Non-resident Teachers’ Children

Does your board allow the children of non-resident teachers to attend the school? If so, please provide any relevant language from your policy or master agreement covering this issue.

  1. Our school district does not allow non resident children to attend without paying a tuition.

    Submitted on .
  2. We no longer allow children of non-resident teachers to attend our elementary school without paying ‘tuition’. Allowing children of non-resident teachers to attend was viewed by some as an unfair salary benefit available only to those teachers with children.

    Submitted on .
  3. We allow it to encourage a good teacher to stay.

    Submitted on .
  4. The children of non-resident teachers may attend our school if they wish to pay tuition and there is room in the class needed.

    Submitted on .
  5. Only if they bring tuition with them from their school district.

    Submitted on .
  6. Our school does not generally allow non-resident teachers children to attend school without approval from the school board and I believe tuition must be paid. Here is something out of our policy that may help.

    Teachers may request a waiver for their own children subject to the same requirements stated above. Teachers will be required to pay tuition for their children per the terms stated previously.

    Submitted on .
  7. Not in our policies, but I can’t predict what we would do if asked. I agree it is a form of compensation.

    Submitted on .
  8. Our board looked into this a couple of years ago and after checking with the state found there are a number of complications that would arise and could potentially cost the town substantial money if a teacher had a SPED student. After careful consideration, the board decided that it would be in the taxpayers best interest to only allow students who pay tuition or are residents.

    Submitted on .
  9. This was researched and at the time they were counted as part of the average daily student account which occurred on the 40th day of the school year. This practice/policy was discontinued once the provisions of act 60 came into play. The law did not allow for students that were not residents to attend a school unless they paid the prevailing tuition. This of course could be waived by the board but the ramifications were that the district would not receive school aid for those students since they were not residents of the district. In another situation we waived the fee in exchange for a individual to provide art instruction in the school for one year.

    Submitted on .
  10. We allow children from other towns that have parents that either teach or work in another capacity within our district come to the school but they must pay the tuition that any other person would pay.

    Submitted on .
  11. Yes we do, in fact we have that situation currently–although we know that its temporary and its for preschool purposes. So a clarification is needed as I dug into our teacher/student situation. The teacher who has a non resident child in our school is accessing the preschool partnership for this situation and we do not as a school make it a practice to accept non resident children of staff. Please see the clarification below:

    Regarding allowing children of staff to come to _______, the decision is actually guided by our “admission of non-resident children” policy (f14). We actually do NOT make it a practice to accept children of staff. According to F14, a child is only admitted if he/she does NOT have access to educational programming in his/her home district (an exception is the preschool partnership agreement.) In other words, a child will only be admitted if schooling isn’t an option in the area they live in. Thus, we’d take a child from Hancock, which no longer has a school and tuitions all their children, but not Warren.

    Submitted on .
  12. Our board does allow the children of non-resident teachers to attend the school, as a matter of board policy, not negotiated agreement. It is not an entitlement for teachers, but granted by the board on a space available basis. “The Board may waive tuition, in whole or in part, for the child of a non-resident full-time teacher admitted in accordance with this policy. If granted, the waiver will be for the period of one school year, and may be renewed upon request at the Board’s sole discretion.”
    We understand the possible risks of this policy, but believe that there are strong institutional benefits when the children of teachers attend our school as:

    1. Teachers are able to focus on their work without being distracted by day-care issues in another town; they are able to fully participate in after school meetings and projects without having to worry where their children are.
    2. Teachers understand the importance of good teaching because it affects their own kid(s).
    3. The policy builds good will and commitment.

    Below is the entire policy statement.

    ADMISSION OF NON-RESIDENT TUITION STUDENTS

    Non-resident students may be admitted to the _________ School when space is available, in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations governing tuition payment and non-discrimination.

    By February 1st of each year, the Board shall establish non-resident tuition rates for the next school year. Separate rates may be established for students whose fees are paid by other school districts, and for students whose families will be responsible for payment of tuition. Ordinarily, the Board will accept privately paid tuitions only for Preschool and Kindergarten classes. Tuition rates will be established in accord with Chapter 21 of Title 16 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, and regulations of the State Board of Education.

    No non-resident will be denied admission as a tuition student on the basis that the student is disabled as defined in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, or that the student is in need of special education services. Nor will any child be denied admission on the basis of sex, creed, color, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation or race.

    Subject to the non-discrimination requirements above, a non-resident who applies for admission as a tuition student shall be admitted if the Board determines that space is available and, if the student has previously attended school, the student is in good standing at the school or schools most recently attended.

    A non-resident applicant for admission as a tuition student may appeal the Principal’s denial of his/her application by submitting a written request to appeal to the Board within ten days of the denial. The Board will provide an opportunity for the applicant and/or his/her parent or guardian to discuss the request not to uphold the decision of the Principal. The Board will render a decision within 30 days of the request to appeal.

    Tuition for non-resident students shall be payable at any time prior to enrollment. When a student enrolls after the beginning of a semester, tuition for the student will be prorated accordingly. The Board may waive tuition, in whole or in part, for the child of a non-resident full-time teacher admitted in accordance with this policy. If granted, the waiver will be for the period of one school year, and may be renewed upon request at the Board’s sole discretion.

    Submitted on .
  13. SAMPLE Procedure F.17
    PUPILS OF CERTIFIED, NON-RESIDENT EMPLOYEES
    The ______________ School may admit the children of certified employees who reside outside the Charleston district. The principal shall review requests annually taking in to consideration class size, good standing of student, and other pertinent factors before making the decision to allow admittance of certified employee’s non-resident student.

    Requests must be made in writing in a timely manner for review.

    The attendance of a ______________ district non-resident certified employee’s child may not result in the need to provide additional services or the need to hire additional staff.

    The tuition rate for children of certified non-resident employees will be 25% of the established tuition rate.

    This will become effective for the 2009-2010 school year.

    Submitted on .
  14. We only allow non-resident students to attend our school if they pay full tuition. This includes teachers’ children. It has never been an issue.

    Submitted on .
  15. This does happen but it is typically through the school choice agreement we have with two other SUs.

    Submitted on .
  16. We do not allow this at our school. Allowing teachers to send students tuition free is a form of compensation.

    Submitted on .
  17. We were asked by our teachers for such an accommodation however on the advise of our Superintendent we chose not to because of cost for special services which may arise and in addition to other cost issues.

    Submitted on .
  18. We have no policy, but would allow if they are in our high school choice schools or are to be tuition students.

    Submitted on .
  19. For thirteen years we allowed two teachers and two paras to let their children attend our school, we felt rather than lose the teacher or the paras we would accommodate them.

    They are excellent teachers and to want to send their kids to our school says something for the school and how they perceive us.

    So up until last Sept. another school in our district wanted to do the same as us. But someone started to holler about a bonus we were offering, That put the stop to it. Unfortunately it is sad that we were forced to stop offering what we thought as a good thing to do.

    We only made them pay a small amount just to say we charged them something.

    Sometimes its not always about the money.

    Submitted on .
  20. D14 – Tuition Courtesy for professionally licensed employees Any teacher who lives outside the _____________School District in a school district that does not pay tuition to the _________________ School District may elect to have his/her children attend ____________ without paying tuition. Teachers requesting such professional courtesy agree to pay an annual user fee for each student. Teachers requesting such courtesy also agree to pay for any special education or technical education costs which might be incurred by the school district related to their son’s/daughter’s enrollment. Daily transportation from outside the district will not be provided as part of the this courtesy.

    Submitted on .
  21. The answer to your question is that we do not have a policy and that this would be decided on an individual basis.

    Submitted on .
  22. We do allow this practice. I don’t have the policy documentation at hand, but, I will say, I think it is a wise policy to make accommodations for teachers–especially, if this is a parent/teacher with young children. Of course, in reality, it is no real additional expense–as it does not increase our class sizes in anyway that would require additional funds. If such were the case, or if it were an additional special education cost, well that would be different.
    There have been several instances where we have made accommodations for parent/teachers such as a .8 FTE position as opposed to 1.0. It all really depends what you want to do in order to maintain high quality staff. In that regard I think it is a good idea to be flexible and have some discretion in the policy.

    For example, we have a full day 4 year old pre-school program that has limits to the number of students we can take. In such a case, we have a policy that prioritizes residents over tuition students. We have wondered what we would do if we were at our limit and had a teacher with a child that wanted to enter into the program. In all likelihood we would prioritize residents. (Though that is not in the policy at this time.) That is where a good policy helps out. And in terms of consistency, residents do expect a policy when it is their child that is being bumped–regardless of who is in the class.

    A good–long term policy goes a long way–but then there is something to be said for having the discretion when it is wisely applied according to the circumstances. We are a smaller rural school and sometimes you need that flexibility to attract the best teachers.

    When drafting the policy, be thinking about these possible scenarios, especially if you are a more rural school that needs flexibility in hiring.

    Submitted on .
  23. There are some districts that do that. We are phasing it out because one of the problems is they need to be taxed and it has to show as income on their W4 form.

    Submitted on .
  24. Our district and/or SU do not allow children of teachers out of school to attend the school of their parent even within the SU!!!!!

    Submitted on .
  25. Our master agreement is silent on this issue.

    Submitted on .
  26. We do not allow children that do not reside in our town to attend our school. It is a strict policy that does not deviate.

    Submitted on .
  27. Our board has a strict “one of the parents must live in the district” policy. No exceptions.

    Submitted on .
  28. We do, but this is currently the subject of negotiations.

    Submitted on .
  29. By contract agreement as per the recently settled contract we allow three children of non-resident teachers to attend our school on a tuition-free basis.
    It is, in my opinion, a peculiar arrangement which underscores the nature of the strangle-hold that the NEA has on the overall process of education. These chits or vouchers or whatever one might call them are awarded not to the students in question but to the union, which then awards them as it sees fit.

    We recently had a request from a teacher to waive the limit of three and award an additional voucher so that all of the children of the teacher in question could attend our school. Technically we would have been granting the exception to the union, which then would have awarded the voucher.

    The board declined to award the extra voucher. As you can imagine there were a number of faculty members and the union rep who were displeased with the board’s decision (I say “the board” – it was a 3-2 vote).

    The actual language of the contract is listed following the below comment. (Article 36)

    Submitted on .
  30. Our SU does negotiate this as part of the contract with the teacher’s union. Each school in the SU provides the association a total of 3 tuition vouchers (for 3 students, not families) for use by non-resident teachers, equivalent to the announced tuition rate, to be used at that school. The association allocates the vouchers to the teachers and teachers exercising the voucher are responsible for any and all excess fees or costs in excess of the announced tuition rate. The value of the tuition voucher provided to the Association and recipient teacher is added to the teacher’s W-2 and is subject to taxes. These students are not able to be counted in our ADM.
    Language from the contract
    ARTICLE 36 – ENROLLMENT OF CHILDREN OF NON-RESIDENT TEACHERS

    36.1 Annually, the Board agrees to issue to each unit of the Association, three (3) tuition vouchers, in amounts equivalent to the announced tuition rate for the respective school for that school year.

    36.2 The Association may allocate and give said vouchers to teachers in the respective school unit upon such criteria, terms and conditions as it may establish.

    36.3 Teachers exercising such vouchers and/or the teacher’s home school district are responsible for any and all excess fees or costs in excess of the announced tuition rate.

    36.4 Subject to the terms of the District’s Non-Resident Student Policy (the Board waives the limitations in the policy regarding space available), the Board agrees to admit children of non-resident teachers exercising the Association’s vouchers.

    36.5 Such admitted students continued enrollment is conditioned upon the student’s good standing in the District and the continued application of the Non-Resident Student Policy and the voucher program herein.

    36.6 Except as expressly noted herein, vouchers under this program may not be assigned, transferred, or applied outside the respective unit district.

    36.7 Vouchers are non-cumulative and are only valid for the school year in which said vouchers are issued.

    36.8 The value of the tuition voucher provided to the Association and recipient teacher by the District will be added to the teacher’s W-2 statement of total wages and shall be subject to federal and state income taxes.

    36.9 For the “one” School District only, students of non-resident teachers enrolled in that School District during the 2000-2001 school year under the provisions of the 2000-2001 Negotiated Agreement and its predecessors may continue to be enrolled subject to the provisions of this Article, however, the limitation of three (3) vouchers per district shall not apply to such students.

    36.10 The Association, for itself and on behalf of all members of the bargaining unit, agrees that if the voucher program, or any portion thereof, is challenged, (including but not limited to suits, complaints, grievances, etc.) modified or otherwise ruled invalid, this Article of the Agreement will be declared null and void.

    Submitted on .
  31. I am unaware of the question arising in our district, at least in the last 20 years or so. It certainly has never been raised during collective bargaining. However, I see no basis on which to allow the children of non-resident teachers to attend our schools for free. It is conceivable that, during the collective bargaining process, arrangements could be made for children of non-resident teachers to attend local schools. But, it would have to be in the collective bargaining context or else it might be considered an additional benefit for one teacher (or a very few teachers) that the districts are in no legal position to provide without union consent. Even in the collective bargaining case, I think that the agreement should provide for a debit to the parent-teacher’s salary of the tuition in an amount of the tuition rate set by the Board each year, even if the teacher gets the benefit of having that amount deducted on a biweekly (or other periodic) basis.

    Submitted on .
  32. This would require Board action like any other request for a non-resident student.

    Submitted on .
  33. We do not. Because we believe it would be a good perk that would benefit the school, we have looked into it. But we cannot find a way to set it up so that it doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.

    Submitted on .
  34. In our district it was the board’s initiative a number of years ago. It is good public relations when “EVEN” teachers want to bring their children to our school. We believe it says something about the quality of the education in the school, and it contributes to good environment.. We have had no problems with the public or the staff. We have a small amount the staff must pay for consumables and if SPED is involved the student’s family is responsible for the costs.

    Submitted on .
  35. From my understanding there is standard tuition fee but I believe the policy should allow the teacher to tuition their child in at a discounted rate. If we have someone giving back to our community than we should give back to them as well but free may not make sense as their property tax dollars are going to a different school. With that being said, if the family is within our Supervisory Union couldn’t it technically be “free” as the distribution of funds could be taken care of at the District Office?

    Submitted on .
  36. We do not have contract language allowing non-resident teachers’ children to attend our school. The practice has potential cost issues that we are absolutely not interested in addressing. If there are any kind of IEP or other behavioral/learning issues, how could you ask your taxpayers to provide extra services with no way to collect any supporting money from the feds or state? Or you have a situation where the children of teachers are the numbers that push you to hire another staff member- again, I couldn’t in good conscience, ask for my taxpayers to foot that bill.

    Submitted on .
  37. Yes we would allow this. Makes for a happy teacher.

    Submitted on .
  38. No we do not allow that.

    Submitted on .
  39. After much debate, we decided a few years back that non-resident teachers’ children must go through the same tuitioning-in request process like any other non-town resident.

    Submitted on .
  40. In my 14 years on several boards I have never come across the problem !!! I know it is not in any of our procedure manuals !!!

    Submitted on .
  41. No.

    Submitted on .

Leave a Reply

Your name, school board and email address will not be published. They are required to verify the authenticity of the commentator. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>