Let us all understand this. The 50 states maintain that we have to educate our children, and that for a parent to condone a child's continued truancy is a punishable offense. Whereas the Supreme Court holds that if a child cannot afford to get to school, said child does not have to be educated (Part 1, June 25).
It would appear that the court has adopted the Reagan principle that there is no real poverty in this country, and poor people are poor because they want to be poor. The court is obviously not interested in having the Kadrmas child well-educated in order to have her mature into a productive citizen.
School busing costs should be paid for from the tax basis that supports the educational system as a whole, not directly from the pockets of those who are bused. It does not matter whether the bused students are rich or poor; busing is part of our educational system, and the expense should be met by the entire community.
I imagine that the truant officer in Dickinson, N.D., will be busy, checking every day to make sure the Kadrmas child is attending school. Perhaps that solves half of the problem; the truant officer can drive the child to school every day. Getting her home might be a different matter.