<p>The issue of students crossing school district boundaries without permission has once again come to a head. And again I am conflicted about the matter.</p>
<p>A school district in Norwalk, Connecticut is prosecuting a mother whom allegedly lied to get her son out of a poor-performing district an into a far superior one. There are disputed facts, such as whether or not the mother is/was homeless -Connecticut law apparently would have prohibited the district from ejecting her kindergarten son if the family was homeless- but nevertheless, the child was removed from school at midyear and the mother jailed.</p>
<p>I hear the complaints from taxpayers about unauthorized students “sneaking in” to take advantage of instruction and facilities better than the kids would find in their home districts. But was arresting this woman necessary or justified? And of course the matter of race and alleged discrimination has been inserted into the discussion. But I’ve heard complaints from African American suburban homeowners whom also complain about ‘free riders’ at large in their schools.</p>
<p>What is your solution in cases such as this?</p>
<p>Note that the school district in Norwalk is not “far superior”, arguably not superior at all, and the mother is a drug dealer with an extensive criminal record. I feel bad for the kid, who is being shunted from school to school and lost in the mother lottery, but have no concern for the mom and hope she’s jailed for a long time–she’s a threat to society and her child.</p>
<p>Isn’t the whole point that she lied about her address? This kind of fraud is becoming very common. I work in a good school system and we have seen cases here, as well. It is tantamount to stealing. And it really irks me that the parents do this in on the premise of getting a better education for their child, but they are, in effect, making their child an accessory to a crime! What kind of life is it for the child who has to lie to all of the adults around him a well as his peers and coaches? And what does it teach this child? That lesson, taught by a mom with an inflated sense of entitlement, will be the one that is ingrained in that child, not the ones given in the classroom.</p>
<p>I still want to know what the whole story is. I don’t believe the choice was made and the fraud committed for educational purposes. Not a good enough school.</p>
<p>This is what happens when we have public schools of such varying qualities. What’s the point of universal education if the quality varied greatly on where you live or how much cotton-fiber paper you have?</p>
<p>Maybe not in this case. I haven’t read the story. But, does it really matter? Even if a parent commits fraud for the sake of providing her child with a better education, it is still a crime and there should be consequences. A school system’s resources are limited and there is an abundance of needs to be met within the legitimate population of a school without bringing in students from other areas. Taxpayers in the town are partially funding their own school. Is it fair to take a portion of those funds and use them to educate a child that is the responsibility of another community?</p>
<p>I truly sympathize with people who are in a bad situation and cannot find the services that they need and that their child deserves. But to lie and place your child in a different school system is stealing. To condone it out of sympathy is doing a disservice to the children who rightfully live in a school district.</p>
What is law is not always what is right. If a law is not righteous, then it ought not be followed.</p>
<p>
I would be of the mind that you cannot steal a free public education. And it is the fault of the government, for they have failed the poorer schools. Do they expect everyone to be okay with that? People don’t want their children locked in a cycle of poverty.</p>
<p>My mother told me that when I was about to enter kindergarten the school wanted to change me to another school farther away because they had too many kids already. Earlier my mother had someone tell her that she was sending her child to the school even though they didn’t live in the district. My mother turned the other mother in so I only had to walk 1 block to school instead of over 1/2 mile. Lying hurts other people.</p>
<p>Both schools were good schools so I don’t know why the mother lied about her address to get her child in. She didn’t get arrested for it though.</p>
<p>Her “crime” was that she hadn’t registered at the homeless shelter the nights she stayed there. Good for 20 years, huh? There are dozens of folks walking around Stamford at least partially responsible for the nation’s financial meltdown who committed far worse, and remain “free” to walk the streets.</p>
<p>By the end of the year, according to our educational “czar”, 82% of our public schools will be “failing”. That designation will “allow” parents to withdraw their kids from their neighborhood schools and enroll them in ones that aren’t failing, if they can find them. Instead of arresting her for her “premature” action, they should be inviting her to the White House and giving her a medal.</p>
<p>And who, exactly, decides if a law is righteous? You? Me? Donald Trump? Charles Manson?</p>
<p>I agree that the government fails poorer children. Is the solution to have students attend any school they wish regardless of where they live? What if a wealthy family wants to send their child to a school district that is in a poorer area but receives more federal funds than their school district does? Is that okay, too? Even if it compromises the educational resources that are intended for the residential, poorer students?</p>
<p>Whether we like the current educational system in our country or not, it is what we have right now. The solution is not to advocate for an “every man for himself” approach.</p>
Human rights. What that entails, the individual must decide for him/herself.</p>
<p>
No, that is not a good solution. However, I don’t see the government fixing the problem, so yes, it is better than doing nothing.</p>
<p>
If it starts screwing with the rich, then you can believe the government will start to take notice. So yeah, maybe it is a means to the necessary end.</p>
<p>Even when that decision compromises others human rights?</p>
<p>If I feel that my human rights are being violated because I don’t make as much money as my male coworker, is it okay for me to steal money from his wallet to make up the difference?</p>
An individual needs to act in a manner that advances human rights as much as possible. If I lived in a slave society, I would fight it. If I lived in a genocidal society, I would fight it. We live in a society that is deadly/oppressive for the poor, we should fight it.</p>
<p>
That’s a fairly vague scenario. If you weren’t making enough to survive and stole from an overtly discriminatory employer, I would shed no tears. I personally see justification in the poor stealing from the rich for self-preservation. However, stealing money for yourself after you already have enough is not justified, in my view.</p>
<p>But I really don’t see how this situation correlates to a broken education system.</p>
<p>“Is the solution to have students attend any school they wish regardless of where they live?”</p>
<p>That is one of the provisions of No Child Left Behind for students who attend “failing” schools (82% of them). It’s not hypothetical - it’s the law, with provisions to take effect shortly.</p>
<p>The social contract and the consent of the governed depends on the government providing protection, and when it doesn’t, as BillyMc is pointing out, should we be surprised there is noncompliance?</p>
<p>mini,
The No Child Left Behind Act is the biggest failure to schoolchildren in educational history, IMO. It is fine for the government to establish standards that it requires school systems to meet but if they refuse to adequately fund it, it is all just political rhetoric.</p>
<p>Is there a difference between an action that is designed to provoke change, stimulate discussion, and evoke change and the same action being taken to fill a personal desire?</p>
<p>It is a political statement when a parent shows up at a school, insists that her child be enrolled because she is entitled to the same education as the children who live in that town. It is a political statement when she calls the media for coverage, writes to her legislator and maybe even makes signs to carry in the school parking lot. This would be an action taken for the purpose of provoking social change.
Lying about your address is just working the system to your advantage. I seriously doubt there was any selfless desire to save the masses.</p>