| |
Incomplete information
complicates residency discussion
I have been
both a close observer and direct participant in the residency
conversations that have emerged in this paper and across Canton
over the past few months. From my vantage point, as
superintendent, I believe that some of the ideas and opinions
that have aired do not square with the law or with the policy
that has been established by the School Committee.
Residency, for
some, is simple to determine. It is like a light switch: One is
either a resident or not, and anything in between is just a form
of inappropriate judgment. This view concludes that in order to
be a resident someone must either own property or rent a space
in Canton. When it comes to determining whether a child can
legally attend the Canton Public Schools, however, the issue of
residency pivots on where the child resides. If a child resides
within the boundaries of Canton he or she has a right to attend
the public schools.
Our current
policy reads, “All children of school age who actually reside in
Canton are entitled to attend the Canton Public Schools
(Pursuant to MGL, C76, Sec 5).” While this policy statement has
some degree of clarity, it does not reveal the range of nuance
and the contexts that are reflective of a wide set of child
rearing circumstances. Some of those who believe this
administration looks the other way when there are residency
concerns also believe that a child can only legally reside with
a parent or a guardian. This is not accurate. In April 2009, the
legislature passed a new
caretaker’s law
(MGL 201F) that indicates that a parent can assign child
caring responsibilities, including education, to a caregiver if
both parties are willing to sign an affidavit indicating the
request for care and the acceptance of responsibility by the
caregiver. There is further nuance that needs to be considered
when a child lives with separated parents who live in different
towns. Can a child legally reside in more than one location? If
so, which town has the obligation to provide the education?
There is no simple rule that can be applied with absolute
certainty in every scenario.
More
complicated issues emerge when families enter into a crisis.
Homelessness is one such crisis that unfortunately has been on
the rise. When children are deemed homeless they have a right to
go to the school they attended before they left their permanent
home. These children also have a right to free transportation
from their temporary shelter to their former school, even if the
shelter is in another town. Nevertheless, some have observed
students being dropped off by cab to a school and have concluded
that this was evidence of a residency violation. While it could
be evidence of such a violation, it also could be an appropriate
and legally required means of getting a child to school.
Much of this
information is available on our website
(www.cantonma.org/enrollment/index.htm). Recent changes to the
residency policy clarify the investigation process and also
allow the district to seek the assistance of the Canton Police
Department if needed. I would like to assure you that each of
our principals investigates concerns brought to their attention.
Each case is examined against School Committee Policy and where
warranted, reviewed with legal counsel. When a violation has
occurred, we have un-enrolled the student. If the investigation
produces proof that the child in question meets the residency
criteria, the child remains enrolled.
Despite this
process, some have concluded that the investigations have been a
farce. They have shared this perspective with others and
presented their “evidence,” which often involves indicators such
as returned mail from a particular address. While such a
scenario raises suspicion, it is not conclusive evidence that
someone no longer resides in Canton. We have had a number of
families who have, for example, moved within Canton and have
been late in informing the schools about this change. While it
is tempting to provide additional information to those who are
skeptical about these investigations, we are legally bound to
safeguard the privacy of information that is gleaned from these
investigations. For some, this appears like administrators are
stonewalling.
Am I
convinced, despite all that I have written, that the procedures
we have in place are air tight and can guarantee that we are
able to detect any and all lies, forged documents and
misinformation? No, I am not convinced. However, I am confident
that our investigations are thorough, careful and within the
bounds of the law. I also know that more intensive
investigations involving evening visits to homes or stakeouts at
residences will require additional monetary resources.
More
importantly, however, I do not believe what we would gain from
such an effort would produce automatic savings. The math that
MAC illustrated in his last column does not square with the
reality that superintendents experience. If five additional
students and their families move into Canton this fall, the
school department does not receive $55,000 (5 x $11,000) from
the state, the town or any other source of revenue. I am
guessing that this fact does not come as a surprise to most
readers. However, the inverse is also inaccurate: If five
students leave the Canton Public Schools either because they
move to another town, enroll in a private school, or are
un-enrolled because of a residency violation, we also do not
automatically save $55,000 that I can then use to pay for
athletics, another teacher, or any other important endeavor.
I know that
this article will not change the minds of some. I do hope,
however, that the conversation about residency can continue with
more of the dialogue reflecting current law, current policy and
the genuine complexity that this topic engenders. In my opinion,
we are not coddling non-residents, but we are following our
legal obligations
and taking our responsibility to carefully protect our resources
very seriously. As one example of the seriousness with which we
take this responsibility, the school department is currently
examining each and every incoming sixth grade student in a
comprehensive residency re-certification process.
Money is an
important resource for the town and for the school department,
but it is not the only vital asset we must safeguard. We also
must respect the law, examine in confidence people’s private and
sensitive information, and ensure that children do not get
caught in the crossfire when adults disagree on issues such as
residency. All these non-monetary qualities are invaluable
resources that also must be carefully safeguarded. In our
efforts to save money in very tight and constraining fiscal
circumstances, we must not abandon principles that have helped
to make Canton a special and unique town.
August 6, 2009
Return
to Columns Page
|
|
