Massive College Scam and Bribery Sting...

[Big RR]

To show you how bad things have gotten, my two children were adopted abroad and their (NJ) birth certificates reflect that their birthplace was not in the US (although we are listed as parents). The school wanted me to submit proof of adoption (as I guess some people allow others to use their address for students who are not their children) and I refused saying the birth certificate was enough. it got to the point where the Board of Education was threatening to disenroll my children unless I provided it; I appeared at an executive session and told them they would have a big court fight on their hands if they did that, and suggested that their position may have been ethnically motivated since my children came from South America (this could have greatly expanded the scope of the injunction hearing and ultimate suit). They ultimately backed down.

FWIW, I thought I would have absolutely no problem winning a suit since I had proof via the birth certificate issued by the state that they were my children, but it was pretty infuriating that they thought they had the right to request the backup information--information which was absolutely none of their business BTW. Personally, I think it was part and parcel of a crackdown on people of Hispanic descent living in the few apartment complexes in town, since many of these would have extended families living with them. I think the idea was twofold, to screen out as many people who were not entitled to attend the school as possible, and to make it difficult for some of the rest (who usually did have larger families than the two kids most people in town had) in order to convince them to move rather than put up with the red tape.

[Guinevere]

In no way does manipulating the system to try and get your kid into a better public school than the one s/he is attending deserve to be punished criminally. That's horrifying.

Norwalk is just down the CT coast from Bridgeport, and better, but not even the best of the schools in the region. Just probably where kids from Bridgeport are less likely to stick out as out of place, and possibly get a better start in life.

Bridgeport School District is a public school district located in Bridgeport, CT. It has 21,040 students in grades PK, K-12 with a student-teacher ratio of 15 to 1. According to state test scores, 14% of students are at least proficient in math and 24% in reading.

Norwalk School District is an above average, public school district located in Norwalk, CT. It has 11,412 students in grades PK, K-12 with a student-teacher ratio of 17 to 1. According to state test scores, 38% of students are at least proficient in math and 50% in reading

.

[wesw]

laws only apply to little people....

[Big RR]

In no way does manipulating the system to try and get your kid into a better public school than the one s/he is attending deserve to be punished criminally. That's horrifying.

I can't argue with that; indeed, I fail to see what the crime is--misrepresentation? I concede it may be some actionable in a civil suit, but it's not like anyone is committing criminal perjury by putting the wrong address down on a school enrollment form. And it has happened for e very long time--remember A Tree Grows in Brooklyn? Rather than spending money to investigate and prosecute these people, why not use that money to get more parity among schools?

[Lord Jim]

a student-teacher ratio of 15 to 1. According to state test scores, 14% of students are at least proficient in math and 24% in reading.

Obviously there's more involved in producing acceptable educational outcomes than just having a low student-teacher ratio...

[Guinevere]

Ever been to Bridgeport?

[Long Run]

Bridgeport, California.

Bridgeport is in the Eastern Sierra Unified School District, which has its main office in town. An elementary school and a high school (Eastern Sierra Academy) are located in Bridgeport.

[Guinevere]

Not even close.

https://patch.com/connecticut/fairfield ... 4-are-ct-0

For Bridgeport, 1,431 violent crimes were reported, 4,464 property crimes, 11 murders, 116 rapes, 584 robberies, and 720 assaults in 2014. Bridgeport is considered safer than 14 percent of all U.S. cities.

The top five most dangerous communities in the U.S. are: Camden, N.J., Chester, Pa., Detroit, Mich., Saginaw, Mich., and Oakland, Calif.

Taking all available data, Neighborhood Scout applies a mathematical algorithm that estimates the total number of crimes and crime rates for each neighborhood, with nearly 90-percent accuracy.

"With this report on the most dangerous cities, what we're seeing is a really different picture of the types of locations that have the highest violent crime from what many people expect," said Andrew Schiller, CEO and founder of NeighborhoodScout. "The picture of violent crime in America in many people's minds is of high rise public housing projects, but once we did the analysis, we realized that the picture of violent crime in America is different today with more of the most dangerous areas dominated by single family homes, abandoned homes, low-income areas in inner-ring suburbs or decaying cities."

It's pretty hard to focus on school when you're not even sure you can get to school safely. So yeah, lots of things besides class size impact student outcomes. That doesn't mean smaller class sizes *doesn't* have a positive impact.

[RayThom]

Bridgeport, New Jersey

Bridgeport is an unincorporated community located within Logan Township, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, United States. The area is served as United States Postal Service ZIP Code 08014. At the 2010 United States Census, the population for ZIP Code Tabulation Area 08014 was 504."

Bridgeport (foreground) is the town where the airport I learned to fly was located -- now abandoned. (sigh!)

[Econoline]

(much like when I see Jim Wrong being quoted) my first move will be to fact check...

Fact check this:

• "Donald Trump is the Ted Nugent of Presidents."

[rubato]

Jim Wright appears to yet again be well-informed.


yrs,
rubato

[Burning Petard]

Or Lord Jim could fact-check another lefty blogger, Paul Krugman. I am guessing the LJ's default position is that Krugman is also always wrong Krugman's column in the NY Times today is about POTUS' recent remarks about his wonderful trade agreement with England, which he is about to announce.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/06/opin ... e=Homepage

"Now, my experience in dealing with U.S. conservatives on health care issues is that they simply refuse to believe that other countries’ systems work better than our own. Their ideology says that the private sector is always better than government, and this trumps any and all evidence."

Of course, that is just the latest data point in Krugman's argument that conservative politicians are ideologues that never let reality or previous position statements get in the way of current pronouncements.

But back to the original thrust of this thread. It is a long-standing axiom of liberal democracies that education is the best social investment and individually it is the best route to a better way of life. That still forms part of the philosophical background for American Racism. So education MUST be provided only in an inferior quality to 'inferior races' lest they not stay in their inferior place.

My 'faith tradition' likes to sing a hymn with words by Shirley Erena Murray that begins 'For everyone born, a place at the table. . . ' and when ever I sing it my mind echoes with the internal thought bubble 'and your place is back by the bathrooms, behind the column where we cannot see you'. The hash words in the epistle of James, chapter 2 verses 1 to 4 seem to apply to all Christian organizations.

snailgate

[Lord Jim]

I am guessing the LJ's default position is that Krugman is also always wrong

Not always...

You know, blind pig/acorn...

Krugman is just a shameless political hack whose views are of no more weight to me than Rush Limbaugh's...

As for Mr. Wrong, he's always better off when he's expressing his opinion, rather than asserting check-able historical or contemporary matters of fact, with which I have seen (and demonstrated on this board) he frequently has a fraught relationship...

(Not surprising you would miss that rube; since as I have proven here time and time again you have a similar fraught relationship... )

[Burning Petard]

Well, I do think Rush was selling some nice 'designer' ties back when I was listening to him on the evening drive time radio. Can't say the same thing about POTUS and his family enterprises. Never been in any casino; never tried his steak. But I was in Trump Tower once, about 15 years ago. I rode the elescalator to the mezzanine shops and walked around. I remember a men's clothing store with an electric green suit in the window. It brought to mind a mens' fashion guru I paid attention to in my youth who said "every man needs to have one green suit--once."

I tend to like Krugman and Jim Wright and totally discount anything by POTUS, Sean Hannity, or Rush. This probably defines my personal bias.

snailgate.

[Long Run]

Different angle on the college scam:

Parents Are Giving Up Custody of Their Kids to Get Need-Based College Financial Aid
First, parents turn over guardianship of their teenagers to a friend or relative. Then the student declares financial independence to qualify for tuition aid and scholarships.

by Jodi S. Cohen and Melissa Sanchez July 29, 4:07 p.m. CDT

Dozens of suburban Chicago families, perhaps many more, have been exploiting a legal loophole to win their children need-based college financial aid and scholarships they would not otherwise receive, court records and interviews show.

Coming months after the national “Varsity Blues” college admissions scandal, this tactic also appears to involve families attempting to gain an advantage in an increasingly competitive and expensive college admissions system.

Parents are giving up legal guardianship of their children during their junior or senior year in high school to someone else — a friend, aunt, cousin or grandparent. The guardianship status then allows the students to declare themselves financially independent of their families so they can qualify for federal, state and university aid, a ProPublica Illinois investigation found.

“It’s a scam,” said Andy Borst, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Wealthy families are manipulating the financial aid process to be eligible for financial aid they would not be otherwise eligible for. They are taking away opportunities from families that really need it.”

While ProPublica Illinois uncovered this practice in north suburban Lake County, where almost four dozen such guardianships were filed in the past 18 months, similar petitions have been filed in at least five other counties and the practice may be happening throughout the country. ProPublica Illinois is still investigating.

Borst said he first became suspicious when a high school counselor from an affluent Chicago suburb called him about a year ago to ask why a particular student had been invited to an orientation program for low-income students. Borst checked the student’s financial aid application and saw she had obtained a legal guardian, making her eligible to qualify for financial aid independently.

The University of Illinois has since identified 14 applicants who did the same: three who just completed their freshman year and 11 who plan to enroll this fall, Borst said.
ProPublica Illinois found more than 40 guardianship cases fitting this profile filed between January 2018 and June 2019 in the Chicago suburbs of Lake County alone. The parents involved in these cases include lawyers, a doctor and an assistant schools superintendent, as well as insurance and real estate agents. A number of the children are high-achieving scholars, athletes and musicians who attend or have been accepted to a range of universities, from large public institutions, including the University of Wisconsin, the University of Missouri and Indiana University, to smaller private colleges.

more at: https://www.propublica.org/article/univ ... n-students

[BoSoxGal]

Absolute scumbags - period.

[Big RR]

I am surprised the courts would be complicit in this; from what the article says, the courts have to rule the guardianship is in the child's best interest. I don't think it beyond the power of the court to rule that granting a guardianship to game the college aid system would not be in a child's best interests because of what it is teaching the child.

The other thing I was surprised by is the changes in the ability to declare financial independence even if the parents do not support or contribute to college costs. For a number of reasons my parents did/could not contribute significantly to my college, but made enough to keep me out of eligibility for a lot of financial aid. After my first year I declared financial independence and became eligible for federal and state aid (including loans)--my first year was financed by some scholarship money and savings I had; I had to keep a separate residence from them and there were other regulations, but in a world where parents cannot be compelled to pay for college (except in certain divorce contexts), it is unfair to penalize the student whose parents will not help with the expenses, IMHO.

[Scooter]

Yeah, I'm not getting what rationale could be being used that would satisfy a court to remove a child from the parents' custody and award guardianship to a more distant relative or friend, without perpetrating an outright fraud on the court, which should be prosecuted.

I wouldn't want the rules to be so tight that they exclude kids who legitimately cannot rely on their parents for financial help (I remember a few of my classmates who were gay and whose parents had cut them off for that reason, who weren't eligible for financial aid for the first two years in which they had to demonstrate their "financial independence"). But even a cursory investigation should have been able to root out most of these claims as bogus.

[Econoline]

Just curious... can a court actually force parents who can afford to send their kids to college to pay for the expense if they just don't want to spend the money?

[Big RR]

I am not sure, but in my state (NJ) I have only seen it in connection with a divorce. As I understand the reasoning, the court can force the parents to pay because it believes (or surmises) that the parents would pay if there were no divorce.

ETA: I do recall a case about 5 years back when a 17 year old girl got into a fight with her parents (over a boyfriend) and left home; she sued to get them to pay for her private high school costs and the court refused to grant that relief; many commentators said it might well have had a different result if the parents were divorced. As I recall, she returned home without any conditions.