| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Steve King 10/8/07; Residency Concerns | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 8 2007, 08:23 PM (3,512 Views) | |
| Renee Chesney | Oct 9 2007, 03:02 PM Post #21 |
|
Veteran
|
I am sorry Nikki was I talking to you. I believe my post said DAN. Duh!!!! |
![]() |
|
| Little me | Oct 9 2007, 03:12 PM Post #22 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Steve-o makes your blood boil, Renee!! Chill......I do find it entertaining, though! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Vanna White | Oct 9 2007, 03:22 PM Post #23 |
|
Veteran
|
Sometimes when people don't have any real argument or evidence to support their point of view, they stoop to picking apart the words of their opponent. It is easy to attack the wording or grammer while missing the entire point and never addressing the real issue. Don't get sucked into mirroring this approach. It is best to just ignore it and stick to the real issues. |
![]() |
|
| Sourapples | Oct 9 2007, 03:23 PM Post #24 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sheeple have that problem
|
![]() |
|
| Al Beabak | Oct 9 2007, 03:32 PM Post #25 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Excellent planning and implementation by that district to identify and remove non-resident students, also an excellent revenue generating system they have. Why does LPS shun using benchmarks such as this from other districts here? I still don't understand why LPS is not using something that has proven to already work. So what if it is not an original idea? |
![]() |
|
| Little me | Oct 9 2007, 04:00 PM Post #26 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It really is too bad that this continues be a problem and nothing is done about it. I have talked to quite a few people in LPS and no one seems to know the proper way or how to handle it.
I say, hire another consultant! |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Oct 9 2007, 04:02 PM Post #27 |
|
Veteran
|
Oh that is funny because the last time I checked you guys were all about picking apart people's words. But I guess you just don't see or get that. Talk about mirroring. All I did was answer a question. I was not the one questioning who said residency was only a problem after the LI. That being said, I firmly believe non-residents have been an issue for quite some time. I don't think the LI caused LPS to turn a blind eye, I just think there are people who try to get away with it and will until they get caught. What we need is a hotline or informal way for people to report those who are doing it. I certainly think Steve-O could have phrased it better so that there was no confusion, but as to whether or not it is a problem, sure it is. Sometimes it is better to post the problem and a solution than to just sit back and finger point because that accomplishes nothing. |
![]() |
|
| Vanna White | Oct 9 2007, 05:04 PM Post #28 |
|
Veteran
|
I was not directing my comment specifically at you, although I guess I see how you might look at it that way. I do realize that it was a different poster that brought up the issue. I was addressing the larger issue of picking apart the words rather than dealing with real issues, which I agree happens on both sides. I just hate to see it and would rather stick to the important issues...that's all. I think that my advise not to get sucked into it applies to all. In the instant case, wouldn't it be better to discuss possible solutions to the residency issue instead of arguing about whether someone meant to say that it only started after the LI or not? I don't think anyone really believes that this problem only existed after the LI, do you? |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Oct 9 2007, 05:11 PM Post #29 |
|
Veteran
|
I agree. That is why I said in my previous post that I think we need a hotline that people can call and report the offenders. |
![]() |
|
| Vanna White | Oct 9 2007, 06:14 PM Post #30 |
|
Veteran
|
That is one way to do it, but it might be difficult for the school employees or administrators to only ask people who are reported on a hot line. People would be angry and will feel singled out. It is possible that it could really get ugly due to an unforseen adverse impact on a specific group. Wouldn't it look horrible if primarily people from one race or ethnic background were reported and thus asked? This might make it very hard to implement a hot line without fear of legal action due to claims of discrimination. It probably makes more sense to require an annual document check for everyone. I'm sure that this would create a lot of work, but I think there are ways to make it work. You could implement it in such a way as to spread the work out over time. For example, rather than having everyone show their documents at the same time of year, you could break it up by last name of the child (A-D in September, E-H in October, etc. For people with kids at more than one school, you could ask that they report to the school office of their youngest child by a set deadline (end of the appropriate month, for example) and provide the names of all the children in school so that a database can be kept current to track that everyone has shown documents for each child enrolled. Those new to the district would show documents when they first enroll as they do now. Anyhow...there may be other processes that are better, but you get the drift that you can divide the work so it is manageable. I guess the big question is: Does LPS want to check residency at all or do they prefer the don't ask/don't tell status quo that gives them a little extra piece of that state money? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Oct 9 2007, 07:26 PM Post #31 |
|
Deleted User
|
That very question was asked at the Stevenson Q & A (with the index cards) two years ago. Particularly with the high schools being overcrowded. Mr. Hosman's quick response was "A residency check would be cost prohibitive. No, LPS would not do that." One could read into that response, 'that a loss of students would be cost prohibitive.' |
|
|
| Deleted User | Oct 9 2007, 07:29 PM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
Most families who are in the district 'legally' wouldn't have an objection to providing 'proof'. Others may feel challenged. |
|
|
| Hopeful | Oct 9 2007, 07:31 PM Post #33 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That blog did not blame the LI for residency issues...... it stated that LPS is 'turning a blind eye' to the problem since the LI. Liepa and this Administration would do just about anything to report that there are less students leaving LPS since the LI. (Unfortunately, we all know that's not the case.) If that means that they are not strictly enforcing one of their own policies, then that is what they would do If you recall, Liepa and his Administration predicted a student loss of 250 students, for the first year after their LI implementation. They were WAY off! The actual number of general ed students lost was >600. This year, the second year following implementation, Liepa and his Administration have put out their prediction of 350 students less than last year. That is nearly 1,000 students lost since the implementation of their plan. When are Liepa and his Administration going to realize that their Legacy plan continues to drive families from this district? How many more students will they have to lose before they think about changing something to attract families to LPS? Maybe another reorganization would bring some of those families back to LPS?
|
![]() |
|
| hopefloats | Oct 9 2007, 08:04 PM Post #34 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Okay so what was the point of Mr King even putting anything about the LI in statement about residency if he wasn't trying to assign blame. But whatever. I do think that yearly residency checks are a reasonable way to begin to address the problem. Whatever methods are used must apply to all students and families. I would imagine that any reporting of specific people could cause anger and bring up all kinds of issues about singling certain people out. Livonia already has a bad rep for this kind of thing. It wouldn't be good to make it worse. Unfortunately there is a way to get around the yearly residency check. As stated here before people can just rent an apartment for a short period of time. That could still be done yearly but perhaps would not be as feasible as doing it once. I do not know what bed checks are but if it involves only checking on certain people I am not sure this would not damage the district more than help it. |
![]() |
|
| Mrs.M | Oct 9 2007, 08:31 PM Post #35 |
|
Veteran
|
bed checks << verifying that people are actually living where they claim to be; more than just registering an address to reap the benefits of residency. We've heard the definition and what is required to claim residency in a city/precinct/district last year. |
| I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be WRONG. | |
![]() |
|
| mmmmkay? | Oct 10 2007, 07:24 AM Post #36 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ummmmmm yes Didn't we have a little issue that arose regarding residency of a sitting board member? Didn't that board member resign and never come back to challenge his non-resident status? Wasn't the good dr. and ms. scheel made fully aware of the situation but chose to ignore the law anyways? Isn't that setting a precedent for their continued non-action regarding student residency? Has anything changed with this leadership? Have they not learned a thing? mmmmkay? |
![]() |
|
| Hopeful | Oct 10 2007, 08:14 AM Post #37 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They learned that they can ignore requests from the public, and then deny that they knew anything about it.... especially when it comes to the residency of another BOE member. It is currently beneficial for this BOE and Administration to look the other way, when non-residents are registered as students. This will keep the head counts slightly inflated. More students, means more money. Incoming money is the only thing that this BOE cares about; they don't even seem concerned with how the money is spent. They NEVER question where and how the money is spent. As RF (BOE Trustee) stated, 'I want to be a rubber stamper for the district'. Once again truly showing his fiscal responsibility!
|
![]() |
|
| 134K | Oct 10 2007, 09:10 AM Post #38 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Talk about twisting someone's words... :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Xena | Oct 10 2007, 09:17 AM Post #39 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For middle school and high school students they could ask for proof of residency when the kids go in to do Id pics? Elementary kids could be scheduled in a similar manner. |
![]() |
|
| Nikki | Oct 10 2007, 09:18 AM Post #40 |
|
Veteran
|
As RF (BOE Trustee) stated, 'I want to be a rubber stamper for the district'. Once again truly showing his fiscal responsibility! Talk about twisting someone's words... I know....it's hard to believe, but he really did say that. Do we need to did up that quote from the paper? |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)