ACLU vs. DOE RE: HOMELESS CHILDREN.

[infinitypro]

The news of the lawsuit was televised locally yesterday, and in the newspapers this morning. According to the SB article (http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/03/news/story05.html), the lawsuit alleges that the DOE is not providing adequate transportation to appropriate schools for homeless children.

I know that if a child requires special needs, transportation is provided, and if this is the situation with the Plaintiffs then the State may have erred. But, if it's not, then is the State responsible for transportation of ALL children to and from school?

It was interesting that the local news stations interviewed homeless families and students whom didn't support the lawsuit, but expressed that it was their responsibility to get to school themselves.

Even though I have the means to transport my children to school, will we be eligible for this obligation too?

Auntie Lynn you've been working with the homeless families, is the State really not meeting their needs as alleged in the lawsuit?

[pzarquon]

I caught the report on KITV (http://www.thehawaiichannel.com/education/14257174/detail.html) last night. I liked that they got out there and talked to homeless people, and indeed found (of course) within the diverse population some dissenting voices. There are homeless families that get their kids to school, there are homeless kids that understand the value of education, and indeed, there are parents that do not make as great an effort as they could to get their children the education they are entitled to.

I also know that it's not just a matter of rounding up kids and busing them in. I'm even confident that additional paperwork requirements put in place by federal mandates make things even messier. I live in a good ol' fashioned house between two elementary schools, and it took well-meaning folks two years to figure out which ones our kids were supposed to go to. For a while, we had a kid in each school!

The ACLU is pushing for more staffing at the DOE to focus on the homeless, which is hard to argue against. ACLU says there's one, DOE says there's two and a request for a third. And as we all know, there are a lot of things on many levels our DOE could be doing better. But the assertion that the state has done nothing sounds a bit extreme.

I'm curious. The federal law cited seems to "requires students without permanent addresses to be allowed in school." It doesn't sound like these kids are being turned away. I'm not doubting transportation is a challenge, but how much service are we entitled to? Are the complainants trying to keep their kids in a school that isn't proximate to the one they "live" nearest to? Are they moving about regularly (as perhaps they may have to)?

[Adri]

The state was not mandated to comply with the McKinney-Vento Act. The state voluntarily sought federal grant money via the McKinney-Vento Act in exchange for performing certain services related to homeless children (and by homeless they don't just mean kids living on the beach, they also mean kids who have to shift from relative's house to relative's house ~ any Hawaii kid without a permanent address.) The money was specifically to assist states in addressing issues with homeless children in schools. If the State didn't want to comply with the Act, the State could have simply not sought and taken the money. As I understand it, the state accepted the McKinney-Vento money for years without fulfilling or fully fulfilling its obligations that were undertaken in exchange for receiving the money. Apparently, one of those obligations involves providing transportation to and from school for the homesless children of school age.

Transportation isn't the only issue. As I understand it, the schools require a copy of a utility bill in order to show which district school the kids should be attending. If one is a homeless child, one has no utility bill to show. If a child has to move from district to district, the child may have to change schools, thus disrupting their learning as they move from one curriculum to another.

[pzarquon]

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Adri. Securing separate funding to do {x} and not doing {x} or at least documenting it is a problem. Here's more on the McKinney-Vento Act (http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/rulesandregs/laws/) from HUD.

Transportation isn't the only issue. As I understand it, the schools require a copy of a utility bill in order to show which district school the kids should be attending. If one is a homeless child, one has no utility bill to show.True. And as I mentioned, even with an actual address, determining a school district can be messy! If a kid has no permanent address, there should be some way to legitimately specify a location.
If a child has to move from district to district, the child may have to change schools, thus disrupting their learning as they move from one curriculum to another.Well, how far does this go? A homeless family in Makaha may enroll their child in Makaha, but then end up staying with relatives in Kaaawa. Then moving to Kahuku. Surely the expectation can't be that a highly transient student be entitled to both choose a school outside the default district (which families of all kinds struggle to do), but also get state-provided transportation to that school? Is running a bus from Kaawa to Makaha for one student reasonable? It's balancing stuff like this that I know can't be a simple matter.

[scrivener]

I think that in addition to considering what the state MUST do, it's worth considering what is in the state's best interest. I know the lawsuit really has nothing to do with what's BEST for the state, but perhaps the lawsuit can bring that to people's attention.

It is in ALL our best interests to get those kids in school and to see that they stay there. It is in ALL our best interests to help those kids find some kind of stability in school. It might cost us a bit now, but it will cost more to support those kids later when they have kids of their own. I'll bet that's the rationale behind the federal mandate, anyway.

The highly transient nature of homelessness certainly makes attending one school a challenge. But there's got to be a way.

[Adri]

I think that in addition to considering what the state MUST do, it's worth considering what is in the state's best interest. I know the lawsuit really has nothing to do with what's BEST for the state, but perhaps the lawsuit can bring that to people's attention. /snip

And how do you *know* that the lawsuit really has nothing to do with what's BEST for the state? or the nation, for that matter, since it involves federal money?

[infinitypro]

In my experience, for many of my residents I've written a letter of verification to the neighborhood schools, however I am also aware that "unauthorized" or "undocumented" household members are also able to enroll without my letter of verification and without a utility bill, lease agreement, etc.

I inquired with the counselors in the district, and instead of singling out a "homeless" child, they'll accept a notarized letter from an individual to verify the school district.

ADRI thank you for sharing about the funds received by the State with a promise to perform or provide a service to a specific group. But, I think what SCRIVENER said was correct in that the lawsuit is not in the best interest of the State well, because there's the obvious lawsuit. It's more of bringing light and awareness to this situation, many of us did not know about this until viewing last night's news.

In an effort to assist the schools, I've coordinated the efforts of myself, the school counselors and my staff to knock on doors to wake children up in their homes to make sure they not only get to school on-time but to have some breakfast too...all the while the parents are still asleep! It was more important for myself and the school to first get the children into the positive habit of going to school, and then address the underlying issues within the household.

But, was it really our professional responsibility? Not for me, it was more of a moral responsibility and I felt it was the right thing to do.

[Adri]

hmm, perhaps I am just confused by what is meant by "in the best interests of the State". When I think of "best interests of the State" I was thinking of us, all the individual members and communities that make up Hawaii. Even in the best interests of the State of Hawaii, the government part, because hopefully with better education, the homeless children will have brighter prospects in their future and not continue to be homeless adults, have better jobs, better access to health care, etc. I'm thinking that it's in the State's best interest to do what it can (and what it promised to do when it received the MV money) to help homeless children receive an education and for there to be increased awareness of the issues.

InfinityProductions, thank you for all you do (and everyone else making efforts out there, too).

[infinitypro]

hmm, perhaps I am just confused by what is meant by "in the best interests of the State". When I think of "best interests of the State" I was thinking of us, all the individual members and communities that make up Hawaii. Even in the best interests of the State of Hawaii, the government part, because hopefully with better education, the homeless children will have brighter prospects in their future and not continue to be homeless adults, have better jobs, better access to health care, etc. I'm thinking that it's in the State's best interest to do what it can (and what it promised to do when it received the MV money) to help homeless children receive an education and for there to be increased awareness of the issues.

InfinityProductions, thank you for all you do (and everyone else making efforts out there, too).

You know, until you said that I was thinking a whole 'nother way too, as in the best interest of the State meaning "DOE". It's so funny "reading" someone's thoughts...you don't get the full effect without the eye contact, body language, quiver in the lips :D you know what I mean! I hear you too, that it would be in the best interest for us all to resolve this issue, get the children to school, get the parents motivated too, ahhh perhaps we're too idealistic!

[scrivener]

What I meant is that I don't think the ACLU's lawsuit, while definitely (in my mind) in the best interest of the state, is ABOUT the best interest of the state: The question is whether or not there is a law being broken or a mandate not being followed or money not being used the way it was earmarked. The best interest of the state has little to do with DETERMINING the state's liability.

My point is that -- whether or not the state is guilty of what the ACLU says -- it IS in the best interest of the state to make sure kids are in school, especially kids from families with little education or from families struggling to get by. I apologize if I wasn't clear.

I think it's a good lawsuit, and I think the lawsuit is in the best interest of the state, and I was once a card-carrying member of the ACLU and am still a (declared) member of the Libertarian Party