Enroll kid in wrong school distrcit - face charges

[Deleted]

A homeless Connecticut mother faces charges of larceny and possible imprisonment for enrolling her six-year old son in a school in another town. Tanya McDowell, whose last known address was in Bridgeport, Conn., enrolled her son in Norwalk’s Brookside Elementary School after claiming to live at a friend’s address, and now faces charges for allegedly stealing nearly $16,000 from Norwalk schools.


thenewamerican.com/culture/education/7255-conn-mother-faces-charges-for-enrolling-child-in-diff-school-district

[zibazinski]

Sigh, with all the lousy parents out there that OUGHT to be put in jail and have their kids taken away from them, this seems harsh for a mom who is trying to do something good for her child. I KNOW it's wrong but my heart still feels for her and her child. I am sure there will be some people out there that will provide a house, job, and money for her now.

[973beachbum]

And if she hadn't put the kids in school they would have thrown her in jail for that.

This really is pretty simple in NJ. The homeless child gets enrolled where ever they have the last address or are living the most when they are enrolled.

Then the districts have a system that they go through to decide who should pay. It is kind of like auto insurance subrogation. I am sure this is harder as the child was only in Kindergarten and wasn't already attending school.

A social worker could have helped in this situation but then again anyone who gets a MSW is an idiot according to YM.

[zibazinski]

Actually in our school system there are teachers that go to homeless shelters. Before that there were centers that busses went to and picked up the kids and brought them to the centers. That was a nice thing. Gave the kids breakfast, lunch, washed their clothes, medical and eye care, and sent them home with a snack of sorts but it was felt that it "set the kids apart" from others so it was better to keep them in shelters and send a teacher to them. This was only for el ed though, no clue what they did for older kids.

[jospaced]

While I feel for the mother and child, what would happen if everyone did that? Sent their kids to another district on the taxpayers' dime? However, charges against her seem a little harsh.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Over the weekend, I had one of the House Hunters shows on - I think it was international but I wasn't paying that much attention. The family was a family of 4, Mom, Dad, their LO and a nephew who's living with them to attend school. I don't remember what state they were in either. But my immediate thought was "that's illegal and they just broadcast it on TV..."

[haapai]

Over the weekend, I had one of the House Hunters shows on - I think it was international but I wasn't paying that much attention. The family was a family of 4, Mom, Dad, their LO and a nephew who's living with them to attend school. I don't remember what state they were in either. But my immediate thought was "that's illegal and they just broadcast it on TV..."

No, it's not illegal. There is absolutely nothing illegal about sending a kid to live with someone in order to send them to the local/better school.

[zibazinski]

All they have to do is become the guardians of that child and that child can attend the school.

[Deleted]

Apr 27, 2011 9:25:32 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Over the weekend, I had one of the House Hunters shows on - I think it was international but I wasn't paying that much attention. The family was a family of 4, Mom, Dad, their LO and a nephew who's living with them to attend school. I don't remember what state they were in either. But my immediate thought was "that's illegal and they just broadcast it on TV..."

It's not illegal.

My parents lives in West Orange, NJ which is a good school district. One of my other aunts lives in Montclair, NJ

During the past 10 years they have become legal guardians for some of my cousins that lives in Orange, NJ and East Orange, NJ.

There is nothing illegal about it. My cousins stays at my house during the week and go home to their parents on weekends. Sometimes they would pick them on after school so they can spend some time together.

Was it easy? No. Ideal for them? NO. But they did it for their kids, either that or pay $600-$1000/month for private school like one of my uncles was doing.

[thyme4change]

Actually in our school system there are teachers that go to homeless shelters. Before that there were centers that busses went to and picked up the kids and brought them to the centers. That was a nice thing. Gave the kids breakfast, lunch, washed their clothes, medical and eye care, and sent them home with a snack of sorts but it was felt that it "set the kids apart" from others so it was better to keep them in shelters and send a teacher to them. This was only for el ed though, no clue what they did for older kids.

We have a high school for homeless teens, and they were able to provide them with all sorts of services that children with homes wouldn't necessarily need. The kids all seemed to speak highly of it, and the education process there was well rated. And then some do-gooder filed a "seperate but equal" lawsuit against the school. Now, any school in the state has to be open to take homeless kids, and the school for homeless kids have to take anyone who wants to go there. But, for the most part, people have chosen to not send their kids to the school that specializes in education of children in transient housing, and the kids in the transient housing have opted to stay in the school designed to meet their needs. But, a few lawyers have a whole bunch of billable hours to justify themselves. Whoopeeee.

[zibazinski]

Figures.

[Firebird]

Over the weekend, I had one of the House Hunters shows on - I think it was international but I wasn't paying that much attention. The family was a family of 4, Mom, Dad, their LO and a nephew who's living with them to attend school. I don't remember what state they were in either. But my immediate thought was "that's illegal and they just broadcast it on TV..."

That's not illegal as long as the kid is actually living with them. It's only illegal if you say the kid is living with you and he's really not.

[Deleted]

There was a recent case like this near Akron, Ohio. The mother registered her kids in the school district where her father lived (they did not live there) and ignored repeated requests to put her kids in the right school or else pay tuition. She was sentenced to jail, which will not help her future career since she was very close to getting a teaching degree.

The irony is that per-pupil spending is higher in the district where her kids were supposed to attend school.

[philly1]

How about this scenario. I bought a house in the school district my son attended from kindergarten until 6th grade. His mom bought a house in neighboring school district and he lived with her from 7th-12th grade. He continued to attend the school district I lived in. Technically that would be considered illegal but since I pay taxes to the District felt he had every right to stay in that school. We used my address on everything that pertained to him.

[zibazinski]

Technically, it's fraud because he didn't live with you. But I'm assuming he was a good kid with supportive parents so no one investigated.

[whoisjohngalt]

There are more and more cases that are popping out on this.

You would think that instead of crowding our jails and wasting TP's money the school system/administration would actually start thinking about how to fix the problem.

Lena

[Plain Old Petunia]

So what should this mother have done? She is homeless. Just what address was she supposed to list? "A parked car, exact whereabouts changing nightly"?

[zibazinski]

There actually are procedures to follow. She could have gone to any school and asked. They would have referred her to where to go and what to do.

[tloonya]

/Enroll kid in wrong school distrcit - face charges
/
So Archie...DON'T!!!

We have the same thing happening in where I live.
We pay taxes for OUR kids to go to OUR school which is best public in USA.
IF you bring your kid to our school - $15K. Not fine but charge.
What's so wrong with that???

[Plain Old Petunia]

Apr 27, 2011 13:53:25 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

There actually are procedures to follow. She could have gone to any school and asked. They would have referred her to where to go and what to do.

So how is the school district out any money? I don't understand this and I know you either have been or still are a teacher, so perhaps you can provide some insight? In my state, a school is paid a certain amount of money per day per child in attendance from the state. So if a child is attending who doesn't really belong there, the school is not out a cent. They have been paid. Is it different in other states?

In this particular case, it seems that a homeless mother will not be able to pay her 16k+ bill, and possibly will go to jail. While she is in jail, the taxpayers will pick up the tab. Her child will go where, a foster home? The taxpayers will pick up the tab. Meanwhile, where is the money the state would have paid to some other school for her child?

[Deleted]

Apr 28, 2011 12:45:49 GMT -5 Plain Old Petunia said:

So how is the school district out any money? <snip>In my state, a school is paid a certain amount of money per day per child in attendance from the state. So if a child is attending who doesn't really belong there, the school is not out a cent. They have been paid.

Yes, but local property taxes also support the schools. Now you've got taxpayers in the district paying for the education of kids who aren't supposed to be in those schools, so the money gets spread out a little thinner. If they don't enforce the laws, the money will get spread out a LOT thinner.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Apr 27, 2011 15:18:47 GMT -5 tloonya said:

/Enroll kid in wrong school distrcit - face charges
/
So Archie...DON'T!!!

We have the same thing happening in where I live.
We pay taxes for OUR kids to go to OUR school which is best public in USA.
IF you bring your kid to our school - $15K. Not fine but charge.
What's so wrong with that???

What's wrong with it is that public schools are not based on ability to pay. They are for everyone, hence the name public. Private schools are for those who so choose and can pay.

I know you are not a US native, so perhaps you are unaware of the history of US public education. Public schools were not founded to benefit the children of those who can pay, they were founded to benefit the children of those who can't. The idea is that the entire country benefits when everyone has the opportunity to make of themselves what they can.

Your tax dollars are not in a little account marked "TLooney and family, for public services they use", they are in the public coffers. There is no promise at all whatsoever that your tax dollars will be spent to benefit you.

Are you more entitled to use a public road because you pay more taxes? No. Are you less entitled to use a public road because you pay less taxes? No. Public roads are for everyone.

[mithrin]

Apr 28, 2011 12:45:49 GMT -5 Plain Old Petunia said:

Apr 27, 2011 13:53:25 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

There actually are procedures to follow. She could have gone to any school and asked. They would have referred her to where to go and what to do.

So how is the school district out any money? I don't understand this and I know you either have been or still are a teacher, so perhaps you can provide some insight? In my state, a school is paid a certain amount of money per day per child in attendance from the state. So if a child is attending who doesn't really belong there, the school is not out a cent. They have been paid. Is it different in other states?

In this particular case, it seems that a homeless mother will not be able to pay her 16k+ bill, and possibly will go to jail. While she is in jail, the taxpayers will pick up the tab. Her child will go where, a foster home? The taxpayers will pick up the tab. Meanwhile, where is the money the state would have paid to some other school for her child?

A lot of states fund schools primarily through local property taxes. The state may contribute some money, but not all. So if you add out of district kids to a locally funded school, you have two options.

1. Spend less per student because your budget doesn't change (this might be somewhat offset by extra state funding for higher enrollment, but how much this helps depends on what % of the funding is from the state vs. local).

2. Keep per student spending the same by increasing the property tax rate in the district to compensate for the extra students.

#1 is unpopular with the local parents because it means less money being spent on their kids. #2 is unpopular with everyone in the district since they are paying extra taxes to educate kids from other districts.

I don't think in any of these cases anyone really thinks that one extra student is going to break the budget, but if the issue is that District A has a great reputation and neighboring District B has a poor rep, then the number of kids from B trying to go to school in A via fraudulent addresses could get out of control and really hurt the quality of the education in A.


In states where most of the funding for the schools comes from the state level, the schools don't care so much about kids coming in from out of district, since their funding level changes to compensate. There the issue becomes more about class sizes and overcrowding more than budgets. There's probably a reason you don't see many stories out of CA about this issue.

I taught high school in Los Angeles and our principal actively allowed kids from out of our area to attend. He would make exceptions for kids who were attending, and then moved, so they wouldn't have to switch schools. He would make exceptions for kids whose parents went to our HS and wanted their kids to come too. All of this when we were already so overcrowded we were on a year round schedule and still had big class sizes.

[Plain Old Petunia]

Apr 28, 2011 12:58:54 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Yes, but local property taxes also support the schools. Now you've got taxpayers in the district paying for the education of kids who aren't supposed to be in those schools, so the money gets spread out a little thinner. If they don't enforce the laws, the money will get spread out a LOT thinner.

Tax dollars support schools. Yes, usually property taxes, but that is semantics. If all property taxes were repealed today, schools would be funded with some other tax. What impact would it have on schools? Wouldn't it cost exactly the same to run them?

As to money being spread thinner, that goes back to my question as to how schools are compensated. Again, in my state, it is per child in attendance per day. Is your state different?

[Plain Old Petunia]

Thank you, Mithrin. So then, it really is the case in some states that the same resources are spread thinner if extra children are in attendance. I can see that being a problem. In my opinion, a better "solution" than jailing parents is to change how schools are funded. Per child per attendance per day makes more sense.

So, if you happen to live in a state which funds local schools based on propoerty taxes, not size of student body, you would theoretically receive a superior education if you happened to be born in a year with comparatively low birthrates, as there is more funding for you. If you happened to be born in a year with a comparatively high birthrate, you could expect your education to suffer as there is less funding for you.

[hoops902]

Apr 28, 2011 13:24:39 GMT -5 Plain Old Petunia said:

Apr 28, 2011 12:58:54 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Yes, but local property taxes also support the schools. Now you've got taxpayers in the district paying for the education of kids who aren't supposed to be in those schools, so the money gets spread out a little thinner. If they don't enforce the laws, the money will get spread out a LOT thinner.

Tax dollars support schools. Yes, usually property taxes, but that is semantics. If all property taxes were repealed today, schools would be funded with some other tax. What impact would it have on schools? Wouldn't it cost exactly the same to run them?

As to money being spread thinner, that goes back to my question as to how schools are compensated. Again, in my state, it is per child in attendance per day. Is your state different?

If you have 3 cars, and it costs you $50 per month to maintain them...and I say "hey, I'll give you $10 per month for each car you maintain"...does it cost you money when you add a 4th car and another $50/month expense? Or is it all of a sudden not costing you anything because "Hoops compensates you per car per month maintained". If I'm not compensating you the full amount, and the rest is coming from somewhere else (your pocket...or property taxes), then adding another car costs you. It doesn't cost you the full $50...but it costs you something.

Are you saying your state does not use property taxes to fund schools? Are they only allowed to rely on the money given by the state? In most places it's both.

[hoops902]

"So, if you happen to live in a state which funds local schools based on propoerty taxes, not size of student body, you would theoretically receive a superior education if you happened to be born in a year with comparatively low birthrates, as there is more funding for you. If you happened to be born in a year with a comparatively high birthrate, you could expect your education to suffer as there is less funding for you. "

A year with low birthrates wouldn't affect anything on a realistic scale because you're not paid based on "your class". You'd need a decade or more of lower birth rates to see much since one year wouldn't have much effect on the overall size of the school district in % terms. If there's $1M to fund the schools, then having 90 kids in your grade or 110 doesn't make much difference in the quality of education when you're being funded for an overall population of 1000 or so. The advantage is that there is a point where an extra teacher is needed. If that point is one teacher per 30 kids, and you have 95 kids, you're in better shape because you'll have more individualized attention with 4 teachers at 95 than 3 at 90. One class size change doesn't affect anything real though.

[TheOtherMe]

There were charges brought against a group of parents here who sent their kids to a supposedly excellent school in a part of the district where they did not live. They used addresses of friends or relatives. So far, they have all been found guilty and have to pay restitution.

[Deleted]

Alabama provides funding for x number of teaching units based on some formula. In order to reduce class size, a more affluent area will provide for what are called "locally funded" units. These teaching units receive $0 funding from the state.

Teachers are also just the beginning of what an additional student costs. Books in the library are per student for accreditation purposes. That child may need a seat on the bus. He/she definitely needs a desk to sit in and textbooks. The computer lab has to have one more computer. You get the idea.

One student doesn't break the bank, but how do you select that one student? School districts can be sued for discrimination if they don't enforce policies consistently and fairly.

What was interesting was what happened with dislocated students because of Katrina. The U.S. government paid for these kids to be enrolled wherever they chose to attend. (Often they moved in with relatives in nearby states.) I know this because I remember we could send them to the school supply store for whatever they needed, and the PTA had a charge account set up for them.

[zibazinski]

Getting a MSW does not make you an idiot. Running up huge loans for a non-paying degree does. Same thing as a teacher. My friend's daughter wanted to be one. Mom said "fine" you live at home and tuition and books are free courtesy of Bright Futures. Exactly what she did. She got paid as much as the kids who came out with huge school loans btw.