Keeping a child out of school for frivolous reasons

The principal at my child’s elementary school wrote to me, “[I]n order to enter kindergarten, students were required to be [age] by [month]. [My child’s name] would not have qualified to enter kindergarten a year earlier than [My child’s name] did,” handing me a copy of page 232 from the law book. Consequently, her argument went, no child could be skipped grades or be chronologically out-of-sync with the requirements of COMAR 13A.08.01.02(A). In simple terms, she was arguing that the age profile of students throughout the school system MUST be always consistent with state law governing age of entry in to K.

Not so. On the very next page of the law book, COMAR 13A.08.01.02(B)(3), specifically sets forth the conditions under which any child may have been admitted a year earlier. The regulation, states in its entirety, “The local board of education shall adopt a regulation permitting a 4-year-old child, upon request by the parent or guardian, to be admitted to kindergarten if the local superintendent of schools or the superintendent's designee determines that the child demonstrates capabilities warranting early admission. The regulation shall include a provision for promotion of the 5-year-old child to first grade if the local superintendent or the superintendent's designee determines that the child demonstrates capabilities warranting promotion to first grade.”

The argument that an elementary school cannot have a child out of sync with the requirements of COMAR 13A.08.01.02 is patently inaccurate, because some children may have qualified for early entrance. The mechanics of policy IOA, section (C)(1)(b), would also necessarily lead to grade placement being out-of-sync with K entrance age.

If we insist that a child’s grade placement must ALWAYS conform to the K entrance age, then one of the most important facets of GT education, codified in policy IOA, is patently frivolous.

My child was ACCEPTED to middle school, administered a math test, asked to complete summer assignments, and told that she would fit into a higher math class. Carver suddenly reversed the decision, this time citing policy JEC.

The age based argument to preclude a child’s placement, citing policy JEC is also without merit. JEC, Section (B)(1)(a), states chronological age based placement only holds for students in “pre-kindergarten through grade two.”

The same policy, Section (B)(1)(b) states, in relevant part: “In grades three through eight, placement and promotion should be based on academic progress and attainment of objectives assigned to the student.” MCPS does not dispute that this section applies. Hence, the age based placement excuse is patently frivolous.

The age based arguments also contradict established cases of grade-skipping reported in the media.

It is an indisputable fact the denial of my child’s right to a free and appropriate public education by MCPS was unjustifiable. The argument by Carver that the grade placement of children cannot be out-of-sync with their chronological age, due to K entrance requirements, simply contradicts the mechanics of, and some of the options under, COMAR 13A.08.01.02(B)(3), MCPS policy IOA, policy JEC, and regulation JEB-RA.

MCPS was duty bound to honor its acceptance of my child to middle school while it argued the merits of age based placement.

Let us now move forward acknowledging the courage of those who stood up for the rights of an innocent child.