Superintendent only "break" school boundary for friends!

[Guest D.A.]

I was never denied by the county superintendent, Dr Brennen is actually helping a lot in all of this... you need to get your facts straight!! and yes I did produce a letter from the doctor explicitly stating that my child's welfare is at stake and she must attend a certain school. If I feel that I was treated unfairly then it is my business !!! Children or not, and obviously Im not the only one that thinks that way. I can say what I want When I want and Where I want... Its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH....Im not going to let my child suffer until her IEP is completed... She is going to get the help she needs when she needs it and thats final, I know my rights and no I dont have to wait... you go on and wait when it comes to your kids don't tell me what to do with my kids!!

Another thing.... Im allowed to criticize who ever I want even with legal counsel just like you are criticizing me without even knowing me!!!

There are a lot of "funny" things going on in this town... people just get a little heated when its spoken about....

Get over yourself... when it comes down to it you really dont know anything of anything...and it seems your quite the expert when it comes to "idiotic"

have yourself a good day

--Super MOM

Oooooooo, Mom! Get a hold of yourself! See what happens when you lose it----you make no sense and you sound like an immature, tyrannical b...h. Oh well, if the broom fits, ride it.

[Guest Another Surprised Resident]

Exactly how do you know that policy isn't being followed?

You don't, that's the point! You can't deny SuperMom her rights to due process AND equal protection. But it sounds like, short of a legal challenge, the school district won't share the data necessary to make that evaluation.

How do you know that it's not a cover up by the school district?

[Guest Guest]

You don't, that's the point! You can't deny SuperMom her rights to due process AND equal protection. But it sounds like, short of a legal challenge, the school district won't share the data necessary to make that evaluation.

How do you know that it's not a cover up by the school district?

Yeah, that's it. It's a cover up by the superintendent and the KBOE. And throw in the county superintendent also. They all have it in for this one family.

Nice try but it's sounds like she has received more than her share of due process. She saw the superintendent, the county superintendent, and the KBOE. Do you still need more proof that something is up with this lady? Let her take it to the NJ Department of Education or the courts.

[Guest Guest]

Or in other words, put aside whether SuperMom has a basis for transferring her child to the school of her choice.

Shouldn't the County Superintendent investigate the allegation that a child (relative) of an former or now elected official was allowed to attend a school outside the child's district? In addition to pursuing getting her child into the school of her choice, that is what SuperMom should be asking of the County Superintendent's office and/or the Department of Education.

Just because she cannot articulate the issue doesn't mean her instincts aren't correct.

And just because a child is a relative of a "former or now elected official" doesn't mean that there wasn't a valid reason why a request was made, or that there was any favoritism in its approval. It all boils down to the question "Is one school able to offer something necessary to the child's well-being that another school cannot?" Unless you know what those reasons are, don't bring another child or children into it!

P.S. Let's not get back into the discussion about the privacy issue. The records of students are not public records and cannot be released by the school system or the superintendent's office!

[Guest 3rd warder]

And just because a child is a relative of a "former or now elected official" doesn't mean that there wasn't a valid reason why a request was made, or that there was any favoritism in its approval. It all boils down to the question "Is one school able to offer something necessary to the child's well-being that another school cannot?" Unless you know what those reasons are, don't bring another child or children into it!

P.S. Let's not get back into the discussion about the privacy issue. The records of students are not public records and cannot be released by the school system or the superintendent's office!

I didn't "bring another child or children into it". The "former or now elected official" brought the child into it. If in fact the transfer was done in violation of the established policy, the Superintendent and the "former or now elected official" violated the law or at a minimum have an ethics issue. They not SuperMom have brought the child into it. If they didn't want to bring the child into it, then that child should have been left at the school she/he was assigned to. Would an unconnected child gotten the transfer that is the question.

[Guest Guest]

If it is a failing school according to No Child Left Behind, then you have the right to switch schools. I know this as a former student, I was given the choice to transfer out of Washington School to another school in the district.

[Guest Guest]

If it is a failing school according to No Child Left Behind, then you have the right to switch schools. I know this as a former student, I was given the choice to transfer out of Washington School to another school in the district.

None of the schools in Kearny are failing schools under NCLB, at this time. In the past yes, but not now.

[Guest Guest]

I didn't "bring another child or children into it". The "former or now elected official" brought the child into it. If in fact the transfer was done in violation of the established policy, the Superintendent and the "former or now elected official" violated the law or at a minimum have an ethics issue. They not SuperMom have brought the child into it. If they didn't want to bring the child into it, then that child should have been left at the school she/he was assigned to. Would an unconnected child gotten the transfer that is the question.

I was referring to another child being brought into this from the onset, by Super Mom, who publicly named a child in her attempt to garner information as to why this child was allowed to remain in her school after her family moved. The other mother had put in a request, with supporting professional documentation, and her request was granted. The "former elected official" had nothing to do with this other than her relationship and concern for the child, as a family member. There was no ethics issue and everything was done EXACTLY in accordance with the established policy. In answer to your question, many children who are not "connected" as you say, have been allowed to stay in, or transfer to schools outside of their district. Each case is evaluated on its own merits and in accordance with the circumstances within the schools at the time.

[Guest Unbiased Juror]

Yeah, that's it. It's a cover up by the superintendent and the KBOE. And throw in the county superintendent also. They all have it in for this one family.

Nice try but it's sounds like she has received more than her share of due process. She saw the superintendent, the county superintendent, and the KBOE. Do you still need more proof that something is up with this lady? Let her take it to the NJ Department of Education or the courts.

No she hasn't gotten due process.

The fact is that the County Superintendent is still reviewing the matter.

The fact is that most of the members of the Board of Education have family members who work for the school district and will not challenge the Superintendent because under State law a school employee can't get promoted, transferred, avoid disciplinary action, etc. without going through the Superintendent. (Please don't express righteous indignation - it's a fact that most of the members have family members in the district.)

Even if the Superintendent were perfect, he's still one person and that's NOT due process.

Your last statement telling her to go to the courts or the State demonstrates the arrogance of those in power. First you attack the critic, SuperMom, belittling her as not as smart as the school experts, even calling her request "idiotic", and then drumming up bogus charges of breaking the law. Now you 'tsk, tsk' Supermom and say let her sue.

Just disclose the data on school transfer requests. Then we'll know whether SuperMom is wrong or if there's a cover up here.

[Guest In the know]

No she hasn't gotten due process.

The fact is that the County Superintendent is still reviewing the matter.

The fact is that most of the members of the Board of Education have family members who work for the school district and will not challenge the Superintendent because under State law a school employee can't get promoted, transferred, avoid disciplinary action, etc. without going through the Superintendent. (Please don't express righteous indignation - it's a fact that most of the members have family members in the district.)

Even if the Superintendent were perfect, he's still one person and that's NOT due process.

Your last statement telling her to go to the courts or the State demonstrates the arrogance of those in power. First you attack the critic, SuperMom, belittling her as not as smart as the school experts, even calling her request "idiotic", and then drumming up bogus charges of breaking the law. Now you 'tsk, tsk' Supermom and say let her sue.

Just disclose the data on school transfer requests. Then we'll know whether SuperMom is wrong or if there's a cover up here.

Yes indeed, Another Surprised Resident has touched on a sore spot, one that's needs to be fixed. Members of the Board of Education have all the major family relationships covered on the payroll: they have parents, children, siblings, spouses and at least one companion employed in the district. That has the potential to cloud objective decision making.

The conflict of interest requirements that went into effect two years ago bars new hires of Board of Education family members. Since existing employees are subject to promotion, transfers, and discipline through the Superintendent, the conflicts law should be expanded to include that as well.

[Guest Guest]

Yes indeed, Another Surprised Resident has touched on a sore spot, one that's needs to be fixed. Members of the Board of Education have all the major family relationships covered on the payroll: they have parents, children, siblings, spouses and at least one companion employed in the district. That has the potential to cloud objective decision making.

The conflict of interest requirements that went into effect two years ago bars new hires of Board of Education family members. Since existing employees are subject to promotion, transfers, and discipline through the Superintendent, the conflicts law should be expanded to include that as well.

I'm a bit confused as to what this has to do with this situation. Neither of the little girls or their mothers is related to the superintendent or members of the Board, and no one that is employed by the school district has asked for a transfer, a promotion or needs to be disciplined. This situation has nothing to do with this policy.

[Guest In the know]

I'm a bit confused as to what this has to do with this situation. Neither of the little girls or their mothers is related to the superintendent or members of the Board, and no one that is employed by the school district has asked for a transfer, a promotion or needs to be disciplined. This situation has nothing to do with this policy.

An earlier poster said SuperMom had received 'due process' from the Board of Education. That was challenged by another post who said that Board of Education members may not be an effective level of due process since they have immediate family members employed by the school district.

In other words, what the Superintendent wants, he gets; that's because the Superintendent has a lot of say over district employees.

[Guest Guest]

An earlier poster said SuperMom had received 'due process' from the Board of Education. That was challenged by another post who said that Board of Education members may not be an effective level of due process since they have immediate family members employed by the school district.

In other words, what the Superintendent wants, he gets; that's because the Superintendent has a lot of say over district employees.

The BOE members were elected, and they hire the superintendent, so they should have say over employees and policy.

You're all assuming that this went down exactly as Super MOM describes. Since the BOE and the superintendents office deals with this type of situation all of the time I would rather assume that the BOE and the superintendent are making the correct decisions on a case by case basis.

Super MOM has the right to appeal the decisions with the county. She said she has and that the county superintendent is reviewing the situation. Is that enough due process?

Once again, we're not getting the whole story here. Some examples; the mystery of Super MOM's driving status, why the child all of a sudden needs to change schools, what emergencies the child's current school can't handle.

[Guest Another Surprised Resident]

The BOE members were elected, and they hire the superintendent, so they should have say over employees and policy.

You're all assuming that this went down exactly as Super MOM describes. Since the BOE and the superintendents office deals with this type of situation all of the time I would rather assume that the BOE and the superintendent are making the correct decisions on a case by case basis.

Super MOM has the right to appeal the decisions with the county. She said she has and that the county superintendent is reviewing the situation. Is that enough due process?

Once again, we're not getting the whole story here. Some examples; the mystery of Super MOM's driving status, why the child all of a sudden needs to change schools, what emergencies the child's current school can't handle.

You glossed over the conflict issue way too quickly. There's an inherent conflict on the part of Board members with the Superintendent because the Superintendent supervises Board members' direct relatives. That's why the prohibition went into effect on new hires. That still leaves promotions, transfers, discipline, etc.

I'm not assuming anything. Neither should you. That's why (for the upteenth time) data on student transfers should be disclosed.

Was your question about whether going to the county superintendent is "enough due process" supposed to be sarcastic or patronizing? I hope not. A citizen's due process rights are fundamental rights under our federal and state constitutions. The answer to your question is, as a matter of law, no. If she wishes, her right to due process allows her to appeal the County Superintendent's determination.

Once again, stop attacking SuperMom -- how does her driving status address the merits of her transfer request? It doesn't. Implying some ulterior motivation is not dealing with the merits.

[Guest Guest]

Playing devil's advocate, here, let's say Supermom is absolutely right in this issue. Suppose she's telling the truth and her daughter's IEP/evaluation isn't complete yet.

Mr. Digesere is acting in the best interest of the child here. Suppose testing and IEP say that the child belongs in a self-contained special ed class. If she is pre-K, that's Garfield School; if she's K - 2, that's Schuyler; grade 3 - Washington.... So if he moves the child out of Roosevelt and into Lincoln, it could be a very temporary situation for the child - Lincoln doesn't have any self-contained special ed classes for elementary students. The child would be dragged from school to school until a permanent placement is made. Mom's mistake is in not waiting for the completion of that IEP. I think she's looking out for her best interests (not having to walk to Roosevelt school every morning now that the older kid is going to Lincoln) not her child's best educational environment.

You glossed over the conflict issue way too quickly. There's an inherent conflict on the part of Board members with the Superintendent because the Superintendent supervises Board members' direct relatives. That's why the prohibition went into effect on new hires. That still leaves promotions, transfers, discipline, etc.

I'm not assuming anything. Neither should you. That's why (for the upteenth time) data on student transfers should be disclosed.

Was your question about whether going to the county superintendent is "enough due process" supposed to be sarcastic or patronizing? I hope not. A citizen's due process rights are fundamental rights under our federal and state constitutions. The answer to your question is, as a matter of law, no. If she wishes, her right to due process allows her to appeal the County Superintendent's determination.

Once again, stop attacking SuperMom -- how does her driving status address the merits of her transfer request? It doesn't. Implying some ulterior motivation is not dealing with the merits.

[Guest Guest]

You glossed over the conflict issue way too quickly. There's an inherent conflict on the part of Board members with the Superintendent because the Superintendent supervises Board members' direct relatives. That's why the prohibition went into effect on new hires. That still leaves promotions, transfers, discipline, etc.

I'm not assuming anything. Neither should you. That's why (for the upteenth time) data on student transfers should be disclosed.

Was your question about whether going to the county superintendent is "enough due process" supposed to be sarcastic or patronizing? I hope not. A citizen's due process rights are fundamental rights under our federal and state constitutions. The answer to your question is, as a matter of law, no. If she wishes, her right to due process allows her to appeal the County Superintendent's determination.

Once again, stop attacking SuperMom -- how does her driving status address the merits of her transfer request? It doesn't. Implying some ulterior motivation is not dealing with the merits.

And for the umpteenth time, data on other students cannot be disclosed by the superintendent's office, the board or the school district. It is not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't", it's "can't"! It is personal information.

[Guest Another Surprised Resident]

And for the umpteenth time, data on other students cannot be disclosed by the superintendent's office, the board or the school district. It is not a matter of "should" or "shouldn't", it's "can't"! It is personal information.

Tell he how any of the following is personal information:

How many transfer requests were there in 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years.

How many of those requests were granted.

What are the Kearny school district's requirements for granting a request.

This is a matter of the Kearny school district having a double standard. Stop "hiding" behind privacy arguments.

[Guest Burst Your Bubble]

None of the schools in Kearny are failing schools under NCLB, at this time. In the past yes, but not now.

Wrong. From today's Jersey Journal:

In Kearny and West New York, seven schools failed; in Union City and Bayonne there were six; five in North Bergen, three in Harrison and Hoboken, and one each in East Newark, Secaucus and Guttenberg.

Seven schools!

[Guest Guest]

Wrong. From today's Jersey Journal:

In Kearny and West New York, seven schools failed; in Union City and Bayonne there were six; five in North Bergen, three in Harrison and Hoboken, and one each in East Newark, Secaucus and Guttenberg.

Seven schools!

Fortunately for the people of Kearny, and unfortunate for those who take pleasure in bashing our school system, the Jersey Journal article that you quoted was at best, misleading; but more to the point, it was downright erroneous in its reporting. There are NOT 7 failing schools in Kearny. Under the law, "failing" means the school didn't meet its adequate yearly progress goals (AYP)that go up each year until the goal is 100% in 2013-2014. This includes all of the subgroups in each school as well, i.e. special ed, LEP, economically disadvantaged, etc. For the school year 2009-2010, there is only one subgroup, in one school, in one grade bundle that did not meet AYP (grades 3,4 and 5 are bundled together for the sake of NCLB, as are grades 6,7 and 8.)Once a school does not meet AYP for 2 years in a row, parents in that school, at that grade level, are given the opportunity to send their child to a different school.

Being that neither Lincoln School, nor Roosevelt School is involved in this situation, Super Mom cannot use this as a recourse to change her daughter's school, as was suggested in an earlier post. My "bubble" is intact!

[Guest Dead From Boredom]

I am surprised that this topic is still going. It's been soooo long that SuperMom's child already graduated from college. SuperMom is now living in Florida collecting social security. Way to beat a dead horse!

[Guest Guest]

I am surprised that this topic is still going. It's been soooo long that SuperMom's child already graduated from college. SuperMom is now living in Florida collecting social security. Way to beat a dead horse!

LOL!

[Guest Fact Checker]

I am surprised that this topic is still going. It's been soooo long that SuperMom's child already graduated from college. SuperMom is now living in Florida collecting social security. Way to beat a dead horse!

It's still going on because we never got answers on basic facts about the transfer request process in the Kearny school district. Not once was it disclosed what that policy is. Not once was the number of transfer requests presented. The responses have been non-responsive and some of them have degerated to personal attacks on SuperMom. The issue won't go away just because you'd like it to go away. You cannot run away from facts or factfinding.

[Guest Guest]

I didn't know that the Superintendent and KBOE answered to KOTW.

[Guest Taxpayer and Voter]

I didn't know that the Superintendent and KBOE answered to KOTW.

Yes, they do answer to us. BOE because we are voters. Superintendent because we pay his $200,000+ a year in salary.

[Guest Dead From Boredom]

It's still going on because we never got answers on basic facts about the transfer request process in the Kearny school district. Not once was it disclosed what that policy is. Not once was the number of transfer requests presented. The responses have been non-responsive and some of them have degerated to personal attacks on SuperMom. The issue won't go away just because you'd like it to go away. You cannot run away from facts or factfinding.

I don't want any issues to go away. Open discussions can be very productive. However, you obviously missed my point on this topic. The answers you seek never came because this is KOTW, not the Kearny BOE. It appears no one has put pen to paper to officially request information from the BOE regarding the transfer request process. This would be in the form of an OPRA request. Anyone is entitled to certain information from public entities that is allowable by law. In this case, student names and addresses wouldn't be avaialable but numbers of students per school per geographic area would. As for policy disclosure, go to the Kearny BOE web site. Its all there, every single policy. Eight full pages of dialog on this topic that got people all fired up on both sides for the wrong reasons. SuperMom has valid concerns regarding her child but those concerns got lost in space because of this blog and trial by public opinion.