Cracking down on freeloaders
Not an actual Teaneck freeloaderIn a letter published in the May 31, 2006 edition of the Suburbanite, Earl Sandor urges the Teaneck Board of Education to conduct a re-registration in the Teaneck public schools to weed out "non-resident students illegally attending...at enormous cost to the Teaneck taxpayers." Sandor cites the success of similar initiatives in
There is some history behind Sandor's public letter. As he states:
This proposal was part of an e-mail campaign to the school board this past summer. I formally presented this proposal at the October 2005 board meeting. At that time, it was announced that purely by coincidence, 78 non-resident students were newly identified. No differentiation was made between students prevented from enrolling under the new registration requirements or whether they were non-resident students already in the system. No action has been taken by the board on this proven, successful and highly cost effective proposal.
As advocates of re-registration attempt to return this issue to the front burner, a number of questions need to be addressed.
- Sandor alleges that "it should be common knowledge that a large number of non-resident students" are taking advantage of the Teaneck educational system, the proof being that "approximately 30 students per year" are discovered using current methods. What evidence is there that a significant number of students are slipping through current enforcement efforts? It is certainly possible that a more widespread problem will be discovered based on the results of Fair Lawn's re-enrollment, but what efforts was Fair Lawn undertaking to prevent abuse of the system prior to that? Might the incremental benefit of a re-registration actually be smaller in Teaneck?
- When presenting a cost-benefit analysis of a prospective re-registration, is it really appropriate to weigh the $30,000+ upfront cost of conducting it against a supposed savings based on the number of students ejected multiplied by the district's cost per student? This seems a bit disingenuous, as the district's cost per student is a statistic derived by taking the total education expenditure and dividing it by the number of students enrolled. It is misleading to suggest (Sandor does not explicitly do so) that removing 100 students at an average cost of $13,000+ per student could yield over $1.3 million in savings as most of the district's costs are fixed costs. The incremental cost of educating an individual student does not actually exceed $13,000 per annum.
That said, whether or not the savings are as great as proponents say they are, and whether or not there are as many violators as Sandor alleges, and without passing judgment on the efficacy of the BoE's current enforcement efforts, it seems that a very strong argument would need to be made against doing a periodic re-registration of all students enrolled in the Teaneck public schools. Dishonest abuse of Teaneck's scarce resources must not only be prevented after the fact, it must also be deterred.
Furthermore, there are two potential benefits to throwing up another serious obstacle to abuse of the system- the potential cost savings it could bring, and more importantly, the potential restoration of the taxpayers' faith in the stewardship of the Board of Education. A BoE that makes it clear that it takes a hard line aginast anyone who would ripoff the taxpayers of Teaneck (in this, and other areas) is a BoE that will deservedly enjoy more broad based support for the budgets it proposes.
*For more information on the costs and outcomes associated with Fair Lawn's re-registration, see here and here.
posted by Teaneck Blog @ 12:30 PM
15 Comments:
I have consistently advocated for a "crack down on freeloaders." While I have no idea what the marginal cost is of a single student, with a Total Cost per Pupil now exceeding $15,000, it's not hard to imagine that the additional burden (and potential savings) of a non-resident student attending the district's schools would be around $10,000.
Ten students = $100,000; 100 students = $1 Million. Pretty soon, and you're looking at real money.
Currently, the district verifies a student's residency when the student enrolls in the district's schools, which for most students is when they enter kindergarten. After initial registration, Teaneck residency is not confirmed, unless a report is made to the school system, at which time an investigation would be done.
I know that these investigations are done and (if I recall the process) there is a former police office who performs these checks. Are there non-resident students? Absolutely, as has been announced at Board of Education meetings. Are there more? No one knows for sure, but it seems quite possible based on the number of students already identified that there might be more. Maybe many more.
Given the district's $84 million budget, finding $30,000-$50,000 to cover the costs of a full re-registration of every student in the district using numbers based on Fair Lawn's experience would not seem to be a stretch.
Even so, why not try a compromise that might satisfy the entire community. Perform a partial re-registration that would sample approximately 10-20% of the students in the district. This could be performed based on selecting students randomly based on a digit in their SSN, student number or address. Based on Fair Lawn's costs, this should run approximately $3-10,000 to implement.
In checking approximately 450-900 students, we should get a good grasp of the existence and scope of the problem. If not a single non-resident student is discovered as part of this survey, we can finally put this issue to rest; there is no problem.
If any non-residents are identified, we've more than covered the cost of the %10-20 solution. Then we can move on to a more thorough re-registration.
I cannot possibly guarantee that there are non-resident students. But doing a partial re-registration would be an excellent way to demonstrate that the district is performing its job of seeing that the district is well-run.
See http://www.teaneckschools.org/parents.asp?mid=30&mid2=121 for the Teaneck Public Schools' current registration procedures, which are focused exclusively on new students.
The Teaneck BofE was aware of the Fairlawn re-registration and had discussed it publicly before the summer of 2005. I first became aware of it during March or April of 2005 during BofE election candidate forums when similar questions were raised. I can’t recall who said what, but the incumbents had clearly been following the Fairlawn project. (It’s likely the BofE had been in touch with their counterparts in Fairlawn). The incumbents indicated that the board had considered it but was not inclined to follow suit at that time. Within the limited time frame of the forums, the incumbents discussed the current methods used to find ineligible students and said they felt a re-registration would not be cost effective. (Final cost $48,000 - Fairlawn website.) There may have been a suggestion that before this program Fairlawn did not have the type of effective program that Teaneck already had in place. There was also a question as to whether a one time re-registration would have a long term effect. If not, how often should it occur?
Personally, while I am not sure the Fairlawn approach is the best approach I did feel it had some merit. My lack of knowledge of the current Teaneck approach made it difficult to form an opinion. It certainly seemed like a dead issue. Today, for obvious reasons, I made inquiries and much to my surprise, was told that the subject will be on the agenda at an upcoming public BofE meeting. Hopefully the board proposals will adequately address the issue.
For those not easily bored to tears, more information on this and other Teaneck BofE Policies can be found at http://www.teaneckschools.org/pdf/aboutus/boardofeducation/policiesbookmarked.pdf A quick read of this 461 page document will bring you to the table of contents for the section on Pupils (page 233) which will direct you to policy 5111, “Eligibility of Resident/Nonresident Pupils”.
I commute to the City using the dollar buses that run between Paterson and New York City. In the morning, I periodically see high school age kids get off the eastbound buses at the Teaneck High School exit. These kids did not get on with me at Belle Avenue.
Swurgle-
Before jumping to conclusions, you might consider the following passage from the BoE's policy handbook:
A senior high school student who moves out of Teaneck during the
second semester of his/her junior year may apply to the
Superintendent for permission to complete his/her high school career
in Teaneck. Requests for this exception must be submitted, in
writing, to the Superintendent for consideration and approval. A high
school student who has completed the 11th grade at Teaneck High
School, and who has attended Teaneck Public Schools for the previous
five years, whose parent has moved out of Teaneck may, by written
request to the Superintendent, enroll in the 12th grade at Teaneck
High School tuition-free.
The town recreation department makes me bring my daughter's ORIGINAL birth certificate and proof of residence each and every time I register her for a $25 dance class at the Rodda center.
But the Board of Education only requires students to show proof of residence once during their 13 years of residency. Doesn't anyone think that the priorities are a little misplaced here?
Teaneck Blog - I don't always agree with you, but on this topic I do. You may be right that these kids that I've casually observed bussing in from elsewhere to Teaneck have special permission to do so. Let's find out.
I've also had the humiliating experience at the Recreation Center of being turned down for tags for my kids for the Votee Park pool even though I brought their birth certificates, a PSE&G bill and the deed to our house as proof of residency.
Why were they turned down? Because my kids have a different surname than I do and the crack team at the Rec Center requires separate proof of residency for kids with different surnames to prove that they actually live with the parent residing in Teaneck. I asked them what would constitute proof of residency? They said I needed to bring in mail or subscriptions with their names on it. They were toddlers at the time.
Ironically, if I had the same surname as my husband, this would not have come up, even if we were divorced and I had custody and lived in Paterson.
Several of the comments on this re-registration topic contain partial truths, but leave negative impressions regarding the TBOE process. While it may be time for Teaneck to conduct a re-registration (which will cost as much or more administrative hours than Fair Lawn because of the size of the system), it is worthwhile to note that Fair Lawn's efforts were essentially worthless the day after they were completed, because there was no ongoing system in place to maintain the "watch." It's been noted in this blog that Teaneck BOE has long employed a retired police officer who works all year long following leads from all the schools as well as any resident who calls (and there are many), to confirm student residency and follow up on those who would like their children to slip through the cracks in the system. This has been a consistent, effective process.
Registration of new students now takes place only at the Board of Ed offices, but current students who are suspected of living outside of town are checked on during the year. If any resident wants to submit a lead, call (201)833-5500 and ask for Al Shultz -- all leads are confidentaial and anonymous.
Finally, for those who moan about kids getting off NYC or Paterson buses to go to Teaneck High, remember that there are quite a few families out there with parents who are divorced or separated, and the kids may be staying with the other parent part of the week for one reason or another.
Policy 5111 includes several other conditions that allow students who do not reside in Teaneck to go the public schools. One section reads, "If the pupil previously was a resident of the district and the
parent(s) or legal guardian(s) is a member of the New Jersey
National Guard or the United States reserves and has been ordered
to active service in time of war or national emergency, resulting
in the relocation of the pupil out of the district, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-3(b)"
Unfortunately this is a real possibility.
I don't dispute that there are not some situations where it is right and proper for a formerly resident student to continue attending the Teaneck public schools. The exceptions listed in the BOE policy sound reasonable. But I am surprised that there is no mention made of making the student's current place of residence pay for most of the cost of the education.
A large number of our forces in Iraq probably have children in the Teaneck public schools, etc. etc. I'm getting a little tired of the apologist for the TBOE. Is his wife on the TBOE? Why the uncritical blind support?
Anonymous said...
I'm getting a little tired of the apologist for the TBOE. Is his wife on the TBOE? Why the uncritical blind support?
One of those people who considers clarifying history and facts to be blind support. Not hiding my identiry is probably something you don't approve of either.
Most of the exceptions that allow non-resident students to attend the Teaneck schools are mandated by NJ. This includes the rules for tuition reimbursement for those cases.
The significant exception is the section of the Policy quoted by Teaneck Blog concerning seniors. This was a policy decision of the board and is not mandated. You can tell which policies are state mandated by rhe reference to "N.J.S.A."
At the board meeting tonight a revised version of policy 5111 was presented. It does not include a wholesale re-registration. Instead it proposes a staggered approach. Re-registration would be required when students switch schools - before the 5th and 9th grade.
Click here to read about one situation any prospective re-registration should take pains to avoid.
As discussed at last week's Workshop meeting, the Board of Education's new version of policy 5111 on “Eligibility of Resident / Nonresident Pupils,” which had its first reading at tonight's Regular Public Meeting, is a step in the right direction. As revised, student residency will be confirmed when students enter middle school for fifth grade and Teaneck High School for ninth grade, above and beyond the existing check when a child enrolls for kindergarten or transfers into the district, in addition to any checks based on reports of non-residency.
This new policy will provide for two checkpoints along the way for each student, rather than the assumption of perpetual eligibility that prevails under the current system. As discussed at both the workshop and regular sessions, by spreading out the process, the verification tasks can be covered using existing staff at no extra costs. A rolling re-registration avoids the one-time costs and one-time benefits of a full re-registration that becomes worth less and less as time passes.
Another benefit not discussed is that as a significant percentage of families will have more than one child in the system at any one time, when any child is re-registered, the eligibility of any siblings will also be verified as well, providing further opportunities to detect any issues.
My only regret is that with the First Reading on the proposed changes taking place tonight, the policy would not be approved until next school year, and would not be implemented until September 2007.
I have no evidence whatsoever that there is a real issue. I sincerely hope that the existing attendance officer process is rooting out all of the non-resident students and that each and every student in the school system is entitled to the education provided.
I believe that this new policy addresses the issues I had raised earlier, including at the top of this thread. But, until this new policy is implemented, the persistent anecdotal reports of ineligible students will remain unanswered for yet one more year.
Alan Sohn
I'm willing to bet the "anecdotal reports of ineligible students" persist.
Post a Comment
<< Home