Barrington Unit District 220 officials have again been forced to take the rare action of disenrolling an out-of-district student whose residency information had been falsified.
Though residency investigations do occasionally uncover such circumstances, they usually resolve themselves by the student withdrawing from the district without the school board having to take any action, District 220 Superintendent Tom Leonard said.
Before Tuesday's vote to disenroll one younger student, the last time such a vote had been required was in May 2010 when six students from among four families were disenrolled for nonresidency.
And that was the first time such an issue had come before the board in at least the previous seven years, Board President Brian Battle said.
In the most recent case, the student in question was ultimately discovered to live far east of District 220 after a letter requesting a parent-teacher conference sent to the student's registered Barrington-area address was returned, district spokesman Jeff Arnett said.
"This is one case where there was no question," Arnett said.
The student will be allowed to continue attending class in District 220 until the start of winter break at the end of this week, but will not return after the new year.
However, the student's family will be asked to pay the prorated amount of tuition for the number of days the student attended District 220 classes this fall. In District 220, the annual operational cost per student is approximately $14,000.
The district is legally required to ask for such payment, but rarely actually receives any, Leonard said. No payments were received for any of the six nonresident students disenrolled in May 2010.
The return of mail sent to a student's falsified address is one of the most common ways that suspicion of nonresidency arises, triggering an investigation, other suburban school districts have said.
Such discoveries are most often made during the spring, however, when registration papers for the following school year are mailed out.