You should respect the trespass ban while you are working this out, as if you do not you may find that you end up being charged with trespassing and have to worry about the cost of defense.
Meanwhile, as you have been told, you can pursue your administrative appeals. If they fail, you can consider litigating the issue -- a lawyer who has reviewed your case can advise you about the likely cost.
Yes to clarify, they are talking about me entering the school, but bringing her to school. I just looked and his official title on their website is HR Director. I don't know if that makes a difference or not.
This hasn't been the first issue with the school. The first was at the beginning of the year the principal telling this teacher some things that were in my daughters enrollment packet, (such as whom is on her pickup list, because her ex was included on the list), amongst other things, like taking my daughter aside at recess and asking questions about our home life, which was followed by a call to DCF.
So, yes I will respect their "do not enter" wish, but only because I am not sending my daughter back at this point. I would really love to be a thorn in their side and continue to walk my daughter in, but do not wish to cause any legal problems for myself in the interim. I am pursuing a private school option and will be taking a legal route with the school and the board, along with appealing to the BOE as others have mentioned.
I really appreciate everyone's replies and thoughts!!!!
No, bud, that is not the case. The Board is separate from the district. Do you actually know what a school board is?
In the states I'm familiar with, the public schools are organized into districts, with each district being run by an elected school board (Board). That board hires the Superintendent of the district, who in turn hires the principals and the district administrative staff. The principals in turn hire the staff for the school he or she runs. The Board would also set the policies for the district, the budget, etc.
Generally speaking it would be up to the principal in the school or other school official to first specify any ban on entering the school. That would not occur in the first instance with the Board. If the person subject to the ban wanted to contest the ban, then he or she could resort to whatever appeals process is in place, which would ultimately take them to the school board for a decision.
I do not disagree with any of that. To a certain degree, that is exactly my point.
The School Board is an elected group of representatives of the community. They take care of the budget; they set policy; they appoint the superintendent. A school district is, collectively, a group of schools and their employees, representing a city, town, village or other geographic region. The school board oversees the school district, but they are two distinct bodies.
No they are not two distinct bodies in most of the municipalities in this country except for cities. It is the school board that does all the hiring and firing of the administrators that run the schools and they hire and fire the teachers and all those that work for the school district.. On a day to day basis, the principals have something to say about it but it is still the Board that takes the action.
I rather think they are not separate bodies. I think a good analogy here is to the way a corporation functions. A corporation has a board of directors that are elected by the shareholders. The board meets periodically to set certain policies for the corporation, hires the company president/CEO (and perhaps other officers of the company), hires the outside accounting firm that reviews the books and records of the company, etc. The board does not run the corporation on a day-to-basis; instead that is the job of the president/CEO and other officers of the company. The board is an integral part of the company and is the body ultimately responsible for running it.
The school board is basically the board of directors for the school district. It is part of the district that it runs and has the ultimate responsibility for how the district functions. Perhaps where you are it is different, but if it is then it is unusual.
Part of the problem here may be simply the use of terms. For example, Massachussetts uses different terms for things than does most other states. In Massachussets there is a “regional district planning board” (Board) which is organized by one or more towns which is charged with determining the feasibility of establishing a “regional school district” (District) and for setting up the initial organization of said District and some other functions related to that. M.G.L. Chap. 71 § 14A. While the Board organizes the District, it does not run the district. Rather, that is the job of the “regional district school committee” (Committee). “The powers, duties and liabilities of a regional school district shall be vested in and exercised by a regional district school committee organized in accordance with the agreement.” M.G.L. Chap 71 § 16A. It is this committee that thus exercises the powers given the District in M.G.L. Chap 71 § 16, including the powers to sue and be sued, to hire the superintendent, buy land, incur debt, receive and disburse funds, issue bonds, etc. So in Massachussets the Board is separate from the District but the Committee is not. The Committee is part of the District and is the body that heads up the District. It is the Committee that therefore acts like the board of directors in my example. In the states I'm familiar with, however, the functions of the Committee are vested in what is called a school board and those states do not use an intermediate body like the Board used in Massachusetts. So when the term school board was used in this thread, if you had in mind something like the Massachussets regional district planning board then I can see where confusion might arise. That’s not the kind of body being referred to here. Rather, it is a body much like the regional district school committee that I, and think Budwad, have been referring to when using the term school board.