Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Steve King 10/8/07; Residency Concerns
Topic Started: Oct 8 2007, 08:23 PM (3,512 Views)
Renee Chesney
Veteran
Nikki
Oct 9 2007, 02:00 PM
Duh...Renee.' You are twisting Steve's words.

I am sorry Nikki was I talking to you. I believe my post said DAN. Duh!!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Little me
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 01:54 PM
BoaterDan
Oct 9 2007, 01:38 PM
still concerned mom
Oct 9 2007, 12:32 PM
hopefloats
Oct 9 2007, 10:26 AM
From the Steve's blog...
"Residency is another issue. This district has turned a blind eye to this problem ever since the legacy initiative drove so many students out of our schools. "

I don't see where Steve has indicated that this is because of the LI, rather he is stating "ever since the legacy inititive". I take that to mean the district is turning a blind eye to the problem, so as not to lose any more students (funding).

Yeah, that's a rather simple and straightforward interpretation of what he wrote if you don't start with some bias.

He still could be flat wrong in his assertion, mind you, but it is clearly not what RC is trying to make of it.

Gee Dan what am I trying to make of it?

Steve-o makes your blood boil, Renee!! Chill......I do find it entertaining, though! :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sourapples
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Little me
Oct 9 2007, 07:12 PM
Steve-o makes your blood boil, Renee!! Chill......I do find it entertaining, though! :lol:

Sheeple have that problem ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mrs.M
Oct 9 2007, 12:03 PM
Another district's handling of the residency requirement

http://www.birmingham.k12.mi.us/NR/rdonlyr...mentsNEW607.doc

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:it-vtM...&gl=us&ie=UTF-8


February 28th, 2007
Steve Gaynor Superintendent Bloomfield Schools
Answers Residency Questions
Dear Parents,

Recently, the Lahser and Andover PTO’s hosted a joint meeting at which I was honored to speak. One of the topics addressed was residency issues, and subsequently a parent suggested that I communicate this information to all of you. To be thorough, this is a rather long explanation, so please bear with me.

There are basically three types of enrollment in the district: traditional residency, “non-traditional” residency, and tuition. Traditional residency is what you would think: families that have purchased homes here, live in those homes, and send their children to our public schools.

The second type, non-traditional residency, includes renters, children living with guardians, foster placements, placements with relatives, and situations where a divorced parent who lives in the district newly enrolls his/her child here. In all cases, upon proper verification, these children have a legal right to be here.

For either type of residency, we have now implemented strict “proof of residency” requirements:

One of the following: recent property tax statement, current lease/rental agreement, or closing statement from a recently executed purchase, AND

Three of the following: employer/tax statements, voter’s registration, car insurance statement, utility (not cell phone) bills.

Since we implemented these requirements, fraudulent entries have dropped to near zero, and those we know of are zealously pursued. In fact, from September 2005 - September 2006, 50 students were exited from the district for non-residency. You know we’re serious when those 50 students represent $600,000 worth of funding! Another 10 students were moved from residency to tuition basis, since their status resulted from a genuine misunderstanding. For example, some believed that buying a house in the district was sufficient, even though they kept their house in another district and lived in it. Our new requirements surfaced those few families, who were given the option of paying tuition since their intent was different from those deceiving us.

The final category of students is those paying tuition. About 1/3 pay the full cost (over $10,000 per high school student, for example), about 60 are children of employees residing in another district for whom we receive only the resident district foundation grant (by law), and the remainder pay the difference between our tuition and the resident district’s released foundation grant.

There has been some question about these students, so let me tell you that at the high school level (where this information is readily accessible), tuition students’ grade point averages mirror those of our own resident students. We are generally getting students very similar to those who live here.


Here is a list:

Conant–11
Eastover–7
Hickory Grove–22
Lone Pine–20
Pine Lake–8
Way–6
BHMS–9
EHMS–11
WHMS–24
Andover–61
Lahser–23

TOTAL–202

The cost to us is virtually nil, since these students are placed into classrooms and schools that have existing space. However, the revenue to us is enormous: since the program was instituted in 1997, we have realized over $14 million. So, when people wonder why our district is in such excellent financial shape, why we are sustaining and enhancing our instructional program while other districts are cutting, this tuition program (strategically begun 10 years ago) is a major reason.

Finally, are we a Schools of Choice district, or will we become one? The answers are emphatically NO and NO. Boards of Education must intentionally and by resolution opt in to that program; ours never has and has no future intention of doing so. It would mean opening our district to all residents of Oakland County on a virtually unrestricted basis, something we know our constituents would not want. So if you hear rumors to that effect, please know that they are without foundation.

Thanks for your patience in reading through all of this. Please feel free to share it with friends. And, if you have any questions, be sure to let me know.

Best wishes,

Steven A. Gaynor,
Superintendent of Schools
Bloomfield Hills Schools
http://www.bloomfield.org/
Phone: (248) 341-5407
Fax: (248) 341-5449
“Comprehensive education at its finest”

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Little me
Member Avatar
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. :blink:
I say, hire another consultant! :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renee Chesney
Veteran
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 02:22 PM
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.

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 03:02 PM
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 02:22 PM
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.

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.

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renee Chesney
Veteran
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 04:04 PM
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 03:02 PM
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 02:22 PM
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.

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.

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?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 04:11 PM
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 04:04 PM
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 03:02 PM
Vanna White
Oct 9 2007, 02:22 PM
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.

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.

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?

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.

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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.'
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Most families who are in the district 'legally' wouldn't have an objection to providing 'proof'. Others may feel challenged.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Renee Chesney
Oct 9 2007, 10:49 AM

Residency is another issue. This district has turned a blind eye to this problem ever since the legacy initiative drove so many students out of our schools. Since the money follows the student, enrollment numbers are very important.

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? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
hopefloats
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mrs.M
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mmmmkay?
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Mrs.M
Oct 9 2007, 07:31 PM
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.

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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
mmmmkay?
Oct 10 2007, 06:24 AM
Mrs.M
Oct 9 2007, 07:31 PM
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.

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?

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! :blink:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
134K
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Hopeful
Oct 10 2007, 07:14 AM
mmmmkay?
Oct 10 2007, 06:24 AM
Mrs.M
Oct 9 2007, 07:31 PM
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.

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?

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! :blink:

Quote:
 
As RF (BOE Trustee) stated, 'I want to be a rubber stamper for the district'.  Once again truly showing his fiscal responsibility!  :blink:


Talk about twisting someone's words... :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Xena
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nikki
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply