Opinions on residency requirements

[Allegra]

In the state where I work and live, you are required to prove residency in order to attend a particular public school. A school district can allow a student to attend under exceptional attendance if they choose, but they are not paid for that student and must take resources from other students. The district where I work is considered a desirable district. In fact, it is the only desirable district in the general area where it is located. As a result of this, we have a considerable problem with parents committing all manner of fraud in order to obtain admittance for their kids. This is has been a problem for some time, but as the surrounding districts have more or less gone to seed and our classrooms have become overcrowded as it is, it has become more urgent.

In order to discourage this problem, our new principal has taken a step that really doesn’t sit well with me and, in my opinion, is discriminatory. He has sent home a letter to the parents of all students who have submitted paperwork indicating that they are in a month-to-month lease. The letter states that because of their rental agreement, they are going to be bothered to supply monthly proof of their continued residence, as opposed to the one document that they currently had to supply at the begining of the year. The argument for this new procedure is that the school doesn’t know if the family has moved out during the course of the year.

I find this discriminatory against families with less means as parents who own their own homes or stay with relatives who own their own homes are required to submit paperwork only once during their child’s entire career in our district. They can move anytime they want and are only required to show proof of residency if the school becomes suspicious. I know of many, many cases where the school was completely aware that the child of a homeowner had moved, but allowed the student to continue attending until the end of the year and even an additional year. I know the district has the right to request proof of any parent, at any time, if they have reason to believe that they are enrolled fraudulantly. However, I think it is unfair, and discriminatory to require the families that rent to provide constant proof when they don’t require the same of homeowners.

What do you think?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I think that this is a great testimony for homeschooling or for Catholic school.

 

[twopekinguys]

Since my retirement, I have been working with the School Bus Dept. for our district.

We see this all the time.

It sounds like your administrator, and ours are trying to abate an obvious problem, with little resources.

No system is fool proof, and as soon as there is a safeguard in place, someone figures a way around it. Fake rent receipts, etc.

Looking to a couple of your examples, a child living with a relative inside the district boundaries would be eligible for schooling in your district. It happens all the time with all of the different parenting scenarios out there.

Many districts have an out of district tuition for cases where a child moves during a school year. In the case you suggested where someone moved outside of the boundary and continued going, that very well may be the case, and you are probably not aware of all of the circumstances. If you aren’t involved in the financial part of your school or districts business, then you are making assumptions.

You have to remember that renters tend to be a more “transient” population, and will move more frequently due to finances, and rent incentives at other locations. Often times it will force them to move outside of a district boundary.

By indicating they are “month to month”, they are more likely to move than a person that has purchased a home and is building equity, or someone who has a lease.

It sounds like your administrator is doing his best to reduce the burden on your school, and is going with the easiest fix first.

 

[Corki]

It is discriminatory but most discrimination is neither illegal nor unfair. If the district has seen parents using month-to-month leases to commit fraud they have every reason to be more cautious.

 

[marymary1975]

I’ve kinda seen this before too. A couple of years ago I used to live in the north area of the state in which my town was completely surrounded by really bad towns. Similar situation tons of people from surrounding towns started getting their kids into my town’s school and I heard they were asking certified letters from landlords on a monthly basis. That didn’t help the situation so they got even worst. By the time I took my daughter out of public school there they were asking everybody at least every months this ridiculous amounts of socumentation . you had to give them your car registration, provide a copy of your taxes, show proof of excise tax payment. It was beyond ridiculous.

 

[St_Francis]

Maybe they should just ask everyone who does not own a home or have a lease for monthly proof unless they have lived at the location for a minimum number of years (I know when I was younger, first we’d have a year’s lease, and then it would go to month-to-month.) The proof could be something like a utility bill.

As to people who are “living with relatives” at the beginning of the year… I don’t know.

 

[johnmann]

Whatever you can it, it seems like bad policy. Is moving the real culprit anyway? I’ve known a few parents who sent their children to school in other districts. They did so by applying with the address of a friend or relative in the district. Monthly verification would have been useless.

I hate the districting system to begin with but taking it as a given, I’m not sure what school admins can do.

 

[Allegra]

It wouldn’t bother me so much if they had the same requirements for everyone. Why should renters have to provide monthly proof when homeowners or their roommates only have to provide it once? They can move just as easily, and as I’ve said, I’ve never heard of a situation where a student was not allowed to continue out the end of the school year as long as they were legitimately enrolled in the first place. I don’t have to be part of the administration to know this. It’s not considered a secret. I’ve discussed individual cases with the principal, the secretary, the other teachers, the students, and the parents. I’m quite certain none of them are paying the $11,000 tuition required to keep the student there.

I’m aware that it isn’t illegal for them to do this, but I do think it’s somewhat icky and I question what harm it’s going to do to our relationship with the community we serve. If they actually enforce this policy, I expect that many students will miss days of school because their parents didn’t have time to bring up their monthly unpaid gas bill. (PS- In addition, the parents have to take the documentation to the district administration office between the hours of 9-4 on a weekday. They can’t just send it to school with their kid.)

 

[maryjk]

It wouldn’t bother me so much if they had the same requirements for everyone. Why should renters have to provide monthly proof when homeowners or their roommates only have to provide it once? They can move just as easily,

Homeowners are less transient than renters. That’s just the way it is.

 

[Allegra]

Homeowners are less transient than renters. That’s just the way it is.

And yet, we have homeowners move in and out every year and many, many renters that have been in the district since their eldest was in kindergarten. They’re going to have to do better than that excuse with the parents they are inconveniencing. Is this about renters being more transient, or accusing them of being more apt to be dishonest? Because the later is how it is coming across. We only have one apartment complex in our attendance area and they don’t do month-to-month. Most of our month-to-month families are living in a house and have lived there for years.

And if the situation isn’t distrubing enough, by district policy (and I suspect state law), if a resident is evicted from their home then the district has to allow the children to finish the semester! But if they leave on their own, and they rent month-to-month, they get until the 4th business day of the following month!

 

[Allegra]

Whatever you can it, it seems like bad policy. Is moving the real culprit anyway? I’ve known a few parents who sent their children to school in other districts. They did so by applying with the address of a friend or relative in the district. Monthly verification would have been useless.

I hate the districting system to begin with but taking it as a given, I’m not sure what school admins can do.

The biggest culprit, as far as I can tell, are parents who claim to live with relatives when they really don’t. We’ve also had a couple of moms who have taken advantage of laws that were designed to keep homeless children in school. They’ve figured out that if they live with boyfriends and never sign a lease themself, they can claim they are homeless and their kids can go to the last school where they had a permanant residence, no matter where they’re actually living. As I said, I’ve never known the previous principal to deny any student the chance to finish out the school year. (If they were legitimately enrolled in the first place and moved during the course of the year.)

 

[St_Francis]

If children are permitted to finish the year, then there is no point to the monthly verification and all it is doing s causing a hardship for one certain type of parent, and not the most likely to be offending type either.

So, yes, this is very strange, as is the necessity for the parent to bring the proof into the 1. district office during 2. normal working hours. They can’t even mail it???

 

[maryjk]

And yet, we have homeowners move in and out every year and many, many renters that have been in the district since their eldest was in kindergarten. They’re going to have to do better than that excuse with the parents they are inconveniencing. Is this about renters being more transient, or accusing them of being more apt to be dishonest? Because the later is how it is coming across. We only have one apartment complex in our attendance area and they don’t do month-to-month. Most of our month-to-month families are living in a house and have lived there for years.

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t change statistics. Homeowners are generally less transient. Utility companies even look at homeowners and renters in a different way. When we rented, we had to put a deposit down. When we owned, we didn’t.

And if the situation isn’t distrubing enough, by district policy (and I suspect state law), if a resident is evicted from their home then the district has to allow the children to finish the semester! But if they leave on their own, and they rent month-to-month, they get until the 4th business day of the following month!

And, although you see the situation as disturbing, I see it as quite sympathetic. If someone leaves on their own, normally they plan to leave. That means they pack up their stuff, have a new place to go, things like that. If you are evicted, it is a different story. You may not have anywhere else to go. Your belongings may be strewn across your lawn. Allowing your children to stay in the same school seems to me, to be compassionate.

 

[Kal2012]

It would be burdensome if someone had to do this every month. Yet, I can understand the reasoning behind the decision.

In our old school district, we had to provide proof of residency again after our two-year lease was up in March. They sent us a letter a few weeks before we even signed a new lease saying that they wanted a copy of our new lease and to update the proof of residency.

I actually appreciated the letter because the district isn’t open to students from other areas and you have to be a resident to attend. It was nice to see that there was a process in place to try and weed out non-residents who weren’t eligible to attend the schools there. (As they have scammers, like every system.)

Also, people get month to month leases because it’s easier to go month-to-month when you are in the process of looking for a new place. It’s much more expensive to break a year lease than a month to month. If they don’t want to provide paperwork so often, then the renters, who go month to month, now have an incentive to get a year or two year lease on their rental.

 

[Allegra]

They can’t even mail it???

They need to hold on to it in order to pay it, unless they do direct pay. But then, I don’t know what they have to turn in as it’s done online.

 

[Allegra]

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t change statistics. Homeowners are generally less transient. Utility companies even look at homeowners and renters in a different way. When we rented, we had to put a deposit down. When we owned, we didn’t.
And, although you see the situation as disturbing, I see it as quite sympathetic. If someone leaves on their own, normally they plan to leave. That means they pack up their stuff, have a new place to go, things like that. If you are evicted, it is a different story. You may not have anywhere else to go. Your belongings may be strewn across your lawn. Allowing your children to stay in the same school seems to me, to be compassionate.

What difference do wide-range statistics make if they don’t represent the community we serve? We are a local, neighborhood school. In our neighborhood, the problem isn’t historically associated with month-to-month leasers.
And it isn’t the policy about those who are evicted that is disturbing. What is distrubing is that they don’t afford the same compassion to month-to-month leasers who could be leaving the apartment in the same exact situation. They could still be leaving because they can’t pay the rent anymore and they could still not have a permanent residence to go to. The only difference is that they aren’t breaking a lease when they get tossed out, so they don’t call it an eviction.

 

[johnmann]

Anecdotal evidence doesn’t change statistics. Homeowners are generally less transient. Utility companies even look at homeowners and renters in a different way. When we rented, we had to put a deposit down. When we owned, we didn’t.

Of course there are differences between homeowners and renters but what difference does it make when it comes to educating children? Why does the child of parents who owned and moved get to finish out the year while the child of parents who rented and moved don’t?

And, although you see the situation as disturbing, I see it as quite sympathetic. If someone leaves on their own, normally they plan to leave. That means they pack up their stuff, have a new place to go, things like that. If you are evicted, it is a different story. You may not have anywhere else to go. Your belongings may be strewn across your lawn. Allowing your children to stay in the same school seems to me, to be compassionate.

A lot of people move voluntarily for financial reasons. Is is really compassionate to kick a student out because the parent lost her job and had to move the family to a relative’s home in another district?

 

[maryjk]

Of course there are differences between homeowners and renters but what difference does it make when it comes to educating children? Why does the child of parents who owned and moved get to finish out the year while the child of parents who rented and moved don’t?

As I have said, homeowners are less transient than renters. That is what makes them different.

According to the OP, everyone gets to finish out the year. As long as they were legitimately enrolled, in the first place, they have never been asked to leave. So, everyone gets to finish out the year.

A lot of people move voluntarily for financial reasons. Is is really compassionate to kick a student out because the parent lost her job and had to move the family to a relative’s home in another district?

No one has been kicked out. In fact, the OP has twice stated that as long as the student is legitimately enrolled, they are allowed to finish out the year.

The issue is, that there are rules. And if these rules are ever implemented, some children may be asked to leave the school, when they parents move. And really, isn’t that normal? You and your family move, and your children change schools? I’ve never heard of people moving into a new school district and the children staying at the old school. In fact, isn’t that kind of *cheating *the old school out of the tax money? So isn’t that what the school district trying to stop? Having children in their school system when the tax money for that child is going to another district?

 

[maryjk]

What difference do wide-range statistics make if they don’t represent the community we serve? We are a local, neighborhood school. In our neighborhood, the problem isn’t historically associated with month-to-month leasers.
And it isn’t the policy about those who are evicted that is disturbing. What is distrubing is that they don’t afford the same compassion to month-to-month leasers who could be leaving the apartment in the same exact situation. They could still be leaving because they can’t pay the rent anymore and they could still not have a permanent residence to go to. The only difference is that they aren’t breaking a lease when they get tossed out, so they don’t call it an eviction.

Aren’t all public schools, local neighborhood schools? I mean, unless they are magnet school?

I’ve got to be honest, Allegra. It seems like you are in search of a cause, here. You have said yourself, not one child has not been kicked out of the school. Every child is able to finish out the year.

I’ve never heard of a situation where a student was not allowed to continue out the end of the school year as long as they were legitimately enrolled in the first place.

As I said, I’ve never known the previous principal to deny any student the chance to finish out the school year. (If they were legitimately enrolled in the first place and moved during the course of the year.)

 

[Allegra]

Aren’t all public schools, local neighborhood schools? I mean, unless they are magnet school?

I’ve got to be honest, Allegra. It seems like you are in search of a cause, here. You have said yourself, not one child has not been kicked out of the school. Every child is able to finish out the year.

It seems to me that you are purposefully missing the point here. You are talking about “statistics” that include all different sorts of communities. Why would a school district make their policies based on statistics instead of the reality in front of them? That’s the point of having a local, neighborhood school. A school district in an urban area with hundreds of rental units makes policies that work for them. A school district in a suburban area with literally two apartment buildings and a low rate of transiency makes policies that apply to them and are fair to the members of the community that they serve. What you call anecdotal evidence is much more based in reality then statistics from thousands of very different kinds of communities all over the country.

Also, what I said was that no students have ever been kicked out in the past, by the previous pincipal. It appears from this letter that the new principal intends to throw out children of month-to-month renters, but not homeowners, despite the fact that they are equally capable of moving at any given time. Since it is highly unlikely that any of these renters are actually keeping their children enrolled illegally, in practice it amounts to burdoning them with an extra responsibility that is difficult for a working parent to meet. If it turns out that a working parent can’t find time during bank hours to drop by the administrative office every month, their child is unenrolled until they do, causing the student to miss days of instruction.