Q&A From the Field

McKinney-Vento (School of Origin)

To search for specific keywords, use the Ctrl+F (Windows) or Cmd+F (Mac) function.

Our team looked at this from two different perspectives and ultimately concluded that it depends on the interpretation of “the school attended when permanently housed”. We looked at school A as the school the student last attended when permanently housed before losing housing, which would make school A the school of origin. We also looked at school B as the school the student last attended when (now) permanently housed, which would mean A is no longer a school of origin. We think both are legally defensible.

But, our conversation kept coming back to what’s in the best interest of the student. If the interpretation is that school A is a school of origin, is transferring at this point in the year in the best interest of the student? The student would only have school of origin rights at school A until the end of this school year, assuming the student remains permanently housed in B.

In this case, it seems like either way you interpret the law, best interest will be key.

School of origin “means the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(I)(i). In this situation, the school the child attended when permanently housed was the virtual academy, since the student lost housing after enrolling there. The virtual academy also is the school in which the child was last enrolled. Since the student was already enrolled in and attending the virtual academy when they lost housing, it is the school the student last enrolled and attended when permanently housed. The student would only have rights to the virtual academy as a school of origin in this scenario. The in-person school last attended would not meet the definition of school of origin.

School of origin applies to feeder schools only when there is a “designated receiving school” for students. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(I)(ii). If all students leave the charter school and begin attending local school A, the student would retain school of origin rights for school A. However, if all students leave the charter school and go to their local attendance area school, then the student would need to attend school B, the local attendance area school. It may be worth looking into open enrollment for the student to attend school A, especially if the student is looking for housing in that area. However, if the student open enrolls into school A, the right to transportation would depend on what is comparable to what all students receive. Since the McKinney-Vento Act wouldn’t give the student the right to attend that school as the school of origin, transportation would not be required under the school of origin rules.

Yes. Under the McKinney-Vento Act, the right to remain in the school of origin applies across state lines. Whether a student remains in the school of origin depends on the best interest of the student, with a presumption in favor of keeping the student in the school of origin. Best interest considerations include “factors related to the impact of mobility on achievement, education, health, and safety” of the student. 42 U.S.C. 11432(g)(3)(B)(ii). Issues related to tuition, fiscal responsibility, or related state policies have no place in the best interest determination. As a federal law, the McKinney-Vento Act supersedes any state or local policies that may conflict with the federal requirements.

You’ve said that the school of origin believes it is in the student’s best interest to stay. In addition, there is a presumption in favor of school stability, and the school must give priority to the wishes of the unaccompanied youth.  Based on what you have shared, it appears the McKinney-Vento Act would require allowing the student to remain in the school of origin.

In the event that there is a determination that the student cannot remain in the school of origin, the McKinney-Vento Act requires that the student is provided information about the decision in writing, along with information about how to dispute the determination.  If the student disputes, the Act requires that the student remain enrolled in the school in which he seeks enrollment, until the dispute reaches a final resolution.

No, assuming that the student was permanently housed in the neighboring community.  The legal definition of school of origin is “ the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.”  42 USC §11432(g)(3)(I).

Your school is not where the child was last enrolled.  The question is whether your school was where the child attended when last permanently housed.  Assuming the student was permanently housed at any point in the other school district, your school district would no longer be a school of origin.

In addition, even if your school district could be considered a district of origin, it’s unlikely that the school building providing 8th grade would be the same building as the high school.  School of origin means “school” and not “school district.” The exception to that is if your district has a feeder school pattern, and there is a high school designated to receive students from that middle school/junior high school.  If that is the case, you would need to look at whether attending that designated receiving high school is in the student’s best interest. Determinations of best interest must be individualized and take into account a range of factors. We have some interview checklists that might be useful here.

It would be important to look at whether changing to the alternative placement might lead to him/her dropping out of school. The McKinney-Vento Act requires school districts to eliminate barriers to enrollment (including full participation) and retention in school. 42 USC 11432(g)(1)(I).  On one hand, regular district policy for all students should apply to a McKinney-Vento student in this situation. However, that can’t be done in isolation from the federal requirements. The student has the right to remain in his/her school of origin, if that is in his/her best interest. If grades and attendance at the school of origin have been poor, that is a consideration. But if switching to the alternative school might trigger his/her dropping out, poor attendance, lower achievement, etc., then it probably would not be in his/her best interest to leave his/her school of origin. One last point: the district must give priority to the youth’s wishes regarding what school to attend. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(B)(ii).  It sounds like the youth wants to stay in the school of origin, so that is an important factor.  This might be an opportunity to discuss the youth’s current attendance issues with him/her, letting the student know that you want to support him/her in remaining in the school of origin, but you need his/her attendance to improve.  You can talk about what would help the student come to school more, and how to work together to improve his/her attendance and grades at the school of origin–holding the student accountable, but giving him/her support.

Under the McKinney-Vento Act, the child has the right to remain in the school of origin (District C), or attend any school that other children living where the child is living are eligible to attend (District B). 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A). State laws also may give the child the right to attend school where his/her mother is staying (District A).

The McKinney-Vento Act also states:

“(F) PLACEMENT CHOICE- The choice regarding placement shall be made regardless of whether the child or youth lives with the homeless parents or has been temporarily placed elsewhere.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(F)

In this situation, the parent and child lost their housing, and now the parent has sent the child to live with someone else. The child has the right to remain in the school of origin, or enroll in “any public school that nonhomeless students who live in the attendance area in which the child or youth is actually living are eligible to attend.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A)(ii)

The school placement must be based on the child’s best interest, with a preference for the school origin, “except when doing so is contrary to the request of the child’s or youth’s parent or guardian.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(B)(i)

Yes. The open enrollment school is the school of origin–it is the school the child attended when permanently housed, and also the school in which last enrolled. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(I)(i)-(ii). The fact that he enrolled originally under open enrollment is irrelevant. Of course, that is subject to best interest. The parent also can choose the school near the shelter, if that is what she prefers.

If the student’s family gained permanent housing after the beginning of the current school year, the student has the right to remain in the school of origin for the rest of the year, if it is in his best interest. If the family gained permanent housing before the beginning of the school year, his status would no longer fall under the McKinney-Vento Act, and he would no longer have the right to stay in his school of origin or to receive transportation there. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A). However, depending on your state, there may a state law that gives him the right to finish 12th grade in the same school. There also may be other ways for him to finish up his senior year at his former high school, i.e. open enrollment, an inter-district agreement, etc. I would recommend exploring those with the family to see if they can take advantage of them, and make the case that changing schools at this point in his school career would be disruptive.

The McKinney-Vento Act uses the terms “school” and “local educational agency” very clearly, distinctly, and intentionally.  The definition of “school of origin” does not include the phrase “local educational agency.” It only includes the word “school,” per below. If Congress meant “school of origin” to mean “local educational agency of origin,” it would have written the law to include it.

“(I) SCHOOL OF ORIGIN DEFINED- In this paragraph:

(i) IN GENERAL.– The term `school of origin’ means the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.

(ii) RECEIVING SCHOOL.—When the child or youth completes the final grade level served by the school of origin, as described in clause (i), the term “school of origin” shall include the designated receiving school at the next grade level for all feeder schools.” 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(I)(i)-(ii).

Under the McKinney-Vento Act, the student has the right to attend the school of origin, or any public school that nonhomeless students who live in the attendance area where he is staying are eligible to attend. 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A)-(B). The school of origin is the school attended when the child was permanently housed, or the school in which last enrolled.  In this situation, it sounds like both the school attended when the child was permanently housed and the school in which last enrolled are in the second state, not your state. Considering the second state is far from your state, the school of origin would not be a viable option due to the distance.

Therefore, we are looking at the public school(s) that nonhomeless students who live in the attendance area where this student is staying are eligible to attend.  If the student has not stayed in a motel or other homeless situation in the district where he attended prior to leaving the state, then he would not have the right to attend that district. The student should enroll in a school in the attendance area of the motel where he is currently staying. Should he move again, that school will be his school of origin, where he can remain for the duration of homelessness, and also until the end of the school year in which he becomes stably housed.

Assuming the student is experiencing homelessness at the end of the school year, the student should not be withdrawn from the school, but remain on the roll at the school until their living situation is determined for the next school year.  If the student is still experiencing homelessness over the summer or at the beginning of the new school year, and still wishes to attend the school of origin the following year, the school should keep the student in the school of origin. 42 U.S.C. 11432 (g)(3)(A)(i). They can revisit best interest at that time.

Your transfer department is incorrect.  They need to understand that for a McKinney-Vento student, this should not be viewed as an inter-district transfer. For McKinney-Vento students, this is a school of origin issue.  The family remains homeless (in a transitional living program), and they have the right to remain in their school of origin for the duration of homelessness, if it is in their best interest.  LEAs must presume that remaining in the school of origin is in the student’s best interest.  McKinney-Vento students are not subject to inter-district transfer rules.  Essentially, they are to be viewed as a district resident, even if they are in fact living out-of-district.  The legal citation for this is 42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A)-(B).

Yes, the question of ‘best interest’ only pertains to school selection decisions when there is a choice of schools – school of origin vs. school of “residence.” However, there may be other ways to a student to get a residency waiver or choice into another school, unrelated to McKinney-Vento.

The short answer is that the district where the child is laying their head does not determine best interest, and cannot require that it participate in a best interest determination in order to assist with transportation. Under current law, the local educational agency where the child is attending school must “presume that keeping the child or youth in the school of origin is in the child’s or youth’s best interest, except when doing so is contrary to the request of the child’s or youth’s parent or guardian, or (in the case of an unaccompanied youth) the youth.” 42 U.S.C. §11432(g)(3)(B)(i). The best interest determination must be based on a student-centered, individualized analysis of factors related to the “child’s or youth’s best interest, including but not limited to factors related to the impact of mobility on achievement, education, health, and safety of homeless children and youth, giving priority to the request of the parent, guardian, or unaccompanied youth.” 42 U.S.C. §11432(g)(3)(B)(ii). Therefore, if the LEA where the child is attending school, and the parent (or unaccompanied youth), determine that it is in the child’s best interest to stay in their school of origin, transportation must be provided, per the McKinney-Vento transportation provisions. Those provisions state that the two districts must split the cost if they cannot agree on another method to apportion costs.

Thanks for providing the timeline.  The answer to your final question is no. The right to attend the school of origin always is based on the best interest of the student.  Often (maybe even usually), it will be not be in a student’s best interest to return to the school of origin once he has enrolled in a new school and attended for a long period of time.

Full Question: If a family changes their mind about their decision to leave the “school of origin” after becoming homeless, do they always have the right to return no matter the circumstance? Please read the email trail below and help with this question.

In summary:

  • 7/1/16 – 11/29/16 – The 5th grade student attended our elementary school from 3rd grade and into the current school year prior to becoming homeless (was in hotel) on 9/8/16.
  • 9/8/16 – Identified as in transition (family lived in a hotel).
  • 11/29/16 – Family moved to permanent housing and student enrolled in a new school near the new housing.
  • 1/30/17 – New school principal’s office calls our McKinney-Vento program (because our office had flagged student in database as homeless) to say the student “is having a hard time in new school and could you facilitate her return to her former school.”
  • 1/30/17 – Mother calls me to say the same thing that they are having difficulty in new school and want re-enrollment back to old school.
  • 1/30/17 – I provide transportation assistance to mother to go to old school principal to discuss; principal agrees to take back the student.
  • 1/31/17 – Old school principal emails me requesting for direction on how to effect the transfer; I email Central Enrollment Center (CEC) for assistance.
  • 1/31/17 – CEC is questioning the relevance of McKinney-Vento’s school of origin provisions, since the student had recently (last) enrolled in a different school
  • I/31/17 – I email CEC the 2-part definition: school attended when permanently housed or the school in which the student was last enrolled. Our school is the school the child attended when permanently housed.

Now CEC is seeking guidance with the question that I am posing to you for guidance also.

Full Answer: Thanks for providing the timeline.  The answer to your final question is no. The right to attend the school of origin always is based on the best interest of the student.  Often (maybe even usually), it will be not be in a student’s best interest to return to the school of origin once he has enrolled in a new school and attended for a long period of time.  At that point, disrupting the student again to remove him from the new school and place him back in a previous school, likely to involve a longer commute and the instability that comes from another transfer, is not likely to be in the student’s best interest.

In this situation, it seems that the parent, the administration at the new school, and the administration at the school of origin all agree it is in the student’s best interest to return to the school of origin.  The best interest is clear.  And it is very understandable, considering the student spent relatively few school days in the new school, has a multi-year history with the school of origin, and still has most of this semester left to make the most of the time at the school of origin.

The resolution of this situation probably would be different if there was disagreement about his best interest, or if it were now May and he had been attending the new school since late November.

We hope this is helpful!

There are two issues here. One is a question of best interest. The student has the right to remain in the school of origin for the duration of homelessness, if that is in her best interest. In this case, the absences would be part of the best interest determination— for example, is there some reason to believe her attendance would be better at a different school? We don’t see evidence of that in the information you provided, but there may be additional facts. Is there reason to believe her attendance at the magnet school will improve next year? If grandmother’s challenges have passed, the student may be on track for better attendance next year. And there will be other best interest factors, such as the educational services available at the magnet school, the importance of educational stability, etc. When all the factors are weighed, is it in her best interest to stay at the magnet school, or transfer?

A related issue is the absences. ESSA now requires LEAs to “remove barriers to the identification of homeless children and youths, and the enrollment and retention of homeless children and youths in schools in the State, including barriers to enrollment and retention due to outstanding fees or fines, or absences.” For this student, the absences are a barrier to her enrollment and retention in the magnet school. Assuming attending the magnet school is in the student’s best interest, the absences cannot be a barrier to her enrollment there.

It depends on how your state defines the school year. McKinney-Vento states that LEAs must “continue the child’s or youth’s education in the school of origin … for the remainder of the academic year, if the child or youth becomes permanently housed during an academic year.” (42 USC 11432(g)(3)(A)(i)(II). Many (possibly most) states define “academic year” to include summer school. If that is the case, then the student can attend summer school at the school of origin, if it is in the student’s best interest.

This depends entirely on the best interest of the student. As amended by ESSA, McKinney-Vento presumes that remaining in the school of origin is in the student’s best interest. However, if it truly looks like the student will be stable in District B for 2 years, that would weigh in favor of having the student register in the local school, especially now that we’re at a break between school years. The parent may feel safer having the student closer to where she is residing, as well. On the other hand, there may be factors that weigh in favor of keeping the student in District A, related to the importance of educational stability, peer networks, educational services, etc..  It’s an individualized, student-centered decision.

District A should make the determination based on this student’s circumstances and provide notice of that decision to the parent.  If the district’s determination is contrary to the parent’s wishes, the parent may wish to appeal.

In the situation you describe, enrollment in the junior high near the brother’s high school is not covered by the McKinney-Vento Act, because the junior high is not in the feeder pattern from the last school year. Therefore, there is no requirement to accommodate the mother’s request. However, you certainly could explore different ways to keep the brothers together. Since the junior high the mother desires is near the high school, maybe the brothers could ride to school together, eliminating extra transportation costs. If the two schools have different start/end times, you could accommodate that by letting one brother into the school building early, or to stay late, to do homework.

The student is subject to the same discipline regarding the threat of violence as any other student would be. Once she is through that process, she can return to school A (assuming that is not against the discipline policy), or enroll in school B (any school that other children living where the student is staying would be eligible to attend). The question would be her best interest. The process is exactly the same whether School B is in the same district or another district. The best interest evaluation would ask the same questions as usual, and if there is a dispute, it would follow the same procedure as usual. In this example, given the nature of the social media threat, it would appear that returning to her high school of origin is not in her best interest. That, coupled with her stated desire to enroll in the local school, makes it fairly clear that the local school is the right place for her.

In this case, simply being assigned a school would not create McKinney-Vento school of origin rights, because the definition of school of origin is “the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed, or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.” In the situation you described, the children never attended the school. Also, since “enrolled” is defined as attending classes and participating fully in school activities, the children really were not “enrolled”, either. If a student did not attend classes, the school to which they were assigned would not meet this definition.

If a homeless family became housed in the summer, they would have the right to school of origin for the following academic year (locally or state defined). McKinney-Vento does refer to “academic year” in establishing the right to school of origin if the child or youth becomes permanently housed in an academic year or over the summer. Whether a student remains in the school of origin depends on best interest factors. In the case of a family that is permanently housed in a new school district over the summer, those best interest factors may stack up in favor of enrolling in the local school for the new school year.

Your state MV representative is exactly right. School of origin is defined in the McKinney-Vento Act as “the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.” This is in the law in section 722(g)(3)(I).

You described a situation of a student who was enrolled in District A in 2014-15 and 2015-16. Then, the family moved across the state, and the student enrolled in District B. He was enrolled there for about a month and has not been enrolled anywhere since spring of last year. The family is now staying temporarily in a motel in District C (which happens to be a relatively short distance from District A). The family reports that they plan to return to the District A area and would like the student to enroll there if possible. They say that they have multiple apartment applications that they are awaiting the call back for in District A and that is also where they have family and friends. The only reason they are not in a motel in that area is that there are no motels available there.

In this situation, it sounds like District A was the school the child attended when permanently housed. So the child has the right to return there now, if that is in the child’s best interest. Considering the child attended there for a long time, the family is looking for housing in that district, the distance is relatively short, and how much time the child has been out of school, it seems like the stability of returning to District A would be in his best interest.

The student is subject to the same discipline regarding the threat of violence as any other student would be. Once she is through that process, she can return to school A as her school of origin (assuming that is not against the discipline policy), or enroll in school B. The question would be her best interest. Given the nature of the social media threat, it would appear that returning to school A is not in her best interest. You also said she prefers school B, which weighs heavily in school B’s favor.

Of course it is advisable to provide appropriate mental health supports and other assistance with housing, employment, and stability. A school psychologist or mental health provider might want to consider whether an evaluation for special education support is advisable.

Both. A McKinney-Vento student can have more than one school of origin in a school year. School of origin is defined in the McKinney-Vento Act as “the school that a child or youth attended when permanently housed or the school in which the child or youth was last enrolled, including a preschool.” This is in the law in section 722(g)(3)(I).

In the example you gave, both school A and school B can be schools of origin, if school A is the school the child attended when permanently housed, and school B is the school in which the child was last enrolled.

This definition of school of origin is helpful in responding to situations where children and youth are highly mobile, and may not realize that they can return to the school that they were attending when permanently housed (or the school in which they were last enrolled).

“Yes. Students retain the right to stay in their school of origin – and the right to transportation to their school of origin – for the duration of their homelessness, provided that staying in their school of origin continues to be in their best interest. The best interest decision must take into account student-centered factors, including factors related to the impact of mobility on achievement, education, health, and safety. It also must prioritize the wishes of the parent or, for unaccompanied youth, the youth.

If, after this best interest determination, the LEA determines that it is not in the youth’s best interest to continue in the school of origin, it must provide the child’s or youth’s parent or guardian, or the unaccompanied youth, with a written explanation of the reasons for its determination, including information regarding the right to appeal.

So, all of that is to say that if the student is still homeless at the beginning of next school year, you would need to do a best interest determination; if it still in his or her best interest to attend the school of origin in the next school year, transportation must be provided.”