A family or a crowd?

[pax 0]

However, does that give those people the right to fake living somewhere else (and that's what they do) so they can go to the schools that I am paying taxes for? If you don't live here, and haven't lived here for a long period of time, you would have NO idea of how bad the problem is and how people around here feel about it. You want to go to my school, MOVE HERE... PAY TAXES ON MY SCHOOL like I do. Don't live somewhere cheaper and pay appropriate taxes, and then try to take advantage of my benefits for my higher tax rated school.

Again, I think you're missing the point. You're taking issue with children who come from families far too poor to just pick up and move somewhere else.

A while back, I read Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities, which deals with poverty-stricken public schools all over the country and opens in East St. Louis. And when I was in St. Louis a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to see East St. Louis myself. It's a terribly sad place for children to grow up and go to school, and frankly, if those kids have even the slimmest justification for going to school elsewhere, I can fully understand why they run with it.

I really abhor the attitude that it's not the problem of the nice middle-class white people who pay "their" school district's particular taxes. The abysmal state of public education for the poor is something this country is going to have to answer for.

[faith 0]

when that kid is claiming to live in a one bedroom apartment with 15 other people. People are abusing the system all the time.

But why do you assume that is abuse?

Many poor people DO live like that. They do it so they can eventually have a better life.

Why stand in the way of that?

I've lived here my entire life. We see it happen. We see the kids get driven in to the bus stop every single morning because they don't live where they claim to live. It's so bad that our schools have to hire private detectives (like the agency I work for) in order to verify that someone really lives there.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They claim their kids live there, when they really don't. They get driven into town every morning for school.

Ok, THAT is abuse but.. how do you know that is the case with everyone?

Many poor people, in fact, DO share living quarters with a large number of other poor people in nice parts of town. They do it for their future. I think it's wrong to impose the standards of middle class America on the poor. They just don't have the privilege of thinking the way we do. The kids own room with his own TV can wait, let him get a good education first!

[faith 0]

However, does that give those people the right to fake living somewhere else (and that's what they do) so they can go to the schools that I am paying taxes for? If you don't live here, and haven't lived here for a long period of time, you would have NO idea of how bad the problem is and how people around here feel about it. You want to go to my school, MOVE HERE... PAY TAXES ON MY SCHOOL like I do. Don't live somewhere cheaper and pay appropriate taxes, and then try to take advantage of my benefits for my higher tax rated school.

Again, I think you're missing the point. You're taking issue with children who come from families far too poor to just pick up and move somewhere else.

A while back, I read Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities, which deals with poverty-stricken public schools all over the country and opens in East St. Louis. And when I was in St. Louis a couple of years ago, I had the opportunity to see East St. Louis myself. It's a terribly sad place for children to grow up and go to school, and frankly, if those kids have even the slimmest justification for going to school elsewhere, I can fully understand why they run with it.

I really abhor the attitude that it's not the problem of the nice middle-class white people who pay "their" school district's particular taxes. The abysmal state of public education for the poor is something this country is going to have to answer for.

Unless you have lived here and seen firsthand how things work, I really don't think you can judge my opinion on this. I've taught in our schools... I've investigated the false claims with the agency I work for now, I see firsthand the abuse of not only the school systems but of the welfare systems. I've watched what it's done to our towns and to our schools. Tell me this.. if a kid doesn't live in my district why should he or she have the right to lie about it and force the overpopulation of our school which leads to bussing out of existing students to other schools? My kids have the right to go to school where we live. They shouldn't have to be bussed out because somoene lied and made the class size too big.

There is NO excuses for abusing the already troubled school system.

They claim their kids live there, when they really don't. They get driven into town every morning for school.

Ok, THAT is abuse but.. how do you know that is the case with everyone?

Many poor people, in fact, DO share living quarters with a large number of other poor people in nice parts of town. They do it for their future. I think it's wrong to impose the standards of middle class America on the poor. They just don't have the privilege of thinking the way we do. The kids own room with his own TV can wait, let him get a good education first!

seriously, come live here for a month, and I'll show you proof. I'll give you the addresses of the bus stops. I can't show you the confidential reports that have been done for the schools proving that the majority (and I mean over 75%) of those kids actually DO NOT live in the disctict, but you'll have to take my word as a licensed PI on that one.

[pax 0]

You're not the only person who's had experience working with poor children and their families. Maybe I've not had it in East St. Louis, true. But I have worked with poor children and I fail to see how the children themselves should be made to suffer for the economic circumstances into which they were born. Abuse does exist; I'm not so naive that I don't know that some families work the system and have practically made a profession out of doing so. But I also don't believe that, even if that's true, children should suffer for it.

Let me ask you this: if those children in East St. Louis go to "your" school, what happens? Then, let me ask you this: if those children in East St. Louis don't go to "your" school, what happens? In other words, would you rather ensure those kids got some kind of a chance at a decent education now (whether that's through bringing them into another school district or pouring some serious time, money, and attention into the East St. Louis schools), or would you rather have an ever-expanding generational cohort of illiterate, hopeless young people on your hands whose only career opportunities lie in the world of crime?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

seriously, come live here for a month, and I'll show you proof. I'll give you the addresses of the bus stops. I can't show you the confidential reports that have been done for the schools proving that the majority (and I mean over 75%) of those kids actually DO NOT live in the disctict, but you'll have to take my word as a licensed PI on that one.

I'll take your word for it.

But now, let's get back to the original topic of this thread - joint families that do live together. Sounds to me like many of the 25% may fall into that category. Do you think it is wrong for a young child to live with his uncle or aunty in a nicer part of town, if the sole motive is to get a better education? Do you think the young child should be forced back to where he or she came from because the residence he or she occupies has exceeded some arbitrary "limit" (a limit created by the spoiled American middle class, may I remind you)?

[faith 0]

You're not the only person who's had experience working with poor children and their families. Maybe I've not had it in East St. Louis, true. But I have worked with poor children and I fail to see how the children themselves should be made to suffer for the economic circumstances into which they were born. Abuse does exist; I'm not so naive that I don't know that some families work the system and have practically made a profession out of doing so. But I also don't believe that, even if that's true, children should suffer for it.

Let me ask you this: if those children in East St. Louis go to "your" school, what happens? Then, let me ask you this: if those children in East St. Louis don't go to "your" school, what happens? In other words, would you rather ensure those kids got some kind of a chance at a decent education now (whether that's through bringing them into another school district or pouring some serious time, money, and attention into the East St. Louis schools), or would you rather have an ever-expanding generational cohort of illiterate, hopeless young people on your hands whose only career opportunities lie in the world of crime?

I think you are taking this too far to the extreme.

Why shouldn't we put the effort into fixing the poor schools?

Why should my kids suffer because they were born into a white middle class family that happens to live in a good neighborhood?

If those children in ESL go to my school... what happens? They overpopulate the school, take resources that the parents who legitimately live there are paying for, and run up the class size so that my child's education is compromised (along with every other child in the class). Overpopulation forces the bussing out of children to other schools. Is that really fair to the kids who live in district? NO.

I have no sympathy for kids who are being brought into my schools by lying parents who are driving better cars than I am and wearing better clothes than my children. If they have that much money, they should move to my neighborhood and be in the school legally.

I have seen firsthand what this has done to our schools. We have to investigate if people are really living where they are, that's not cheap. I've seen firsthand what it's done by not only teaching, but by being a parent active in my school.

Again, unless you come study the system here, and see firsthand what abuse is going on, you have no right to judge anyone in my town.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... take resources that the parents who legitimately live there are paying for...

The only people who really "pay" for the school are property owners. Maybe we should expel kids whos parents rent.

[faith 0]

seriously, come live here for a month, and I'll show you proof. I'll give you the addresses of the bus stops. I can't show you the confidential reports that have been done for the schools proving that the majority (and I mean over 75%) of those kids actually DO NOT live in the disctict, but you'll have to take my word as a licensed PI on that one.

I'll take your word for it.

But now, let's get back to the original topic of this thread - joint families that do live together. Sounds to me like many of the 25% may fall into that category. Do you think it is wrong for a young child to live with his uncle or aunty in a nicer part of town, if the sole motive is to get a better education? Do you think the young child should be forced back to where he or she came from because the residence he or she occupies has exceeded some arbitrary "limit" (a limit created by the spoiled American middle class, may I remind you)?

hey, i'm all for someone going to live with someone else to better themselves. But I have a problem with overcrowding of houses. I just can't imagine how that can be healthy when the children do not have their own beds to sleep in or a place to do homework. If the house is clean, everyone has a place to sleep, and hte kids are showing no obvious signs of emotional or behavioral problems for it, then fine. I just know that our housing department is so lenient on the housing size. My smallest bedroom in my house is at MOST 5 feet by 8 feet. It's a TINY room. And it's rated for 2 people. So it's not like they are being stingy about it.

[pax 0]

I'm not disputing any of that, but you haven't answered my question. If there weren't something seriously wrong with the schools these children "should" be attending, why would their families be going to such lengths to get them somewhere else?

And how much suffering is okay? Particularly, how much suffering is acceptable for children who are already suffering the effects of decades of environmental damage (and "damage" is probably too mild a word), underemployment, and general civic neglect?

And in some effort to get this thread back where it belongs, how is it all right for the government to try to prevent families from living together based on size alone?

[faith 0]

... take resources that the parents who legitimately live there are paying for...

The only people who really "pay" for the school are property owners. Maybe we should expel kids whos parents rent.

You are still paying even when you rent. Your landlord who pays the taxes, passes the cost on to you in the form of rent.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I just can't imagine how that can be healthy when the children do not have their own beds to sleep in or a place to do homework. If the house is clean, everyone has a place to sleep, and hte kids are showing no obvious signs of emotional or behavioral problems for it, then fine. I just know that our housing department is so lenient on the housing size. My smallest bedroom in my house is at MOST 5 feet by 8 feet. It's a TINY room. And it's rated for 2 people. So it's not like they are being stingy about it.

Children having their own beds to sleep in? Geez.. if my parents generation in India had those requirements, my grandparents would have never been able to afford to have them go to school and get an education. Fact is they were poor and my father and all 8 of his siblings lived in "the city" with a relative and shared one room and went to school. They managed to fall asleep just fine and do their homework just fine. All of them managed to make successes of themselves.

The values you seem to have, that white middle class sense of right and wrong, is nothing more than a symptom of an incredibly spoiled and self-absorbed society. I'm sorry but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think a child is entitled to material comforts. I do think a child is entitled to a good education.

[faith 0]

I'm not disputing any of that, but you haven't answered my question. If there weren't something seriously wrong with the schools these children "should" be attending, why would their families be going to such lengths to get them somewhere else?

And how much suffering is okay? Particularly, how much suffering is acceptable for children who are already suffering the effects of decades of environmental damage (and "damage" is probably too mild a word), underemployment, and general civic neglect?

And in some effort to get this thread back where it belongs, how is it all right for the government to try to prevent families from living together based on size alone?

I said, why don't we fix their schools? How is that not answering the question? If their schools are so bad, why are they living there when some of the obviously have the means to move (see post about high priced cars and better clothing)?

You are acting as if I live in a gated community for Christ's sake. My kids are POOR kids. My school is a POOR school. We just happened to make sure that our staff is good enough to pull our academic rankings up to one of the best in the state.

I just can't imagine how that can be healthy when the children do not have their own beds to sleep in or a place to do homework. If the house is clean, everyone has a place to sleep, and hte kids are showing no obvious signs of emotional or behavioral problems for it, then fine. I just know that our housing department is so lenient on the housing size. My smallest bedroom in my house is at MOST 5 feet by 8 feet. It's a TINY room. And it's rated for 2 people. So it's not like they are being stingy about it.

Children having their own beds to sleep in? Geez.. if my parents generation in India had those requirements, my grandparents would have never been able to afford to have them go to school and get an education. Fact is they were poor and my father and all 8 of his siblings lived in "the city" with a relative and shared one room and went to school. They managed to fall asleep just fine and do their homework just fine. All of them managed to make successes of themselves.

The values you seem to have, that white middle class sense of right and wrong, is nothing more than a symptom of an incredibly spoiled and self-absorbed society. I'm sorry but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think a child is entitled to material comforts. I do think a child is entitled to a good education.

ahhh but there lies the rub. The state can come in and say that because your kid does not have a bed they are being neglected and thus terminates your parental rights.

[faith 0]

**when I say poor - i mean relatively speaking to the median income of our town **

[pax 0]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree, too. It's too easy to say "Well, they should fix their own schools" when businesses in the area, for example, have avoided paying property taxes for decades and when, due to environmental damage, the properties in which families themselves live (if they actually own the properties and pay taxes on them) have so little property value that tax revenues are insufficient to say the least.

You're basically asking a problem to fix itself, and for children to suffer in the meantime, so that middle-class white families can continue to enjoy "their" schools. We can't continue to pass the buck on this problem forever.

Back to topic, I guess.