Posted on 04/25/2011 10:32:49 PM PDT by Michael.SF.
Education activists are rallying around a homeless woman who may face jail time for enrolling her son in kindergarten under a friend's address. Supporters say the woman's story is yet another dismaying example of inequality in the U.S. education system.
Tanya McDowell, a homeless single mother from Bridgeport, is charged with first-degree larceny and conspiracy to commit first-degree larceny for signing up her 5-year-old son to attend nearby Norwalk schools under the address of a friend. (Her son went to the school for four months. Her friend has been evicted from public housing for letting McDowell use her address.) McDowell may face up to 20 years in prison and a $15,000 fine if convicted.
Gwen Samuel, a Connecticut education activist, is organizing a press conference to try to get the charges dropped and raise awareness about parents who are criminally prosecuted, rather than dealt with individually by the school district, for using false addresses.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
The signature characteristic of all monopoles, whether public or private, is that over time they always try to charge more and more in return for less and less.
In their eyes, this IS the real crime. Bodycounts are just statistics, but this is fraud dag nabbit!
Good thing they were homeless or the SWAT team would have certainly kicked their frontdoor in over this heinous violent crime, probably shot the dog too...
Now the kid becomes a ward of the state. Are they happy?
Wait just a second. You brush this aside??? A 'darkie' tried to go to school with some liberal, white kids and you think it's no big deal. First they try to go to school with them, then they want to be friends. Next thing you know, they want to join their country clubs! There is no telling where this could lead.
But thousands of Mexicans cross over the border to use our schools every day and somehow that’s ok.
So I am confused...is ‘homeless’ the new code for ‘rich white Republican’? Why else would she be going through this?/
The only "inequality" to our school system is that schools predominated by students of certain ethnicities are generally avoided by everyone.
Jury nullification.
I’ve never considered homelessness as an issue affecting school choice. If someone is homeless, what dictates which school their children can attend ? Had she known it would be a problem, she could have simply registered at a shelter in the area and it all would have been kosher ?
Sounds like another reason not to fund public schools via property taxes. Public school funding is a joke anyway. They are spending $12,000 per student to provide schooling for 180 days per year. Eliminate the unions and most of the admin, and reinstate discipline, and you could do it for $4,000 each — less than people routinely spend on daycare until the child can be fobbed off on kindergarten. I’ve never understood why parents should get a financial windfall when their kid is finally old enough to go to school rather than incur daycare expense. If they can’t afford to educate their own kids, why must their neighbors pay for it ?
I confess! I did the same thing in 1985.
The O doctrine. WE ARE NO LONGER A NATION OF LAWS
Yet test scores have flat-line sense then.
The mind boggles, doesn't it?
Connecticut has always been rather strange when it comes to non-residents, it is the only State that I know that has large signs at their kiddy parks in the small villages that threaten non-residents with fines if they use them.
I used to see at least three or four such awful signs on my way to Squantz Pond, State Park, CT. I have never seen anything like that anywhere else.
Do a search for “homeless education.” There’s a very detailed federal law addressing it. From what I’ve read, the homeless woman is about to be in award clover.
Incidentally, the woman charged with the crime has not led a blameless life, and she’s black, so she’ll be the liberal darling for the duration of the process.
This is true of any gated community neighborhood, if you think about it. It is why the liberals hate gated communities — they don’t let non-resident freeloaders and thieves come in and ruin the neighborhood. How else can the “poor” get good stuff if they can’t even get to the homes where they could steal it ?
I was not talking about gated communities these were small villages or townships and in that part of Connecticut there are no thieves who would rob kiddy parks of their swings. In fact for the most part they were always empty.
Everyone who travels anywhere could be accused of being a freeloader as he/she benefits from the street lights but does not pay taxes for them - the whole idea of freeloading in such circumstances is beyond stupidity.
Should a city bar all non-residents as they do not pay to clean the streets?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.