Below is part of the text of the new board policy regarding transfers.
Click here to view the proposed policy (Descriptor Code:JBCC) in it's entirety. This policy is "ready for action" and will be voted on at the next board meeting.
F. Children of Full-Time District Employees
Subject to review by the Office of Student Assignment , a student whose custodial parent or legal guardian is a full-time school-based employee of the District may enroll in the school in which the parent or legal guardian is employed, regardless of whether the employee and student reside in this or another school district. Transportation will not be provided by the District. Children of employees who do not reside in the District will not be required to pay tuition.
A student whose custodial parent or legal guardian is a full-time school-based employee at a theme school may enter the lottery to attend the respective theme school, regardless of the student’s residence. The student must comply with the school’s published admissions procedures.
Because of the unique nature of magnet programs, which have special admission criteria and competitive selection processes, children of magnet program employees will be given no special preference in the application or lottery process for admission to the respective magnet program. Students wishing to enroll in the program must follow the published admission procedures and meet the admission criteria for the program. Moreover, because of the special cost to the District in providing magnet programs, these programs are limited to students who reside in the District.
This provision does not apply to pre-K programs.
It still isn't clear to me what the transfer policy is for employees of the central office, Sam Moss Center or other areas, where employees can technically be assigned to a school as part of a cost center, yet not actually spend their day in that school building. I wish the policy for those people was spelled out more clearly.
And the little throwaway line about pre-K is mysterious.
Visit the link above and read the policy. Then submit your thoughts on it in the box at the bottom of the page.
Cere, you missed the last sentence"
"Employees’ children who, at the time this Policy is enacted, are attending a school at which they would not be entitled to enroll under this Policy shall be allowed to remain in their current school until they have completed the highest grade at that school."
Sounds like it might actually be limiting it to the people that work in the schools themselves based on that sentence alone. The wording is still too vague though.
On another note, HOPE changes are out
Some things make you ask why, particularly in times of tight budgets:
"Children of employees who do not reside in the District will not be required to pay tuition."
The children that are affected by the policy, non "School-Based" employees, would be "Grandfathered" in their existing school until they graduate from that school. Once they graduate from ES, MS then they would revert back to their home school based on attendance lines.
But let's not forget that many in the central office are "school based employees"...we need a definition of what a school based employee is!
Pre K is state funded.
It seems pretty simple to me:
If an employee draws their pay check from a school location, that principal is responsible for their evaluation. For example, an ESOL teacher may serve 3 schools, but he/she has a "home school". Only that principal evaluates him/her.
In MIS, if you are a CTSS, you report to the principal in that school and the principal evaluates you. The CTSS is part of that principals cost allocation for employees. Therefore the CTSS is a school employee. In MIS, if you are a Network Liaison Specialist, you work at the Bryant Center and your supervisor at the Bryant Center gives you your evaluation. As an NLS you may be assigned to 8 different schools, but you are not a school based employee because the principal is not your supervisor. Nor does your salary get charged to a school. An NLS is not a school based employee.
If you are a Special Ed teacher, you get your evaluation from the principal of a school and are part of his/her cost center. If you serve 2 schools as a Special Ed teacher, you have a "home school" and the "home school" principal evaluates you and you are part of both schools cost centers (1/2 point for each school), but you are considered as school based at your home school. Now if you are a Lead Teacher between several schools, you do not report to a principal. You report to a Central Office staff member. You are not part of the cost center of any of those schools and no principal evaluates you. You are not a school based employee.
Can teachers' children continue in their feeder patterns?
Do you want DCSS teachers to come in early and stay late to tutor your child and/or sponsor clubs and activities (for free, I might add)?
You can mess with my pay and my retirement, but please don't mess with my child!
School-based employees children are eligible to stay in the entire "Feeder" system that their parent works. K-12, wherever your parent works.
Nothing mysterious about the Pre-K line. It is open to anyone because of the state lottery nature of the program. Of course, once you get your kid into that school, you can argue that their little 4-year-old psyche will be hurt if they have to go somewhere else to school for the rest of their educational career.
Dear Anonymous at 3:56-
"School-based employees children are eligible to stay in the entire "Feeder" system that their parent works. K-12, wherever your parent works."
I would like to believe this is true. How can I verify? Anyone?
Dear Anonymous at 3:56,
"School-based employees children are eligible to stay in the entire "Feeder" system that their parent works. K-12, wherever your parent works."
I would like to believe this is true. How can I verify?
"School-based employees children are eligible to stay in the entire "Feeder" system that their parent works. K-12, wherever your parent works
Not true under this new policy.
For every DCSS employee/teacher who does not live in Dekalb County and has his/her child attend a DCSS school, that is a $10,000 perk that county taxpayers are paying for.
Sorry, but if yoo do not live in DeKalb County, DeKalb taxpayers should not be paying to educate your child.
And remember, Ramona Tyson has yet to crack down on administrative transfers.
She needs to stand up to the Central office mafia. They should have never been allowed to pick and choose whcih schools they get to send their children to.
What does it say about all the non-teaching DCSS staff who do not send their children to their zoned school? if they aren't willing to send their children to their zoned school and work for a better school, they are lesser people for it.
Just curious, but what’s the rationale behind letting a child attend the school at which his/her parent teaches - convenience for the parent/teacher? I have no problem with that, by the way, although I think any transfer ought to depend on available capacity of the receiving school.
It’s funny, though, when we’re threatened with redistricting, or schools being closed, things like strong neighborhood unity, feeder patterns, walking proximity to school, and neighborhood friends are really important “for our kids.” But if it’s not convenient for the parent, we have no qualms about yanking them out of a neighborhood school, away from their friends, and dragging them across the county to where we work, arriving earlier and staying later than they would at a neighborhood school.
Why is it so dang difficult for this policy to just go ahead and clearly spell out what the policy will be for non-school based employees (I guess defined as employees not evaluated by a principal?)?
Answer is obvious! If it's clear, it can't be abused!!
And the BOE members will "innocently" overlook this omission because they want to be able to send their children, grandchilren, nieces, nephews, children with lovers, neighbor's children, neighbor's grandchildren, fraternity/sorority sisters' children, etc. to whatever school they choose.
SACS is asleep at the wheel.
One very high level administrator's child now has a seat at our extremely overcrowded middle school. And he has a spot of the "middle school" baseball team. An opportunity a taxpaying resident's child should have.
I think this policy is to follow the letter of the law except with the exception of the theme and magnet programs where there is competition and their may be a conflict to allow the teacher's children to have preferential treatment.
From what I see the law will be followed and this means the students can attend the school the parent teachers. They cannot attend the feeder schools. This has been a problem in the past and with AYP students this is a problem now. You cannot allow a student outside the county to take the seat of a student who is in the county who wants that seat due to AYP, unless the state law in place trumps this by allowing the teacher's child to attend the school. This is real simple. The law will be followed from now on.
The students should never have been allowed in the feeder schools. This was not what the law intent was at all. It was first put into place due to coach's children and teacher's children being at different schools for different events and this was an issue. Many have taken advantage of the situation and the situation has got way out of control in some areas where the schools are good schools in the county.
What about bus drivers? They are not evaluted by the principal. However, the ones who drive for our middle school bring their kids here. What about the SRO (resource officer)? They are not evaulated by the principal, but we have the grandson of ours attending our school. This policy is still unclear. Mr. Dunson, area assistant has kids in dcss elementary. Will his kids go to middle school in gwinnett? We'll see. I doubt it.
The children of teachers should be able to continue in their feeder patterns without having to apply for special permission.
I am sorry, but I don't get this benefit at all. My hometown in the northeast long ago eliminated this perk, with no negative repercussion in attracting qualified candidates. The problem was that it amounted to an extra dollar perk for some teachers, that was not given to others without children.
As for having your children close to your work, well, that is lovely, but the vast majority of people don't get this, and have to deal with childcare, etc. And I have always thought it is weird to have your kids in your school--seems to present a potential for problems when your child is in a colleague/friend's class (and what if you teach the only section of a particular class? Do you teach your own kid?).
All of this would be much easier to police if they just eliminated it.
@ 8:25 While I agree 100% with you, the law is a state law that DCSS has extended to all school employees.
"if yoo do not live in DeKalb County, DeKalb taxpayers should not be paying to educate your child."
I could not agree more. You want your kid educated here, you need to pay your taxes here.
There are some schools in the state that start as early as 7:10am, therefore the teachers must be there before 7:00am. Childcare that allows parents to drop off as early as 6:15 maybe hard to find. In some areas, school buses stop at schools in order to pick up/drop off teachers children. This can only be done if a child is sent to a feeder school of the parent/teacher's workplace.
This is a much needed perk in some areas of Georgia.
Bus Driver's were specifically addressed as central office employees and their children will be affected.
The children will be allowed to graduate from their current school and then have to revert BACK to their home school based on the residence of the employee.
You would have to be a school based employee. That would eliminate anyone who is not school based or that does not answer to the principal at the school.
i'm cynical,but I'm just wondering if central office employees who live in Dekalb, who will be hampered by this new policy, won't suddenly submit a bunch of requests for transfers due to hardship or unsafe schools. It would be difficult to prove that their case wasn't handled preferentially over a regular citizen with a bona fide hardship. For example, Area Super's child, now that he won't be able to start school at Shamrock middle, suddenly has a "medical" issue, like anxiety rashes, documented by a cooperative pediatrician that means the child needs to go to school near the aunt living in the Fernbank district, who will take little Super jr. to the doctor if the medical issue flares. Joe Citizen's child has a condition requiring dialysis twice a week and so needs to attend Fernbank, close to children's hospital treatment center. Super jr. gets the available slot at Fernbank, just in case his made up issue ever occurs. Joe's kid has to stay at the home school far from his needed treatment because Super jr. got protected by the powers that be. Who could ever monitor this or prove it?
The policy doesn't exclude BOE family members, it doesn't define school-based, and it doesn't exclude children of politicians (such as county commissioners who cherry pick their children's DCSS schools, regardless of their residency district). If every term is not defined clearly, the policy can be abused more easily.
Another strategy to keep riding the gravy train: can't central office employees look after each other by designating desired schools as receiving schools under NCLB and grant transfers for their friends' children from their failing neighborhood school to their preferred receiving school? I know, soon everybody will be a failing school under NCLB/ESEA, but in the next year or two, current receiving schools can continue to receive more. I have not been able to verify, but have been advised that a school that does not make AYP can nonetheless be a receiving school if it is NOT a Title 1 school and receives students from non-AYP schools that are Title 1.
I hate being so pessimistic about the ethics of DCSS employees and wish I could get some reassurance that I'm not just being paranoid.
Early this year, Dr. Mayfield in the central office asked every principal to submit a report of all kids currently enrolled that were out of county. We had teachers from fulton, clayton, rockdale and gwinnett on the list. This was according to the address in esis and those who were honest. The report had to include parent name, current grade, and reason they were enrolled.
I wonder if central office data was collected in the same way.
They didn't ask for a list of students who live in dcss that are not at hoome school. I am sure that list would be pages long. These kids don't even have to get special permission and we get a call telling us to enroll them.
There are principals just let kids in all the time as favors, etc. Just ask some how many out of area kids they have.
I don't think we should take perk away from school based staff. I would hate teachers who have to take time off to attend meetings assemblies or other activities for their kids. If their kids are in house, more than likely, they won't take the entire day off. Then they are here teaching students.
@11:03 I luv term super junior.
Yes, there are situations in which staff teach own kids. Try to avoid it, but not always possible.
Anon at 8:51 last night stated "There are some schools in the state that start as early as 7:10am, therefore the teachers must be there before 7:00am. Childcare that allows parents to drop off as early as 6:15 maybe hard to find."
True, but you are aware that teaching is not the only job that starts at 7 am, aren't you? It's not like this is a problem unique to teachers such that by itself it justifies this perk. Now, if this perk were clearly stated as being part of the deal FOR TEACHERS WHO LIVE IN AND PAY TAXES IN DEKALB that would be reasonable. But to argue that it should apply to anyone not school-based, or to teachers because they and they alone start their days early, or to school staff who don't actually pay, through their taxes, for their kids to go to school here . . . I'm not buying it.
To the extent that the policy itself doesn't define certain terms, its vague. For those of you who offer explanation of what "school-based" means, that's your interpretation but could be read in a different manner by the county unless that terminology is defined.
I'm all for allowing a person who works at a school to attend the school where their parent works. To me, it's a reasonable perk of the job (and frankly, most of our teachers don't get a lot of perks), but the reasons for permitting this perk don't translate well to feeder schools and don't make sense for Central Office folks.
And yes, to those of you who talk about other jobs start early and other people have to take time off of work to go to school events, that's true, but most other jobs don't require you to supervise 20 or more students meaning you can't leave for an hour at lunch to have a conference with your child's teacher. Instead, because we can't leave the students unsupervised, teachers have to take the day off and bring in a sub for this kind of thing.
We are in agreement--it's a reasonable perk for SCHOOL-BASED staff WHO RESIDE AND PAY TAXES IN DEKALB. Essentially, it should be part of the teachers' contract--not because their work day starts at 7 am, but because it's simply part of the contract--if you pay taxes here your kid can go to school in the school at which you work. If you don't work AT that (or any) school, that's a different matter.
Along the lines of finding childcare before and after school -my oldest is starting Pre-K next year and we're trying to look for before and after care so we'll be prepared. I spoke to a daycare about it and they said they don't offer transportation and busses aren't allowed to drop kids there. I was astonished and contacted DCSS transportation and they emailed me back and said that is correct - kids cannot be dropped off at a daycare. WHAT IN THE WORLD?! I get that there are all kids of liabilities but, c'mon! If he is dropped at the same location everyday with a responsible adult, why is that not allowed?
@10:05. You want your pre-K child to be bussed from pre-K back and forth to daycare? You are kidding, right? What kind of parents would allow this? How old is your child?
Would you put him/her on a plane alone?
Why did you have children, if you can't take care of them youself?
You say "WHAT IN THE WORLD?" You are "astonished."??
What kind of fantasy, government-controlled world do you live in?
Whoa!! They bus my child from my house to school. What is the difference between my house and a daycare in the school zone???!! We can digress into a discussion about working moms vs. stay at home moms, but I think that arguement has been played to it's fullest...
BECAUSE the school bus is not private transportation. Its function is to take kids from home to school.
You have got to be kidding?
They must have laughed like crazy when you called and asked them to drop your child off at a private day care.
Gee, maybe when your child is older, they could drop her off at the mall, or at a movie.
And no, I wouldn't let my 4 year old even get on a Dekalb county school bus.
People like you, who suck off the teat of the government, are the BIG problem.
You can't take care of your own child, and you want tax dollars to pay for school buses to take your child to a place of your choosing?
I am so glad Dekalb County is not going to raise taxes, and they are going to cut back.
You people deserve this.
Again, why exactly did you have a child?
Cere - I love your blog, hate some of the people that follow it.
Now, although this is the blogging world, we still try to adhere to principles of relative civility here. If you have an opposing viewpoint, please express it without personally tearing down someone else.
That said, the after school program my son attended had a little van that would pick up the kids from carpool lines at their schools. Is there a way to get your daycare to consider adding such a service?
A poster wants to use my tax dollars to transport her 4 year old child on a public bus to a destination of her choosing, her responsibility is questioned, and somehow that's not "civil?"
If you don't want opposing viewpoints, don't have a blog. I contend that this person needs to take responsibility for her own child.
Then, in typical liberal fashion, she won't answer the questions, and then says she "hates" some people. "Hate" is the buzzword liberals use when they don't have an argument. "Racist" is the other.
So, can I assume that her saying she "hates" people is the reason for your comment about being "civil?"
Talking about "hating" people is not civil, particularly when one wants those people to pay for her own child's care.
Opposing viewpoints are welcome. Just state them without tearing down another person please.
As far as requesting optional pick up and drop off points, I do think that the school system would never do this as there certainly would be a liability involved.
Of course the school system will not allow optional drop-offs for children along the route. To even think that they would is preposterous. That's not how school buses work.
My child along with others was picked up from Briarlake by the YMCA van. They drove to the Y about a mile away and there was an after school program there I paid for. I was a teacher, but I didn't get out of work until 4 or 5 every day. I went to the YMCA and picked him up from the daycare group (he was in Kindergarten - no Pre-K at that time). Before that, he was in a daycare center from age 2 to 5 when he went to Kindergarten. I'm assuming most Pre-K students get picked up like that now and go to after school daycare. Most parents do not get off work at 2:30 to pick up their kids so I don't see what the big deal is.
DCSS shouldn't be in the Pre-K business at all. Most of the other counties have ceded the Pre-K program to the private day care centers. All of the day care centers that run state funded pre-K programs have the same certified teachers DCSS has - absolutely no difference in certification. The difference is that in Pre-K programs run in the day care centers, no local taxpayer dollars in the form of extra stipends goes to the Pre-K teachers - they are paid the state base for their degrees and years of experience. The state is completely responsible for the benefits as well so DCSS is not on the hook for that (they get state health benefits, etc. through the state - not through DCSS). Lastly, DCSS is not penalized for the classrooms that the Pre-K program takes up in terms of space. We are not given any credit for the number of Pre-K students - a matter of huge concern as we are having to consolidate small schools.
It seems private day care centers providing Pre-K would also preclude the use of vans to pick the students up and take them to daycare. Once the state funded 4 hours of Pre-K ended, the students would already be on the daycare premises.
I can see why the other more efficient systems turned Pre-K over to the private day care facilities a long time ago.
The students will have the same certified teachers, but DCSS could pour those millions into remedial classes and smaller classes for struggling learners.
Because of how the bus system works, it makes sense to me that the school bus wouldn't drop a child off at daycare, but most of the schools near me have after-school programs who send their own bus to pick up children who need after-care (in addition to the program at our school). Perhaps a parent could look into this option if they need after care for a pre-k or other aged child.
I should have also stated to the parent asking about after school transportation that you should contact the school you're hoping to get a slot at and ask them what after care programs come to their school. They can tell you who picks up at the schoolhouse so that you can then call the after-school program and find out more about them.
The policy is clear-central office employees are not mentined because they are not included in the new policy-they do not get to transfer. The paranoia of some of the people writting in is also clear.
The policy has never stated what central office staff can/can't do related to school assignments. Consequently, with no policy saying they can't put their child in the school of their choice, they have all done it. As relates to this issue, the policy being presented remains unchanged and the public's frequent requests to Ms. Tyson to address it remain unanswered. What makes you think the practice will change? Not paranoia - just fact. Watch closely this fall.
Theoretically, everyone will be grandfathered out and in about 4 years sons and daughters of both teachers, administrators and the palace guard will be attending schools in the neighborhoods in which they live. But the squirrels always find a way into the bird feeder, don't they, no matter how tricky that feeder is? And it'll be palace squirrels getting fat, not teachers.
Let me just say that Cobb and Gwinnett both offer teachers the option of allowing their children to attend any schools in the feeder pattern in which they teach. It's never been a big deal, and I'm confident Fulton, Rockdale etc. offer it too. I guess since they don't have quite such massive central offices as our DeKalb and don't have quite the enormous racial and socio-economic disparities, there's not such a mad rush to get their kids fixed up in a functional school.
I don't like the idea of central office employees taking advantage of this situation any more than anyone on this thread, but if DeKalb is going to stop this option (call it a perk if you like) for teachers, it will be yet another disincentive for teachers to either remain in DeKalb or come to DeKalb, which is already falling behind the other greater Atlanta counties in teacher salaries. I can't see the salary situation improving any time soon, and the surplus of teachers in relation to available positions isn't going to last too much longer. As soon as the demand for teachers returns to its usual levels, the exodus of the best teachers from DeKalb is going be a veritable flood. The only teachers left will be the seemingly endless supply of marginally qualified, barely competent but satisfactorily connected friends and family, who seem to treat their time in the classroom as a brief pit stop on their way to a more lucrative gig in either administration or the palace. Go Premier DeKalb!
As a ps., let me remind everybody that the parents screaming bloody murder about out-of-district kids attending "their" schools were largely from Fernbank, Henderson and Lakeside--the very schools that got everything they wanted and then some at the last board meeting. That's why, as of my writing this, there are only 45 (rather than 200) comments on this thread.
As someone who has worked (translation=taught) for DCSS for twenty years and now has young children, I am disturbed by the number of people who would deny us teachers the right to send our children to the schools (and feeder schools) where we teachers work. When I think of the extra 15 to 25 hours I've worked nightly preparing for classes, grading assignments, attending meetings and conferences, putting grades into the system,tutoring students, sponsoring clubs, writing recommendations,and attending school functions, I very much believe not only am I entitled to this so-called "perk" but also this is the only way to ensure that teacher parents (at least of those students in elementary and middles schools) can be involved members of their schools.
Don't worry, though, I won't be sending my children to a DCSS school because I have little faith they would get the education they-(or any other public school student)deserve.
I don't have any problem with teachers having this perk.
@anon 8:01. Henderson Mill didn't get what they wanted. They got what Lakeside wanted. A number of them are complaining about still being overcrowded (even if Lakeside isn't). And Fernbank didn't consider themselves overcrowded. They wanted to keep everybody.
For those of you who find it astonishing that someone would expect the school bus to drop a child off at daycare, it happens everyday in other counties.
I worked at a daycare in Gwinnett County for over 10 years. The school bus stopped at the corner and the children enrolled at the center rode the school bus to school and then back to the center. The daycare provided transportation for students who lived in the other nearby schools.
Let me be clear: if you are a teacher or IN-SCHOOL administrator, my belief is yes, you should be able to enroll your kid in that school. It should simply be part of the deal for you. As for enrolling your kid in some other school (e.g., a middle school if you teach elementary), I don't know--the argument for convenience is certainly lost when your kid is not in the same building as you but on the other hand we treat our teachers pretty poorly, so maybe that's not an unfair thing to include in the deal for IN SCHOOL staff.
However, if you don't pay taxes in this county you have no right to enroll your kids in county schools for free. Period.
My issue with central office employees choosing where to send their kids is that they convey a message that their kids go to the "good" DCSS schools (as opposed to a teacher having their child in their building for convenience). Remember Lewis's kids were at Chamblee? Brown's at Lakeside? Livsey is full of CO kids. Henderson, too. It subverts the message they are supposed to be sending about the school system.
To his credit, Johnny Brown actually lived in the Lakeside district.
MG, it appears that in your case, the school bus stop at "the corner" was on the scheduled route, so the kids could easily go from the corner to the daycare.
It does not appears that the bus made a special stop.
You know it happens "everyday in other counties."
Where else does this happen?
It makes much sense to have a teacher's children attend the school they teach at and to be able to stay in the feeder system -- there are timing issues and the teacher is expected to be available to help with other people's children during before and after school hours and with extra currics with the older grades. I have no problem with teachers having this right within the school's feeder pattern. If the teacher lives out of county, some tuition should be paid to cover the tax dollars that are not being paid. I think that's fair. The same rationale does not apply for sam moss, bus drivers and others who do not work within the feeder pattern buildings -- their kids can go to home schools. They can choose where to live and choose those schools or apply for one of the magnet/choice programs so long as they are available and if they live out of county -- their kids belong in those county schools. I have a real issue with central office personel attending schools wherever. This actually provides a disincentive for those employees to address and 'clean up' the issues at the schools they are supposed to be working to improve. It skews it in more than one way and is completely off kilter. This needs to stop. If the person is assigned to supervise a school (or 3 or 4), their kids can attend their home school or one of the schools they are responsible for ... in this way, they have some "skin in the game" to make that school better and not just put friends in the school house.
and if a central office person is so high up that they don't have a school or group of schools, they need to be divided up so that there is a check on the system so that there are actually eyes and ears in all of the school houses and reasons to put qualified people "on the ground".
Got their rear ends!
One good thing that camem out of redistricvting was a VERIFIED capacity figure for every school. That has always been the "out" for any transfer rule--no established capacity figure.
Now--no matter how "fudgy" the hardship transfer rule is, a transfer cannot take place if the capacity figure is exceeded.
Many school systems don't offer before and after school care so the buses do stop.
In Gwinnett's case, even if offered by the school, the numbers of students are so large, that they need private providers to offer such services as well.
Post a Comment