Reply to School residency cheaters investigated

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "School residency cheaters investigated"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]There are class action law suits based on state constitutional language requiring "adequate" education and the number of charter schools....but such language does not exist in D.C.

http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/2016-Constitutional-obligations-for-public-education-1.pdf

"Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."[/quote]

The OSSE Web site says "DC law requires OSSE to investigate allegations of residency fraud.  Once an allegation of residency fraud is received, a full investigation is conducted, which can include an examination of submitted residency verification documents and surveillance by a private investigator."

I'm not a lawyer, but if OSSE is demonstrably not following existing law (requiring residency verification), is that not grounds for a lawsuit?[/quote]

My guess is that there would not be standing to sue. There is no mechanism to require the prosecutors to enforce any particular criminal laws and against whom, and my guess it that there would be no standing to force a school district to enforce the civil residency rules. No "private right of action", but maybe 3rd party beneficiary theory....using this "No child left behind" enforcement article:

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/45_3/04_TXT.htm

"plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to enforce its terms.182 Traditionally, only the parties to a contract had the right to enforce it, but contract law has evolved to provide a cause of action for third-party beneficiaries.183 Because they are not parties to the agreement, those benefited by conditions on federal funding agreements must establish that they are third-party beneficiaries in order to enforce the conditions.184 Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, to establish standing as a third-party beneficiary, a party must be an intended beneficiary."

"Attempts to Enforce NCLB Under Implied Private Right of Action Theory Will Not Succeed"

"  Plaintiffs Should Seek to Enforce NCLB Under Third-Party Beneficiary Theory

The most promising theory of enforcement for NCLB is third-party beneficiary theory.258 To recover under this theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a contract exists between the parties and that the promisee intended that the contract benefit the plaintiff.259 Where, as here, one party to the contract is a government, the plaintiff also must establish that allowing recovery would not contravene the policy of the law authorizing the contract.260"[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics