|
|
Post by sonofsilencedogood on Dec 3, 2006 10:51:10 GMT -5
Since there is so much debate on this topic, in so many different forums, I wanted to consolidate it and bring it under one heading. For the record, here is a link to the LAW that the BOE has to adhere to regarding students eligible to obtain a "free public education" in the State of New Jersey, it is NJAC 6A:22 www.state.nj.us/njded/code/current/title6a/chap22.pdfread through this, particularly when you get to page 6 where it starts to discuss "Housing and immigration status" and "Proof of eligibility". Read the law, and if you can find a loophole or a condition that was missed, bring it to the boards attention. There is a Board of Education meeting tomorrow night, Monday December 4th at the Park Avenue School library, meeting starts at 7pm. If you can't attend that one, there will be another one in 2 weeks. Board of Ed meetings are generally the first and third Monday of each month, and they are certainly open to the public. Once everyone has read through this information, please feel free to give some feedback. |
|
|
|
Post by WYANE on Dec 3, 2006 16:23:47 GMT -5
Sonny "...board of education shall accept a combination of any of the following or similar forms of documentation from persons attempting to demonstrate a student’s eligibility for enrollment in the school district: 1. Property tax bills, deeds, contracts of sale, leases, mortgages, signed letters from landlords and other evidence of property ownership, tenancy or residency; 2. Voter registrations, licenses, permits, financial account information, utility bills, delivery receipts, and other evidence of personal attachment to a particular location; 3. Court orders, State agency agreements and other evidence of court or agency placements or directives;....." signed letters from landlords...If this, is THE solitary accepted Document, maybe along with the bogus unchecked Affidavit, is the go card to FB k-8, I know this is NOT tolerated in ANY OTHER District. We are dealing with felons with Stole Identities who are notorious for their phony SS#s (I know, the SS# is inadmissible),! What makes any intelligent person think a signed Affidavit and a "Letter from Epstein's mother”, is by any means adequate? We KNOW all to well who's access our resources, so this community has every right to expect our BOE to have a policy of HIGH STANDARDS, and VIGILANCE to be part of EVERY DAY practice, and no half baked measures (singe letter my eye)! I'd like to see this ANSWERED HERE!...HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE ENROLLED WITH JUST THESE TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION, ie...Letter and Affidavit only? How many students are enrolled with only ONE of these papers. What is the legal definition of "Letter from Landlord”? The legal “Landlord” holds the deed to the property, and the property MUST have Papers on file with the Boro, that states that said property is legal rental property, and that the Landlord should declare all LEGAL tenants! Anything less is NOT a legal LETTER from the landlord! A letter from a Sublet-ed half of a home or an apartment CAN NOT bet a qualifying Document, as the Sublet-or is not the Landloard....Where's the lease? How does the BOE check out the validity of the letter? How many students share the same address? Answer is, the BOE claims it is not allow manage, manipulate or disclose this type of data, any reason. So IF there a two, three, four families with the same address, would this not pose a health risk? Forget Municipal code violations for overcrowding, now there are minor involved however the BOE will have you believe that they MUST turn a blind eye if they have clear knowledge that CHILDREN live in unhealthy conditions. The BOE would have you believe they are not responsibility to protect our children, this is NOT a BOE problem. If a house burned and a child, or children die, and the BOE had prior information that identifying these unsafe condition (multiple no-related children at one residence), why would this not be this a failure on the part of any BOE! I can write a letter (and spell, as well as grammar check when forced to  ), and claim to be a Landloard too. Let me be clear. I DO understand the Law, and ALL BOE's in the State have the LATITUDE to use Discretion under the law based on individual community standards. A BOE has the option to be Rigid or VERY Liberal with enrollment. I have serious doubts that enrollment standards are being Maintained , no less ENFORCED. Maybe the BOE is under threat of action by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (a speculation, but not far fetched), to SUCK more financially resourced from our Boro. This boro has not have ANY major housing development. The number of Blocks and Lots has not grown! Yet the student population is gowning to 1500 students, from 1000 in 2000. I don’t these are just NEW FAMILIES, moving in, because the ratio of home vs, families has not changed in about 20 plus years. We more money and more classrooms is not the answer to the question…Where are these kids coming from, and where do they live! BEFORE YOU ASKED THE TAXPAYER FOR MORE OF OUR HARD EARNED INCOME, LETS GET THERE ANSWERS FIRST!!! |
|
|
|
Post by sonofsilencedogood on Dec 3, 2006 23:14:09 GMT -5
Wyane...before I go on with this, let me tell you that believe it or not, I feel much the same way you do. And, believe it or not, there are members of the school board who feel this way as well.
That being said...you didn't read on in the law that you quoted above...
"(c) A district board of education shall consider the totality of information and documentation offered by an applicant, and shall not deny enrollment based on failure to provide a particular form of documentation, or a particular subset of documents, without regard to other evidence presented"
Now, I am just speculating, but if a landlord is willing to rent out his property to a whole slew of illegal aliens, what's to say he wouldn't sign a simple letter saying that they live there?
The other issue that comes up is that maybe the BOE should look into sharing enrollment information with the town to then let the town look into the legality of the residences (again, the BOE is not a legislative, or an authoritative body when it comes to local, state or any other law). But apparently that is against the law as well - admittedly I am still searching for that piece of legislation.
As frustrated as I am with the fact that the hispanic population in our schools is now just below 50% (that's right, 50% up from 19% 10 years ago) and we all know where it's coming from (and I agree with you, it's not coming from "new families buying homes in the Boro as older families leave")...as frustrated as I am with all of this, everything I have looked at says that the BOE's hands are tied. Controlling the illegal population in our town is the responsibility of the Town Council, who just agreed to a settlement with the day laborers advocacy groups BEFORE THE ACTUAL SETTLEMENT WAS EVEN FULLY WRITTEN UP
That's right...when I called the Town Clerk to request a copy of the settlement that was reached, she informed me that the town's lawyer had not yet finished drafting the actual settlement, which means there may be larger consequences than the $278,000 we keep reading about in the papers, and the town council, who everyone keeps voting in year in and year out, all signed off on it without even having a copy of it in their hands.
But I digress...
Wyane, let me make this as clear as I can...there are people on the school board who are working diligently to try and come up with a way to control the population in the schools, you'll just have to trust me on this. Instead of everyone's disdain, they could use your help. As I stated in another post, they are all volunteers on the BOE, they all have lives outside of what they are doing for our schools, and many of them have kids that are in the very schools that they are trying to help. So to think they are being laxed is a misguided opinion. Our town council, which sat back and did nothing as the illegal population grew and grew and grew, and now aren't even able to stand up and fight when they are challenged with an opportunity to make a difference, they are the ones who deserve our anger and our scorn. Remember, the illegals in this town are not just affecting our schools, they are affecting our environment, they are affecting our property value, they are affecting our town's very reputation...and our town leaders have only recently even started to make some efforts to deal with the issue. But that's another story for another forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Dec 4, 2006 1:17:14 GMT -5
Son, I agree with much of what you have said. I do not think the focus should or can be who is enrolled properly. To the extent that there are out of districts students in the borough, it is probably minimal. The overcrowding is most likely from legal resident (whether they are illegal aliens or everyday citizens).
The focus has to be how to fix the schools with who is there. So I am starting a new thread so that people that want to discuss this issue may, my new thread will deal with getting better scores for the K-8 system.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Dec 4, 2006 1:35:39 GMT -5
"...just agreed to a settlement with the day laborers advocacy groups BEFORE THE ACTUAL SETTLEMENT WAS EVEN FULLY WRITTEN UP"
Talk about glass houses...What a cheap shot
And the $120,000 a year Super, who also sits on the Howell BOE is NOT a conflict of interest, Lets see an '07 attempt for a state forced merger with Howell, like the Board tried last year with the Township! How about some Sared services from Howell?
Lets see the Board members wife leave the Township Schools systems and make an academic contribution to the Boro!
And next year, lets rent our Schools out for a Freehold Boro Cultural Festival that will supports ALL OUR CULTURES, Not just Latino! (45% Language Arts Literacy /53% Math).
Oh, and you still didn't respond to the Photo coping of COPYWRITTEN Textbooks.
The Right Hand better start getting it togther with the Left Hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Dec 4, 2006 9:46:42 GMT -5
...To the extent that there are out of districts students in the borough, it is probably minimal. The overcrowding is most likely from legal resident (whether they are illegal aliens or everyday citizens)... Anyone disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by ywane on Dec 4, 2006 12:41:19 GMT -5
...To the extent that there are out of districts students in the borough, it is probably minimal. The overcrowding is most likely from legal resident (whether they are illegal aliens or everyday citizens)... Anyone disagree? Partly my point! but I would not simply suggest that its overgrowing as must as None legal Rental agreements or arrangement! Again...there is no new home construction, the number of Bocks and lots are static, so how is the student population going from 1100 to +1500 as the BOE would have you believe? and again this growth is not a cornucopia of ethnic diverity.... Maybe I am having a problem of articulating my point, please be patient with me...but why is it a VIOLATION of some law, for any BOE to ask for a copy of a LEASE? If they live in a Legal housing you need to have a Lease (or a tax bill, HUD form etc....). The Boro can not issue a CO to a landlord with out the existence of a LEGALLY BINDING Notarized Document call a LEASE, and I fail to understand why anyone is expected to accept any document as a substitute document for what is expected from a rental property, so again (OK I have a thick skull), whats with this LETTER FROM A LANDLORD" crap I want to see the LEASE! Why is this so difficult? WE ALL SHOULD KNOW....., HOW MANY STUDENTS DO WE HAVE WITH "LETTER" ONLY"? OK maybe you do live in the Boro with 17 other people under one roof, but you do not have LEGAL Residency somewhere, and this may be OK,shhhh, our secret, but...The BOE is entitled to know where you have Established Legal Residency, so that can BILL THAT MUNICIPALITY FOR YOUR TUITION, as we have the right to do! THAT IS THE LAW.....! Are there 100, 200 students like this? Thats a potential $8000. per child charge back to their "real" district, that can pay for the BEST ESL in the state of NJ! Send the bill to the Mexican Consulate. Hows that for a guest worker program, bill back the Home County for the services used. This is why "THE LETTER FROM THE LANDLORD IS CRAP!" |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 4, 2006 12:56:45 GMT -5
...To the extent that there are out of districts students in the borough, it is probably minimal. The overcrowding is most likely from legal resident (whether they are illegal aliens or everyday citizens)... Anyone disagree? I still believe that the schools should aggressively look to hunt down and root out the out of district students. The ESL and other services combined with the dominant culture, that is growing, would give like minded people from other towns reason to try to come here. it also save the other towns the burden of dealing with these students. Just my thought on that. The issue of overcrowded housing is without doubt the big reason for the sky high enrollment. One thing that comes to mind is last year when the schools were putting out their info for the need for more space, I was very skeptical of the future projections for enrollment. I could be dead wrong, but I do not think the schools were close to what the future will hold. As per some very true points that some of our posters have made. The schools have to educate any kid put in front of them. They have to adapt to those kids. That will make the town and schools more of a magnate for more of the same kids. And I have to pay for it all. |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Dec 4, 2006 13:37:55 GMT -5
I don't accept the premise of your argument - that their are kids from other towns clamoring to get into our K-8.
Who the hell would come to the borough to educate their kid if they lived somewhere else? Why send your kid miles away to a public school. Not even a mexican illegal. They can just send their kids to the school disctrict where they are living, and perhaps be in a better school system.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Dec 4, 2006 13:57:14 GMT -5
OK a moment of clarity....there is no influx of out of district students...
There are lots of illegal housing conditions, that takes many forms!
There are STANDARDS for legal residency documentation, but the BORO BOE chooses to have a loose interpretation, and they do not enforce.
I seriously doubt the District has the resources today, to review EVERY document now on file, which they should review before spending money a survey, they should get help professional help to FULL review of enrollment documentation, ie...survey the enrollment!
This loose enrollment causes the Boro to become a destination for those illegals looking to LIVE IN AN EASY TOWN, loose, liberal or Non residency documentation enforcment!...
Clean up the housing and clean up the schools, and stop rewarding people who are fleeceing you
Thus... here we are today
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 4, 2006 14:00:10 GMT -5
I don't accept the premise of your argument - that their are kids from other towns clamoring to get into our K-8. Who the hell would come to the borough to educate their kid if they lived somewhere else? Why send your kid miles away to a public school. Not even a Mexican illegal. They can just send their kids to the school district where they are living, and perhaps be in a better school system. I have to disagree. ( Without facts). If an illegal, Spanish speaking kid, lives in the township, I believe he would rather go to the Borough. It is basic human nature for people to go where they are more comfortable. That kid would be in and among his peers here, as opposed to the township. The kid would not be as alienated and our town is more likely to meet his needs than a town that does not have a big immigrant population to cater to. Again, this is just a guess on my part, without facts, based on human behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by Wyane on Dec 4, 2006 14:13:00 GMT -5
How about the BOE hire a truant officer, rather than a Marketing Survey? I can think of NO better way to resolve the questions being posted! Lets start with students admitted into the district with ONLY letter from a Landlord! Next the Officer visits all Affidavit Student. Next Follow Brian's advice (some what) and install Chip in the kids and tract them to where they really live.... |
|
|
|
Post by Lbyan Sibyl on Dec 4, 2006 14:25:42 GMT -5
Baloney,
(1) are you saying that there are no spanish kids in the township?
(2) are you saying that all the soccer (futbal) moms are driving their kids all over the place to make sure that they can sit next to their amigos in class. If this is how people operate, why don't all black kids from the Twsp flock here? Why don't the white boro kids go to the twsp?
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 4, 2006 14:34:59 GMT -5
Baloney, (1) are you saying that there are no Spanish kids in the township? (2) are you saying that all the soccer (futbal) moms are driving their kids all over the place to make sure that they can sit next to their amigos in class. If this is how people operate, why don't all black kids from the Twsp flock here? Why don't the white boro kids go to the twsp? Baloney? As I said, I am mostly guessing. 1. I used the township as an example. I am sure the township, as any place, has many different people. That is a nonsense question. 2. Why wouldn't they drive? Nothing stops them, and it can be done on the way to work. Black/white Americans area poor example. There is no language barrier. and, how do you know that our children do not cross over to another town? |
|
|
|
Post by Libyan Sibyl on Dec 4, 2006 14:41:52 GMT -5
Brian, your arguments are as fallacious as they come.
Now, stick a fork in me, I'm done on this topic too.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 4, 2006 14:54:55 GMT -5
Brian, your arguments are as fallacious as they come. Now, stick a fork in me, I'm done on this topic too. Do not take my fallacious arguments too seriously. I do not. As I said, I am guessing without facts. Simply offering another view point. |
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Dec 4, 2006 15:39:04 GMT -5
(1) are you saying that there are no spanish kids in the township? Freehold Township's k-8 student population for the 2004-05 school year was less than 5% (Total Students: 4,603; Hispanic students: 228) By my accounting, that's well nigh "no spanish kids". |
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Dec 4, 2006 15:44:14 GMT -5
FT...Hispanic students: 228 And how are they Scoring?  |
|
|
|
Post by fedup on Dec 4, 2006 15:49:59 GMT -5
(2) are you saying that all the soccer (futbal) moms are driving their kids all over the place to make sure that they can sit next to their amigos in class. The distance from Stonehurst Apts to FB Intermediate School is "all over the place"? For someone who is in this country illegally, and is trying to exist as "off the books" as possible? "White boro kids" don't enroll in the township's school because the township has (and enforces) strict residency requirements! About 10 or 15 years ago, there was a family who's property straddled the border between FB and FT who tried just what you suggest, and when they got caught with their kids improperly attending FT schools (their house was in the Borough, and that's all that is taken into account), they were made to pay restitution to the township. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofsilencedogood on Dec 5, 2006 13:53:00 GMT -5
Alright...we've once again gotten off the topic that this thread was started on....let me see if I can reign it back in...
But first, I have a request...Wyane, or Wayne, or I even saw a Ywane once...do us all a favor, actually sign up on the site, and before you submit a post, click the "spell check" button...Please!!
Moving on...
For those of you who were not at last nights BOE meeting, let me give you some information that was read by the Superintendent...
Any adult who is registering a student through an Affidavit has to present a deed, CO, Lease, or rental registration form in order to have the student enrolled in our district. The administration has set up a database which will track the type of information that is provided, and letters are being sent out each spring to remind people that they must provide new affidavit's annually.
Also, apparently there were a number of students who were registered in the schools without the proper amount of documentation (the Borough actually requires 4 pieces of proof, as opposed to other districts which only require 2...such as the Township). Second letters were sent out yesterday to the remaining 9 families that did not have all of the proper documentation (no mention if that relates to just 9 children, or if there are more). Now these families have 21 days to appeal to the Commissioner of Education.
The question was then asked what happens if there is no appeal? To which the superintendent replied a letter would be sent out to those families that their children are no longer registered in our schools, and presumably, the children would not be allowed to attend our schools for the remainder of this year.
First of all, this should answer some of the questions that have been raised about "what is the board and the superintendent doing?". Second, as the BOE president pointed out, just by removing 9 kids from the school doesn't mean we have extra money to spend on the other students. Unless we're able to remove a whole classroom's worth, which would lead to us being able to eliminate a teaching position, the only result would be the benefit of slightly smaller class sizes. Third, despite all of this work, the administration was only able to identify 9 families...so the number of students is not going to be earth shattering (if they even get to the point where the students have to be removed).
The thing that no one seems to grasp, as often as I have tried to get the point across, is that the BOE is not a body that has the authority to do background checks and identification checks on every student that comes to register. The BOE is not a policing agency or a legislative body. The issue of illegal residency in town, the issue of thirty people living illegally in a house, the issue of landlords falsifying documents or letters is an issue that has to be addressed by the Town Council, Freehold Boro Police, and the town code enforcement agencies. And what makes it more difficult is that apparently, the school board is not allowed, again by law, to share information on registrants with the town...so there is no ability to have a system of checks and balances.
These are state and federal laws...LAWS!!!
People have been posting about the Township's requirements...read them more carefully...
"RESIDENCY: Two Proofs of Residency
NOTE: Parents must reside in Freehold Township in order to register their child. Parents who have entered into a contract to purchase or lease a home, but have not yet moved into the township, are not eligible to register. The following may be used as proof of residency: (A post office box number is not considered proof of residency)
*a valid NJ driver's license showing current address
*a rent receipt or lease agreement
*voter registration card
*property tax bill
*utility bill
*mortgage document or deed for property"
Again...read it carefully..."The following MAY be used as proof of residency:..."
the township does not require that one of these pieces of documentation be submitted. Why? Because they can't, BY LAW THEY CAN'T.
I really don't know how else to put it out there. This is the law...if you want to change the law, as I do, you have to know who to talk to...State Assemblymen, Senators, Federal Congressmen and Senators...they make the laws, the BOE only follows them.
Stop looking for some loophole that the BOE can expose, believe me the board has been searching for years...they don't exist. Instead, concentrate on getting the laws changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Dec 5, 2006 14:09:46 GMT -5
Awesome post, Sonofsilencedogood. Thank you for taking the time to come to this board and participate.
I hope that with the content you are providing, that the rest of this site's participants can play a little nicer. Judging by some of your posts, I can see that you, as well as the BOE share the frustration that the rest of us have.
I am not the most friendly to the education system. That starts far above the local BOE. I know that you guys have very little in the way of room to maneuver.
People, we need solutions, any ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Dec 5, 2006 15:50:44 GMT -5
Alright...we've once again gotten off the topic that this thread was started on....let me see if I can reign it back in... But first, I have a request...Wyane, or Wayne, or I even saw a Ywane once...do us all a favor, actually sign up on the site, and before you submit a post, click the "spell check" button... Please!!Moving on... For those of you who were not at last nights BOE meeting, let me give you some information that was read by the Superintendent... Any adult who is registering a student through an Affidavit has to present a deed, CO, Lease, or rental registration form in order to have the student enrolled in our district. The administration has set up a database which will track the type of information that is provided, and letters are being sent out each spring to remind people that they must provide new affidavit's annually. Also, apparently there were a number of students who were registered in the schools without the proper amount of documentation (the Borough actually requires 4 pieces of proof, as opposed to other districts which only require 2...such as the Township). Second letters were sent out yesterday to the remaining 9 families that did not have all of the proper documentation (no mention if that relates to just 9 children, or if there are more). Now these families have 21 days to appeal to the Commissioner of Education. The question was then asked what happens if there is no appeal? To which the superintendent replied a letter would be sent out to those families that their children are no longer registered in our schools, and presumably, the children would not be allowed to attend our schools for the remainder of this year. First of all, this should answer some of the questions that have been raised about "what is the board and the superintendent doing?". Second, as the BOE president pointed out, just by removing 9 kids from the school doesn't mean we have extra money to spend on the other students. Unless we're able to remove a whole classroom's worth, which would lead to us being able to eliminate a teaching position, the only result would be the benefit of slightly smaller class sizes. Third, despite all of this work, the administration was only able to identify 9 families...so the number of students is not going to be earth shattering (if they even get to the point where the students have to be removed). The thing that no one seems to grasp, as often as I have tried to get the point across, is that the BOE is not a body that has the authority to do background checks and identification checks on every student that comes to register. The BOE is not a policing agency or a legislative body. The issue of illegal residency in town, the issue of thirty people living illegally in a house, the issue of landlords falsifying documents or letters is an issue that has to be addressed by the Town Council, Freehold Boro Police, and the town code enforcement agencies. And what makes it more difficult is that apparently, the school board is not allowed, again by law, to share information on registrants with the town...so there is no ability to have a system of checks and balances. These are state and federal laws...LAWS!!! People have been posting about the Township's requirements...read them more carefully... "RESIDENCY: Two Proofs of Residency NOTE: Parents must reside in Freehold Township in order to register their child. Parents who have entered into a contract to purchase or lease a home, but have not yet moved into the township, are not eligible to register. The following may be used as proof of residency: (A post office box number is not considered proof of residency) *a valid NJ driver's license showing current address *a rent receipt or lease agreement *voter registration card *property tax bill *utility bill *mortgage document or deed for property" Again...read it carefully..."The following MAY be used as proof of residency:..." the township does not require that one of these pieces of documentation be submitted. Why? Because they can't, BY LAW THEY CAN'T. I really don't know how else to put it out there. This is the law...if you want to change the law, as I do, you have to know who to talk to...State Assemblymen, Senators, Federal Congressmen and Senators...they make the laws, the BOE only follows them. Stop looking for some loophole that the BOE can expose, believe me the board has been searching for years...they don't exist. Instead, concentrate on getting the laws changed. You make excellent points. The system of current laws, state and Federal, make policing of this issue impossible for local BOE's. It's not unlike the labyrinth of rules and regulations that prevent local school boards -- you know -- with New Jersey's local control -- from finding space solutions. (e.g. New Jersey is kind enough to have minimum space requirements per student) Anyway -- Freehold Borough spends around $7,500 per-student each year. (This does not include capital costs) Many of the costs driven are driven by the special needs, requirements, and personnel necessary to handle ESL children. Thus -- minus ESL, the per child cost might be much lower -- or the money might be better leveraged. Estimates range from 250-450 students who are either, 1) here illegally or 2) the children of illegal aliens. I suspect that balance keeps shifting toward number 2. If these estimates are correct -- Freehold is spending between 1.5 million and 3+ million dollars every year educating people who, under Plyler v. Doe -- are residents for the purpose of a K-12 education. These are people, however, who would not be here but for the breaking of U.S. immigration law. Now -- If I were running the BOE -- I would be very tempted -- very tempted indeed, to take a shot, in the current political climate, at a frontal assault on Plyler v. Doe. (Either by myself, or in conjunction with other similarly situated towns) How does one take on Plyler v. Doe? Very carefully. Plyler v. Doe is, constitutionally speaking, one of th weakest cases ever decided. it may also be one of the single most influential decisions. It is at the very core of the illegal alien explosion. Decided in the very early 80's, stemming from an action in Texas, the divided Supreme Court (5-4), ruled that illegal aliens were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore were entitled to the benefits of being subject to that jurisdiction. (I could write you a book on this -- but that is the nutshell legal reasoning.) Suffice it to say, being subject to the jurisdiction as an illegal alien only means that one who enters is bound by our laws. That makes sense, as we don't want to give immunity to people who enter illegally. The Supremes enhanced that ruling and "interpretation" to mean that being here not only makes you liable for law breaking, but entitled to lawful privileges. Justice O'Connor -- currently up for St. Hood among so-called moderate, wrote a scathing dissent to this opinion. Today -- and for the foreseeable future -- there is no support for the Plyler v. Doe case on that Court. Even the Court's love for stare Decisis would not save the Plyler case -- in my opinion. What does all this mean -- for those still reading? It means some school district -- somewhere -- must make a stand. Plain and simple. Some school district has to say -- enough is enough. Some district has to decide if it wants to pay millions of dollars every year for educating illegal aliens, or $500,000-1,000,000 dollars for a shot to stop paying. (cost of litigation. I can probably find counsel to attack this free -- BTW. Very good counsel at a very big firm) How would this happen? Freehold would pass a regulation preventing non-U.S. Citizens or legal guests from enrolling in the schools. The regulation would be passed in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. All enrollees would be required to provide proof of lawful U.S presence. (The regulation would be enjoined -- immediately) A Federal District Court would strike this down, and an appeal to the 3rd Circuit would ensue. The 3rd Circuit, taking its law from the Supremes, would uphold the injunction. This would leave you with a writ of Cert to the big house. Chances of getting it granted are small. (Though a class action with a larger group might enhance the issue -- as it would have the effect of being a national issue and showing something akin to a split in the different circuits.) You only need four justices to accept the writ. If the supremes take the case -- they will reverse it. Chance of success is probably 15% or less, over all. (odds go up if other towns join -- particularly from other states.) Chance of success if writ is granted here case -- better than 75% in my opinion. So -- if you want to know what the BOE can do, it can make that stand. It surely does not have to. It surely could rely on "existing law" to say it is doing all it can "within the law." Bringing an action, of course, requires that it be well-grounded in law or fact, or based on a good faith extension of the law. This meets the test in every way. In the end -- some BOE needs to do it. The illegals routinely use special interest groups and the courts, including judge shopping, to distort U.S. Law and intimidate small towns and lawful citizens. The citizens need to change their strategy. That's my view. |
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Dec 5, 2006 16:48:58 GMT -5
Alright... But first, I have a request...Wyane, or Wayne, or I even saw a Ywane once...do us all a favor, actually sign up on the site, and before you submit a post, click the "spell check" button... Please!!Thank you for the "special recognition" Sonny! As an elected official (I PRESUME your on the BOE), I am offended that you chose to take the negative low road and attack a messenger, and yet ignore the message! But thats OK, I am an adult, and understand where you are coming from. Being accountable can be frustrating, especially if there is poor performance and no results to account for. Not very rewarding for you I am sure, but I am hopeful things will turn around. First off, those 9 student pending expulsion are significant, it sends a message to the rest of those who are in our schools using better phony docs, that we are on to you and are watching! Second, Listen to Richard, HE makes SENSE! and the BOE needs to get a pair of Brass NAD's, and STOP this.."WE CAN NOT DO anything", "We tried to have a State Forced Merger...", "Its the Counsil Fault", "Its all Waynes Fault, it's his misspelling, typos and bad Grammer are distractions to the ENTIRE Boro, and now NO ONE WANTS TO SPEAK ENGLISH". SO Whats the Plan? Force the $60K-$70K -$80K teachers who have been here 15-20, into early retirement, give the buyout packages, so you can hire cheaper $40K ESL teachers? Instead of making proclamations about what you CAN NOT DO, tell us...WHATCHA GONNA DO? Instead of Falsely accusing the council of Agreeing to an Uncompleted Federal Settlement, and inference that the schools problemos are caused by the council, TAKE OWNERSHIP with the problem and tell how your gonna fix it. Our schools have been sliding in to purgatory for THREE YEARS. If you can't stand the heat..... You still have not answered the question of how many "Landlord Letter" only students do we have enrolled? Where is the BOE responsibility for the safety and well being of the children end? Again, if the BOE has CLEAR evidence that their children lives in an UNSAFE OVERCROWDED, or Questionable Housing conditions, under the law you have no responsibility to take appropriate action? Why do some districts have Truancy officers that go to homes and investigate living condition, you will have me presume that the actions of a Truancy officers are illegal? That sounds ODD to me! but then again, my spelling is ODD to you, yet you get my message! Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by AndrewD on Dec 5, 2006 17:18:02 GMT -5
Richard...
While I found what you posted very interesting, there is one big problem...we are a tiny district with not enough money to even educate our students up to the state's standards of a "Thorough and Efficient Education"...I don't see how we could possibly bring a case like this before the Supreme Court, as much as I would certainly be open to exploring the possibility.
As a new school board member, I have learned a great deal in just the few months I have been on the board. I certainly understand the law, and I know that as it is now, I have a responsibility to find a way to educate every child in our district to the best of our abilities. To that end, I have seen a great deal of hard work and tireless effort on the part of our teachers and administrators here in the Boro. We, as a board and a faculty are doing our very best to provide the best for our students.
That being said, I do believe that as a board we need to constantly explore ways to help ease the stresses that are on our schools. Any and all ideas are always welcome in my opinion. Challenging a Supreme Court ruling is a massive undertaking, as I am sure you are well aware. It's not something that would go directly to the Supreme Court, but would have to go through all of the other lower courts first. We are talking about considerable time (which I don't mind) and considerable funds (which I, and I am sure most of the board, would have a serious issue with).
Getting together with other districts would certainly help, but I will be honest and say that as of this moment, I am not aware of many districts that have this same problem. That's not to say they are not out there, I am merely saying that I am more familiar with the districts right around us, and none of them have this problem to the degree we do. I will be looking into other districts tonight when I am home.
I will say that if you have, as you stated, an attorney who might be willing to take this case on for free...well, heck, I'll take anything for free!!
I will be speaking with some other board members about your ideas...and I will get something back on here as soon as possible.
Andrew DeFonzo
|
|
cloris
Novice
Power to the peeps!
Posts: 61
|
Post by cloris on Dec 5, 2006 17:31:58 GMT -5
Richard... While I found what you posted very interesting, there is one big problem...we are a tiny district with not enough money to even educate our students up to the state's standards of a "Thorough and Efficient Education"...I don't see how we could possibly bring a case like this before the Supreme Court, as much as I would certainly be open to exploring the possibility. As a new school board member, I have learned a great deal in just the few months I have been on the board. I certainly understand the law, and I know that as it is now, I have a responsibility to find a way to educate every child in our district to the best of our abilities. To that end, I have seen a great deal of hard work and tireless effort on the part of our teachers and administrators here in the Boro. We, as a board and a faculty are doing our very best to provide the best for our students. That being said, I do believe that as a board we need to constantly explore ways to help ease the stresses that are on our schools. Any and all ideas are always welcome in my opinion. Challenging a Supreme Court ruling is a massive undertaking, as I am sure you are well aware. It's not something that would go directly to the Supreme Court, but would have to go through all of the other lower courts first. We are talking about considerable time (which I don't mind) and considerable funds (which I, and I am sure most of the board, would have a serious issue with). Getting together with other districts would certainly help, but I will be honest and say that as of this moment, I am not aware of many districts that have this same problem. That's not to say they are not out there, I am merely saying that I am more familiar with the districts right around us, and none of them have this problem to the degree we do. I will be looking into other districts tonight when I am home. I will say that if you have, as you stated, an attorney who might be willing to take this case on for free...well, heck, I'll take anything for free!! I will be speaking with some other board members about your ideas...and I will get something back on here as soon as possible. Andrew DeFonzo Try Rivereside and Keyport NJ and Hazeltown PA. Towns around the country need to ban together not only on the school issues but also on all other issues concerning the illegal alien problem. No one town can do it alone but together they can muster the resources needed. These issues will not go away, they need to be challenged at every level in every way legally possible in order to create a more even playing field for those of us who have to pay the bills. The mayor of this town as well as the schools could spearhead the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by wyane on Dec 5, 2006 17:38:19 GMT -5
AD....
I suggest you and a board member start googleing for School district in the Same Soap aew we are...I bet you can find a few in PA, CA, TX, OH, FL, NY.....Uhh and in NJ
A "Sub-Committee" can be a start, maybe find a Local Lawyer to point you all in the right direction.
There may even be a class action suit already, that you can join.
This may be a good topic for a new posting . EDU Class Action!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Dec 5, 2006 18:02:23 GMT -5
Richard... While I found what you posted very interesting, there is one big problem...we are a tiny district with not enough money to even educate our students up to the state's standards of a "Thorough and Efficient Education"...I don't see how we could possibly bring a case like this before the Supreme Court, as much as I would certainly be open to exploring the possibility. As a new school board member, I have learned a great deal in just the few months I have been on the board. I certainly understand the law, and I know that as it is now, I have a responsibility to find a way to educate every child in our district to the best of our abilities. To that end, I have seen a great deal of hard work and tireless effort on the part of our teachers and administrators here in the Boro. We, as a board and a faculty are doing our very best to provide the best for our students. That being said, I do believe that as a board we need to constantly explore ways to help ease the stresses that are on our schools. Any and all ideas are always welcome in my opinion. Challenging a Supreme Court ruling is a massive undertaking, as I am sure you are well aware. It's not something that would go directly to the Supreme Court, but would have to go through all of the other lower courts first. We are talking about considerable time (which I don't mind) and considerable funds (which I, and I am sure most of the board, would have a serious issue with). Getting together with other districts would certainly help, but I will be honest and say that as of this moment, I am not aware of many districts that have this same problem. That's not to say they are not out there, I am merely saying that I am more familiar with the districts right around us, and none of them have this problem to the degree we do. I will be looking into other districts tonight when I am home. I will say that if you have, as you stated, an attorney who might be willing to take this case on for free...well, heck, I'll take anything for free!! I will be speaking with some other board members about your ideas...and I will get something back on here as soon as possible. Andrew DeFonzo Andrew: Thanks. There are enormous numbers of districts with similar problems. Unfortunately, those districts with these problems also tend to be dominated by, if not controlled by advocates for illegal immigration. In addition, there are significant institutional barriers among constituencies that gain strength from the school growth. Few jurisdictions remain in a position where they are controlled by enough votes to consider the action. That is a natural result of the reality of politics. As I have preached previously, the Borough Council and the BOE will likely be under such control in 10-15 years or less. I completely agree that under-taking such a challenge as a very small district would be very hard -- financially and politically. I understand that completely. And, I disagreeessment of the chances of success probably don't send warm and fuzzy feeling out either. Having said that -- I am happy to use my considerable contacts if called upon to see if Freehold can find high-end, low-cost legal help and partners for such a challenge. Ideally -- as I wrote previously -- such a challenge would include leadership from a front line national firm -- representing more than one town. (Getting them to do so pro bono -- well -- not impossible, but not real easy.) When you have enough votes to approve it -- I will find you counsel. (I will donate my own time, if such an arrangement can be made with the firm I find, in order to help.) In the meantime -- I have written this previously, and I will say it again, Freehold schools perform remarkably well under the impossible handicap and budget constraints the system has. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete D on Dec 6, 2006 8:53:27 GMT -5
I have seen a lot posted regarding residency requirements for the schools. At times it seems that the law and facts get in the way of emotions. It doesn't matter how many students are enrolled with a landlords letter ! The Board MUST accept the letter. Regarding the settlement,when the day workers first stated showing up in our town, many of us spoke out against the support offered by the Council. The response was "these are hard workers,the other towns don't want them.Someone has to help". I am paraphasing, but that was the attitude that prevailed. Most of these Councl members are still in office. I am willing to bet, that they will be elected as long as they continue to run. Prior to Kevin Coyne, does anyone remember any Council person speaking up ? Other than Marc, is any other Council member doing anything. What are the state representatives doing?What are our Congressman and Senators doing, other than offering verbal responses ? The people of Freehold as well as the rest of NJ and the country get the government they deserve. It is easy to sit at the computer and complain, but being involved consist of more than complaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewD on Dec 6, 2006 14:52:23 GMT -5
Richard...and all others who will read this...
I have contacted, and am awaiting a reply from, the legal branch of the New Jersey School Boards Association. They are one of the best resources that I have at my disposal, and so I wanted to run your ideas by them.
In the interim, I have started to compile some information off of the web regarding other districts that may have similar issues as we do.
Again, I would like to thank you for your positive input in trying to come up with a solution to this issue...we certainly need more people like you coming to the board with ideas that will help us with the many issues that we face.
I will post again when I have more information.
Andrew DeFonzo
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofsilencedogood on Dec 12, 2006 13:43:48 GMT -5
I have a question for Richard Kelsey...
I have done a bit of reading myself regarding the Plyler decision, and in my readings, I have come across some articles and even a case brought to the Supreme Court of the State of Utah (Dyett v. Turner), all of which claim that the 14th amendment to the Constitution (the "Equal Rights" Amendment) was never legally ratified by the necessary 3/4 of the states of the union.
Since you are obviously in the law field, what opinions do you have on this issue? One of the main references in the Plyler decision is that 14th Amendment (if I am reading it correctly). What chances would someone have of challenging the amendment itself? It seems to me, after reading what you and others have written, that the decision can be challenged on two fronts, challenging the decision based on the merits of the case, and then also challenging the legality of the 14th Amendment.
Look...I am certainly not a lawyer...so I defer to those who have some experience is the legal field. I see that the BOE is looking into the ideas you expressed in your first posting, and I hope something comes of that. It would certainly help, though, if they had, "additional ammunition" so to speak.
Just an idea that I was hoping to get some feedback on.
And for my buddy "Wyane"...calling me out as an "elected official"...I'm honored!! What I am is an admirer of the BOE as well as anyone who gets up and does something about the issues they have rather than just complain about them on a website. Once again, when was the last BOE meeting you showed up for??
I don't know how many students we have enrolled in our schools based on landlord letters, and I doubt if any BOE member can quote that for you, or if they are even allowed to let that information out for the public to see.
As for hiring a truant officer...well that's more money on a budget that the town has already turned down. Same thing goes for the idea of challenging the court case. I would love to see something come of Richard Kelsey's suggestion, but as he pointed out, it is a very pricey adventure and can take years to decide (the town's case was already a couple of years old and it had not even made it out of the state's court system when they decided to bail because it was costing too much in legal fees). Are you going to approve a budget that has thousands of extra dollars in it every year to pay for legal fees that do not guarantee a victory??
I don't mean to sound like a defeat-ist...I am just trying to point out the downside to Mr Kelsey's suggestions. As I said, I would love to see some action from the Board on his ideas, but then it will be up to the voters of this town to approve the funding for it.
Now, before you go off and tell me about how "the board got the last budget passed without our consent"...the only reason that budget was able to get passed without the town's consent is because it did not contain anything other than bare bones funding for educational purposes. The town, the county, nor the state will approve a budget that has thousands of dollars set aside for a continuing court battle, or a truant officer.
Let's just hope that the board can join with other districts, or find a way to get the state Department of Education to take up this battle on our (and other districts) behalf.
|
|
), and claim to be a Landloard too.
