Floors, Not Ceilings: When Legal Minimums Become Bureaucratic Maximums

I recently asked my local police department for a summary of traffic violations involving pedestrians.

Not classified data. Not surveillance footage. Just aggregate statistics—crashes, intersections, patterns. I wanted to understand public safety trends to inform local policy discussions.

Their response? “You’ll need to file a Freedom of Information Act request.”

Not: “Here’s the data, we’re glad someone’s interested in public safety.”

But: “Use the formal legal process designed to force us to comply when we refuse.”

The Permission Paradox

This is what I call the permission paradox: laws meant to ensure transparency become barriers to transparency. Legal minimums become policy maximums. And the statute designed to protect the public becomes the institution’s excuse to do less.

The Freedom of Information Act wasn’t created so police departments could only share data through formal requests. It was created to give citizens legal recourse when institutions refuse to share public information. It’s a backstop, not a primary mechanism.

But somewhere along the way, FOIA became the ceiling instead of the floor.

Public institutions started reading “You must comply with FOIA requests” as “You may only share information through FOIA requests.”

The minimum became the maximum.

And a law meant to force transparency became a bureaucratic shield.

This Pattern Is Everywhere

I see this pattern across public institutions: statutes establish floors (minimums that must be provided), but institutions interpret them as ceilings (maximums they’re allowed to provide).

The academic literature calls this “ceiling preemption”—when regulatory minimums effectively become regulatory maximums, precluding any greater protection or service.¹ Legal scholars have documented how this operates in contexts from environmental regulation to labor law.²

But the effect goes beyond formal preemption doctrine. It’s how risk-averse bureaucracies operate when facing resource constraints, ambiguous policies, and potential liability.³

When a statute says “you must provide X”:

• Institution provides X (barely)
• Refuses to provide X+1
• Justification: “Show me where the law requires X+1”

When a statute says “you may use discretion”:

• Institution uses discretion to deny, not to accommodate
• Justification: “The law gives us discretion, and we chose no”

When a statute provides a remedy (like FOIA):

• Institution makes the remedy the only path
• Justification: “Policy requires formal process”

The result: Statutes meant to ensure minimums become justifications for doing the minimum—or less.

Why My Daughter Can’t Take a Math Test

This pattern is why my second-grader can’t access math assessments at her public elementary school.

It’s been 30 days. I’ve asked for meetings. I’ve cited statutes. I’ve offered solutions that cost the district nothing.

And on November 19, 2025, I filed a formal complaint with Illinois State Board of Education documenting five statutory violations.

Here’s how we got here—and what it reveals about floors becoming ceilings.

The Background: Partial Enrollment

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

The district approved this arrangement in April 2025.

She attends school daily from 8:00 AM to 1:30 PM for reading, writing, science, and social studies. She’s enrolled. She’s on the roster. She participates with her second-grade peers in all morning activities.

She leaves before math because the district denied her acceleration application and couldn’t provide appropriate challenge.⁴ We’re now providing math instruction at home—significantly above grade level. She’s currently working on 4th grade multi-step word problems involving multiplication and division,⁵ finding volume of geometric solids (aligned with 7th grade geometry standards),⁶ completing Abacus Mind Math Level 3 (mental two and three-digit addition and subtraction with speed and fluency),⁷ and order of operations—essentially preparing for pre-algebra.

The district’s own policy governing her enrollment is clear:

District Policy 7:40 (Part-Time Attendance): “A student accepted for partial enrollment under this policy may participate in any co-curricular activity associated with a District class in which he or she is enrolled.”⁸

And the district defines co-curricular activities:

District Policy 6:190: “Co-curricular activity refers to an activity associated with the curriculum in a regular classroom and is generally required for class credit.”⁹

This isn’t vague. Classroom assessments are clearly co-curricular—they’re part of regular classroom curriculum and required for class credit (report card grades).

The Request: Assessment Access for Future Acceleration

By October 2025, we were thinking ahead to spring 2026—the next acceleration application cycle.

To build an acceleration application, we need assessment data. The district’s acceleration rubric requires:

• Report card grades (Trimesters 1 & 2)
• Assessment scores
• Teacher input

Since my daughter leaves before math, she won’t have district math report card grades or assessment scores for that subject.

But there’s an obvious solution: Let her take the Eureka Math module assessments with her second-grade class.

These assessments already exist. The class takes them anyway. She can adjust her schedule to be present those days, take the tests with her peers, and the district can score them just like any other student’s work.

No special proctoring. No separate testing times. No additional staff resources. Just normal classroom participation during scheduled assessment times.

This generates assessment data equivalent to the report card grades other students have—filling the gap so future acceleration applications can be fairly evaluated.

On October 27, 2025, I made this request.

October 27-31: “We Need District Guidance”

The teacher was receptive but uncertain. She checked with the principal.

Principal’s response: Uncertainty about procedures for partially enrolled students. He escalated to the district Teaching & Learning team for guidance.

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

I waited.

November 4: The Homeschool Misclassification

The principal reported 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.”

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

• Public schools have no obligation to share materials with homeschool programs
• Homeschool students may not take state accountability tests

The Problem: She’s Not Homeschooled

My daughter 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. It applies when students withdraw from public school to receive all instruction at home.⁶

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

The statute governing partial enrollment says:

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

Assessment is part of the regular math program. My daughter is eligible—she’s an enrolled second grader at the school.

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

I responded the same day (November 4), explaining the legal distinction, citing the statute, and requesting either in-school assessment access or a meeting to resolve this.

I also filed a FOIA request asking for all communications about whether my daughter could be permitted to take Eureka Math assessments.

November 11: Deferred to the Acting Superintendent

The principal wrote:

“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 [Acting Superintendent], to ensure our approach is compliant and consistent.”

So it went back to Dr. Robinson—the same administrator who approved partial enrollment in April 2025 under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24.

November 14: Formal Reconsideration Request

On November 14, 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…

District Policy 7:40 explicitly states that partially enrolled students ‘may participate in any co-curricular activity associated with a District class in which he or she is enrolled.’ District Policy 6:190 defines co-curricular activities as those ‘associated with the curriculum in a regular classroom and generally required for class credit.’ Assessments meet this definition. This is a different legal framework than the ISBE homeschool guidance.”

I emphasized:

• We’re asking for normal classroom participation
• No special proctoring or separate testing
• Just let her take assessments 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.”

November 19: “I’ll Respond by Friday”

Five days later, Dr. Robinson acknowledged receipt:

“I just wanted to let you know that I received your email. I will respond to your request by Friday, November 21, 2025.”

Five days to acknowledge. Two more days to respond.

By that point:

• 29 days since the initial request (October 27 to November 19)
• Two module assessments already missed
• No legal analysis provided
• No meeting offered
• A one-word text message denial obtained through FOIA

The Text Message

That FOIA response I filed on November 4? It arrived November 12.

It included a text message exchange from November 4 between my daughter’s teacher and the principal:

Teacher: “Did you just see the email that came in from T? I am giving a mid module assessment tomorrow. Am I supposed to let her stay and take that? I’m guessing no, but I’m kind of stuck in the middle here. I will defer to you on this and do what you want me to do.”

Principal: “The answer is no”

No statute cited. No policy referenced. No legal analysis.

Just: “The answer is no”

The teacher explicitly asked for guidance. She acknowledged being “stuck in the middle.” She deferred to the principal for direction.

His response: One word.

This is what happens when institutions treat legal minimums as policy maximums. The question isn’t “What does the statute require us to provide?”

It’s “What can we refuse without getting sued?”

November 19: The ISBE Complaint

On November 19, 2025—after 29 days of trying to resolve this collaboratively—I filed a formal complaint with Illinois State Board of Education.

Ticket #CS0010483.

The complaint documents five statutory violations:

1. Misclassification of Enrollment Status

District approved partial enrollment under 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24, then reclassified my daughter as “homeschooled” to justify denying access—applying the wrong legal framework to avoid statutory obligations.

2. Denial of Co-Curricular Access

District Policy 7:40 says partially enrolled students “may participate in any co-curricular activity associated with a District class in which he or she is enrolled.” Policy 6:190 defines co-curricular as “associated with the curriculum in a regular classroom and generally required for class credit.” Assessments clearly meet this definition. She’s enrolled in second grade. District denies access anyway—violating its own policies.

3. Misapplication of ISBE Homeschool Guidance

District applied guidance for withdrawn homeschool students to a currently-enrolled partially-enrolled student—two different legal statuses with different rights and requirements.

4. Failure to Adopt Written Policy

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24(b) requires school boards to “adopt a policy regarding part-time enrollment.” District has provided no written policy. Principal expressed uncertainty about procedures. Decisions appear arbitrary and ad hoc.

5. Arbitrary Decision Without Legal Basis

Text message shows denial made without statutory analysis, policy citation, or consideration of alternatives. Just: “The answer is no.”

The Floor Became a Ceiling

Here’s how the floor-to-ceiling pattern operated:

What District Policies Say:

• Policy 7:40: Partially enrolled students “may participate in any co-curricular activity associated with a District class”
• Policy 6:190: Co-curricular means “associated with the curriculum in a regular classroom and generally required for class credit”
• 105 ILCS 5/10-20.24: School boards may approve partial enrollment for “part-time attendance in the regular education program”

How the District Applied It:

• Approved partial enrollment in April 2025 (exercised discretion under statute)
• Denied participation in co-curricular activities (assessments) in November 2025 despite Policy 7:40
• Reclassified student as “homeschool” to apply different legal framework and avoid its own policies

The Mechanism: District policies set a floor: partially enrolled students may participate in co-curricular activities (like assessments).

The district treated it as a ceiling: we approved enrollment (minimum compliance), but participation in programs is discretionary (maximum we’ll provide).

The Distortion: “Must be allowed to participate in any activity” became “We must allow enrollment, but activities are at our discretion.”

The mandatory language (“must”) became permissive (“may”).

The broad language (“any activity”) became narrow (“only what’s explicitly required”).

The floor became a ceiling.

Why This Pattern Exists

This isn’t unique to Oak Park District 97. This is how risk-averse public institutions operate when facing resource constraints, ambiguous policies, and potential liability.

1. Risk Aversion: “What Can We Refuse Without Getting Sued?”

Sociologist Michael Lipsky documented this phenomenon in his foundational 1980 work on “street-level bureaucracy.”⁷ When frontline workers face enormous caseloads, ambiguous agency goals, and inadequate resources, they develop coping mechanisms: rationing services, routinizing interactions, and imposing uniformities of mass processing.

The result: Discretion gets used to deny, not to accommodate.

The question becomes: “What’s the safest answer that protects the institution?”

And the safest answer is usually: “No.”

2. Literalism: “Show Me Where It Says We CAN”

When institutions read statutes, they look for what’s explicitly required—not what’s permitted within their authority.

Statute says: “Must provide X” Institution reads: “We only have to provide X” Institution thinks: “Providing X+1 might expose us to liability if we don’t provide it uniformly to everyone”

The minimum becomes the maximum because anything beyond the minimum feels legally risky.

3. Resource Justification: “The Law Only Requires X, So We Only Budget for X”

Legal minimums become budget ceilings.

If the statute only requires X, why would we fund X+1?

The law meant to protect citizens becomes the justification for doing less.

4. Process as Barrier: “Use the Formal Mechanism”

FOIA is the clearest example. The statute created a formal process to force transparency when institutions refuse informal requests.

But institutions flipped it: “We can only share through FOIA” (even when informal sharing would serve the public interest).

The remedy became the barrier.

The floor (you must comply with formal requests) became the ceiling (you may only share through formal requests).

The FOIA Crisis: Floors Becoming Ceilings in Real Time

This isn’t hypothetical. It’s happening right now with the Freedom of Information Act.

As of late 2024, federal agencies had a backlog of over 222,000 FOIA requests—a 10% increase from the previous year.¹⁰ The government-wide backlog has grown every year for the past decade, surpassing 200,000 requests for the first time in FY 2022.[^12]

But the problem isn’t just backlogs. In 2025, transparency advocates documented a “disturbing casualty” as federal FOIA offices were “entirely eliminated” or radically understaffed.¹¹

American Oversight reviewed 858 of its own FOIA requests from early 2025 and found that of the 315 completed, roughly 10% were denied fee waivers and nearly 20% were marked as “conditional.”¹² Determinations that requests were “not reasonably defined” and failures to respond to “still interested” queries were used to prematurely close requests—seemingly arbitrary administrative closures designed to clear backlogs without actually providing information.¹³

The result: A law meant to ensure transparency becomes a bureaucratic maze that makes transparency harder to obtain.

The minimum (you must respond to FOIA requests) became the maximum (we will only share through FOIA, and we’ll make that process as difficult as possible).

What Should Happen Instead

Public institutions should read statutes the way they’re intended: as floors, not ceilings.

When a statute says “you must provide X”: Ask: “What does the public need, and how can we provide it within our legal authority?”

Not: “What’s the minimum we can get away with?”

When a statute provides discretion: Use discretion to accommodate, not just to deny.

Ask: “How can we make this work?”

Not: “Show me where it says we have to.”

When a statute provides a remedy (like FOIA): Treat it as a backstop, not a barrier.

Ask: “Can we share this informally to serve the public interest?”

Not: “Make them file a formal request.”

What This Looks Like for Partial Enrollment

For my daughter’s situation, this would mean:

The district should:

1. Apply the correct legal framework (partial enrollment statute, not homeschool guidance)
2. Allow her to participate in math assessments as the statute requires
3. Adopt a written policy on partial enrollment (as statute mandates)
4. Train staff on the distinction between homeschool and partial enrollment
5. Develop clear procedures so principals don’t have to escalate every question

None of this requires violating district policies. All of it is what the policies already grant.

The floor is clear: Policy 7:40 grants co-curricular access. Policy 6:190 defines assessments as co-curricular.

Don’t treat that floor as a ceiling.

What Comes Next

As of November 20, 2025:

Dr. Robinson committed to respond by Friday, November 21.

ISBE has my complaint (Ticket #CS0010483) documenting five statutory violations.

I’m running two tracks: collaborative district negotiation and formal state oversight. I’d prefer to resolve this at the district level. But 30 days is long enough to wait for a legal analysis of a three-paragraph statute.

If the district approves assessment access, I can notify ISBE the issue is resolved.

If the district denies, ISBE investigates with Dr. Robinson’s response as additional evidence of the pattern.

Either way, the complaint documents how treating floors as ceilings violates state law.

Why This Matters Beyond One Student

This isn’t just about whether my daughter can take a math test.

It’s about how public institutions interpret the laws meant to protect us.

When partial enrollment statutes requiring participation become approvals for enrollment-only, any family considering partial enrollment loses meaningful access rights. The statute becomes symbolic—words on paper with no practical effect.

When FOIA becomes the only way to get public information instead of a remedy when informal requests are refused, transparency becomes harder, not easier. Citizens have to hire lawyers or learn administrative process just to access data that should be freely available.

When acceleration statutes requiring fair evaluation processes become justifications for any process (no matter how broken), ready students get trapped in unchallenging coursework because the district met the letter of the law while violating its intent.

The pattern is everywhere: legal minimums become policy maximums. Floors become ceilings. And laws designed to ensure public good become excuses to do less.

For Other Families and Advocates

If you’re dealing with public institutions—schools, police, planning departments, any government entity—watch for this pattern:

Red flags:

• “Show me where the law says we have to”
• “You’ll need to file a formal request” (for things that should be freely shared)
• “The law gives us discretion, and we decided no”
• “That’s not explicitly required by statute”
• Long delays followed by minimal compliance

What you can do:

• Cite the statute explicitly. Make them respond to the actual legal language, not their interpretation.
• Ask for the legal basis in writing. If they’re denying something, ask what statute or policy justifies the denial.
• Document delays. Timelines matter. Track when you asked, when they responded, how long they took.
• Know the difference between floors and ceilings. If a statute says “must provide,” don’t accept “we don’t have to.”
• Use formal remedies when necessary. FOIA requests, formal complaints, administrative appeals—these exist because informal requests don’t always work.

For Illinois families with partially enrolled students:

Check your district’s Board Policy 7:40 (or equivalent partial enrollment policy). Many districts have adopted policies granting co-curricular access to partially enrolled students.

If your district has such a policy, hold them to it. District policies aren’t suggestions—they’re binding commitments adopted by the Board of Education.

Get partial enrollment agreements in writing. Document assessment access requests. Clarify how assessments will be administered and recorded. Save all correspondence. Know your rights under the statute.

And if your district treats partial enrollment as “enrollment without participation,” know that’s the floor-to-ceiling trick. Don’t fall for it.

For Public Institutions

If you work in a public institution, ask yourself:

Are your policies interpreting legal minimums as maximums?

Are you using process requirements as barriers instead of protections?

Are you asking “What does the law require?” when you should be asking “What can we do within our legal authority to serve the public?”

Because every time you say “You’ll need to file a formal request” for information that should be freely shared, you’re using a transparency law as a barrier to transparency.

Every time you say “Show me where it says we have to” instead of “How can we make this work?” you’re treating a floor as a ceiling.

And every time you say “The statute only requires X” as justification for not providing X+1, you’re turning a minimum into a maximum.

Statutes establish floors. They protect the public by ensuring minimums.

Don’t weaponize them by treating those minimums as ceilings.

The law is supposed to work for people, not against them.

Update: November 21, 2025

Dr. Robinson’s response is due tomorrow. I’ll update this post when I hear back.

Meanwhile, the ISBE complaint documents everything: the timeline, the misclassification, the one-word denial, the 30 days of delays, and the statutory violations.

If you’re in Illinois and dealing with partial enrollment issues, this complaint may set useful precedent. ISBE could provide statewide guidance clarifying the distinction between homeschool and partial enrollment—making it harder for districts to misapply the statute the way Oak Park District 97 has.

That would be a floor worth enforcing.

Related Posts:

• Catch-22: Denied Assessment Access Under the Same Law That Granted Enrollment
• When Ready Isn’t Enough: How Rubrics Measure the Wrong Things
• The Feedback Loop: How Bad Rubrics Create Their Own Crisis
• 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 and partial enrollment in Oak Park Elementary School District 97. All facts are based on emails, text messages, FOIA responses, rubric documents, and formal complaints to state agencies.

Names of district administrators and principals are used because they are public officials performing official duties in their professional capacity. Student and parent names are withheld to protect privacy.

105 ILCS 5/10-20.24 is a matter of public law. Districts must comply. FOIA is a matter of public law. Agencies must comply. These are floors, not ceilings.