Tuesday, Jan. 10 2012 6:56PM
ACLU plans to intervene on behalf of KC students
By Rob Roberts, rroberts@lsjournal.com
Print
E-Mail
AIM
ReprintThe America Civil Liberties Union wants to talk to the first Kansas City student to complete the pre-registration process as part of an effort to transfer to the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District.
The R-7 district, one of five area school districts that have taken the Kansas City school district to court over its transfer policy, confirmed Jan. 10 that it had pre-registered its first Kansas City student in the wake of that district losing its state accreditation Jan. 1.
But the key point, as far as the ACLU is concerned, is that the R-7 district didn’t allow the student to start attending classes. Rather, R-7 spokeswoman Janice Phelan said in a written statement, the “pre-registration process … (triggered) us to send (the Kansas City district) an invoice for the second semester attendance of the student per board policy.”
“Lee’s Summit R-7 board policy,” Phelan added, “requires tuition be paid in full before enrollment can occur.”
So do the policies of the other four plaintiff districts in the Jackson County Circuit Court case pending against the Kansas City district.
But according to Doug Bonney, chief legal counsel for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, the Missouri state law is clear as it relates to students in unaccredited districts seeking to transfers into accredited districts in the same or an adjacent county:
The accredited districts must take them, he said.
“If we get some clients who are being denied enrollment,” Bonney said, “we will intervene in the case Lee’s Summit and the other districts have filed” against Kansas City Public Schools. “The law says students and parents have the right to transfer without qualifications.”
But the same statute also stipulates that the unaccredited district pay the tuition and provide transportation for the transferring students.
Thus, the five plaintiff districts – R-7, Independence, Raytown, Blue Springs and North Kansas City – filed suit after the Kansas City district adopted a Dec. 21 transfer policy that the plaintiffs say does not align with their policies or state law. A sixth district, Center, has dropped out of the suit challenging the policy.
Specifically, the transfer policy states that the Kansas City district will not provide transportation and will reimburse only four districts – Raytown, Independence, North Kansas City and Center – if they provide transportation for transferring students.
In addition, the policy calls for the Kansas City schools to pay tuition of only $3,733 per student upfront if it and the receiving district cannot agree on the amount of actual tuition owed. Lee’s Summit’s full-year tuition is $9,339 for kindergarten through eighth grade and $10,869 for high school students.
Allan Hallquist, an attorney representing the Kansas City district, said during a Dec. 30 hearing in the case that the statute calls for the state board of education to settle disputes over tuition in such cases. Once the state board makes its determination, the Kansas City district will make up any differences the receiving districts have been shorted via monthly payments, according to the Kansas City transfer policy. The plaintiff districts argue that forcing their taxpayers to pay for the Kansas City students’ education without full payment would be a violation of the state’s Hancock amendment, which prohibits unfunded mandates. Circuit Court Judge Brent Powell, who is being asked to rule on that and other issues, scheduled a Jan. 12 hearing in the case after ruling Dec. 30 against the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order to officially block the transfers until issues have been clarified.
According to Bonney, the plaintiff school districts have asked for a continuance of the Jan. 12 hearing “to give the Kansas City district a chance to amend its policy on transfers to comply with the law.” Specifically, Hallquist acknowledged Dec. 30, the policy’s transportation stance and its refusal to pay tuition for transferring students who have been in KCPS less than two semesters run counter to state statute. “All those issues, as a citizen, are interesting to think about,” Bonney said. “But as lawyers for the ACLU, we’re not interested in those issues. We’re interested in these kids that want to transfer getting to transfer so they can continue their education in an accredited district.”
The monetary issues in the case are matters of “simple arithmetic” that will be worked out in the courts, Bonney added. In the meantime, the plaintiff districts have no legal right to deny the Kansas City students, he said. Duane Martin, an attorney representing the plaintiff districts, disagreed with Bonney’s take.
According to Martin, if KCPS fails to pay the full tuition of its transferring students in the amount set by the receiving district and/or does not provide transportation, “KCPS students do not have a statutory right to attend a neighboring public school.”
“It is critical to remember that all students will suffer if KCPS fails to meet the statutory requirements,” Martin added in a letter to the ACLU. “As you know the receiving public school districts are under funded and cannot advance funds for the unanticipated expenditures associated with significant numbers of new students.”
