CPS has restricted parents’ access to their kids’ schools. But there’s no policy and no formal way to appeal.

Chicago student Jordan Garcia had an especially tough school year, his mother said.

Jennifer Baez said Jordan had been slapped, pushed and taunted by a classmate since the first week of fifth grade. Baez said her husband frequently spoke with school staff members, but the student continued to target her son. So when her husband told her of a new bullying incident on April 22, Baez decided she’d “had enough.”

Baez immediately headed to Columbus Elementary. She said she called 911 in front of the school employee who had intervened between the two boys. The dispatcher instructed the employee, Baez and her husband to wait at the school until officers arrived, Baez said.

In the meantime, Baez emailed Columbus’ principal, Wendy Oleksy, to let her know police were on their way. Oleksy replied, telling Baez that since the school day was now over, the employee “is free to leave. You may wait outside the school for the police to arrive, if that is what you feel you must do. I will start a bullying investigation on Monday,” the next school day.

What transpired next led to Oleksy effectively banning both Baez and her husband, Jose Garcia, from Columbus until the school year ended on June 14. The couple received a letter informing them they violated visitor protocol by engaging in “inappropriate and unacceptable conduct,” according to a copy shared with the Tribune.

They were told they needed permission to step onto the grounds of the Ukrainian Village school for any reason, including public meetings. If they went to Columbus without consent, or received permission to be at the school and displayed “unacceptable behavior,” they would be directed to leave. Police would be called if they didn’t comply.

It’s unclear how many of these parent restriction notices principals have issued, as Chicago Public Schools says it’s not centrally tracked, but the district says it’s only done after a serious disruption — such as behavior that’s threatening or abusive. There is no Chicago Board of Education policy regarding these letters, and there is no explicit recourse for parents who receive one.

“CPS school and district administrators weigh very carefully any decision to restrict a parent from the school setting and ultimately a school leader will issue notice of restriction to a parent(s) or other visitor within the building after careful review and approval from our Office of Network Support and our Law Department,” the district said in a statement to the Tribune.

Miriam Bhimani, a CPS parent and education advocate, said these restriction letters are just another tool the district can use to limit parent access to their child’s school. Bhimani noted that CPS filtered and sometimes censored her emails — a practice she believes began after she was contacted by the CPS Office of the Inspector General on another matter.

Bhimani said a CPS employee was tasked with reading emails she sent to people in the district to decide if and when to forward them to the intended recipients. Bhimani said the censorship continued for months, until the state intervened in 2020 at her behest.

Bhimani sees similarity between that situation and the parent restriction letters. In both cases, CPS did not reference a policy or provide a way to appeal the action.

“I think there are probably legitimate reasons to ban people (from school), although I might argue that the court system is the venue for that rather than individual principals,” Bhimani said. “When I typically (learn of) these restriction letters, it’s because a parent has advocated out loud and been vocal, so that’s the connection I see with the email interception issue.”

Bhimani recently filed a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of parent restriction letters issued during this past school year. The district said her request was “overly broad and burdensome,” so she narrowed it to cover 10 schools, including Columbus Elementary.

In its response, CPS said it had no records of these letters at eight of the schools. CPS said Columbus Elementary did issue three restriction letters in the last school year, while William Howard Taft High School in Norwood Park sent out two — but the district didn’t provide copies to Bhimani.

CPS cited concerns about violating student privacy. Bhimani said she plans to pursue legal action because the public is owed more information on this matter.

Through a public records request covering fall 2016 to spring 2022, the Tribune received from CPS copies of two restriction notices that were partially redacted.

One letter was sent in March 2019 to a parent who was told he or she could not enter any district facility before June 30, 2020, without prior permission.

What spurred the ban was not clear from the portions of the letter that were not redacted. CPS did not cite any code, statute or legal standing that allows it to enact these restrictions.

The other notice — sent in May — prohibits the recipient from entering a CPS facility or being present on district property until June 30, 2024, without prior authorization. CPS general counsel Joseph Moriarty signed both letters, which were copied to district Chief of Safety and Security Jadine Chou.

Baez’s letter, dated April 28, was not included in the district’s response to the Tribune’s records request.

In its reply, CPS said letters from individual principals “are not comprehensively tracked nor maintained in any one central location,” but are instead kept at individual schools and network offices.

“While the district does not track restrictions that pertain only to parents at one school, the district does centrally track letters pertaining to individuals who have been restricted from accessing all district property for various reasons but predominantly those who have been involved in severe misconduct and pose a threat to the safety and security of students and staff,” CPS said in its FOIA response.

The district declined to make Oleksy, the Columbus principal, available for an interview. CPS does not comment on individual student or parent matters, a spokesperson said.

Baez said the April 22 incident happened at dismissal. She said Jordan’s classmate tried to staple his hand in the hallway, as Jordan pushed him away and yelled for him to stop. The employee who separated the two told Jordan’s father she would speak with the other boy’s parents, Baez said. Baez told the Tribune she was tired of that response because calling the student’s parents had not changed his behavior.

“My husband called me and said, ‘Should I say something back?’ And I said, ‘No, I’m going to go to the school, and I’m going to call the police,’” Baez said. “Because I’ve had enough. This is enough. So I get to the school and nobody’s there. Everybody’s gone. Nobody’s in the office.”

According to Columbus’ website, the school day ends at 2:45 p.m. Baez said she called 911 around 3:40 p.m. She emailed Oleksy at 3:41 p.m., according to a copy of the email Baez provided the Tribune.

Baez said she experienced pushback from Oleksy, the employee who had intervened and another employee who had arrived on the scene. Baez filed a report with Chicago police that afternoon, accusing Jordan’s classmate of misdemeanor battery, police records show.

Three days later, on Monday, Baez and two parent advocates met briefly with Oleksy to discuss the incident, Baez said. Baez said Oleksy abruptly ended the meeting and threatened to call the police if they did not leave.

Baez said she met virtually with her parent advocates, Oleksy and a representative from the CPS department of safety and security three days later, to draft a safety plan for Jordan because Oleksy had concluded he had been bullied. Baez said she felt good about how that meeting transpired and prepared to send her son back to Columbus — until she was blindsided when she received the restriction letter via email from Oleksy about 40 minutes after the meeting ended.

In her letter, Oleksy referenced the events of April 22, accusing Garcia of yelling at a school employee and describing Baez as “verbally aggressive.” She said Baez raised her voice, “came towards (an employee) so much so that she had to step back,” and refused to leave the school building when asked.

“Your son was witness to all this aggressive and unsafe behavior,” Oleksy wrote. “It is unacceptable for you to keep a staff member at school through use of threats of the police, especially when the school day has ended and the staff member has every right to leave the premises. It is unacceptable for you to yell at staff members and come into their personal space.”

Baez and Garcia took issue with the letter — but decided not to try to fight it.

“We were both equally upset about the letter. We both felt that nothing in that letter is factual,” Baez said. “We realized that it’s kind of just their word against ours, like, how exactly are we supposed to fight or go up against CPS?”

Afternoon Briefing

Daily

Chicago Tribune editors’ top story picks, delivered to your inbox each afternoon.

Baez said she pulled Jordan out of Columbus on May 4 to home-school him for the rest of the year. Baez said she already felt the district was failing her son — this was his third CPS elementary school — and the letter from Oleksy was “the cherry on top.”

“It’s just very disheartening, and at this point, I just feel like I have lost total trust with Chicago Public Schools,” Baez said.

She said she had little communication with Oleksy after withdrawing Jordan. Then, on May 20, Oleksy emailed Garcia to tell him he was in violation of the ban.

“On Tuesday, May 17, you delivered lunch via Uber Eats from Panda Express to a staff member,” Oleksy wrote in an email Baez provided the Tribune.

She continued: “I am writing to remind you that you may not be on school property unless you have prior approval from me, and this includes delivering for Uber Eats. Please ensure you call the school, ask for me, and obtain my permission, should you need to deliver food to Columbus again. However, please avoid choosing deliveries to Columbus School in the future to avoid this.”

In response, Garcia told Oleksy in an email that he has “no control as to where Uber directs me to drop food off. I did not enter the building and was met outside by the person this order was for.” He ended the email with: “This is getting out of hand.”

tswartz@tribpub.com