|
|
| |
Re: [ Schools/Education ] Kids being pulled from k *LINK*
Posted By: Sam In Response To: Re: [ Schools/Education ] Kids being pulled from k (A Fort Lee Parent)
Date: Friday, 16 June 2006, at 5:11 p.m.
It's not re-registration -- it's removing children without notice.
2 days prior "notice", handed to a child, is not legal notice. It's a violation of state law, a violation of due process, and a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to fail to give notice and an opportunity for appeal before removing a student. The link below, to the Education Law Center, clearly lays this out and includes the Supreme Court precedents and New Jersey State statutes involved. Even if they HAD been living outside the district, they can't remove them for 21 days after a public vote of the full board and effective notice. Essentially, our children were treated worse than children who would have been caught not living in the district, and worse than children who applied for admission without any supporting documentation.
The notice also has to be sent in both English and the native language of the parent (if not English). It wasn't (yes, the re-registration packet was in several languages -- the notice that the child would be removed was not, and it is this notice that needs to be). There are other requirements which were violated as well. Event the superintendent's own communications were inconsistent; a letter postmarked June 5th indicated that the office should be contacted by June 9th, but then the children were pulled out June 7th.
I completely agree that we shouldn't have to pay taxes for students who don't live here, and that adds to my horror of how this was handled. How much taxes do you think you would have saved in the three weeks they might not have attended if the illegal lockout succeeded? How much do you think it might cost in taxes if some parents of the 270 children decide to file a civil rights lawsuit against the district and the superintendent? Start with lawyer's fees, then realize that civil rights violations involve individual liability, which means each principal and school administrator could be added in as a defendant (and if not, certainly as witnesses). And then, of course, damages would be punitive damages, so it's not as though the parents would be suing for babysitting fees. The facts here are clear, and the law is clear. Even if the district settled with parents immediately the paperwork involved would be burdensome. I don't think you want to pay taxes for inane bureaucratic decisions any more than you want to pay taxes for other children's education.
I don't want people free-riding either. But I don't want the district to waste more resources getting rid of kids than it does simply educating them. It's not hard to follow the process; it's clear and simple, and the superintendent must have been aware of it. I found it in under an hour, don't you think if you knew you were kicking 300 kids out of school you'd look it up if you didn't know it already? It wasn't simply that they didn't know the process or the law, they willfully and purposefully ignored both. Even if my child hadn't been affected, I'd find it inexcusable to take that kind of legal risk. There was no apology for this illegal action -- instead, the superintendent's office has indicated they would remove students illegally again in the future.
Residency and Due Process in NJ
| |
Fort Lee Message Board Discussion Forum is maintained by Fort Lee Online with WebBBS 5.12.
|
Copyright © 1999-2001 Benevento Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. |
