Change sought to policyProposal to affect magnet schools only By Diette Courrégé (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, July 6, 2008
What's requiredThe following is the documentation that Charleston County magnet school students will have to provide to schools this coming year to prove their domicile: 1: Parents' or guardian's affidavit about the student's domicile. Must be signed under penalty of perjury and state law penalties. 2: One of the following: --If the property is rented, a copy of a signed and dated lease. --If the property is owned by the parent or guardian, a copy of the most recent tax bill. --If the property is being bought or built, a copy of the contract for sale with closing date, including buyer and seller, or a copy of the contract for construction. 3: One of the following (must have name and street address; P.O. box is unacceptable): --Electric or gas bill. --Water bill. --Phone bill (not cell phone). --Cable bill. --Voter registration card. --Car registration. --Pay stub (Must show employer's name and parent's or guardian's name and address). --Local, state or federal agency correspondence (Social Security, Medicaid, etc.) that reflects name and address of parent or guardian. If the parent or guardian and the student live with someone else: A: Parent or guardian must provide the affidavit. Also, the person with whom they are living must provide a signed, notarized and dated letter in writing, verifying the address and that the parent or guardian and student live at the stated address. B: The person with whom they are living must provide the required document from categories 1 and 2 (see above). C: Parent or guardian must provide two documents from category 3 (see above). Charleston County schools are supposed to verify the address of every student this year, but district leaders plan to ask the school board to change that requirement. The school board passed a policy in January of last year aimed at preventing parents from lying about their addresses to attend specific schools. District leaders failed to make plans to implement the policy until late last summer, so they decided to phase it in with five magnet schools. This coming school year, the policy was supposed to apply to all schools. But schools Superintendent Nancy McGinley plans to take a proposal to the board at its July 21 meeting that would require address verification only at the county's 11 magnet schools annually. Non-magnet schools would check students' addresses when they were admitted, and those schools could ask for the same documents of any enrolled student at any time, according to the administration's proposal. Non-magnet schools would not have to check every student's address. The verification process was an enormous task that required many resources beyond what schools have, McGinley said. To verify every students' address at every school would be "too burdensome," she said. Schools verify students' addresses when they are admitted but not every year afterward. The policy requires parents to sign affidavits annually that they are using the addresses where their children live and penalties for lying include fines or jail time. Members of the board's policy committee were open to the administration's suggestions. Policy committee Chairman Gregg Meyers said he appreciated the logistical problems that district leaders cited, and the magnet schools were the ones where community members questioned address legitimacy. The address verification policy was the board's response to downtown parents questioning addresses of certain students enrolled in Buist Academy, the only excellent-rated magnet school on the peninsula. Downtown residents accused some of the school's parents of lying about their addresses to better their children's chances of acceptance into the school. Buist Academy was one of the five schools required to do the address checks this past school year, and it was the only school that verified students' addresses in a different manner. The other four magnet schools checked students' addresses against the manner in which they came into the school. For example, if a student was accepted into St. Andrews Math and Science because he lived in the school's neighborhood, the school checked to ensure the child still lived in its attendance zone. But at Buist, school leaders only checked to see whether their students lived in the county. Students can enter Buist four ways, and only one of those is by living in the county. Even if a student got into the school because he lived downtown, the school checked whether he still lived in the county. McGinley said she would go back to the board July 21 to talk about the conflicting manner in which schools are verifying addresses to get feedback on what the board wanted to see happen. "These questions are unique to Buist, and we have to investigate them," she said. Doug Gepford, interim chief academic officer, will oversee the new verification process, which has yet to be determined, and he said he hopes to have finished the address checks by the 10th day of school. Some students were identified this past year as living in a place not allowed by their schools' attendance policies, and they will have to go back to their neighborhood schools this coming year, he said. About 30 families at St. Andrews School of Math and Science and fewer than five families at Jennie Moore Elementary were allowed to stay at the school this past year with-out the proper documentation. C.E. Williams couldn't get about 100 of its parents to respond to the request for proof of residency, and all addresses were verified at Buist Academy and Ashley River Creative Arts Elementary. Reach Diette Courrégé at 937-5546 or dcourrege@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
| |||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 15 comment(s)
Posted by echo on July 6, 2008 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"About 30 families at St. Andrews School of Math and Science and fewer than five families at Jennie Moore Elementary were allowed to stay at the school this past year with-out the proper documentation.
C.E. Williams couldn't get about 100 of its parents to respond to the request for proof of residency, and all addresses were verified at Buist Academy and Ashley River Creative Arts Elementary."
Now I'm no expert, but these two paragraphs seem to say it all. High performing schools have high performing families. One school couldn't get 100 families to even respond, yet Buist managed to get it all done. Perhaps the reason that Buist is as good as everyone claims it is relates to how committed the families are?
Posted by bkeelin on July 6, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Buist managed to get it all done because they only had to prove they lived in the county, not in the neighborhood. This was the only one done like this and this was the one most complained about.
Somebody is trying to shove something under the rug. They need to verify which students say they live in the neighborhood and find out whether or not they actually live in the neighborhood. The injustice to the poor must stop and this is just another example of it not being stopped.
They must bring this to light.
Posted by belovedbliff on July 6, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope she and her leave.
Posted by southeastsm on July 6, 2008 at 4:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't plan on Dr. McGinley leaving next year or anytime soon. She is committed to CCSD and qualified to get the job done. Maybe with more support from the community and less questioning every single decision she makes and resisting change that is needed, her success, the future of CCSD and its success, might come earlier versus later. I realize people don't like change, but she is making good strides towards turning a mess she inherited around. Problems cannot be fixed overnight. Without having her actual position and being privy to the information and decision-making that she is responsible for, I find it offensive that so many are quick to judge and already condemn her. Talk about armchair quarterbacking..........
Posted by belovedbliff on July 6, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Southeastern, I disagree with you. You do not know what information people are privy to when they make comments. I disagree with your assessment of McGinley having spoken to her on a wide range of issues. She is committed to special interests.
I also would say that I agree with you--"problems cannot be fixed overnight." Was that your mantra when Rivers was shuttered despite the effective leadership of its new principal? McGinley spearheaded the effort to shut Rivers down and she did not care that it would take time to remedy the situation. She wanted quick fixes. Ironic, isn't it that we should all want quick fixes as well.
Posted by griff895 on July 6, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical "modern" education logic -- if the students/family/faculty/administrators can't meet the standards, then lower the standards. And then throw more tax-payer dollars at the problems!!
Posted by southeastsm on July 6, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Again I will state, belovedbliff, without having her [McGinley's] actual position and being privy to the information and decision-making that she is responsible for, quit armchair quarterbacking. While I respect the fact that you are privy to information when making your comments, I also acknowledge that you, none of us, EXCEPT Dr. McGinley have ALL of the information/data/feedback that SHE has personally received from many, many sources. Certainly you don't claim to be privy to all that information, do you?
As for closing Rivers, I don't have the answer or a mantra regarding that decision. Do you honestly believe that the decision was made because "she wanted quick fixes"? Many times situations are much more complicated than they appear on the surface. As for Dr. McGinley only being committed to special interests, maybe you are right, but possibly you are wrong......time will tell.
Posted by belovedbliff on July 7, 2008 at 2:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I honestly believe that "she wanted quick fixes" and yes, I am privy to all the information needed to make these responses.
Posted by lou9 on July 7, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical public school administration babble - we're going to change the rules because we're too lazy to do our jobs.
Posted by mlm on July 7, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Southeastsm said: "She is committed to CCSD and qualified to get the job done. Maybe with more support from the community and less questioning every single decision she makes and resisting change that is needed, her success, the future of CCSD and its success, might come earlier versus later. I realize people don't like change, but she is making good strides towards turning a mess she inherited around."
Here's the real story. She's not for change. She's working hard to keep charter schools down, magnet schools available to the same people who have them now and she is committed only to special interests and the people who gave her a contract. There is a lot going on that they don't want the public to know about but the information is getting out anyway, piece by piece. Don't forget that she isn't exactly new on the job. As some other readers have pointed out, she helped create some of the biggest failures in recent years. I don't think she'll last much longer either, but how fast she leaves and if real change is allowed to take place under more competent leadership depend on who gets elected to the Board this fall.
Posted by shoelaces on July 7, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I also remember Dr. G-J taking care of Brentwood in her special way. Shut it down, send the kids elsewhere, reopen it, then give it a couple of years as a "new" school. That way the report card doesn't really matter and if they don't meet AYP that doesn't matter either. At least not for a couple of years. I am sure we will start to hear more about that fine educational establishment.
As for lying about where you live to go to a "good" school it isn't hard to do. Most of the children at my school get away with it year after year. The only difference is that they are lying to go to a LOW performing school for whatever reasons.
All you have to do is get your name on one of the bills at someone's house and you are a resident!! Don't wave any red flags and you are in. Keep up your grades and you are in!! Or just give up legal guardianship to someone who lives in the district you want your child to attend. And if you ask for board approval and they turn you down then you just go appeal and 9 times out of 10 they give you approval.
Forget just checking the magnets...I want address verifications done at ALL schools. Those who are out of district without board approval get shipped back to their home schools. These families should have to seek board approval every year. Many of the children at my school are probably there because we take them and work our butts off for them. At another site they may not get the help they need to be successful.
I think the fact that families want their children to attend high performing schools speaks to the need for more high performing schools. My child will not attend her home school as it is a failing school.
Give McGinley a chance and see what happens. I think she will make some more positive changes. It doesn't happen overnight.
Posted by mlm on July 7, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Give McGinley a chance and see what happens. I think she will make some more positive changes. It doesn't happen overnight."
We've given her a chance and she isn't measuring up. She is dishonest. Read her comments and watch her actions on the charter school. She's covered the cheaters at Buist and she's covered the incompetent principal. McGinley is a political animal and isn't responsive to eductational needs or community being cheated. I'm good with doing whatever a parent can do to give their child a good shot at an excellent education. What I don't tolerate is the cheaters doing it so that another child is pushed out. But what angers me even more is someone like Nancy McGinley looking the other way as it happens. She's no better than a judge who takes a bribe. We pay her to lead not to follow the money. I agree, it's their job, all schools should check their rolls so no child that is denied access to the school they are legally entitled to attend. Then if there are vacancies, sure, first come first served to the rest even giving special needs of NCLB priorities...but this garbage at Buist is in McGinley's lap...where it's been for almost 4 years. She's had several chances and she's flunked the test once again.
Posted by merlinthewizard on July 7, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting....yes, all addresses at St. Andrew's were verified and the District 10 board informed the families they would have to attend their home schools. HOWEVER, the downtown board allowed them all to stay. What good is making a rule, then not following it?? (Maybe the numbers at St. Andrews were higher because they did a better job at true verification, not just going through the motions....)
Posted by shoelaces on July 7, 2008 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MLM - which past superintendent have you been happy with? What will it take for you to be satisfied with what the district is doing?
If people want to be at Buist or any other high performing school they are going to do what it takes to make it happen. And I don't see how Sally Ballard is incompetent. Go check Buist's report card on the CCSD website. Everyone I know whose children attend Buist are quite happy.
What exactly has McGinley done that is illegal?
Posted by southeastsm on July 7, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with shoelaces, and would kindly request MLM to enlighten all of us reading these posts as to what exactly the coverup is at Buist and what exactly you feel makes Sallie Ballard an incompetent principal? What are your issues, specifically? Your vagueness has me asking more questions and wondering where to find the true answers...