Anonymous wrote:Op here: I was born and raised in Moco and when I was I. Mcps it was the wealthiest county in the nation. Now it’s clearly in decline. Is this progress?

We are still the wealthiest county in America that is majority minority. Some would call that progress. Some would not.

Anonymous wrote:It is not easy to register a student in MCPS. A parent needs to present paper proof of citizenship and the relationship of the adult with the child so the birth certificate is the only proof can be used. If the child lives with a parent who is in the US legally on a visa, the visa has to be valid and presented to MCPS. A lease, a property tax bill, and two additional proofs of residence are needed. Record of imminization is also needed.
An exchange student comes to US on a student visa so s/he is here legally. A foreigner who lives in the US legally on a visa is not entitle to any benefit an illegal immigrant has.

No proof is required..parents and students do not need to be citizens or even have proof of address if homeless.

It is not easy to register a student in MCPS. A parent needs to present paper proof of citizenship and the relationship of the adult with the child so the birth certificate is the only proof can be used. If the child lives with a parent who is in the US legally on a visa, the visa has to be valid and presented to MCPS. A lease, a property tax bill, and two additional proofs of residence are needed. Record of imminization is also needed.
An exchange student comes to US on a student visa so s/he is here legally. A foreigner who lives in the US legally on a visa is not entitle to any benefit an illegal immigrant has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

You go to the school you're zoned for based on your address. Immigration status has nothing to do with your residence's address.

I'm not quite sure how they can even block the exchange students. What if we just accepted one, and showed up at our local school and said "Jane is staying with us for a year. Please enroll her. Here is proof she lives with us, and of my residency." What grounds would they have to stop it?

If they can do that to exchange students, they should be able to (whether they want to, is something else) do that to any kid, including those being here illegally.
They don't do it simply because they choose not to.

Supreme Court decision -- Plyler vs Doe. All children have a right to public education regardless of immigration status.

if we talk about the law, we talk about the law: they can have an education - as long as they go to the school the county chooses for them.
If the county can choose schools for exchange students (All children have a right to public education regardless of immigration status), why can't it chooses school (within its boundary) for other kids?

Time to put the now-more-conservative Supreme Court to work and reverse Plyler v. Doe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

You go to the school you're zoned for based on your address. Immigration status has nothing to do with your residence's address.

I'm not quite sure how they can even block the exchange students. What if we just accepted one, and showed up at our local school and said "Jane is staying with us for a year. Please enroll her. Here is proof she lives with us, and of my residency." What grounds would they have to stop it?

If they can do that to exchange students, they should be able to (whether they want to, is something else) do that to any kid, including those being here illegally.
They don't do it simply because they choose not to.

Supreme Court decision -- Plyler vs Doe. All children have a right to public education regardless of immigration status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

Nope. Other problems created.

Maybe, but I don't think the county has any intention to "solve" that original problem at all to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

You go to the school you're zoned for based on your address. Immigration status has nothing to do with your residence's address.

I'm not quite sure how they can even block the exchange students. What if we just accepted one, and showed up at our local school and said "Jane is staying with us for a year. Please enroll her. Here is proof she lives with us, and of my residency." What grounds would they have to stop it?

If they can do that to exchange students, they should be able to (whether they want to, is something else) do that to any kid, including those being here illegally.
They don't do it simply because they choose not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

You go to the school you're zoned for based on your address. Immigration status has nothing to do with your residence's address.

I'm not quite sure how they can even block the exchange students. What if we just accepted one, and showed up at our local school and said "Jane is staying with us for a year. Please enroll her. Here is proof she lives with us, and of my residency." What grounds would they have to stop it?

probably that the student is legally present but not a resident

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

You go to the school you're zoned for based on your address. Immigration status has nothing to do with your residence's address.

I'm not quite sure how they can even block the exchange students. What if we just accepted one, and showed up at our local school and said "Jane is staying with us for a year. Please enroll her. Here is proof she lives with us, and of my residency." What grounds would they have to stop it?

Anonymous wrote:I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

Nope. Other problems created.

I actually see this as an example of how the county can (whether they want to, is a different issue) deal with children who are here illegally.

Apparently the county can't refuse education to kids "live" here. But it does have the power to designate schools for these children (in the case of exchange students - they have to go to the 8 schools that take them, even if they don't live in those school clusters - and they are required to provide their own transportation, according to the article).

Why can't the county do the same for children that do not have a legal status here? Yes, they can have their education - but why not put them at another school that is far away and they need to provide their own transportation. Problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps OP benefits from exchange students that pay to live with families. Perhaps OP represents exchange student company. There are plenty of other counties that can support exchange students.

There has been so much begging for host families across my social media and listserves the past three months. I really think they should consider some working class homes in order to provide a more authentic experience. Most American teens aren’t living in upper middle class suburban homes.

there were lots of exchange students at magruder when I went there. People who attend are by no means rich unless they live off Bowie mill rd

Op here: I was born and raised in Moco and when I was I. Mcps it was the wealthiest county in the nation. Now it’s clearly in decline. Is this progress?

Why this subject is a big deal? I would like to know during past five years, how many exchange students attended MCPS, from which country, attended which high school, live with what kind of host families (same age studentsat MCPS or not)? It looks like BOE is against globalization and dont not want young and not poor foreign students in our system. Why only these eight schools? The original article indicates more than eight schools are at or under enrollments.
One of the ieal of the exchange student to be here is to attend the same school with the kids from the host family. It doesnt make any sense to have the host family to drive the student to another high school. It appears that BOE only want families live with in the 8 high schools to be a host family.