| Author | Message | ||
     Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 276 Registered: 9-2003  |
What do the other NJ districts do with regard to registration and high school, proof of residency, etc.? I ask this knowing that M/SO may have a particular issue, but if M/SO started by using/enforcing the same standards the other districts do, that that could not be considered discriminatory. As noted in previous, related threads: As a newcome to M/SO, we went through several rounds of presenting papers, medical forms, etc. both to my daugher's elementary, and to the district. It was absolutely clear that the paper trail process was a mess. Being the law-abiding type, I just kept presenting the same proofs of shots/etc., residency, over and over again till it all stopped. So, the impression I'm left with is that (1) the "system" is far from systematic, (2) enforcement is a mess, and now (3) there is no penalty for not complying -- regardless of one's intent. Personally, I think think this is important for a whole host of reasons separate even from "guest students." In the event of an emergency, how the heck is the school supposed find parents, etc.? I would think the insurance/liability issues were equally huges. And, as it happens, I also don't think this education budget-stressed district should be paying for more than it can handle. Treating this like some kind of "save the children" appeal from Irvington/Newark schools is co-dependency at its worst. It would make more sense to help I/N schools get better. | ||
| fringe Citizen Username: Fringe Post Number: 266 Registered: 5-2001 |
NJ law, based upon a case brought against this district by the Education Law Center, several of whose members live/d here, is that any student requesting admission must be granted it - whether or not the paperwork is in order. After 20 days the district can begin the process to remove students not properly documented as domiciles. A major problem here is the number of students who claim to live with relative/friends who are residents. This is specifically allowed by NJ statute. The caveat is that the children must actually spend their non-school time at the address including sleeping. Towns, such as Union, that have effectively dealt with this problem have employed several full time investigators who document the comings and goings of such students with video. Rumor has it that tthat town has removed more than 300 students by this method over the last couple of years. BOE members admit that they do not believe much of the testimony given at residency hearings involving this situation, but have no way to disprove it. Thus the students are allowed to remain. The district is currently working with Union to develop better information gathering. Other solutions involve rolling back the provision in the statute that alows this or the addition of a new law requiring the district in which the parents reside to provide funding to the district in which the children go to school. JTL | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 606 Registered: 3-2002 |
How do parents who don't live in M/SO who can't afford to pay tuition so they sneak their child into our school system ever pay for an attorney for a law suit? Or do we pay for that too? | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 573 Registered: 5-2001 |
Which members of the Education Law Center live here? DWM | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4261 Registered: 5-2001 |
Rumor may have Union eliminating 300 plus non-resident students, but the article I read indicated 50 or so, certainly less than 100. I believe each succesful defense of a non-resident student case results in a law suti. Attornies might be willing to represent students at BOE hearings in return for a nice payday when the civil suit is resolved. I don't disagree that there is a problem here. Proving it, however, is almost impossible. Even if a detective taped a student going to a dwelling in Irvington for five straight days, the "just visiting" defense would probably carry the day. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 111 Registered: 5-2001 |
Fringe's statement only said "statements by long time CHS faculty" -- how is that more valid than mine? We need some stats, stat (though not all of them are valid either). | ||
| michael Citizen Username: Michael Post Number: 457 Registered: 1-2002 |
John - The solution begins with the acknowledgement of the BOE that we have a problem followed by the WILL to find a solutuion. I have seen neither in the past 6 years. Support the Maplewood/South Orange Ministry of Propaganda (otherwise known as the CCR) | ||
| monster Citizen Username: Monster Post Number: 83 Registered: 7-2002 |
I say hire the investigators and pay for information, if I knew of someone who goes to one of our schools but didn't live here, I would gladly rat them out, and not accept any payment. A few years ago Clifton went to court over a Passaic family that sent there kids to a Clifton school, the family ended up having to pay several thousand dollars in restitution to the city. We have taxes that we pay here towards our school system, parents that send there children from out of district should be charged with theft and fraud. Is it possible for a group of citizens to take these people to court? After all, they are essentially stealing form us. Personally I feel they should be put in stocks, tarred and feathered, and run through the town on a rail, for all to see. | ||
| John Davenport Citizen Username: Jjd Post Number: 117 Registered: 2-2003 |
I want to know the real number that Union ousted with the PIs, and how much it cost them. If we think we could oust 100 students, we could save $1 million a year approximately (remembering that costs drop by steps, not a perfect continuum as the number of students decline). But it might cost $1 million in investigators and legal fees to do this, so is it worth it? We must also take into account the considerable social cost this would have in our community. The case for doing anything like this has HARDLY been made yet. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 280 Registered: 9-2003 |
As a parent, even if the cost/benefit ratio is 1, it's letting other potential "offenders" know that illegal is not tolerated. As with children and behavior, I think that once folks see that we are serious, it will stop. The cost benefit will be seen in subsequent years, when the behavior changes. In any case, why wouldn't all of us want to know the truth of this situation so the debate can stop? Maybe there are very few. What is this "considerable social cost?" Has Union experienced it? | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1803 Registered: 5-2001  |
THe problem is at the BOE itself. Steve Latz and crew don't really care to know the truth about "offenders". Find out who Latz is endorsing for upcoming BOE election, and then vote for the others. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1213 Registered: 6-2001 |
One thing the big push in Union a couple of years ago showed was how much of a gap there was between perception and reality. A list of over 500 "illegal" students was drawn up and more than three-fifths of them were completely legit. While we don't have an exact count here, and it is nigh well impossible to get, I suspect that we have a perception/reality gap as well. There is a large social and educational cost to treating significant numbers of legit students as scofflaws. If Union has developed ongoing investigative practices that help and the district is learning about them, that is good. As always, information would be more useful than rumor. Certainly this is a problem that will continue to be with us, as it is with Union--where ongoing enforcement efforts do not seem to have created an effective deterrent. | ||
| lumpyhead Citizen Username: Lumpyhead Post Number: 613 Registered: 3-2002 |
Ffof summed up the soft costs pretty well in this previous post. These are the costs no one seems to talk about. Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:18 am: My guess is that illegal students add up in other ways as well. There is the average cost per student, yes, but what if a "guest" student is stealing special needs services? And what if that "guest" student is causing behavior problems, taking up valuable guidance counselor time? And what if this "guest" student is bringing "poorly" behaved out-of-town friends to events at the schools putting stress on local police force? And what if these "guest" students are below average students, bringing our beloved/hated average test scores down? These costs add up above and beyond the average cost per student, and quite frankly, we should not put up with it. THis is a budget issue, for sure, and we should be non-tolerant to those using the system. | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1215 Registered: 6-2001 |
Lumpy, that's a lot of "what ifs" and a lot of scapegoating. There is no simple one to one correspondence between the problems you list and "illegal" students, let alone a way to estimate costs. Presumably the illegal students that some have posted they don't have the heart to turn in are somehow more deserving--or at least better behaved--than your hypothetical. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cynicalgirl - Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying - but do you really think this is about behavior? It's about trying to get a better edu for those who can't afford it. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1806 Registered: 5-2001 |
jf "Presumably the illegal students that some have posted they don't have the heart to turn in are somehow more deserving--or at least better behaved--than your hypothetical" Why should well-behaved illegals be more deserving? Get them all out. Zero tolerance. Fluge - helloooo! Better edu for those who can't afford it? If they are from another town, guess what? They have their own public school to go to, thank you very much. Feeling sorry for some smart kid from Irvington who is a fabulous kid but poor? Hmmmm, how about we just send ALL our tax dollars to Irvington, you know, really help them out. | ||
| flugermongers Citizen Username: Flugermongers Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2001 |
helllooooo! that was the point! their own public school might be a craphole. ::shakes head:: | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 1808 Registered: 5-2001 |
so what? why are we responsible for that? WE're not. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1707 Registered: 1-2003  |
We're certainly not responsible for educating kids from other towns, I agree. However, we should be concerned with the cost/benefit ratio of investigation. As cynicalgirl says, a ratio of 1 means we don't gain money and that would be OK, but are we willing to sustain a net loss on this? Lumpyhead, you point out that an illegal student could be particularly costly if he demands special needs. True, but isn't it just as likely that an illegal student could be a role model, creating a net gain for the district? I assume you agree that role models improve education for their peers. So I think these two possibilities cancel each other out, and we're back to estimating the marginal cost of a student. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| jfburch Citizen Username: Jfburch Post Number: 1217 Registered: 6-2001 |
And, according to an article in the Bergen Record (Schools Root Out illegal students, April 12, 2002), Clifton's newest get tough approach--including a full time investigator and a tip line to go with the existing reward system resulted in 444 investigations (in a 10,000 student district) and only 45 illegal students removed in 2002 as of the writing of the article. Again, it certainly points to a perception/reality gap and while the approach may make people feel better, it's not clear that it meets a cost/benefit analysis at any level. |
