrollment so Sonia could get appropriate challenge through homeschool math—then denied the assessment access required by law, making it impossible to build evidence for future acceleration applications.

The pattern is clear: the system creates procedural barriers that trap students in unchallenging coursework even when they demonstrate readiness, and when families find workarounds, the district violates statutory requirements to maintain those barriers.

For Other Families

If you’re considering partial enrollment in Oak Park District 97 or any Illinois district, understand that 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 requires districts to allow participation in programs for which the child is eligible. Get the partial enrollment agreement in writing, specifically request and document assessment access, clarify how assessments will be administered and recorded, ask how partially enrolled students will be evaluated for acceleration, and save all correspondence. Know that “homeschool” and “partial enrollment” are different legal statuses with different rights.

For other districts: check your policies on partial enrollment and assessment access. Are you complying with 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24? Do your staff understand the distinction between homeschool and partial enrollment? Because if Oak Park can approve partial enrollment and then deny access to programs required by the same statute, your district might be doing the same thing.

Related Posts:

• When Ready Isn’t Enough: How Rubrics Measure the Wrong Things
• The Feedback Loop: How Bad Rubrics Create Their Own Crisis
• The Last Resort: When a Simple Question Requires a FOIA Request
• The Ghost Rubric: When Requirements Reference Tests That Don’t Exist

This is part of an ongoing series documenting one family’s experience with gifted education acceleration in Oak Park Elementary School District 97. All facts are based on emails, rubric documents, official communications, and FOIA requests.

Names of district administrators and principals are used as they are public officials performing official duties. Student and parent names are withheld to protect privacy.

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 is a matter of public law. Districts must comply.