<p>
Exactly. Remember, one of the stated purposes of the United States government is to promote the general welfare.</p>
<p>
Can an action not be taken for personal ends (the benefit of one’s child) and still stimulate discussion and provoke change, albeit unintentionally?</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>Hey - I’m a homeschooler! ([Skylark</a> Sings ~ Welcome to Skylark Sings](<a href=“http://www.skylarksings.com%5DSkylark”>http://www.skylarksings.com) ) And, no, I don’t think the problem is funding, and, no I don’t think it is just political rhetoric. There are people who gain - financially and otherwise - when schools are characterized as failing when, in fact, excluding those in poverty, U.S. schools rank 2nd or 3rd in the world. </p>
<p>But no matter - the law says parents can take (or will be able to take) their failing kids out of the neighborhood schools and enroll them where they wish. So this is simply a case of a mother acting “prematurely”.</p>
<p>Yes, it can. And it has many times over history. But is it okay to break a law that is designed to protect a population for your own personal gain? Regardless of how worthwhile and valid your motive is (your desire to give your child a great education)? </p>
<p>It is easier for me to stomach it if the intention of the lawbreaker was to provoke social change rather than meet their own personal wants and needs. Even in that case, however, it does not negate the impact that the action has on the children that are in the “superior” school district". That impact, to me, is the reason that this is considered a crime. Those children did not write educational policy or make the laws. Their parents didn’t either. If you want to promote change, go to the source of the problem. Of course, as I said in my previous post, the people who are trying to work the system are not really interested in social change, so I doubt they will be writing to their legislators any time soon.</p>
<p>I work at a public school that is currently a “school of choice”. We are the only school in our district that offers a balanced calendar and houses K-8th grades. The other elementary schools in our district are on a traditional calendar and house K-4th grades. They move on to an intermediate school (5th & 6th grades) and then a middle school (7th & 8th grades). Any student that lives in our district may apply to come to our school on a first-come, first-served basis. Our limit is 100 students per grade. Each year, there is a waiting list. Each year, we have people who lie about their residency in order to place their child(ren) in our school. We have the same curriculum as the other schools in our small district. The only difference between us and them is our calendar and the grades we offer. The children of the liars are taking spots that should be given to children who live in our district and pay the appropriate taxes. Additionally, many of the out-of-district students are special ed which adds a great deal of costs to a budget that is already in the deficit. My next-door-neighbor, who applied for her child to come to my school, could not get her in though she lives in the district and pays the taxes. Why? Because a liar’s child is attending. I believe all children deserve a quality education, but I do not agree with lying and stealing to get your child in to a certain school or district.</p>
<p>But her “crime” was failing to register at the homeless shelter at which she stayed! Hardly “working the system”. She didn’t have to “work the system” - the law already covered her actions as totally legal (had she signed her name to the register).</p>
<p>
Yes, when the population it is protecting is the rich and the population it is harming is the poor.</p>
<p>People who have spent some/all of their lives as “have-nots” should understand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m suddenly envisioning Robin Hood.</p>
<p>
Let’s go with the original “commoner” version, not later attempts to rewrite him as a dispossessed aristocrat.</p>
<p>For the record, I do completely condone stealing from the English aristocracy to give to the poor. Where’s my bow…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know–that’s the weird thing about this whole story. I don’t see why there’s a big prosecution and publicity about this case. It seems like it could have been resolved on the local level with local investigators.</p>
<p>I’m just sort of curious… when we used to register our kids every year, we had to ‘prove’ our residency at a certain address. There were several ways to do this; it could be a utility bill, a current homeowner’s insurance policy, current voter’s registration card, real estate tax receipt, current vehicle registration (these are just a few examples; there are others for renters). Do other districts not require this?</p>
<p>In our school district, you only have to prove residency/register each child in the first year they attend.</p>
<p>We had to do it every year.</p>
<p>
We require those items, too, or a lease. Unfortunately, parents have sucked grandparents into lying for them by either claiming the grandchildren live with them (in district) or by showing a lease for a property owned by a family member. Sadly, relatives will sign a notarized document that is completely false. Believe me, liars know how to work the system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the rich kids should not be protected?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have spent a good portion of my life as a “have-not” and, no I don’t understand.
</p>
<p>Billymc, I think you are toying with us…</p>
<p>In the case discussed in the original post, I can offer a reasonable guess at to why the whole hoopla about it.</p>
<p>My guess would be there was an outstanding criminal arrest warrant for the mom, and she was concerned the police would locate her address through the school by looking at the enrollment records. So she used the address - of a "friend’ or “babysitter” - knowing that the friend wouldn’t roll over on her. Perhaps the friend is someone she peddles drugs through, is a customer or vendor.</p>
<p>She wants to enroll her kid in kindergarten because then she has 8 hours (or maybe 4? not sure if all day or half day K) throughout the day to make drug deals or do whatever else she likes to do when her kid is tied up.</p>
<p>if you read the various articles, she had an address and a place where she slept at night, so she wasn’t exactly homeless. She claimed to be homeless, but wasn’t living in shelters or on the streets. </p>
<p>Am I being a little harsh? Perhaps. But she did get caught with enough cocaine that it is clear she deals cocaine…it was more than personal consumption. </p>
<p>That’s my guess. And if you look it at through those glasses, the story takes on a whole different picture.</p>
<p>No, it doesn’t. Drug-addicted folks are drug-addicted. It doesn’t mean they don’t care for their children, after the fashion of which they are capable at the time of their addiction. And the law is absolutely clear: if you register when staying at a homeless shelter, even one night, you can send your kids to the local school. Doesn’t matter if you are drug-addicted, doesn’t matter if you have an outstanding warrant. The law is the law. </p>
<p>I have another story. It’s a Stamford story or a Greenwich story. Lots of people complicit - perhaps criminally, in the looting of the nation. They did it so they could afford nice homes, nice cars, nice schools for the kids, nice vacations, nice country clubs, and maybe an extra sex partner or two. They may have had a twinge of guilt every once and awhile, but mostly thought they were doing what they were supposed to do, and of course everybody did it. And certainly they would never get caught - hey, their next-door neighbor is the prosecutor. He’ll keep the riff-raff out. </p>
<p>Just a story. Things take on a whole different picture.</p>
<p>mini, Norwalk is primarily a blue collar town–few if any Wall Street hotshots. And no matter who lives there, they don’t pay taxes to educate kids who belong in other school systems. I still say that the mother’s arrest is probably the best thing that could have happened to the kid. She’s a drug dealer, not just an addict. It’s already been admitted by her defense attorney that her claim of having been improperly strip searched during this arrest was bogus. I’m sure there’s lots more to this tale that remains to be discovered. Hopefully this arrest, her other pending charges, plus her past criminal history will be enough to support termination of her parental rights. Honestly, don’t cry for this parasite.</p>
<p>Doesn’t matter. The law is very clear. Drug addict, drug dealer, warrants outstanding, doesn’t matter. Lying about strip search? Doesn’t matter. The law says that if she registered the one night she spent at the homeless shelter, she can send her kid to the school.</p>
<p>As for the folks in Stamford and Greenwich, they have their own stories, and their own lies to deal with (and probably their own addictions as well - I deal in my professional work with people addicted to drugs, and it is an “equal opportunity” disease.) Their kids are dope fiends and drug pushers - <a href=“thecyn.com”>thecyn.com; - Hey, just a story.</p>
<p>
From contact with poor kids? No, they shouldn’t be protected from that.</p>
<p>
Then it’s unfortunate that someone who has lived in poverty would rather side with a system that works only for the rich than reform that could change things for the poor.</p>
<p>
Someone made a quip about Robin Hood, I had to respond in kind.</p>
<p>BillyMc,
I hope you are enjoying your game of deliberately misunderstanding the statements made here. Such fun. I won’t be responding to your remarks any further as I would much rather have a serious, thoughtful discussion about a relevant topic than play cat and mouse with you. Don’t you have any homework to do?</p>