|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Rich or poor, all children are required by law to go to school. And for that reason, the public education system has long been considered a window for revealing the extent of youth poverty and homelessness.
Under the federal McKinney-Vento law, more than 10,000 schools in California are required to track student homelessness as well as provide various aid services so that poverty doesn’t erase any chance for an education.
California — particularly its largest cities — is currently facing the worst homelessness crisis in recent memory, yet hundreds of the state’s school districts are reporting they have no students who lack stable housing.
The Mountain View Whisman School District reports that no homeless students attend Huff or Stevenson elementary schools. Palo Alto Unified School District reports there are no homeless students at half of its 16 elementary and middle school campuses. Most striking, the Los Altos School District claims there are no homeless students at any of its seven elementary schools.
Now more than ever, these claims are straining credibility, said Assemblyman David Chiu, who represents San Francisco. School districts are supposed to use a broad definition of homelessness, which counts students who are couch surfing, doubling up in bedrooms in someone else’s home, or living out of vehicles. About 400 school districts in California claim none of their students, at any point in the school year, fit this profile.
“It’s hard to believe that over one-quarter of the school districts have zero homeless students. That just doesn’t make sense, and that’s why we’re asking for a deeper dive,” Chiu said. “I certainly hope this isn’t deliberate underreporting. In any case, we’re worried that schools aren’t focused on this.”
Chiu is among a handful of state legislators now calling for a statewide audit to determine if schools are underreporting student homelessness. If the answer is yes, then he said he wants to figure out why.
Schools that identify homeless students are required by law to provide various services to help put all children on an equal playing field. Unhoused students are entitled to receive free transportation to school, meals and other aid. Segregation of students based on homelessness or income level is illegal under federal law.
In this regard, charter schools face the same requirements as regular public schools. Of the 67 charter schools registered in Santa Clara County, 26 report having no homeless students. This includes Bullis Charter School in Los Altos.
As previously reported in the Voice, students who are homeless face considerable challenges for their health and educational development. A 2017 nationwide survey conducted by the University of Chicago indicates that one in 10 youths in the U.S. have experienced some form of homelessness over the past year.
School officials say there are a number of reasons for low reporting of homeless students. Mountain View-Los Altos High School District officials previously told the Voice that the state’s broad definition of student homelessness sometimes incorrectly counts exchange students, or children whose families are temporarily subleasing homes. Experts say the state’s requirement for tracking homeless students is basically an unfunded mandate, often throwing another extra responsibility onto overworked school administrators.
Chiu said he expects the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to formally request an investigation next month. If approved, then State Auditor Elaine Howle would begin conducting a study and prepare a report.
I don’t know about other districts, but MVWSD counts homeless students by adding probing questions about place of residence to the enrollment form that families must fill out every year. I can’t remember the exact wording, but it was something like: do you own your home, or rent, or sleep in someone else’s home, or in a shelter, or a vehicle? (There was a disclaimer about how the answer would not affect school eligibility.) Now, this is a fairly un-intrusive way of trying to gather information, so the District gets points for diplomacy. However, since the results rely on accurate self-reporting, it comes as no surprise that they don’t reflect reality. If I were homeless, or even technically homeless (couch surfing), I doubt that I would believe the District’s assurance that this designation would not reflect poorly upon my children or their ability to attend a specific school. I would be very reluctant to answer honestly.
I don’t really understand why the state needs to gather this information through the schools anyway. Have they ever considered sending statisticians out to shelters, parks, underpasses, and soup kitchens?
The opening sentence of the article is totally unsubstantiated. I do not think that California is experiencing the worst homelessness crisis in recent memory.
“I do not think that California is experiencing the worst homelessness crisis in recent memory.”
What you may think is not pertinent here. Unless you have *actual* statistics to disprove what the State of California is stating here, I suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself.
“Unless you have *actual* statistics to disprove what the State of California is stating here, I suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself.” – That’s not how it works. You make a claim, you prove it with statistics. In this case, the claim is this is the “worst homelessness crisis in recent memory”. Unfortunately MVWSD stats don’t substantiate that claim.
What facts does Mr. Noack have to support his claim that California is experiencing its worst homelessness crisis in recent memory? The homeless population in Santa Clara county is actually quite low and it makes perfect sense that schools are reporting similar data.
The headline of the article should be changed. Instead of saying “State officials skeptical”, it should say “SF Assemblyman skeptical”. These SF politicians need to get out more. They see homeless people on the streets of San Francisco and assume that it must be like that everywhere else in California. Then they are in disbelief when data comes out showing that the rest of California does not have the same homeless problem as SF. How much is this unnecessary audit going to cost California taxpayers? That is the question we should be asking.
wow, some of you should ride the 22 sometime, drive around town and visit some parking lots on weekend mornings, drive on el camino in Palo Alto, or hang out a bit at the bus stop. but then, ignorance is a bliss. out of sight out of mind, sweep them under the rug… what homeless problem?
I’m dumbfounded that involved parties aren’t jubilant about the schools reporting no homeless students. Wouldn’t that be the desired outcome of all of the support and programs for homeless children?
I suspect that those bothered by it are upset because the actual data and results don’t fit their narrative.