Okay, this is really ugly:
Connecticut authorities have filed theft charges against Tanya McDowell, a homeless woman, alleging that she used a false address to enroll her son in a higher-income school district, The Stamford Advocate reports. If she's convicted, McDowell may end up in jail for as many as 20 years and pay a $15,000 fine for the crime.
McDowell is a homeless single mother from Bridgeport who used to work in food services, is now at the center of one of the very few false address cases in the Norwalk, CT, school district that is being handled in criminal court--rather than between the parent and school. Authorities are accusing McDowell of enrolling her 5-year-old son in nearby Norwalk schools by using the address of a friend. (Her friend has also been evicted from public housing for letting McDowell use her address.)
One of the unspoken stories of the recession is that many working class people who were just scraping by have ended up homeless after they lose their jobs. Now, apparently, even an attempt to get their child into a good school when they have no permanent address is... a criminal activity that can get two decades in prison (while it's doubtful McDowell will get the full brunt, for comparison, the average sentence for rape is 5-11 years).
Not only that, but her friend, still hanging on to a place to live, gets evicted for trying to help her. When I first read this, I initially remembered English juries in early 1800s opting to convict someone who'd stolen a handkerchief of manslaughter, because the penalties were less. This is disgustingly disproportionate to the point of barbarism.
Another tidbit:
"I am surprised that this is the case [Norwalk officials] chose to make an example of," Norwalk attorney Michael Corsello told the Stamford-Advocate.
It's not surprising. McDowell is homeless, so she has no resources to fight this, and given the amount of people in similar spots, the school district wants to maintain its high-income nature and discourage more of this sort of entry in the bluntest way possible. Add to that the general public stigma attached to homelessness, and McDowell makes an easy target.
At the root of the word "privilege" isn't the academic wibbling it's often buried in, but a more simplistically brutal observation. Privilege means "private law." For McDowell or her friend, there is one law, harshly enforced; witness the possible sentence, the fine, and eviction for what is, at worst, a minor fraud.
But let's take a much wealthier family who lives just down the road, and also wants to get into Norwalk's school district. Like McDowell, the written rules don't allow this, but it's more likely they'll know a sympathetic administrator or school board member who will find some exemption. If they don't have such contacts, they are far more likely to have the time and resources to make an introduction convincing one of the above people that their child deserves special treatment.
Even if their attempts fail, it's likely the school will simply say "no, you can't come" and that will be the end of it. There will be no criminal investigation, and prison is out of the question. If, for some reason, this family's attempt backfires badly enough to reach the public eye, it lacks the visceral backlash appeal of "homeless sneaking into our schools!" Their attempt to get a better education for their child might even attract some sympathy.
They are far too expensive to make an example of. For all practical purposes, that family lives under a different law. Meanwhile, the poor will always be with you, and suffer what they cannot avoid.
Comments