We Clear Up All Those School Enrollment Rumors

The rumors started in the summer when the school district announced that its employees would be granted proof of residency so that their children could attend South Pasadena schools. The rumors grew when the district announced that children of city employees could apply for inter-district transfers, and, then, when it announced that families returning to the district would no longer have to show proof of residency year after year. 

At the root of the worries: Was the school district trying to grow enrollment at the expense of children?

"I heard it was about money," recalls Ann Foster. "People said that the district must be trying to increase enrollment so that it could get more money. That that was why they made all these changes."

The rumors exploded at the first middle-school PTA meeting of the new school year. The topic was "Everything You Want to Know About SPMS." It was supposed to be a pleasant evening--a nice introduction to the school for new parents. But that's not how it went.

Why is the school so overcrowded? Parents wanted to know. Why had the school loosened the enrollment policy? Why had it offered so many inter-district permits? Why didn't families have to show proof of residency anymore?  "It was intense," says Juliette Kurth, who was at the meeting. "There were a lot of fearful parents."

As it turns out, the rumors were just that. Rumors. 

The granting of residency to children of school employees had nothing to do with bumping up enrollment numbers and everything to do with the Los Angeles Unified School District. Children of district employees have always been able to apply for inter-district permits so that they could attend school in South Pasadena.  In the past, to get a permit one had to be "released" from one's home district.

In March, LAUSD announced that it loses $51 million to inter-district transfers and would only allow transfers to graduating seniors and, as required by California's Allen Law, to districts who grant residency status to employees. So, in August, following the lead of other districts like San Marino and La Canada, the school board approved Administrative Regulation 5111.12, which extends residency status to school district employees. 

What about inviting city employees to apply for inter-district permits? Isn't that an attempt to grow school enrollment?

Not if you look at the fine print. The same Allen Law that allows districts to grant employees residency status also allows districts to grant residency status to parents/guardians who work within local boundaries. But in adopting the Allen Law in August, the school board only granted residency to district employees--not city employees. City employees who want their children to attend district schools must do what they have always been able to do: apply for inter-district permits.

Now, however, they do not have to reapply each year, although they must fill out paperwork, get "released" from their home districts and remain in good standing. 

In fact, neither of these changes has made much effect on enrollment. Official total enrollment for 2009-2010 was 4,322. Of that, 119--or slightly less than 3% of students--were attending South Pasadena schools on inter-district permits. Official enrollment figures for 2010 are not yet available, but the numbers have not changed drastically.

According to Cathleen Hoadley, administrative assistant in the District's Office of Instruction, this year, 144 students --or slightly more than 3%--have inter-district permits, most of whom have "parents who work in South Pasadena and are able to get a release due to the fact that they work in South Pas and their children meet our criteria and were accepted." 

So what about the end of "round-up," the former requirement of annually providing, in person, three proofs of evidence that one resides in the district?   According to Dr. Steve Seaford, Assistant Superintendant of Instructional Services, that policy was phased out for two reasons.

One, cuts in "staff and resources" made it expensive and time consuming. Two, and more important, it's a matter of "respecting the community, trusting the community." Few districts require the kind of annual fact-checking of residency that South Pasadena imposed. That being the case, the district was trying to make families' lives a little easier. Seaford adds, "We're still going to follow up on cases where students may not be here legally, as has always been the case in SPUSD."

While these changes may have been thoroughly articulated in School Board meetings, they were not articulated elsewhere. Letters to parents merely noted that proof-of-residency was not required.  Notices of inter-district policy changes in The South Pasadena Review were just that, notices. Without that context, rumors grew. Without that context, an attempt to build trust in the community, did everything but.   

Editor's Note: Margaret Finnegan is a South Pasadena parent and blogs at Finnegan Begin Again. This is her opinion, and we invite your opinions on this policy.