Today, the Greater Danbury Hispanic Center of Danbury and Congressman Chris Murphy will be sponsoring a holiday coat drive at the Burlington Coat Factory, 1 Padanaram Road.
Via Congressman Murphy's office:
This Saturday, donate a coat at the “Warm Coats + Warm Hearts” drive at Burlington Coat Factory in Danbury and receive 10% off your purchase. Coats for children and adults are needed, and all donated items should be clean and in good condition.
Bring your coat down to the North Street plaza from 11:30am to 12:30 pm!
The State Board of Education is considering four proposals that would overhaul the law governing charter schools, including one that would shift the cost of tuition to local school systems.
The most controversial proposal essentially would require towns to pay tuition for students attending the state's 18 charter schools. Now, the state pays $9,300 for each child attending a charter school. Under the new plan, cities and towns would pay for each local student who goes to a charter school.
The theory is that the towns would use money from state education cost-sharing grants to help pay for charter school tuition. Rather than pay for the child to attend a local school, the money would "follow the child" to the charter school.
Advocates say that plan would put charter schools on equal financial footing with traditional schools because charters are now given less money, on average, per student.
Critics, however, say the change would drain money from local school districts, which must still pay for buildings, salaries and other fixed costs.
Michael Sharpe, president of the Connecticut Charter School Network, said he was pleased the state board was tackling the issue and trying to devise an equitable way to pay for charter schools.
But Janet Finneran, vice chairwoman of the state board, said such a formula would be so costly in her hometown of Bethany that it would be detrimental to the rest of the school system. If, for example, 10 Bethany students attended a charter school, the town would have to pay about $100,000 under the new formula. That is about 1 percent of Bethany's entire school budget, she said.
"That would mean the rest of the schools would suffer for it," she said. "We would have to cut staff and increase class sizes. I just think that's unacceptable."
Mark Waxenberg, director of government relations for the Connecticut Education Association, the state teachers union, called the cost-shifting proposals unrealistic and irresponsible.
Waxenberg said shifting the fiscal responsibility for charter schools to the towns would create financial hardships for local districts. The 22 towns that send more than 10 students to charter schools would pay anywhere from $66,242 in Montville to as much as $3.7 million in New Haven, he said.
"We cannot expect to place the lion's share of responsibility for charters on the shoulders of local taxpayers," Waxenberg said.
As the city starts to draft the 2010 budget, this latest proposal from the State Board of Education could have a detrimental impact on the city's budget, which could lead to tax increases or a decrease in services.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.