Source: http://www.mtephraimschools.com/Home/education-news
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:20:16+00:00

Document:
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court held in the case of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), that a State may not deny access to a basic public education to any child residing in the State, whether present in the United States legally or otherwise. Denying “innocent children” access to a public education, the Court explained, “imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status. . . . By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223. As Plyler makes clear, the undocumented or non-citizen status of a student (or his or her parent or guardian) is irrelevant to that student’s entitlement to an elementary and secondary public education.
In order to ensure that its educational services are enjoyed only by residents of the district, a district may require students or their parents to provide proof of residency within the district. See, e.g., Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 328 (1983).1 For example, a district may require copies of phone and water bills or lease agreements to establish residency. While a district may restrict attendance to district residents, inquiring into students’ citizenship or immigration status, or that of their parents or guardians would not be relevant to establishing residency within the district. A district should review the list of documents that can be used to establish residency and ensure that any required documents would not unlawfully bar or discourage a student who is undocumented or whose parents are undocumented from enrolling in or attending school. As with residency requirements, rules vary among States and districts as to what documents students may use to show they fall within State- or district-mandated minimum and maximum age requirements, and jurisdictions typically accept a variety of documents for this purpose. A school district may not bar a student from enrolling in its schools because he or she lacks a birth certificate or has records that indicate a foreign place of birth, such as a foreign birth certificate. 1 Homeless children and youth often do not have the documents ordinarily required for school enrollment such as proof of residency or birth certificates. A school selected for a homeless child must immediately enroll the homeless child, even if the child or the child’s parent or guardian is unable to produce the records normally required for enrollment. See 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(C)(1).
Moreover, we recognize that districts have Federal obligations, and in some instances State obligations, to report certain data such as the race and ethnicity of their student population. While the Department of Education requires districts to collect and report such information, districts cannot use the acquired data to discriminate against students; nor should a parent’s or guardian’s refusal to respond to a request for this data lead to a denial of his or her child’s enrollment. Similarly, we are aware that many districts request a student’s social security number at enrollment for use as a student identification number. A district may not deny enrollment to a student if he or she (or his or her parent or guardian) chooses not to provide a social security number. See 5 U.S.C. §552a (note).
If a district chooses to request a social security number, it shall inform the individual that the disclosure is voluntary, provide the statutory or other basis upon which it is seeking the number, and explain what uses will be made of it. Id. In all instances of information collection and review, it is essential that any request be uniformly applied to all students and not applied in a selective manner to specific groups of students. As the Supreme Court noted in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), “it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he [or she] is denied the opportunity of an education.” Id. at 493. Both Departments are committed to vigorously enforcing the Federal civil rights laws outlined above and to providing any technical assistance that may be helpful to you so that all students are afforded equal educational opportunities. As immediate steps, you first may wish to review the documents your district requires for school enrollment to ensure that the requested documents do not have a chilling effect on a student’s enrollment in school. Second, in the process of assessing your compliance with the law, you might review State and district level enrollment data. Precipitous drops in the enrollment of any group of students in a district or school may signal that there are barriers to their attendance that you should further investigate.
We are also attaching frequently asked questions and answers and a fact sheet that should be helpful to you. Please contact us if you have additional questions or if we can provide you with assistance in ensuring that your programs comply with Federal law. You may contact the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, at (877) 292-3804 or education@usdoj.gov, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at (800) 421-3481 or ocr@ed.gov or the Department of Education Office of the General Counsel at (202) 401-6000. You may also visit http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm for the OCR enforcement office that serves 2 Federal law provides for certain limited exceptions to this requirement. See Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 7(a)(2).For general information about equal access to public education, please visit our website at http://www.justice.gov/crt/edo and http://www2.ed.gov/ocr/index.html.
posted Mar 1, 2017, 9:26 AM by MEPS Google Admin.
In his final budget address, Governor Chris Christie on Tuesday proposed a total of $13.8 billion in education funding for 2017-2018, with approximately $9.2 billion going to direct aid to schools.
School districts receive their individual state aid notifications within two days of the Governor’s address. Local school districts must use these state aid numbers in budget development.
School Funding Reform In his address, Christie ripped the current school funding statute, the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), as unsustainable. And he called for the Legislature to take quick action on developing a new school finance system.
“…in the last few months I have finally heard the leaders of the legislature admit what I’ve been saying for eight years – this system is unfair and broken,” he said in his remarks as prepared.
“I pledge to work with the leaders of the legislature to come up with a new funding formula. Everything is on the table. No idea out of bounds for discussion. I am willing to work with you to solve this problem without any pre-conditions on the ideas brought to the table.
Meaning of 100-Day Timeline It was not clear if the Governor intends for a new formula to be in effect for the 2017-2018 school year, or if he simply wants to reach an agreement with the Legislature within 100 days. A 100-day timeline, however, would bring agreement on a new formula past the deadlines for finalizing 2017-2018 school budgets (May 12 for most districts) and striking school tax rates (May 19).
Nonetheless, Christie made it clear that his intention was to have a new school funding system ready before he leaves office next January.
“I want to act with you. But, if forced, I will act alone. But it will be fixed before I leave this town,” he said.
Last June, Christie proposed a new system, termed the “Fairness Formula,” which would base school aid on a single per-pupil allotment, regardless of community wealth.
Calls for change have come from both sides of the aisle. Senate President Steve Sweeney wants to maintain the SFRA, but address funding inconsistencies resulting from the fact that the act’s funding formula has not operated for a number of years.
NJSBA: Must Serve All Students “Once again, local school districts face another year of flat funding, a situation that does indeed warrant a long, hard look at the state’s school finance system,” said Dr. Lawrence S. Feinsod, NJSBA executive director. “Operating costs don’t remain flat. It is difficult to sustain programs with flat funding year in and year out.
“Any change to school funding must be implemented in a rational and fair manner,” he continued. “A school funding system must recognize the educational needs of all students. And it must recognize a community’s ability to pay for its schools.
Pension/Benefit Funding Christie’s budget also increases state contributions to the state’s pension systems. State funding for the Teachers’ Pension and Annuity Fund will increase by $411.5 million to a total of more than $1.5 billion. State contributions to teachers’ post-retirement medical benefits will increase by $69.6 million, to an amount close to $1.2 billion.
Christie addressed the state’s long-term pension problem by proposing the dedication of lottery revenue to the state funds.
“The contribution would have the immediate effect of reducing the unfunded liability of the pension system by approximately $13 billion, and would increase the funded ratio of the pension system by almost 15 percentage points in one fell swoop, from 49% to 64%,” he said.
In addition, the Governor called for extension of the health benefit reforms adopted by the State Health Benefits Program’s plan design committee to other state-operated health programs. In her pre-budget address telephone conference, Acting Commissioner Harrington said that adoption of the reforms by the School Employees Health Benefits Program would save $43 million.
posted Feb 28, 2017, 9:26 AM by MEPS Google Admin.
posted Feb 22, 2017, 11:16 AM by MEPS Google Admin.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 11432
 §552
 v. 
 § 7