Poll: Ohio mom jailed for sending kids to a better school district. Your thoughts?

[Zechnophobe]

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

This post is bad and you should feel bad.

It is the DUTY of the citizens to challenge, and even ignore, 'bad laws'.
The government isn't perfect and many laws are passed out of brown-nosing and law makers being full-on-retarded.

And it is the duty of the person challenging those laws to accept the punishment until it is changed. Any activist knows you cannot complain about the punishment. It is the law you are fighting against NOT the result of said law.

No, fuck you. If the law said "Kill all niggers" and you knew it was wrong, would you follow it? What if it was "Kill all women"? I know this is extreme, but this is how it is. The law is not "be all & end all". If the law is wrong, then it should be broken. Because by adhering to an unjust law you are being unjust, and that is doing wrong to yourself or others, and "because it's the law" is not a good enough reason to do that. "Every immoral law must be disobeyed" (Jack Kervorkian), because if you follow an immoral law, YOU are being immoral. YOU are screwing people over because some arbitrary list of rules tells you to, and do you know what that makes you? A fucking sheep

Settle down there bud, it isn't that black and white. Simply going against a law because it is immoral isn't necessarily the best way to achieve morality. Afterall, you aren't helping all those who are still being forced to follow it. Activism is a much better way to go about it.

Even then, are you sure this is as Immoral as it looks? Consider:

But it wasn't her Akron district of residence, so her children were ineligible to attend school there, even though her father lived within the district's boundaries.

The only tie she had with that district was that HER father lived there. Not, like, the father of the children.

She 'lives part-time with her dad'. I'm not even sure what that means. Sometimes she visits? Does she *HAVE* a residence there, or doesn't she?

Now go back and read the rest of the article. If this is moral, than there should be a moral reason why this is okay. There isn't any real rationale for why this needed to happen for her. What is the big moral obligation that she should be allowed to jump districts? It isn't like they were getting bullied overly much, or something. She just wanted them to go to a better school.

 

[thedeathscythe]

I think she was legally in the wrong, but morally, her heart was in the right place. That still doesn't justify it though, if she wanted to her kids to go to school in that school district, she should have tried to move to that district.

 

[Trolldor]

legally it was wrong, but morally, she was in the right.

Was she not also stopping other children, whose parents weren't breaking the law, from getting into the school? Is she really morally right here?

Yes. Her obligation is to her own children, not to somebody else's.

 

[mklnjbh]

She avoided taxes, so what she did is illegal. Would I have done the same for my children, no I wouldn't, but I understand her motives.

 

[XenonZaleo]

I don't know what to say exactly... First, I'd like to make sure if I got this straight: In USA, if you live in certain places, you can't go to certain schools, even if you drive yourself/your kids there? Or get there by public transport, or taxi, anyway, even if transport is not the issue? Are there extra taxes for people that live too far from the school? These taxes are paid TO the school?

If you live in the US the public school you attend is assigned by the location where you live. You cannot attend a public school other than the one you are assigned to (in most places). If you don't want your child to go to the assigned school, you either have to fork up the money to send them to private school or homeschool them. Transportation is not the issue

How... intriguing... Why is that? If transport is nor the issue, then why does it matter where people live? Probably the answer to those questions will be the taxes issue, but I still don't get it... unless the neighborhood is responsible for paying the schools. If it's the city, then it shouldn't matter where people live, if they live in the same city, right?

PS: Hum... I wonder if THIS should be a topic of its own.

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with this. There is only a limited number of resources to educate the children with. Each school district recieves money based upon the number of students that are within its district. This number also determines needs such as expansions for the school and how many desks to buy and teachers to hire. It is impossible for everyone to go to one school, or at least without significant determine to their education (400 person elementary school classrooms?), therefore the students MUST be broken up into smaller segments. Region is one of the most logical distinction.

Really. Quite. Simple.

 

[bob1052]

She doesn't live in the district, and therefore doesn't pay taxes toward that school. She has no right to enroll her children there.

Actually, the father of her daughter lives in the district where he daughter "illegally" went to school. I'm surprised that Mrs. Williams-Bolar's lawyer didn't argue that due to one of the child's parent, if not guardian, lived in that district then the child should have the option of attending that district's schools.

I really hope her father is not the father of her daughter. You should probably read the article again.

If she wants to get them into a better school, move somewhere so that you can.

Do more research before posting such uniformed statements. Kelley Williams-Bolar is working as a teacher's aide. She was taking courses to become a teacher. So you think someone with a job that is horrifically underpaid, while spending money to gain teacher certification, can afford to live in an expensive community?

I never made any reference to whether she could afford it. Do more understanding of a single sentence. If she wants her kid to go to that school, move somewhere so she can pay for her kid to go there, if she can't, then she shouldn't send her kid there.

My sister did EXACTLY what this situation did. My sister lived with me mother, as I did, and she attended school in a neighboring community, where my father lived. Amusingly enough, she received a great elementary education in a great charter school in a community which is a LOWER MEAN PROPERTY VALUE than the community she grew up in.

Funny thing is, I'm white, as is my sister, and we were never investigated over where my sister attended school. Race and class are huge factors at play here.

Or maybe, its just that your sister had a taxpaying legal guardian living in the district of the school. This isn't proof of "oh white people get treated so good and black people get pissed on by the state", this is just you trying to blame anyone except the person you feel you can relate to even the slightest, regardless of how wrong they are.

 

[aPod]

Of course, the one time somebody tries to screw the system to do something GOOD they get the book thrown at them.

My mom works as a secretary at an elementary school. There was once a mother whose two children were on reduced lunches (in other words, they pay much less for lunches). It is to help alleviate the cost for low-income families.

Get this: the woman drove a Hummer. She ran a beauty school in town. She had money to burn. However, she was separated from her husband, who had a very low paying job. So when filling out the paperwork whenever she registered her children, she would put his income down, not hers. So she got to enjoy the benefit of reduced lunches while she picked up her kids in her Hummer and driving them around town, advertising her successful school with all of the custom stickers and decals it was decked out with. Aren't people just wonderful creatures?

That's the beauty of welfare systems. Even though they are meant for the needy the greedy always find a way in.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I don't know what to say exactly... First, I'd like to make sure if I got this straight: In USA, if you live in certain places, you can't go to certain schools, even if you drive yourself/your kids there? Or get there by public transport, or taxi, anyway, even if transport is not the issue? Are there extra taxes for people that live too far from the school? These taxes are paid TO the school?

If you live in the US the public school you attend is assigned by the location where you live. You cannot attend a public school other than the one you are assigned to (in most places). If you don't want your child to go to the assigned school, you either have to fork up the money to send them to private school or homeschool them. Transportation is not the issue

How... intriguing... Why is that? If transport is nor the issue, then why does it matter where people live? Probably the answer to those questions will be the taxes issue, but I still don't get it... unless the neighborhood is responsible for paying the schools. If it's the city, then it shouldn't matter where people live, if they live in the same city, right?

PS: Hum... I wonder if THIS should be a topic of its own.

Honestly i really don't understand the rule, and it seems pretty stupid to me. It should be changed. IMHO there's no reason why a student should be shackled to single school, especially based on location. Parents should at least be given the OPTION to transfer their kids.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

She should have the option of opting into whatever tax bracket they're paying that makes the district so prestigous, I'm sure she'd have consented. These "make an example of" sentences are a mockery to justice, I utterly despise them, they're unfair and illogical. They do it all the time when they catch petty pirates, completely devestating their lives by making them financially crippled and still have to face obscene jail sentences. It doesn't work, it just makes people angry, and be more likely to spur potential perpetrators in an attempt. If you kill people who shoplift, the people rebel, shoplifting would be an epidemic. The only means to quell that is militant oppression and that's not very "American" now is it?

She should have been punished appropriately, then as I said, given the option of paying into the higher tax. In a perfect world education would not be constricted by economic background. I was pleased to see the likes of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are priced along side the smallest universities in the country, to encourage academic achievement to take precidence.

Jail should also be reserved for crimes which warrant you be confined, crimes which imprisonment would benefit the likelihood of rehabilitation. Could get into a petty drugs debate here... won't.

 

[Rayansaki]

My mother did the exact same thing back when I went to a new high school after moving, she used a friend's residency to get me into a better school.
Don't think it's illegal here tho.

 

[Amaury_games]

If you live in the US the public school you attend is assigned by the location where you live. You cannot attend a public school other than the one you are assigned to (in most places). If you don't want your child to go to the assigned school, you either have to fork up the money to send them to private school or homeschool them. Transportation is not the issue

How... intriguing... Why is that? If transport is nor the issue, then why does it matter where people live? Probably the answer to those questions will be the taxes issue, but I still don't get it... unless the neighborhood is responsible for paying the schools. If it's the city, then it shouldn't matter where people live, if they live in the same city, right?

PS: Hum... I wonder if THIS should be a topic of its own.

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with this. There is only a limited number of resources to educate the children with. Each school district recieves money based upon the number of students that are within its district. This number also determines needs such as expansions for the school and how many desks to buy and teachers to hire. It is impossible for everyone to go to one school, or at least without significant determine to their education (400 person elementary school classrooms?), therefore the students MUST be broken up into smaller segments. Region is one of the most logical distinction.

Really. Quite. Simple.

Right. I understood the relevance of this law. Do you know if there can be exceptions? Could this mom have talked to (or still talk to) someone in order to make a deal so her children could study in another school? If the big deal is because the money that is distributed to the schools count only the people that live in the area, couldn't there be an annotation that said that a certain number of people from certain areas are studying in schools of other areas? Are there precedents for discussions like this?

 

[kannibus]

Wow, America seems to have a royally boned up education system.

Uh, I suppose if I was in a similar situation I'd do the same thing. What I'm not getting is why they're concerned about "the money needs to stay with our students" and other stuff like that. Isn't it all going to the Feds anyway?

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Wow is that a messed up system, are we sliding back into the middle ages where only the rich would get an education...?

We would have had to have gone forward for us to be 'sliding back' no?

This is how it works and this is how it has pretty much always been here - hell before they standardized the school system requirements it was even worse. Of course, that was over 100 years ago... so... yeah, need an update that's worth a damn.

She was in the wrong in a system that is itself deeply flawed and morally wrong. The solution isn't to circumvent the system that is oppressing you, but to change it for the better. That's a lot harder than faking some paperwork, but that's what ultimately needs to happen.

 

[Amaury_games]

She should have the option of opting into whatever tax bracket they're paying that makes the district so prestigous, I'm sure she'd have consented. These "make an example of" sentences are a mockery to justice, I utterly despise them, they're unfair and illogical. They do it all the time when they catch petty pirates, completely devestating their lives by making them financially crippled and still have to face obscene jail sentences. It doesn't work, it just makes people angry, and be more likely to spur potential perpetrators in an attempt. If you kill people who shoplift, the people rebel, shoplifting would be an epidemic. The only means to quell that is militant oppression and that's not very "American" now is it?

She should have been punished appropriately, then as I said, given the option of paying into the higher tax. In a perfect world education would not be constricted by economic background. I was pleased to see the likes of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are priced along side the smallest universities in the country, to encourage academic achievement to take precedence.

Jail should also be reserved for crimes which warrant you be confined, crimes which imprisonment would benefit the likelihood of rehabilitation. Could get into a petty drugs debate here... won't.

I also thought it was really weird that she went to jail for this. I think it's a punishment more severe than it should be (probably her lawyer was pretty bad), and now that you mentioned it, making some people an example by punishing them harder than the usual really seems to be a very bad idea. Now the prosecutor and the school have made more damage than she would have done if her kids have continued studying in that school, don't you agree?

 

[Dags90]

Right. I understood the relevance of this law. Do you know if there can be exceptions? Could this mom have talked to (or still talk to) someone in order to make a deal so her children could study in another school? If the big deal is because the money that is distributed to the schools count only the people that live in the area, couldn't there be an annotation that said that a certain number of people from certain areas are studying in schools of other areas? Are there precedents for discussions like this?

School funding is based on "districts", sometimes it'll be one town that has its own district, sometimes one city will have multiple districts. The funding from school districts is based on property values. She may have been able to make arrangements with the school, but some form of out of pocket tuition would be involved, as if it were a private school.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Wow, America seems to have a royally boned up education system.

Uh, I suppose if I was in a similar situation I'd do the same thing. What I'm not getting is why they're concerned about "the money needs to stay with our students" and other stuff like that. Isn't it all going to the Feds anyway?

Short answer is: No, the money does not go to the Feds, nor do the Feds *directly* fund schools. The Federal Government does give money to schools, particularly those that do extremely well or extremely poorly, but schools are the responsibility of the State Government and rely on State Funds, which are collected from residents in various districts unevenly. Tax rates - especially sales tax rates - vary widely through a state; property taxes are also widely varied from district to district - typically called counties. Each county has different districts within itself, which divide up what children go where to school and how much funding a school receives is directly linked to what taxes that county brings in and how they divide those taxes amongst their schools.

It's royally unfair in many ways. Economic class determines where you can afford to live, and where your children will go to school - where you live determines how good your school is. The poor have shit schools and the wealthy have excellent schools is the result. Now, you can look and see that there are offsets in place. For example, new teachers are encouraged to teach in low income school districts by the Federal government 'forgiving' their student loans if they do so for a certain period of time - and new teachers often have the newest knowledges and techniques for teaching... but they lack experience so that's a mixed bag. Many die-hard educators will go to 'bad' schools and try to reform them for love of what they do, but their ability to make an impact is limited by the almighty dollar...

It's a clusterfuck to be honest, and I'm in college to be an educator one day so... yay. /head>> desk.

 

[Liquid Ocelot]

Wow, for the first time in.. Well, not a very long time, I am happy to live in Canada. We can go to whatever school we want to. That's.. That's just stupid that you have to go to schools based on residency. Absolute.. Idiocy.

 

[TehCookie]

I have to say I do think it was wrong of her. My school is tiny and also the best public school in the area. If the school allowed everyone who wanted to come there wouldn't be enough room for all the extra students, and that's not even involving taxes. It even had a program where a certain number of kids outside the district could come in if we had room, but a lot of kids were declined from a lack of space.

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Yeah, she's definitely in the wrong.

In a time of economic hardship, she leached off a better system without paying the taxes. Those taxes were meant for other people's kids entitled to that education. Do their children not also deserve the best possible education? My school system was one of the better ones in the state, and the classrooms were overcrowded because people not living in the area did this same thing. It degrades the overall quality of education for everyone else.

Education for everyone is a great idea, but education will never be free. In the US, everyone in the district pitches in for their kids.