The Admission: When 'State Law' Becomes 'We Just Don't Want To'

November 26, 2025

For three weeks, Oak Park District 97 told me their hands were tied.

State law. ISBE guidance. Homeschool regulations. The district couldn’t let my daughter take math assessments with her class—not because they didn’t want to, but because Illinois said no.

Then, on November 25, 2025, Assistant Superintendent Patrick Robinson wrote one sentence that destroyed that entire defense:

“We understand that State law and ISBE guidance do not prohibit school districts from administering assessments to homeschool students.”

Read that again.

Do not prohibit.

The district wasn’t required to deny access. They chose to.

And now I have that choice—and the shifting justifications that preceded it—documented in writing.

The Four Excuses in 25 Days

Here’s what the district told me over the course of this dispute:

October 31, 2025 - Principal Ali:

“I’m not fully certain of the correct process for administering and recording Eureka assessments for a partially enrolled student.”

Translation: We don’t know.

November 4, 2025 - Principal Ali (after district consultation):

“This is consistent with our district’s policy regarding homeschool students.”

Translation: Homeschool policy prohibits it.

November 21, 2025 - Assistant Superintendent Robinson:

“This position is consistent with State law and applicable ISBE guidance.”

Translation: State law requires us to deny.

November 25, 2025 - Assistant Superintendent Robinson:

“State law and ISBE guidance do not prohibit school districts from administering assessments.”

Translation: Actually, we just don’t want to.

Four different rationales in 25 days.

Each time I challenged one excuse, they found a new one.

Until they ran out.

What Changed Between November 21 and November 25?

On November 21, Robinson told me the denial was “consistent with State law and applicable ISBE guidance.” That same day, I received a response from the Illinois State Board of Education.

ISBE didn’t back up the district’s claim. Instead, they directed me to the district’s own local policies—specifically Policy 7:12 (Ensuring Racial and Educational Equity) and Policy 6:135 (Accelerated Placement).

ISBE was saying: This isn’t a state law issue. This is a local policy issue. Take it up with your district.

I forwarded ISBE’s response to Robinson and asked him to reconsider.

Four days later, he admitted the truth: state law doesn’t prohibit assessment access.

But he still said no.

“Discretion” Is the New Excuse

Here’s Robinson’s new position:

“School districts have discretion to make their own determinations regarding these requests.”

Translation: We can do whatever we want.

And that might be true—except the district has a policy that governs how discretion must be exercised.

It’s called Policy 7:12: Ensuring Racial and Educational Equity.

And Robinson is violating it.

What Policy 7:12 Actually Says

Policy 7:12 is an 8-page document adopted by the Oak Park District 97 Board of Education in March 2019. It’s comprehensive, detailed, and—critically—it includes specific definitions.

Here’s the definition of Institutional Bias from page 8:

“Institutional Bias refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.”

Read that carefully.

Robinson is denying assessment access based on Sonia’s administrative classification (“homeschool status”).

He’s ignoring her individual merit:

Her teacher’s willingness to include her
Her readiness to take the assessments
The fact that this creates zero burden on the district

He’s making a distinction based on category, not merit.

That’s the definition of Institutional Bias—from the district’s own policy.

“School-Assigned Classifications”

It gets worse.

Policy 7:12 also defines “Demographic group” on page 7:

“Demographic group generally refers to any group of students who share similar characteristics, such as gender identification, racial or ethnic identification, socioeconomic status, physical or learning disabilities, language abilities, or school-assigned classifications.”

“School-assigned classifications.”

What is “homeschool status” if not a school-assigned classification?

The district assigned Sonia that label. Now they’re using that label to deny her access to assessments.

Policy 7:12 was written to prevent exactly this kind of treatment.

The Willing Teacher Problem

Here’s something Robinson can’t explain away:

Sonia’s classroom teacher, Ms. Plumley, indicated she was willing to include Sonia in the assessments. She knows Sonia. She knows there’s no burden on the class. She was ready to administer the tests.

Robinson stepped in and overruled her.

He’s not responding to a teacher concern. He’s not protecting classroom resources. He’s not managing a logistical problem.

He’s blocking a willing teacher from assessing a willing student—when he has now admitted the law allows it.

What possible educational reason justifies that?

The Catch-22 Gets Worse

In my previous post, I documented the impossible situation the district created:

The acceleration rubric requires assessment data
The district denies Sonia access to assessments
Without assessment data, she can’t build evidence for future acceleration applications
The system blocks itself

Robinson’s November 25 email included this:

“If you decide to re-enroll your student full time for the 2026-2027 school year, and would like for her to be reconsidered for Math acceleration, the District will follow the process in accordance with Policy 6:135.”

Translation: Come back when you’ve surrendered.

But here’s what he won’t acknowledge: the acceleration rubric requires evidence collected during the current school year. By denying assessment access now, he’s preventing her from building the case for any future application.

He’s not just saying “no” to assessments. He’s sabotaging the pathway to acceleration.

What I Sent Back

On November 26, I sent Robinson a formal response, copied to the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and Equity:

“I am writing to memorialize your November 25 response for the official record. You attempted to close this matter, but your email contained a critical admission that fundamentally alters the nature of this dispute.
You admitted: ‘State law and ISBE guidance do not prohibit school districts from administering assessments to homeschool students.’
With that sentence, you destroyed the District’s previous defense. You have confirmed that blocking Sonia is not a legal necessity—it is a discretionary choice made by your office.”

I laid out the four shifting rationales.

I cited Policy 7:12’s definition of Institutional Bias.

I asked him to provide one rational educational reason for blocking a willing teacher from assessing a willing student—when he’s admitted the law allows it.

And I told him: silence confirms the accusation.

Why This Matters

This isn’t about one student taking one assessment.

This is about a school district that:

Lied about legal requirements - For weeks, they claimed state law required denial. It didn’t.
Shifted rationales when caught - Four different excuses in 25 days.
Violated their own equity policy - Policy 7:12 prohibits exactly what they’re doing.
Overruled their own teacher - Ms. Plumley was willing. Robinson said no.
Created an impossible barrier - Deny assessments now, then claim she lacks evidence later.

If the district can do this to one student, they can do it to any student.

What Policy 7:12 Requires

Policy 7:12 isn’t just aspirational language. It includes specific mandates.

From Section A (Equitable Access):

“Practices, procedures and programs that result in over- or under-representation of any group of students compared to peers shall be subject to close review to assure that such results are due to meeting students’ legitimate educational, social or emotional needs. In the event that a practice or program is not equitably accessible, the practice will either be modified to meet the requirements of this Policy, or eliminated if no modifications can be made or agreed upon.”

The district’s practice of denying assessment access to partially enrolled students is not equitably accessible.

The policy says it must be modified or eliminated.

Not defended. Not explained away. Modified or eliminated.

The Silence Option

Robinson said his November 25 email would be his “last communication regarding this matter.”

That’s his choice.

But silence has consequences.

If the Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools and the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and Equity both receive a formal allegation of Policy 7:12 violation—with specific citations to the policy’s own definitions—and neither responds?

That silence becomes part of the record.

It’s not a defense. It’s an admission.

What Happens Next

I’ve given the district every opportunity to resolve this:

October 27: Requested assessment access
October 30: Requested a meeting before escalation
November 4: Challenged the homeschool misclassification
November 14: Sent formal reconsideration request with legal analysis
November 21: Provided ISBE’s response showing local discretion
November 26: Cited Policy 7:12 Institutional Bias violation

At every step, they found a new excuse.

Now they’ve run out.

If the district won’t comply with its own equity policy, the next step is the Board of Education. Policy 7:12 was adopted by the Board. The Board can enforce it.

And if the Board won’t act?

This documentation exists. It’s public. It’s specific. And it’s growing.

For Other Parents

If your district is denying access to programs or services based on an administrative classification:

Get their reasoning in writing. Every email creates a record.
Ask follow-up questions. When they give you an excuse, challenge it. Make them commit to a rationale.
Check for policy violations. Most districts have equity policies. Read them. Find the definitions. Use their own language.
Document the shifting rationales. If their excuse changes, that’s evidence of bad faith.
Copy the equity officer. Most districts have one. Put them on notice.
Be specific. Don’t just say “this isn’t fair.” Say “this violates Section X of Policy Y because…”

The district spent weeks telling me state law tied their hands.

One sentence proved that was never true.

Related Posts:

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, official communications, board policies, and FOIA requests.

Policy 7:12 was adopted by the Oak Park District 97 Board of Education on March 12, 2019. The full text is available on the district’s policy website.

“Institutional Bias” and “Demographic group” definitions are quoted verbatim from Policy 7:12, pages 7-8.

The Feedback Loop: How Bad Rubrics Create Their Own Crisis The Authority Vacuum: How Superintendent Churn Creates Risk-Averse Principals