| Author |
Message |
    
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 137
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |     |
Charles Townsend,
First of all, no "special report" was even necessary because Fred knew the TC was prepared to vote unanimously to impose monetary fines on anyone abetting an improper enrollment in the schools. As to the anecdotal evidence of teachers, it was just that: anecdotal, and often failed to come even close to demonstrating there are "numerous illegal students from Irvington and Newark." One teacher's sole source of information was a handful of his students; another claimed to have looked in the eyes of a small child who didn't answer when asked his address, and seeing fear, concluded this child had been illegally enrolled. Oh?
I have no idea what were or are the political affiliations of the those called by Fred to the microphones to make these allegations. All I know is that Fred should have vetted the information beforehand and cancelled his political theatrics, because such unfounded allegations are highly prejudicial to black children legally enrolled in the schools. No matter what Fred has done in the past, he didn't earn the right to do that to this town's schoolchildren.
There are two issues that made me come out very publicly against Fred whereas I had previously started out finding him a plausible candidate of the TC, then took to rolling my eyes privately at his behavior and then posting the occasional whack on MOL. The first issue was the appalling irresponsibility he showed about what kind of attitudes he was inflaming with his bogus dog-and-pony show about "illegal students", using Town Hall as a backdrop to do it. The other was two weeks ago, when he presided over a TC meeting where it was perfectly obvious that restoring money to the budget to allow the library to complete its security system would translate into pennies this year in terms of taxes. Fred said he would go along with doing that only if David Huemer changed a principled position he had regarding the budget surplus -- even though Fred already had the votes to do the surplus his way. He voted, with Ian, to nickle and dime the library out of its security system and blamed David Huemer for it.
One book can stay with a kid for all his life, and can change everything for the better. For some of Maplewood's kids, a good experience in school, where they feel wanted, safe and valued, not looked at as criminals, is critical. I don't want Fred in office anymore, or Ian seconding him. I don't want that kind of government in Maplewood.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 138
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:08 pm: | |
Tom,
The overwhelming number of the 90 students to which you refer are children who were legally enrolled in September but who failed to withdraw mid-year when their parents moved out of the district, many because they did not understand the law required it.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7211
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:13 pm: | |
Let me be clear. Don't count me as one of the people who think that illegal students are threatening the quality of the schools. I am very dismayed that people try to make this a big issue. It's an issue, but not a huge one, in my view. We can and should try to get the illegal students out. I gather we are doing almost everything we can already. I believe there is a point of diminishing returns from our efforts, though.
Also, I heard that the administration follows up on all reports of possibly illegal students, and that a tiny fraction of the suspected turn out to be illegal. This means a huge majority are legal, which is to say they are falsely accused. We should be careful. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 140
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:32 pm: | |
Tom,
I already knew you felt that way from your other posts. I needen't have addressed my post to you, but I added that factual information here because I think it is an important part of the picture. |
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:58 pm: | |
Kathleen,
I have personally spoken to a teacher at Columbia and also one from an elementary school who stated that they know of many illegal students in their classrooms. One elementary school teacher stated that she had five students from Irvington while a teacher at Columbia told me that out of her class of twenty, she knew of at least ten who weren’t from Maplewood.
I have also personally spoken with recent Columbia graduates who told me much to the same as the above-mentioned teachers. These students were certainly not advancing a racial agenda as most of them were African-Americans. They plainly stated that students falsely use addresses here in Maplewood in order to attend our schools. I would consider both of these to qualify as anecdotal evidence.
At the current time, it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of illegal students through any sort of scientific method because the BOE has simply refused to do so. Whether this is because they are afraid of the political consequences or that their extreme liberal ideology has completely obfuscated reality, I don’t really know; however, the fact remains that each year these anecdotal stories persist and whether or not the BOE personally believes in their veracity certainly does not quell their appearance.
Charles
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:19 pm: | |
Charles T.
What "scientific method" do you think the BOE should use?
When the administration states that it investigates reports of illegal students, do you in fact have a burden of proof that they don't?
Finally, if the teachers at the high school and this elementary school you mention have suspicions that can be supported with facts, do you know if they have reported their suspicions to the administration? |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 8:01 pm: | |
90 students were "legally" enrolled in the beginning of the school year but they just happened to "move" to a close enough town to still attend the M/SO district because they didn'tknow it was illegal. And this happens EVERY single year to 90 students!! |
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 9:06 pm: | |
“Wharf Rat”,
Do you have a name or do you really go by a Grateful Dead song?
C.T.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 9:11 pm: | |
Dear CT-
You are obviously new to MOL. Yes, I have a name, my detractors frequently invoke, in order to annoy me.
I'm outed regularly.  |
L'Angelo Misterioso
Citizen
Username: Misterioso
Post Number: 275
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 12:56 am: | |
Charles - there is an excellent explanation of both the issues involved and the steps the SO-M district takes re: so-called "illegal" students. You can read it at http://www.milajasey.com/additional.html#Res |
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 6:03 pm: | |
Wharf Rat,
Well, sorry, I don't hold discussions with pseudonyms.
C.T. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7280
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 6:12 pm: | |
Then you can direct answers to his questions to me. I'd like to know the answers. I think a high school teacher can and should report suspected illegal students. It's also possible for a high school teacher to blow hot air. I can't understand why a teacher would complain about students without reporting them, unless the complaint is empty. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7281
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 6:40 pm: | |
I'm reading Mr. Profeta's Rebuttal To Mr. DeLuca's Responses.
quote:...
4. Redevelopment. Mr. DeLuca claims that the present township committee has used the tool of eminent domain to "bully private property owners." As I noted in my initial response on this topic, it is somewhat ironic to see Mr. DeLuca adopt the Scalia position on private property rights to the exclusion of any discussion of the greater public good. But political advantage sometimes makes for strange bedfellows.
Unless I'm reading him wrong, he's saying that eminent domain is sometimes justified (for the greater public good) and the township should not rule it out.
quote:...
Nobody has been threatened with eminent domain. As I explained in my initial response, the redevelopment process almost always goes forward with the selected developer making his own arrangements with property owners. Owners understand the profit to be made by cooperating in a project which benefits all of Maplewood and the neighborhood in particular.
So in other words, Bette White (or her landlord) might have seen that White or her landlord could have profited from this?
Again, I might be reading this wrong, but this is how it comes across.
|
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 6:46 pm: | |
Tom,
It is nice to make your acquaintance. I am a Columbia graduate and have spoken with many teachers there over the past ten years. Many told me about students enrolling illegally from Irvington and Newark, so I’ve known about the problem, at least anecdotally, for years. Of the two teachers whom I most recently spoke with only one informed me that notification was given to the BOE; however, as of yet, the students were not removed from school.
To answer your query, I would imagine that many teachers either are afraid to turn in suspected illegal students, fearing censure if the claim proves fallacious, or they are reticent because they know that nothing will be done about it. Another possible explanation is that the teachers sympathize with the students.
Overall, we obviously do not know the exact number of illegal students, but I do not doubt that it is a problem that needs to be more than superficially addressed.
C.T.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:23 pm: | |
Dear Charles-
Below is the link from the Jasey BOE campaign website.
I'm curious, did you read it? If so, what don't you agree with?
From your responses, I can tell you spend a good deal of time wallowing in smarminess and conjecture. Why?
Best,
David Arensburg
-------------------------------------------------
Residency
Who is legally entitled to attend school in South Orange-Maplewood?
Under the New Jersey education statute, any person between the ages of five and twenty who has not completed 12th grade and is "domiciled in the district" is entitled to attend school here. Except for legally emancipated students, a studentÕs "domicile" is determined by that of his or her parent or legal guardian and is defined as where the parent or guardian has his or her permanent abode. For a student of divorced or separated parents, the student's domicile is determined by court order or, absent an order, is the home of the parent with whom the student reside for the majority of the year.
What about students living in "illegal" apartments?
The legality of a student's home is not grounds to deny the right to attend schools. The district has an obligation to provide an education to all students domiciled within the district regardless of their living arrangements.
Code enforcement is exclusively the responsibility of the municipalities. State law, which seeks to ensure that children receive the public education to which they are entitled, prohibits the district from providing information to municipal authorities about students' living arrangements.
What about students not living with their parent or legal guardian?
There is one situation where the district must enroll a student even though he or she does not reside with a parent or guardian. These are known as "hardship affidavit students."
A student not living with a parent or legal guardian may attend our schools if the following criteria are met: student must reside in home of person domiciled in district; person must have assumed all personal obligations for student; person must support student without compensation; person must intend to support student for longer than school year; parent or legal guardian is not capable of providing support due to family or economic hardship; and student is not residing in district solely to enroll in school.
The district requires students seeking a hardship exemption to provide affidavits from both the parent and the person with whom they are residing as well as substantiating documentation. For the 04-05 school year, there are approximately 33 students who attend school via a hardship affidavit.
Are there other situations where students not residing with their parent or legal guardian may attend South Orange-Maplewood schools?
Yes. Emancipated students, certain students placed in the towns by the NJ Department of Youth Services [DYFS] or other state agencies, certain children of military personnel on active duty and homeless or temporary residents whose last permanent address was within South Orange or Maplewood. Each of these cases is relatively rare.
What is the district's residency verification procedure for new students?
The district verifies the residency of every new student consistent with NJ Department of Education regulations by requiring the parent or legal guardian to provide a variety of documentation.
If the residency documentation is incomplete, by law, the district must enroll the student. However, under recently adopted state procedures, the district may summarily remove the student if acceptable documentation is not provided within twenty-one days of enrollment. The district's residency investigator also randomly checks on newly enrolled students.
Does the district verify the residency of any already enrolled students?
Yes. The district requires all students who live in rental housing to provide documentation of their continued occupancy upon expiration of their current lease. This documentation may include a copy of a new lease or an affidavit from the landlord that the lease has expired and the family continues to reside in the unit without a lease.
The district also investigates the residency of any students for whom it receives information from the school or community members that the student may have moved.
What triggers the residency verification process for enrolled students?
Many different things may trigger the residency verification process for current students. The most common are: returned mail, a disconnected telephone, tips from staff or community members and inconsistent or suspicious documentation. The district's registrar follows up on each of these.
What constitutes a residency investigation?
Every residence investigation initiated for an enrolled student consists, at a minimum, of a visit from an investigator to the student's home, an interview with the parent or guardian and the submission of additional documentation. The district's primary investigator is a retired South Orange police officer.
How many residency investigations does the school district conduct?
The total number varies from year to year. In recent years, between 300 and 550 families have been investigated annually. For the 03-04 school year, a total of 503 families were investigated, representing 965 students. This means that over 15% of the student body, or about one out of every seven students, had their residency confirmed last year.
What were the results of the residency investigations?
The overwhelming majority of students successfully reprove residency. In 03-04, of the 965 investigated students, 862, or 90%, reproved residency.
Of the remaining students, 95 left the district, either voluntarily or as a result of Board action, with the eight others allowed to complete the school year due to special circumstances.
Most of the students who were unable to reprove residency resided in the district at the time of their initial registration but had subsequently moved out of district.
These results strongly suggest that the district's initial registration and residency verification process weed out non-resident students.
What is the process to remove a non-resident student?
After passage of the 21-day conditional enrollment period, the district cannot remove an enrolled student without affording the student the due process protections mandated by NJ law.
The student is entitled to a hearing before the Board. If the Board votes to remove the student, he or she has the right to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Education.
Pending the appeal, the student is allowed to continue attending school in the district. If the Commission upholds the Board's decision, the student still has the right to file a judicial appeal, although absent a court order, the student may be removed from the district.
The process through the Commissioner's decision typically takes 6-9 months meaning that, by law, the student may be able to remain in the schools for all or most of the school year.
What about payment of tuition?
By law, whenever the Commission upholds a Board decision removing a student, the Commissioner imposes a judgment for tuition. The district occasionally collects on these judgments.
However, historically, the district has concluded that it is not cost-beneficial to pursue most judgment. Most parents are either judgment-proof or have very few assets on which to levy.
Because of the difficulty of collection, the legal fees associated with the collection process render it prohibitively expensive.
The law allows the municipalities, as the tax-levying entities, to collect the judgments themselves.
The Board has offered to assign the collection rights to the towns but, to date, the towns have not accepted the offer.
What about all these claims about hundreds of non-resident students in the district?
They are false. Recent "analyses" or allegations by some members of the community have speculated that between 320 and 700 non-resident students attend school in South Orange-Maplewood. Based on the residency investigations discussed above, these claims simply cannot be true.
The most detailed "analyses" claim that the non-resident gain admission by presenting false leases or perjurious lease affidavits from alleged landlords.
Yet, a review of the residency investigation figures reveals that these claims cannot be accurate.
Of the 965 students investigated in 03-04, 760 lived in rental housing. The total number of students living in rental housing was only 1290. This means that almost 60% of all rental housing students were the subject of a residency investigation. Based on the various non-resident rental student claims, between 25% and 54% of rental students are non-residents.
Therefore, a random sampling of rental students should uncover at least 25% non-residents or 190 students out of 760.
But, as shown above, a total of only 95 students, including those from owner-occupied housing, left the district based upon non-residency.
Moreover, the residency investigations were not random; they were targeted. That is, the district investigated only those students for which it had a reason to question residency [e.g., returned mail, disconnected phone, tip from community member].
The failure to locate substantial numbers of non-resident students from these investigations belies the claim that there are hundreds of non-resident students attending our schools.
|
wharfrat
Citizen
Username: Wharfrat
Post Number: 1877
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:27 pm: | |
Mr. Townsend,
Since I'm no longer a psuedonym, I'm reposting a couple of the questions I asked previously.
What "scientific method" do you think the BOE should use?
When the administration states that it investigates reports of illegal students, do you in fact have a burden of proof that they don't?
BTW, what proof do I have that "Charles Townsend" isn't a psuedonym?
Regards,
David Arensburg
|
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:47 pm: | |
Mr. Arensburg,
“Smarminess”
Please, give me a break! Why the dependence on misapplied pejoratives?
In the end, it is virtually impossible to prove definitively that the BOE’s methodology for ascertaining the number of illegal students is ineffective, which I believe it is for numerous reasons, because the BOE will state that it is against the law to reveal the requisite student information to refute their final numbers. This is a direct quote that alludes to this fact:
"State law, which seeks to ensure that children receive the public education to which they are entitled, prohibits the district from providing information to municipal authorities about students' living arrangements."
So, without open government, conjecture, based on anecdotes and information gleaned from statistical evidence, is all the citizens possess.
Finally, why don’t you accept the anecdotal evidence proffered not only by teachers but also by students in the district? Is it because you always listen to what the government tells you?
C.T.
|
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 174
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 12:47 am: | |
C.T.,
What's your point? No one can act on information that isn't provided or put to any review. And it's kind of silly to say teachers are afraid to come forward when they were willing to take the microphone at Town Hall for poltiical purposes.
This is rather a pointless conversation, isn't it? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 175
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 12:55 am: | |
Tom.
Profeta's first reply that you quoted is just a kind of red-baiting in reverse. He's saying "Justice Scalia, the most extreme right winger on the Court, thinks seizing somebody's else private property to lower Kathleen's taxes is wrong. If you believe it is wrong, you're in bed with extreme rightwingers! And you call yourself a liberal?" You may notice this is just name-calling, not coming to grips with whether or not it is moral to take someone else's property to lower my taxes.
It's "bait and switch" logic.
As for 'nobody being threatened with eminent domain,': Fred and Ian voted to begin the process to seize the Bette White site by eminent domain. Fred thinks he can talk his way out of anything and never takes responsibility for what he does.
|
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 93
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 11:27 am: | |
and Deluca has been telling little old ladies that Fred is going to come and seize their property. Deluca= scare tactics= bad for the town. |
Charles Townsend
Citizen
Username: Cm_townsend
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 10:26 pm: | |
Kathleen,
Can you fathom what the political ramifications would be if a white teacher came forth to the administration about a potential illegal student, who is African-American, and the claim either proved fallacious or the administration couldn't prove it definitively? Don't you think that the white teacher might fear some sort of censure and even possibly a lawsuit? Don't you think that that teacher might be afraid to be called a "racist," either by the African-American students or by certain members of the staff and/or community? The same consequences could apply even if the claim were true. This is why I believe that many teachers do not come forth.
Also, do you really believe that the few teachers who spoke at City Hall are the only teachers with knowledge of illegal students? You obviously haven’t spoken with many teachers lately.
Finally, unless you have worked in this school district, I think that it is presumptuous to state how the teachers should act when faced with a very delicate political situation.
So, let me ask you this: do you currently work as a teacher in the SOM school district?
C.T.
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3838
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 10:44 pm: | |
C.T. - punto! (that means exactly ) |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 181
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 11:20 pm: | |
Charles,
What stops you from giving this info to the BOE?
Whether people teach in the district is irrelevant to establishing an objective fact.
When did you graduate from CHS?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7287
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 12:18 am: | |
What is to stop a teacher from reporting a suspected illegal student anonymously? Does the BOE accept anonymous reports? That would solve the problem of a teacher fearing consequences of reporting.
Yes, Kathleen, Fred's statements sound indefensible. I hope a Fred supporter can come forth to try to defend them. I'd like to see if the defense holds water. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 5, 2005 - 9:58 am: | |
At least we know what side Tom is on now. The naive "I just recently moved here" act is now officially over folks.
Deluca has always used fear tactics. He has no problem dodging a tough uestion, taking credit for things he never did and doing whatever he needs to do to get elected. The voters of Newark weren't buying his bull time after time and neither should the voters of Maplewood. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7353
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 10:51 am: | |
I mentioned that I recently moved here (two years ago) because I'm a relatively blank slate and will listen to everyone. I hope that there are a few of us blank slates, so I wasn't asking for help merely for myself.
If everyone had his mind made up already, what would be the point in spouting off? |
meluga
Citizen
Username: Meluga
Post Number: 25
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 11:11 am: | |
How often are identified out of district students allowed to remain in school ? I know there are elementary and high school students identified as living outside of SOM but have been given permission to stay by the BOE. I get the impression ,from more than one school, that students who do not live in district are identified by the school, the district is notified and that's the end of it |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7356
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 11:30 am: | |
This is the first I've heard of that. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 280
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 12:42 pm: | |
mehiga,
Your post is unclear to me. If you are saying (and perhaps you are not) that the BOE does nothing after being given information that individual students might not be residents of the district, please read the long post above which soundly refutes that.
If you are saying that it appears some children that the BOE has identified as out-of-district may still be in school for some period of time after that, there is an explanation, also in the post above, but I'm excerpting it here. Please bear in mind that in this district, most students who are investigated who don't have the appropriate documents to establish residency leave voluntarily. Only some appeal:
What is the process to remove a non-resident student?
After passage of the 21-day conditional enrollment period, the district cannot remove an enrolled student without affording the student the due process protections mandated by NJ law.
The student is entitled to a hearing before the Board. If the Board votes to remove the student, he or she has the right to file an appeal with the Commissioner of Education.
Pending the appeal, the student is allowed to continue attending school in the district. If the Commission upholds the Board's decision, the student still has the right to file a judicial appeal, although absent a court order, the student may be removed from the district.
The process through the Commissioner's decision typically takes 6-9 months meaning that, by law, the student may be able to remain in the schools for all or most of the school year.
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1302
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:44 pm: | |
Kathleen -
You are kidding, aren't you? Do you think the people who do this are that stupid?
***The overwhelming number of the 90 students to which you refer are children who were legally enrolled in September but who failed to withdraw mid-year when their parents moved out of the district, many because they did not understand the law required it.***
|
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1303
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 7:52 pm: | |
Charles I agree with most of what you have said. Maybe the teachers who've told you about the illegal students need to do something about the situation. Are these students trouble makers? If they are, it's all the more reason to get them out of our schools.
Luckily the problems in the schools weren't as profound when I went through the schools here. Then again, maybe I just didn't see the problems then as I see them now.
Someone mentioned maybe the teachers don't report the students because they fel soory for them. I doubt they feel sorry for them. If they did, they wouldn't be complaining about the illegal students. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 1304
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:06 pm: | |
whatfrat-
I think there is a flaw allowing students living in illegal apartments to attend our schools. Come on, don't you think the parent knows they are living in an illegal apartment? Why does the law reward this?
It's too bad state law, doesn't allow the sharing of information between the authorities and the school district. While I agree children are entitled to an education, those living here in illegal apartments are breaking the law -well their parents are. We should not reward this behavior.
If knowing about illegal apartments will keep illegal students out of the schools, the information should be shared.
I used to be friendly with someone who owned a four bedroom house in Summit. He'd rent out three of the bedrooms to single women with children for something like $600 a month plus part of the utilities with the sole purpose of the kids being able to attend the Summit schools.
I stopped being friends with him, partly because of this... |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 281
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:27 pm: | |
Just the Aunt,
No, the people I think are stupid are the people who mouth off without knowing what they are talking about. I've talked to BOE members and what I said is exactly the case. I don't think it's an illogical assumption to make, in fact, I wish children could just finish out a school year. It's less disruptive to education.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page