Homeless woman arrested for theft, for enrolling child in school

[timtofly]

Am I missing something, how could a homeless person afford a babysitter for their child?

No one said it was a good babysitter.

"Here's 20 bucks, watch him while I look for a job."

Did we miss the part where the babysitter was evicted also? They can now take away private property? Maybe the babysitter was squatting in an empty house? I am sure someone trying to survive is a lot worse than if it were being used for a crack house. Maybe that will come out also.

 

[nato2101]

Did we miss the part where the babysitter was evicted also? They can now take away private property? Maybe the babysitter was squatting in an empty house? I am sure someone trying to survive is a lot worse than if it were being used for a crack house. Maybe that will come out also.

If the babysitter was renting it is normal MO to evict a person is involved in any form of crime (in this case fraud). And I would imagine it is the same for council/city homes.

 

[downtown]

It's a mess, but I don't disagree with the school. In the US, schools are run locally, and funded locally. You can't hop school districts on a whim, and districts are very vigilant for this type of behaviour.

Not really. Districts only really are vigilant about his behavior if they think the kid is demographically out of touch with the school, or a real problem-causer. Hiring PI's or proving residency is costly and time-consuming. When I taught, I had two of my students who lived out of district (I went to one of their homes), but my Parish didn't start the process because they were "good" students, and their test scores could improve our ratings. If this woman was black, and tried to get her kid into a rich white school, (which is what happened in Ohio), then the administration is more likely to flip out. Chances are, almost everybody has at least one student attending their old school who lived out of district on the DL.

I'm more concerned about this 15K number, which seems absolutely crazy. Surely the state of CT has some sort of matching fund program for per/pupil spending, so the local district wouldn't be on the hook for every kid. Even if they were, 15K for an upscale elementary school is way too much to be spending on one child, even for the entire year. Somebody is getting screwed here.

 

[nato2101]

I'm more concerned about this 15K number, which seems absolutely crazy. Surely the state of CT has some sort of matching fund program for per/pupil spending, so the local district wouldn't be on the hook for every kid. Even if they were, 15K for an upscale elementary school is way too much to be spending on one child, even for the entire year. Somebody is getting screwed here.

I agree the 15k is way too steep. My old school used to cost 15k Euro a year and it was one of the most expensive private schools in Milan, I can't see a public school spending that much on a student, unless they provided all the textbooks (would any be needed in elementary school?), lunches, transport (school bus), and every other possible conceivable extra.

 

[bernie14]

to me, clearly sounds like yet another example of ridiculous and cumbersome legal over-regulation

 

[downtown]

I agree the 15k is way too steep. My old school used to cost 15k Euro a year and it was one of the most expensive private schools in Milan, I can't see a public school spending that much on a student, unless they provided all the textbooks (would any be needed in elementary school?), lunches, transport (school bus), and every other possible conceivable extra.

Well, our public schools do. The costs would come from the cost of all the salaries of staff divided by the number of students...so insurance, legal...any cost except for the physical upkeep of the school building, falls under cost per student.

A rich school in the midwest might spend around 9,000 per student. I know that things are more expensive in the northeast but 15K seems excessive.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Am I missing something, how could a homeless person afford a babysitter for their child?

Homeless =/= Hobo.

A rich school in the midwest might spend around 9,000 per student. I know that things are more expensive in the northeast but 15K seems excessive.

General, I find that's an about average conversion rate for cost of living in the Tri-State area.

 

[Left]

If this woman was black

This woman is black.

 

[Xanikk999]

I thought children were required to be in school. So is the state just going to screw over the kid?

Why are they making the child suffer because his mother was stupid enough to have kids without being able to support them?

Furthermore do they really expect a homeless woman to be able to pay that kind of money?

 

[GhostWriter16]

I thought children were required to be in school. So is the state just going to screw over the kid?

Why are they making the child suffer because his mother was stupid enough to have kids without being able to support them?

Furthermore do they really expect a homeless woman to be able to pay that kind of money?

This is the kind of politics that I support. Equal opportunity demands that everyone have an opportunity for a good education. What they do with it... that's on them.

 

[emzie]

Not really. Districts only really are vigilant about his behavior if they think the kid is demographically out of touch with the school, or a real problem-causer. Hiring PI's or proving residency is costly and time-consuming. When I taught, I had two of my students who lived out of district (I went to one of their homes), but my Parish didn't start the process because they were "good" students, and their test scores could improve our ratings. If this woman was black, and tried to get her kid into a rich white school, (which is what happened in Ohio), then the administration is more likely to flip out. Chances are, almost everybody has at least one student attending their old school who lived out of district on the DL.

I'm more concerned about this 15K number, which seems absolutely crazy. Surely the state of CT has some sort of matching fund program for per/pupil spending, so the local district wouldn't be on the hook for every kid. Even if they were, 15K for an upscale elementary school is way too much to be spending on one child, even for the entire year. Somebody is getting screwed here.

Keep in mind which highschool I graduated from

I moved in with my dad in the middle of a school year. Mom still had legal custody, and though she moved in with us (they'd reconciled) she wasn't on the lease. Took 2 weeks of wrangling until the landlord gave permission, or wrote her into the lease, before I could enrol.

 

[downtown]

General, I find that's an about average conversion rate for cost of living in the Tri-State area.

Hmm, you know what, you're probably right.

This woman is black.

Well there you go then.

Keep in mind which highschool I graduated from

I moved in with my dad in the middle of a school year. Mom still had legal custody, and though she moved in with us (they'd reconciled) she wasn't on the lease. Took 2 weeks of wrangling until the landlord gave permission, or wrote her into the lease, before I could enrol.

Yeah, that school district would have changed their tune if you were say, a good baseball player though

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Keep in mind which highschool I graduated from

I moved in with my dad in the middle of a school year. Mom still had legal custody, and though she moved in with us (they'd reconciled) she wasn't on the lease. Took 2 weeks of wrangling until the landlord gave permission, or wrote her into the lease, before I could enrol.

Wow. Sounds like the Canadian bureaucracy is as stupid as ours.

I thought children were required to be in school. So is the state just going to screw over the kid?

Sad but true.

I'd like the morons who did this to explain exactly what she should have done in this situation.

 

[downtown]

Wow. Sounds like the Canadian bureaucracy is as stupid as ours.

He graduated from an upper class suburb in Columbus.

 

[GenMarshall]

That may be the problem. (Ironic I was in Conneticut Yesterday isn't it?)

Sorry, I don't wish to see my home state turn into a right wing nutjob state.

Seriously though, I was at Mystic Seaport, its a tourist area mostly, so I doubt many homeless people were there.

Despite you not seeing any homeless people in SECT. There ARE homeless people in the area. Try wandering in New London and/or Norwich. You don't see many homeless people in towns like Mystic, Montville, Stonington,... because they are more towards the small town segment.

Really, gauging the homeless statistic based on your experience when visiting New London County when this article talks about Bridgeport is really not a good idea.

 

[Abegweit]

That's very ironic. Did you see any homeless people there?

There aren't any in Norwalk. That's why she was arrested. Obviously fraud.

 

[emzie]

Yeah, that school district would have changed their tune if you were say, a good baseball player though

Well yeah, I mean, sports! Have to compete with those Catholic schools!

Wow. Sounds like the Canadian bureaucracy is as stupid as ours.

He graduated from an upper class suburb in Columbus.

Yeah, strictly an American thing and as DT said, I'm from Ohio.

The city of Ottawa is nearly as big as Rhode Island. All the local communities that once existed are covered by the same school board now.

 

[Abegweit]

Sorry, I don't wish to see my home state turn into a right wing nutjob state.

Yeah. Way better to live in a place that charges property taxes on your CAR. And, BTW, the rates in Bridgeport are obscene. That's probably why she is homeless. Couldn't afford to pay off the thieves for both her house and her van. So she made the logical choice.

Keeping the van would allow her to skip town.

But apparently not.

 

[G-Max]

I never know whether extreme right-wing positions are being proposed sincerely or as a spoof.

This isn't a "right-wing position". It's just police stupidity.

The core of this story is enrolling your kid in a district in which you don't live, and that's fraud.

Does it matter when you don't pay taxes?

I've heard it (Jokingly) suggested that those with no source of income would be wise to commit a crime so they could go to jail and get a home

It's no joke. Some homeless people actually do this.

If the babysitter was renting it is normal MO to evict a person is involved in any form of crime (in this case fraud). And I would imagine it is the same for council/city homes.

Was the babysitter even in on the scheme?

Why are they making the child suffer because his mother was stupid enough to have kids without being able to support them?

For all we know, she COULD support the kid at the time when she had him. That was 5 years ago, after all.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Sorry, I don't wish to see my home state turn into a right wing nutjob state.

Don't worry. Conneticut is nice to visit, but I have no plans to live there

Despite you not seeing any homeless people in SECT. There ARE homeless people in the area. Try wandering in New London and/or Norwich. You don't see many homeless people in towns like Mystic, Montville, Stonington,... because they are more towards the small town segment.

Really, gauging the homeless statistic based on your experience when visiting New London County when this article talks about Bridgeport is really not a good idea.

I agree. Except I wasn't doing that. I was SPECIFICALLY answering NickyJ's question, that's it. I wasn't denying that Conneticut has homeless people or whatever. I was just being nice and answering a pointless question (Well, except that it makes fun of a liberal state)

It's no joke. Some homeless people actually do this.

I'm not surprised.

Add 1 more to the reason I don't like prison as punishment

Yeah. Way better to live in a place that charges property taxes on your CAR. And, BTW, the rates in Bridgeport are obscene. That's probably why she is homeless. Couldn't afford to pay off the thieves for both her house and her van. So she made the logical choice.

Keeping the van would allow her to skip town.

But apparently not.

Its not theft, we're just tenants of the government, we deserve to have to pay rent on our property that we own, since we really only own the right to use it by the government