Mom Jailed For Falsifying Address To Send Kids To Better School District

jailedschool

(ABC)

An Ohio mom has been convicted and sent to jail for lying about her address so she could send her daughters to a better neighboring school district. School officials said she was cheating the system by having her daughters receive an education she hadn’t paid the taxes for. “Those dollars need to stay home with our students,” said school officials. To snare her, the school hired a private investigator, who videotaped her driving the children into the district.

They confronted her with the video tape and demanded that she pay $30,000 in back tuition. She refused and they pressed charges. She was sentenced last week to 10 days in jail, three years of probation, and additional community service.

The school district admitted they wanted to make an example of her. Presiding Judge Patricia Cosgrove said, “I felt that some punishment or deterrent was needed for other individuals who might think to defraud the various school districts.”

Ohio Mom Jailed for Sending Kids to Better School District [ABC News]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. FatLynn says:

    This is why education needs to be funded through some source other than property taxes.

    • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

      Property taxes represent only a portion of funds – the rest comes from the state and some from the feds. Hear the outrage when the state gov’t cuts its education budget.

    • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

      You mean like lotteries?

      • Necoras says:

        No, like vouchers. Make school property taxes a statewide standard percentage (instead of county or district as they are now). The parent then has the option of taking that money to whatever school they choose, or keeping some percentage of it if they home school while applying the rest to home school group programs. This gives parents the option of simply going to the closest schools, or driving to the best.

        Yes, that makes some taxes go up and some go down. Yes, this means that some crappy schools will go broke and close (that’s a good thing) and some teachers will then lose their jobs. Good ones will find jobs at good schools, bad ones shouldn’t have been teaching in the first place. Yes this means that some people will game the system and “home school” their kids while simply pocketing the money and not teaching their kids. That’s what standardized tests and random inspections are for.

        Are there issues with vouchers? Yes. Are they a better solution than what we have now? Yes.

        • PunditGuy says:

          No. Vouchers make no sense. That money doesn’t belong to parents magically because they have a school-aged kid. Everybody pays property taxes. Unless you’re going to give all property tax payers the option of sending their money to the school of their choice, nobody should have that option.

          • jesirose says:

            So why does the property taxes of a childless neighbors magically belong to the family next door with 6 kids?

            “Unless you’re going to give all property tax payers the option of sending their money to the school of their choice, nobody should have that option.” Great idea. Maybe if you don’t pick where it goes, it goes local. If you want to send it somewhere else, regardless of whether or not you have kids, it goes there.

            • PunditGuy says:

              It doesn’t belong to the family next door. It belongs to the school system. We all benefit from an educated populace, and we all sacrifice to make that happen. Socialistic, I know.

              • jesirose says:

                Right, but why shouldn’t they be allowed to decide which school system it goes to, especially when so many of the school systems are so awful?

                • longfeltwant says:

                  I’ve only thought about it for a moment, but the plain answer is “because administrators know where the money should go better than you do”.

                • Spider Jerusalem says:

                  Because not all schools have the capacity to take “whoever wants to go there”. The local “good” schools only fit about 600 students at a time, and are surrounded by much, MUCH bigger districts. San Marino High School cannot support the entirety of Rosemead, Temple City, Pasadena, El Monte, and San Gabriel’s populations, just because some —hat decided that letting parents do “whatever” they want was better than fixing what was broken in the school systems.

        • absherlock says:

          What about states like Pennsylvania and California where the cost of living and property values can differ drastically depending upon the part of the state? Wouldn’t that put those districts with the higher COL or where the cost to build a school is higher at a disadvantage?

          • Firethorn says:

            The military already handles much of this sort of thing with how they vary BAH(Basic Allowance for Housing) rates. I’ll note that standard utility costs are even included. It’s done on a city by city basis.

            You could do that with schools – just do a mix of residential/business costs for the area.

        • NurseTimLPN says:

          Michigan shifted school funding from property taxes to an increased state sales tax in 1994, which acts like a voucher since schools get paid per pupil. This is turn lets schools participate in Schools of Choice, which lets students transfer into a different school if a school participates and has open slots.

          • Billy says:

            I spoke to a friend of mine from Michigan about this. Apparently the voucher program in Michigan has not done much to help the students. It’s brought down the integrity of previously-good schools as the wealthy turn to private schools. The poorly-performing schools remain poorly-performing.

        • MeowMaximus says:

          +1000!

        • Billy says:

          Something I’ve never understood about voucher initiatives is this: What happens when everyone in an area only wants to go to one or two of the good schools? When those popular schools fill up, doesn’t everyone else just have to choose between crappier schools? How does that fix the situation?

          I realize that eventually there might be private schools that pop up to satisfy the demand, but those take years to develop, no? What are we all supposed to do in the meantime?

    • np206100 says:

      This has been ruled unconstitutional 4 times by the Ohio Supreme Court and changes have been proposed but not implemented.

      • dpeters11 says:

        I remember that was a big thing with Strickland, to change it. Guess now we have to rely on Kasich.

    • Powerlurker says:

      Whatever problems schools in the US have, funding is pretty low on the list. The district she sent her kids to spends less per student than the district she lived in at $9,478 in Copely versus $12,695 for Akron (sources: http://www.copley-fairlawn.org/19541032914213543/lib/19541032914213543/_files/Assumptions_for_5_year_forecast_October_2010.pdf and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akron_Public_Schools)

    • Griking says:

      You mean like the parents?

    • jesusofcool says:

      THANK YOU! YES! Because of the way we currently fund it, the education we give our children fluctuates extremely depending on the property values in which they live. In other words, the rich get better educated (and better able to become richer) – and the poor get screwed.
      If I were god of US government, state property taxes would be uniformly spread out amongst schools – every student in the state would be allotted the same dollar amount.

      • td45 says:

        so wealth redistribution?

        • jesusofcool says:

          When it comes to publicly funded programs, call me a socialist, but yes. I strongly believe that everyone deserves the same opportunities in life and that the current system benefits the rich but does not benefit our society as a whole in the long run.
          …and right about now is the point where Glenn Beck is probably going to find and kill me in my sleep.

          • 99 1/2 Days says:

            Socialism sounds great (to some) but it is unsupportable in the long run. Ask Europe how it’s working for them.

        • jesusofcool says:

          I should mention that I grew up in a struggling school district in Connecticut with high poverty levels, despite being surrounded by some of the richest towns and most well-funded school systems in the country with high Ivy League acceptance rates, so yeah, I’m a little biased on this issue.

    • mcgyver210 says:

      It is also funded sometimes thru Personalty Taxes assessed on every business not just property taxes. For years I have paid for schools thru Property & Business taxes (on my business) & my kid has never gone to one day of public school. I wonder what the government does with all the funds not being used by students not even going to their failing schools not to mention the fact that many adults that have never had kids pay also?

      If Government is speaking they are BS-ing you.

    • kujospam says:

      Well, Ohio courts have already said that it is illegal to fund schools through the use of property taxes, but nothing has changed. Go figure.

  2. not-gonna-tell-ya says:

    vouchers

    • captadam says:

      No.

      Vouchers further the disparity. They divert funds from the schools that need them the most and subsidize private education for those who can afford the full tuition. Often, those who might be most interested in moving their kids to private schools cannot afford the difference between the voucher and the tuition, anyway.

      • Necoras says:

        No, vouchers cause schools that aren’t doing their jobs to close. That’s a good thing. It’s called consumer choice (something that’s usually big on this site). Vouchers can be used just as well at a public or charter school as they can at a private one. Education is the only service we base solely on where you live. As a government service it’s also one of the few that function as a near monopoly. It’s a stupid system and it should be fixed. Vouchers are a step in the right direction.

        • saifrc says:

          What about fire, police and emergency medical? Those are also services that you pay for based solely on where you live. Yet we wouldn’t want to privatize our police.

          Everyone deserves a good education, like everyone deserves a basic level of personal security. This is why we can’t leave it up to a market that allows only those with the means to get access to the best education — only those with the means to cover the difference between the value of vouchers and the actual cost of tuition. We should be fixing our school funding system in other ways. (I don’t completely disagree with you on the teacher/school quality issues, however.)

          • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

            BS. complete and utter BS. Money is not the problem in the public school system. If it were then Catholic schools would be in the gutter. Study after study has shown that public schools spend more money per child than private schools, yet are consistently ranked lower in academics than private schools. You can’t keep throwing money at a problem that doesn’t involve money.

            • Gramin says:

              Agreed. It’s the teachers… or rather, lack of a teachers’ union in the private education system that allows those schools to outperform their public counterparts.

              This damn funding debate drives me crazy. Eliminate the unions… that’s the fix we need right now.

              • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                2 more LARGE factors are:

                1)Discipline. Teachers have largely been stripped of their ability to maintain good order and discipline (sorry I stole that from my military days ). The result is a chaotic classroom to which the teacher has no contol over.

                2) Parents. Large swaths of parents have abdicated the raising of their children to the schools. The same schools that (because of point 1) can’t raise their children. In my case, if I werent working with one of my kids, he would be in serious trouble education wise. He just needs extra help.
                Part of the issue is parents are bad, part is that parents are stretched to the limit to just provide for their family and part is the broken family aspect. Absent mother or father which is much higher in the inner cities than in the burbs. Parents need to step up and help their children succeed instead of complaining about the system.

                • theycallmeGinger says:

                  Having many friends who are teachers in inner cities, as well as suburban and rural locations, your assessment is right on the money.

                • Powerlurker says:

                  3. Private schools are full of the children of parents who send their kids to private schools.

                  4. Private schools are full of children that private schools choose to admit. They can kick out students they don’t want.

                  Selection effects are huge in education and very hard to deconvolve from school performance.

            • PunditGuy says:

              Catholic schools don’t have to educate anyone they don’t want to. Public schools don’t have that luxury. Make Catholic schools take all comers and we’ll see how cheap and effective they are.

              • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                wrong. If you are a paying customer, and follow the guidelines setup by the institution, they won’t turn you away unless they are at capacity. The problem is that a large portion of folks can’t follow the guidelines. Additionally the private system allows for something that the public does not. The tenant that not everybody in life is going to get a trophy at the end of the game. Everyone isn’t smart. The private system can mold to that mentality and tier the education to that. If you have underperforming kids, then they get a specialized classroom that is geared toward their learning capabilities. The public system is a one size fits all solution that negatively affects overperformers and underperformers by treating them as average.

                • PunditGuy says:

                  From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/22/AR2010022204798.html):

                  “Federal law requires that public schools offer a free, appropriate education for students with disabilities, and federal and state governments subsidize the higher costs of smaller classes and extra resources. Catholic schools have no such legal mandate, and financial constraints have historically made it difficult for them to offer similar specialized services.”

                  To their credit, this story was about how Catholic schools are increasing their capacity to handle special-needs children — but make no mistake, they are under no obligation to do so. Until they are, it’s apples and oranges.

                  Oh, and the “tenet” you mention is very much alive at public schools. I’ve argued with my wife (13-year classroom veteran) and her teacher friends that we’re not meeting the needs of kids in public school precisely because we’re treating them all as snowflakes, which is too expensive a notion to maintain.

            • Me - now with more humidity says:

              BS backatcha. Money can be a problem. Here, schools have to use the money for its purpose as it was originally requested how ever many budgets ago. Let’s say our district filed for construction funding several years ago. It finally gets approved. The district decides they really can’t support a new school now. The money MUST BE returned to the state. It cannot go into any other budget in the district. And per pupil funding is determined based on the number of kids in a specific school on the week of the standardized tests. If you get more students than expected the next year, tough. Say 30 kids suddenly appear from a military base expansion. Class size rules say you have to have two new teachers for that. And the classroom space or temp buildings. But you have to slash something else, because your budget for the year is based on the lower number of kids from last year.

          • Necoras says:

            I’m not advocating that we switch to an entirely private based school system. Public schools are necessary and they can do great things. The problem is that a lot of public schools are just plain bad. If this wasn’t an issue then people wouldn’t move their entire life 4 miles down the road just to get into a different school. Who would pay tens of thousands of dollars to get a new house, and a new mortgage, and move all of their stuff if there wasn’t a problem with the schools near them?

            Parents should be allowed to look at *all* of the schools around them, public, private, charter, or home schooling, and make a choice based on which schools are doing well. They should then be allowed to pick which school they want their child and tax dollars to go to. If they want to drive their kid 20 miles every morning and afternoon to get to school, then they should be allowed to do it. Some public schools will shut down because they’re doing a bad job. Some private or charter schools would too as the quality of public schools rose.

            The goal is to allow choice, not to force all public schools to shut down.

          • VeganPixels says:

            Um, plenty of people would like to privatize your police. And your firefighters, your paramedics, your librarians, your teachers, and every otherwise public service and utility entity or individual. They’re usually found standing in a circle around somebody with the last name “Paul,” fumbling with their zippers.

          • arcticJKL says:

            Whoa! Maybe everyone should have an opportunity for a good education but no one deserves any education. And certainly not a good one.

        • Kman says:

          You don’t need vouchers, the choice already exists: Move to the school district you want.

        • Kate says:

          Private schools just leech the good students off a school district. The problem is usually the student population, not the school. In a bad district with plenty of drug addicted parents and gangs, the students act out and create a dangerous atmosphere. Vouchers would just create pockets of hell for the students who couldn’t afford to bus out to a better school.

          • Chanakin says:

            Private schools do NOT leech the good students.

            Parents with lots of money normally put their kids in private schools. It doesn’t reflect the kids with good behavior, more intelligence, or anything else like that. My mom wanted all of us in private schools, but she couldn’t afford it. I graduated valedictorian and didn’t cause any trouble in school.

            I like the idea of vouchers. It’d make it a little more possible for those middle-class or lower-class parents who have bright children or children deserving of a better education than the horrible school systems some areas offer to send them to a place that gave them a chance.

  3. George4478 says:

    I wonder how they arrived at $30,000. That’s a lot of years of property tax, if it were my house.

    • obits3 says:

      I was thinking that too. Must be a rich area.

      • kkevin6154 says:

        Copley has some very high property taxes. I would say the average is between $6,000 & $7000 a year. What this story fails to mention is she was using her fathers address whom lives in the district and pays the same amount of property taxes regardless on if her children were living with him officially or not.

        • joako says:

          What the hell? The father has no childern attending school, is forced to pay taxes to fund schools and is prohibited from taking advantage of his tax dollars??

          Now even more I agree that people should be responsible to pay for their own education — I shouldn’t be responsible to pay for someone else’s education.

          Also this screens race card. I doubt it would have happened to white people. what a shame.

      • euroae says:

        It’s 30,000$ in back tuition, in the article she saids she started sending them to that school 4 years ago. So, the tuition rate seems to be 7500$ a year.

    • jiarby says:

      school districts have “out of boundary” tuition rates… she probably also could have applied for a boundary exception.

      Lying, Stealing, & Cheating are not good qualities to role model for your kids… do whatever youhave to do to get what you want? Come on!

      If you want to go to school there she should move there.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        My g/f is a teacher in an inner-city school (well, inner-city for Denver). She sees firsthand how the vast majority of parents simply do not care about their children’s education. And it ruins it for the rest of them because those children act out and disrupt learning for the entire class.

        Not approving of this mother’s methods, but at least she cared enough to try to give her children the best. She’s a good mom, even if her methods were less than desirable.

        • JennQPublic says:

          I bet she felt like she didn’t have any other options to get her kids a better education. And she likely didn’t.

          I completely forgive her underhanded methods simply because I love to see a parents who really, truly CARES about their kid’s education, instead of just using school as a free day care.

      • Me - now with more humidity says:

        In our district, you just file a form with the district to move your kid to a new school. It’s rarely turned down. And if your kid is at a “F” school, you get to choose which magnet program to transfer your kid to.

      • OutPastPluto says:

        This is merely a manifestation of genuine “family values”. Whether or not you choose to elevate or denigrate such a thing is an exercise for the reader.

    • nbs2 says:

      A lot of districts place a value on tuition that is not in line with what the county spends per child. I just saw a press release from our county touting itself as the number 4 county in the state for best education per dollar. Of course, we were one of the lowest spend per child counties in the state, so I suspect that a lot of kids here are getting the shaft.

      I’m going to echo the voucher crowd. Without them, we’ve already made plans to move next summer before the oldest starts kindergarten. We’d love to stay in our community, but the schools aren’t worth it. I know we aren’t the only ones to do this, and it has led to depressed values in our part of town and a slow decay of the area. At least with vouchers, the money that local businesses make on our spend would be here rather the next town over.

    • Gramin says:

      It’s not just property taxes; that figure also includes government funding, which is a large chunk of all education funding.

      • quail says:

        Actually the school’s federal funding is based on the kids who attend on a daily basis. It’s not figured on by where the kid actually lives. It’s one of the reasons why schools are tyrannical about not closing for any reason if it can be helped at all. In our area they’d rather have a 2 hr delay due to snow (they still get federal $$ for the day) than to close completely. In this current economy our school has stayed open on days that they would have shut down in better economic times.

      • George4478 says:

        In my school district, the government funding is based on headcount, so the school would get the government funding for her children since they were part of the school’s attendance figures.

      • hmburgers says:

        “It’s not just property taxes; that figure also includes government funding, which is a large chunk of all education funding.”

        …money which the school WAS getting because those funds are distributed based on enrolled students… they WERE enrolled, so they WERE getting that money.

        The fact is that the school district wasn’t out ANY money at all and the entire concern over money is completely BOGUS.

        The only possibly money lost to the district is based on census data and property taxes… since her father lived within the area HIS property taxes, as they were paid, would have covered her children being in the school district had they lived with him full time…

        In essence this is a NET ZERO to the district… yes, they had add’l students, however their budgets and money allocated is based on enrollment… it has ZERO to do with whether the people actually live and pay taxes within the district…

        THAT SAID, on a large level, yes, the property tax payers within a given area do fund the schools, so for the system to work properly the theory is that the children of the local payers go to the local schools… but since local payers pay NO MORE or NO LESS based on children that may or may not be going to school there is no theft occurring.

        I’m disgusted that they’d ARREST her over this… it’s absolutely ridiculous.

    • Necoras says:

      My guess is that’s calculated off of the dollar per child per year rate, not the property taxes paid rate. I have no kids in the school system (yet), but I still pay several thousand dollars a year in property taxes. They want her to pay for the services used, not what she would have paid for those services had she lived in the correct district.

    • Griking says:

      I bet that a lot of people would be willing to trade an education for 10 days in jail, three years of probation, and additional community service. She got off easy IMO.

    • Maximus Pectoralis says:

      I don’t know about Ohio but in NJ, urban inner-city education costs typically range from $22,000-24,000 per year per student.

      The failure / dropout rate is upwards of 50%.

      In my town, a typical middle-class suburban community, education costs are around $14,000 and the dropout / failure rate is under 3%.

      Apparently throwing money at the problem doesn’t work.

  4. slim150 says:

    I love the consumerist, mostly. But the last few day seems like you go to drudgereport and look at their stories and publish them here the NEXT day.

    • dragonfire81 says:

      It’s been more than just the last few days unfortunately. There’s been some quality slippage here for awhile that’s gone continually unaddressed (at least by way of any comments or posts) by those in charge of the site.

      • dwtomek says:

        Maybe they are teaching us a lesson about consumer choice that we are failing to catch. We complain, yet we keep coming back for more. Why should they change when we have not made it necessary for them to change?

    • theyoungandthebetrayed says:

      I was waiting until Friday’s open thread to say just that. Lately it seems like I’ve already read most the stories a day or two earlier on traditional media sites.

    • bravo369 says:

      I’ve been thinking that as well lately about Consumerist. This site used to be all customer related tales in which people gave advice and even companies joined to solve a problem. I got comcast to solve a problem after comcastcares responded to one of my comments. Now it’s all stuff I already read on CNN.com, nydailynews.com, msnbc, slashdot. etc. Consumerist needs to stop rehashing stories and go back to user submitted tales of woes.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      This story is all the over the internet and news channels like CNN. It is about controlling cost and consumer choice vs entitlement.

  5. FireJayPa says:

    This is just another prime example of the faults of the public school system.

    If it weren’t for teachers unions, there would be a higher standard in the education department and those teachers that fail to do anything would be fired. This woman, a bit misguided in her means, only wanted a better education for her child. However, due to tax laws she committed a crime.

    Is she guilty? Yes, without a doubt. However, I can see why she did what she did.

    This is one of those times that I’ll say we need a voucher system. Or my alternative solution, separating the wheat from the chaff early on. No child left behind has done nothing but drag down those students that wish to excel. AP Courses have lost their value….What a mess.

    • the Persistent Sound of Sensationalism says:

      What you say is very true. Lol @ AP. Most schools have dropped both AP and special education. Talk to a teacher who has to teach a special needs student with a full class. They should rename “No Child Left Behind” as “Drag Me to Hell”.

    • Tim says:

      Ah yes, blame the unions! Unions are ruining our country, aren’t they. How dare they demand fair treatment and acceptable working conditions.

      • slim150 says:

        actually they are pretty bad.

      • Gramin says:

        Fair treatment and acceptable working conditions? What have you been smoking!? They demand higher wages and bring factories and school districts to a stand-still when their demands aren’t met. In the industrial age, unions had a purpose. Today, most of them are worthless, especially teachers’ unions. They prevent school districts and administrators from bringing in and retaining the best talent; they make it nearly impossible to fire a teacher for sub-standard performance. Our education system is in shambles and the unions are making it impossible to fix.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          I don’t see how unions are the sole cause of problems here. You make it sound like a black and white solution to a multi-colored problem.

          There education system has many areas that need improving. Fixing one doesn’t magically fix the rest.

          • Gramin says:

            But fixing the issue that is a detriment to the single greatest factor in a child’s education (the teacher), will produce the greatest improvement.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Let’s mention briefly the other factors that ARE important, after the agreed upon most important teachers, shall we?

              - Good school facilities
              – Quality diet
              – Parental involvement
              – Wholesome learning environment
              – Home environment and family income
              – Access to learning materials at home
              – Proper textbooks
              – Proper education materials such as notebooks, pencils, etc.
              – Social interaction with other students
              – Access to drugs
              – Peer pressure
              – Proper physical education and well-being and being healthy
              – Etcetera

              So even if teachers are the MOST important factor, they still cap at like, what, 40%? And that’s being generous. And the percent that unions hurting teacher performance? Let’s say a whopping 30%, meaning 1/3 of all teachers are crap. At best, eliminating unions would produce a 12% improvement accross the board. Given the current state of things, 12% wouldn’t get us even close to what we need to be. Some schools have 3% proficiencies at math and science.

              Now let’s take a look at the rest of that list. Nearly, if not all, of these factors can be improved through one of two things. Parental involvement, and school funding. Few of them are improved by better teachers.

              • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

                Access to drugs. I always had access to drugs. But, that was the ’70s.

              • Hobz says:

                Even a 1% improvement is an improvement. Don’t you think we need to take what we can get. I agree that unions are not the sole reason for the decline of the educational system in our country. But I do see them as part of the problem.

                I certainly don’t think that teachers are in the same boat as they were when the unions were first voted in. As with most industries, I don’t think unions are really necessary any longer and add overhead and red tape. I wonder what could be done if unions weren’t part of the equation?

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  Of course 1% is better than 0%, but let’s focus on the areas that are the bigger problems.

                  Funding will have a more dramatic effect that removing unions. Teachers unions don’t mean a majority of teachers are bad, just a small percentage. Removing them probably wouldn’t have a 30% improvement, probably 5-10%. That’s a paltry 4% improvement overall based on my numbers. Funding will have a much larger effect.

              • eccsame says:

                12%, you say? Not a bad start.
                How about the unions leave the schools for awhile and help a group like part-time retail salespeople.

                Oh, wait – they wouldn’t do that. It wouldn’t be lucrative.

      • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

        I’d agree with you, but the fact is the only unions left with are the ones that aren’t really doing any good for workers and the nation as a whole. There’s few union representing workers at the bottom rungs of the pay scale, (fast food workers, factory workers, service sector workers) but plenty of powerful unions for well paid and benefited athletes, actors, writers, and government employees. And they only care about protecting seniority, not good workers.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          A bad union is one what is a nationalized union who focus on their national agenda instead of your individual location.

          A teacher’s union is a good one, because they literally cover only one single school district. The problems are local, the solutions are local, and they only help local teachers.

          • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

            “They only help local teachers”. You hit the nail on the head. The union is there for the benefit of the teacher, not the benefit of the childs education. Maybe we should start a students union that can hold their local school system to account for the lousy education they are providing.

      • ReaperRob says:

        The teachers union in Alabama is so powerful, the school districts have to close schools to get rid of bad teachers.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      Ah, yes, those evil, evil unions. Those same evil unions that provided legal representation, research and support for my mother, the disabled children she taught and the parents of those children when her school tried to take them out of the specially-built classroom she’d raised grant money to build and move them into an inaccessible temporary building. Yes, unions certainly do nothing but encourage laziness and poor standards of teaching and clearly they are to blame for everything!

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Any and every teacher that you talk to will say the problem is two things:

      1) Lack of funds for the students, not the teacher
      2) Lack of parental involvement

      I will try to be polite and simply say, your opinion is based on a personal view which hasn’t encountered any form of personal investigation or 3rd-party journalism, and thus you are in no way a subject-matter expert or even a casual observer.

      In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Gramin says:

        And the research shows that the single most important factor in a student’s education is the quality of the teacher. Unions prevent quality teachers from being hired. Restrictive contracts don’t allow administrators to seek out and acquire the best and brightest. Perhaps you have no clue what you’re talking about… just a thought…

        http://www.tntp.org

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          That a panacea to a huge funding issue. Funding allows a teacher to spend time with a student instead of corraling 50. A fantastic teacher doesn’t do squat when there is no funding to give the kids pencils and books and a proper lunch.

          And a great teacher doesn’t stop their parents from not making them do homework, beating them or not being there at all to help.

          Ignorant….

          • Gramin says:

            Still wrong. Not all districts need more funding, they just need better use of the funding. Most students have the necessary supplies and teachers are more than willing to teach in inner-city, under-funded districts. Unfortunately, due to large and complex HR policies (created by unions), these schools are unable to get the best teachers. So they hire an unqualified teacher. And he/she has poor performance. And due to the unions, yet again, the district can’t fire the poor performing teacher.

            And while parents are clearly an important part of a child’s life, as it relates to education, the teacher matters most. Students can overcome a lack of parental involvement re: education; they cannot overcome a poor quality teacher.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              If you want the ability to fire a poor performing teacher, do what other states are doing, and make a state law.

              don’t blame the union on that one. It’s completely within the states legal rights to enact such a law. And I support that law myself, as long as the method of determine performance makes sense.

              Standardized testing doesn’t accurately represent teacher performance. In fact, many believe that having to teach for standarized tests actually diminishes teacher performance.

              • Gramin says:

                1. I didn’t mention standardized tests and I don’t agree with the frequent use of them. You can judge teachers based on other criteria.

                2. Unfortunately, several teacher unions are large and powerful lobbying organizations with strong ties to state legislators. Enacting such legislation is much harder than it appears. I’m all for such laws, but unions need to go. They provide zero benefit to the quality of our education system.

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  They aren’t necessarily there for the quality of the education system. They are apart of the education system. So instead of complaining about how unions are destroying America, why don’t you offer solutions to the Education System itself?

                  Perhaps say “hire quality workers” instead of complaining about the poor workers you hired. Teachers aren’t automatically tenured, they have several years to prove they are a quality teacher. So maybe you need to complain about the vetting process of incoming teachers?

                  • Gramin says:

                    What don’t you understand about the unions? They prevent school districts, especially larger ones, from hiring the most qualified teachers and removing the under performing teachers. The contracts often require districts to accept transfers from inside the district before they can search for external candidates. Principals/administrators aren’t permitted from weighing the pros and cons of the candidates. They simply have no choice.

                    I’ve already proposed my solution several times. Elminate the unions and the restrictive contracts that prohibit administrators from hiring the best teachers. Furthermore, institute more aggressive evaluation practices on a twice a year rotation. Lastly, eliminate tenure.

                    Unfortunately, the unions are prohibiting the implementation of such policies. Unions must go.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      You already said that. Repeating yourself doesn’t make it more right.

          • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

            WOW. I live in a upper middle class district, and every year we buy ALL supplies for our child. Is my child getting a “better” education than I did when all of my supplies were paid for (minus kleenex)? Class sizes are the same as I had. So where’s the money going?
            And lunch? WTH? end the school lunch, breakfast and dinner programs. If the kids want to eat, I can introduce them to a PBJ, or Balogna sammy. This socialist experiment keeps festering in the school system.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              It’s clear you live apart from the overall education system, and don’t understand the plights of low-income districts. You’re not there in the trenches, so it’s okay. I understand. You don’t experience the social and economic issues plaguing the worst of us.

              I’m glad you live in good conditions.

              • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                So don’t address my points? Or better yet, you are claiming that another huge influx of money will fix the problem? How is the food in Oz?

              • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                how does more money fix things? The only uses of more money in a district that I have seen is to buy more expensive useless teaching tools like computerized whiteboards and computers, to pay teachers more money and to expand the administration base of said teachers.

                The educational process hasn’t changed in a thousand years. You take something a child doesn’t know and explain it to them, have them study it, and then test them on it. More money fits nowhere into that mold, execpt to pay the teacher more, or give them a 2,000 dollar replacement for a chalkboard and chalk.

                • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                  How good does a teacher need to be to teach children history and math without a textbook, at home. How expensive will that teacher be, to be able to give individualized learning?

                  Money = textbooks. Lots of money = personal tutor.

                  This is one of a thousand examples of why good teachers don’t solve the entire euqation of bad schools and bad budgets.

                • LandruBek says:

                  This seems like a question with an obvious answer: schools need money for lots of things.

                  You need money to keep the roof repaired, the windows glazed, the walls painted, the floor whole. You need to pay for electricity and heat in the winter. You need to keep the building and grounds clean. You need to buy sturdy little tables and chairs. The library needs books. Most of all, you need to pay for a big enough faculty to keep the class size small, or at least manageable.

                  Once you’ve done all that (assuming the kids aren’t hungry), you can use the millenia-old patterns of teaching and evaluating. But not until.

                  • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

                    I’ll answer yours and the post below at the same time. Those items you listed are not new expenses. Has the cost of repairing a roof went up? Sure, so has the price of mops, and a thousand other things that I didn’t list because I wasn’t going line by line in the budget to make my point. But, the price of these things has increased just as the taxed properties / and salaries where this budget comes from. Additionally the tax RATES have went up. So we pay more total in taxes now than in the 50’s which brings me back to the point of where are all of these NEW expenses going? But since you mentioned roof repairs and other expenses, I doubt there is still a mortgage on the land and building that houses most schools. that expense / bond went away or was paid off a long time ago. Where are the savings? Oh, in the pockets of the underfunded pensions and defined benefits packages.

                    • kujospam says:

                      Most schools never have mortgages to begin with unless if they are private. The problem is that things are more expensive then they were back in the 50’s. Not just because they are using the same things. They are not. They are using newer SAFER products. Also populations flux all the time, and when it goes down fast that is a major problem, same with it increasing fast, but that isn’t as big of a problem. Price increases are going way past inflation on some things. Text Books are a perfect example. The other things you are forgetting is that in the 50’s, your taxes were extremely high compared to today. Taxes back then was chump change. On the other hand, if you pay your schools through property taxes, not all of your property tax money goes to schools generally. Most districts it is around 50-60%.

                    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

                      Cost of facilities and other items have gone up while budgets have gone down. Down by a lot. Dating a teacher, and having many friends who went on to teaching, I keep hearing budget cuts every year. And then private organization like the Bill and Melinda Gates organization comes in with a grant to save jobs. So as it stands, Schools can’t even afford to have enough teachers for 30-student classrooms, it’s becoming fully sudsidized. Clearly, current tax levels do not sustain the education system.

        • Me - now with more humidity says:

          And other research (that I have personally been involved in) shows that parental involvement is the top factor.

      • Gramin says:

        Oh, and to reiterate, his assertions are based on research. Check out the link in my other reply. They are far from baseless.

        Ignorant…

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          You are right, they are not baseless. But I think the problems caused by funding issues are overshadowing any issues with poor teachers. It’s unlikely a student has a bad teacher in every class. More likely, a small percentage of students have a bad teacher, and only in one class.

          But the funding shortfall is so massive that at the moment it’s a much bigger concern that ensuring you hire the very best teacher ever.

          And I’ll reiterate that even the best teacher can’t overcome other factor diminishing the curriculum such as funding. Even the best teacher right now isn’t performing their best because they don’t have proper facilities and materials to teach. Awesome teachers don’t magically solve the equation.

      • FireJayPa says:

        Right because the teachers are going to be objective in their assumptions and opinions.

        Ignorant

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Wow. I mean, the addition of the “Ignorant” clearly means I must BE ignorant. You really got me there. I give up. You win.

          Ignorant.

          Oh shit, now what? Does this mean YOU are ignorant? Are we both ignorant? Crap, now who wins?

    • Tallanvor says:

      Yeah, those unions are horrible! How dare they fight to try and get decent pay for teachers, or get school districts to offer training programs to help teachers improve their skills. Or help ensure that a teacher with 30 years of experience got her proper level of disability retirement after she gets diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer’s and can’t work anymore. –The same teacher who used to be known for putting in 60+ hours per week teaching, grading, tutoring, and mentoring other teachers.

      Do we need to do something to help bad teachers improve or get out of the classroom? Of course. But unions protect and fight for many great teachers who would otherwise get screwed time and time again by idiot lawmakers who don’t know jack about education.

      • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

        straw man! I’ll use one too. Unions have lead to the ability of the standard teacher or administrator to work their 20, collect full pension and then start the next day at the same school, similar posistion making the same money, effectively collecting 2 checks. Not a bad deal considering NO one in the private sector gets such perks. The only problem is that it is UNSUSTAINABLE. pension systems are underfunded by a gargantuan amount. The only way out of it is to re-write the book on their employment bene’s or raise taxes.

        • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

          Sounds like you have a problem with YOUR school district. Not every district in the country runs like that.

          Anecdotal evidence /= statistical data.

          • longfeltwant says:

            Mine sure does. Can you name one that doesn’t work like that?

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Mine. I personally know teachers in several districts. You cannot gain pension in a district you work in. Also, 20 years may be the minimum for pension, but it’s paltry at the minimum. 30- and 40-year veterans get a livable pension.

          • not-gonna-tell-ya says:

            Thanks for pointing out what I said in the first sentence of my post. They used a straw man, and I used one too. That was the point of my post.

    • Suburban Idiot says:

      We have plenty of failing schools and, presumably, bad teachers here in Texas even without strong teachers unions (the Texas teachers unions are essentially lobbying organizations. They don’t collectively bargain teacher contracts, and there are no real civil service protections for teachers. Their employment is, effectively, at will).

    • ARP says:

      Vouchers would only magnify the disparity in our education system. Rich kids go to good schools because they can afford it. Poor kids stay with other poor kids (with no role models) and get bad teachers, etc.

      Unions aren’t the only ones to blame (although they share SOME of it). I work in a school where the history text book ends with the Vietnam War. They can’t take them home because they’re worried they won’t be returned. Class sizes are in the upper 30’s. There is no money for extra-curricular activities, all must be self-funded. That’s not a union problem, that’s a money problem.

    • LHH says:

      Actually if you check to see what the top 10 school districts have in common you will see, Teachers Union. The lowest top ten? No Teachers Union.

      Not saying that they are without fault but they are necessary.

      • shadowhh says:

        in the US?

        I would love to see where you got that data from.

        • Papa Bear says:

          Bureau of Labor Statistics and personal knowledge from lifetime friends who are retired or soon to be retired teachers. Also, school districts must publish their salaries and benefit plans so the information is not hard to find.

          Everybody claims teachers are underpaid, but they can never come up with the numbers to prove it. One local news article a couple of years back by a teachers’ union rep complained that auto mechanics made more money than the average teacher. When all was said and done, the figure for mechanics that was being stated was for ASE master techs who have on average 20 plus years’ experience, the equivalent of 150 credit hours of school, have passed six very tough comprehensive exams, work year-around, must re-certify every couple of years and need to supply tools of the trade often valued in excess of $50k. BTW, their money is based upon performance and work done. Poor quality, minimal work equals lower pay while teachers get paid regardless and are rarely fired for poor performance. Not only did the teachers’ union rep apologize in a later article, she stated that after review of the many statistics she received, it appeared that her research was faulty and that she misunderstood the level of education and skill required to earn the wages of an ASE master tech.

      • Papa Bear says:

        I’m a strong union person but unions in schools have too much power and your statement is BS!!!! The City of Kenosha, WI once had the third highest rated schools for its class city in the whole country. Since the union has gained strength after a strike several years ago, the KUSD does not even get in the top 100! Same goes for Racine, WI, which was consistently tied with Kenosha. Now the State has threatened to take over some of the schools.

        My kids attended school on Millard, NE, an Omaha suburb for a year when I was transferred there. Union, yes. Strong, not really. Schools – FRIKKIN’ AWESOME!!!! In Kenosha the rest of the time – worthless!

        Now let’s look to the argument that teachers’ salaries and pensions are paltry. In many instances they may well be because of the higher COL in their district. But on a national average, teachers’ household income exceeds non-teacher income by around $20k per year. Pensions are not much different than many others except those in government positions, as a matter of fact, most teachers retire at about 70 to 80% of their annual salary if they stay on to full retirement. I know people who have retired from major corporations and only have $1200/month pensions while I know teachers with pensions in excess of $50k per year from a 181 day a year job!

        There are teachers who are underpaid and work some mighty crappy conditions, but this is not the norm, it is the exception. We have been brainwashed by mass media and the teachers’ union to believe a bunch of hype which just isn’t true.

  6. obits3 says:

    After seeing the amount of property taxes I pay to my independent school district (I don’t even have kids!), I don’t really feel bad for this woman. You get what you pay for. If you want a better education for your kids then move to a better area and pay the HIGHER taxes (put up or shut up).

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      I just don’t see why it’s ethical to vary quality of the compulsory* education your children receive based on how much you spent on your house.

      *Voluntarily paying more for better (private/parochial) schools is a different animal

      • captadam says:

        It’s not fair to kids. Education expenditures should be equal statewide.

        • absherlock says:

          But what if the costs aren’t the same statewide? The cost of living is a heck of a lot higher in Philadelphia than it is in Altoona, so why should the schools in Altoona be paid as much to educate a kid?

          Further, not all kids start school at the same level, so spending equal amounts (all other things being equal) isn’t going to necessarily garner equal results. Generally, spending a $100 to educate a kindergartener who went to pre-school, eats three squares a day and lives in a stable environment is going to give a lot more bang for the buck than spending that same amount to educate a kid who’s never been in a classroom, comes to school hungry and lives in a house with no books.

    • Pax says:

      And if she cannot afford to live in that area? Perhaps she cannot afford to buy one of the homes there, and there simply aren’t any rental properties available?

      I agree with the first commentor to this story: education needs to be funded by a means OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES.

      Children should not have the quality of their public-school education, determined by the financial means of their parents, or even, their grandparents. Public schools, no matter where in teh nation they are, should all offer the same quality and quantity of service. Period.

      • obits3 says:

        This is really a question of government scope. For example, you would agree that people is different countries get different educations due to funding differences, right? But I don’t see [a lot of] people saying that we should just pool the money from every country and divide by the number of kids. Now, lets change the scale, shall we?

        Change “world” to USA and change countries to states. We could go further:

        Change “world” to state and countries to counties/independent school districts.

        At what level do we want equality? This is the whole debate. Right now, we seem to have a hybrid system where there is a base line of funds given out and ISD’s can do MORE than the base line through taxes.

    • goodfellow_puck says:

      Actually, her father did live in the district, and she and the kids sometimes lived with him. So they were actually getting property taxes from her family.

    • sixsevenco says:

      Maybe you should move to an area where you pay less taxes. Put up or shut up.

      • obits3 says:

        I like my high taxes because they = better schools and less crime in the area. I think this is best explained from a children’s story:

        http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/

        Parent 1: Who will help me pay for this awesome school?

        Parent 2: Not I!

        [After school is built and established]

        Parent 1: Who will send their kids to this awesome school?

        Parent 2: I will!

        Note: The woman’s kids in this consumerist story should go to the good schools due to the taxes paid by the father. My point with the hen story is more general.

        • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

          Once again, tax base is a factor in the overall amount raised in taxes. 2% in one district may equal 4% in another. You can talk about rates all you want. Schools aren’t built and maintained on rates, they’re built and maintained hard funds.

          • obits3 says:

            “You can talk about rates all you want.”

            I did not say anything about rates. I said that if you spend more money, you get better stuff. I like what I would call “safety net capitalism.” We should have a base level that is equal for many things (like food and education), BUT also allow people to choose to put more resources into certain things.

            You might say “Just sent your kids to private school!” but there is a problem:

            Private school = private school tuition + the taxes that you already have to pay!
            Current System = Everyone in the area pays a little higher taxes to get a better school. Also, the whole community benefits, you can plan ahead through school bonds.

            • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

              I did not say anything about rates. I said that if you spend more money, you get better stuff.

              And I’m telling you that not every district inherently has more money. The question is whether the money is there to spend. People still pay regular taxes and still need to eat and pay power and heating bills. Unless you’ve discovered some magical way to eat textbooks. You could raise the rate, get a diminishing return (in some neighborhoods property assessments are still plummeting) and the school is still underfunded at the end of the day. Or, even when the property value is stable, there’s a limit to how much you can raise the rate before it becomes an unreasonable burden. You can say “mo’ money mo stuff” all day long. The money still has to come from somewhere.

              • AwesomeJerkface says:

                Crazy!

                So you’re saying if, for instance,

                Joe in Cook County: home = $100,000 / tax = 10%
                Sam in Lake County: home = $1,000,000 / tax = 1%

                That Sam pays more money because the value of his home earns his county more tax money!? No f-ing way.

                So some neighborhoods are subsequently reduced to poorer schools because they simply don’t have the revenue?

  7. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    “school officials said she was cheating because her daughters received a quality education without paying taxes to fund it.”
    That’s a nice admission of what’s wrong with public education in the US. Some kids get a quality education and some don’t.

    • obits3 says:

      That is how the US works, for example:

      Some kids get better food for dinner, some don’t.
      Some kids get new clothes every year, some don’t.
      Some kids get good parents who act financially responsible, some don’t.
      Some kids get regular medical care, some don’t.
      Some kids get free money for being poor, others get money from rich parents, and many have to be slaves to student loans.
      Should we strive to give everyone a basic level of these things? Yes.
      BUT, that does not mean that everyone gets the same stuff. If a school district wants to raise taxes and get better teachers and stuff (that the residents pay for, by the way), then that school district should be able to do that.
      Everyone should eat but that doesn’t mean that everyone gets a steak dinner.

      • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

        There’s an inherent limit to how much your tax base can raise. It’s not as simple as, “Hey! Let’s tack on 2%!” It’s 2% of something, and depending on where you live, it may not be that much. That the quality of your education is dependent on the wealth of your neighbors is twisted. Your apologism for that twisted system is based on a bizarre form of logic where opportunities are equal and we don’t actually need to hire people to clean toilets and polish belt buckles. There will always be people in lower status positions because there will always be lower status positions. I don’t want to get into the whole political economy thing because frankly your head would explode and mine would hurt, but I would point out that making upward mobility dependent on wealth is essentially ensuring there is no such thing as upward mobility.

        • obits3 says:

          “That the quality of your education is dependent on the wealth of your neighbors is twisted.”

          Why is that so twisted? I think there should be a base line PLUS whatever the ISD wants to add to the pile. I guess it really depends on how you see individuality versus the family unit.

          Full Individuality “Fairness”: You start with the same EVERTHING (Food, Shelter, Education, etc…) and do with it what you will.

          Family Unit “Fairness”: You start better or worse based on the collective accomplishments of your family line.

          I don’t like either extreme.

          • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

            Right, it’s extreme to refuse to burden children with any consequences that they’ve had no responsibility for.

            • obits3 says:

              It is ALSO wrong to burden other people with consequences that they’ve had no responsibility for [e.g. someone else's children].

              Please consider ALL the issues. Let’s say that the system was perfectly fair (as a group, everyone gets the same funding and teachers). What do we do when little Johnny’s mom spends more money so he can do a better diorama?

              Do we take money from Johnny’s mom to give to Suzy?

              BUT WAIT! What if I told you that Suzy’s mom spent more money on a good looking dress! Do you see how it is hard to say what is “fair”?

              This is why base line + extra funds makes sense.

              Or I guess we could just ban dioramas…

  8. Reading_Comprehension says:

    If she had someone who could’ve stayed home with them, there is free online public school available to Ohio (and many other states) residents, fully accredited:

    http://www.connectionsacademy.com/ohio-school/home.aspx

    • homer2324 says:

      to do that, she needs:

      1. computers
      2. internet access
      3. a person who does not have to work, while having the educational background, to look after & administer the material to the children FULL-TIME
      4. make a living by working

      i wonder why she didn’t do what you have suggested.

  9. aweirdguy says:

    Wow so she “stole” $30k in tuition, which she actually paid to another district with her taxes. Depending on how you do the math, I suppose the school came up short. On the other hand, I’m curious what it cost the school to hire the PI, the county to prosecute this case, and the jail to feed and shelter her for 10 days. I suspect it would be way over the cost of teaching her kid for another couple years. This sounds like a bit of an overreaction, maybe it would have been easier just to kick the kid back into the correct school and move on with life….

    • Necoras says:

      She used $30K worth of services from district A. She paid say $5k in taxes to district B (pulling that number out of my butt). District A does not get to send a check to district B for $30K and then have district B charge the woman. So, district A demands the full amount. Seems fair to me. (The math, not the whole educational payment system.)

      • Skyhawk says:

        So, what about her father, who has no kids, yet pays taxes to fund the school in his district?

        If she is guilty of theft, by having her kids go to that school, is the town guilty of theft for charging the father money to fund the school, in which he has no kids?

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      I thought I saw where the investigation cost 6K, but even if they double that to get something when you received nothing isn’t bad. I think it was CNN yesterday had the school officials on and said she was basically the only one out all the people they caught that wouldn’t come to somekind of agreement/settlement.

      This happens where I live to. The city parents sneak their kids in for school. It burdens the local tax payers many of which are retired Over the last decade local taxes went from around 3k to 6k. If your retired or even working I doubt most people’s income doubled.

  10. Hi_Hello says:

    10 days aint bad. I’ll do it too if I was in her situation.

    vouchers program would be awesome but A LOT of school would be in trouble if that happen nation wide…

    whole school system is whack.

    • Geekybiker says:

      I’m not entirely sure vouchers would stop things like this unless public schools were forced to charge a flat rate and not allowed to preference in-district students. The “good” school would still fill up. Poor people still couldn’t afford the difference between a good school and their district school.

    • msbask says:

      I’m with you. If the district I was living in was that bad, and my kids got a quality education by going to another, I’d do 10 days in prison for them.

    • P41 says:

      Except it’s recorded as a felony conviction, so now the mom won’t be able to get a job as a teacher that she’s currently studying, and it will be a black mark for many other jobs as well. A life sentence of living in a ghetto is a little harsh for sending the kids to the schools of their father’s address.

  11. dadelus says:

    Hmmm… I wonder what the statute of limitations is on something like this.

    • Thalia says:

      Probably varies between 2 and 4 years, since it’s considered fraud.

      I’m surprised that no one has brought up the “she was made an example of” and “let’s keep the ghetto out of our schools” issue. Look at the comments at the original newspaper site, and you’ll find tons of comments about keeping “those people” out of “our” good schools.

  12. jiarby says:

    This happens ALOT in every school district. Anyone wonder how Hamilton HS in Chandler AZ has all the best football players in the area?? Parents are shipping them there specifically to play football at this school so they can improve their chances of being seen by a college scout. The difference is that they do it in cahoots with the school officials (or they look the other way)

    If the chess prodigy tried the same thing he would get the same treatment as this woman.

    • misslisa says:

      Funny you should mention that – I live in Sun Lakes, a retirement community in the Chandler Zip code, where children are legally barred from living. Yet I pay property taxes to fund the Chandler school district, despite not being allowed to have any children of mine attend there (if I had any). If I could, I’d invite this lady to come to Chandler and let her kids use my share of what I’ve been paying all these years.

  13. Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

    So, it’s okay for the government to force busing children to another better/ worse school/ district in the name of “integration” and “equality”‘ but it’s not okay for the parent to do the same?

    Funny thing is, in the 60’s or 70’s her kids would probably have been forced to attend the same school to meet their quotas.

    • Doubts42 says:

      that is the 2 wrongs to make a right argument.
      Bussing was a terrible solution to a bad problem. The fact that someone made that bad decision at one point does nothing to make what this lady did a good decision.

      • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

        In both cases it is a problem with an unequal system that is the heart of the problem. The fact I’m pointing out, is that neither of these “solutions” deals with the systematic problem of unequal funding across school systems, districts, states, and the nation. Why should someone get a better education because the live across an imaginary line, or because they live in Maryland and not Washington, DC?

    • Southern says:

      They’re called “Magnet Schools” in Texas, and they still do it every day.

    • longfeltwant says:

      Yes, of course. Public school attendance policy is set by the government, not by individuals. Individuals, however, and not the government, set attendance policy at private schools.

      I’m a bit surprised that you didn’t already know that. It’s really obvious, and no schools have ever been run any other way.

  14. Blueskylaw says:

    Although what she did was against the law, you have to admire her for taking the risks in order for her kids to get a better “quality” education.

    • radish01001 says:

      I definitely admire her for doing this, since my mom did the same exact thing. The district I was in would have had me going to a not-so-great high school where I knew no one. After reading this article I’m glad she never got caught.

      • joako says:

        Same here! But it was within the same district. Of course since we are white nobody got arrested.

        Our elementary school would bus us off 2 days a week to another school for a gifted program. They decided to stop this is start their own “gifted program” which was sub-par. So my mother lied, said I lived somewhere else and got me to attend the magnet school full time. And at the end of the day I lived closer to the 2nd school than the first!

  15. zigziggityzoo says:

    She didn’t falsify address. The grandfather had power of attorney over the kids, and they did indeed live with him for a portion of the time.

    Where will they stay while she’s in jail? With the grandfather.

    At least tell the whole story, Consumerist.

    • Awesome McAwesomeness says:

      How can they prosecute her then if he had power of attorney and they lived with him some of the time? That seems weird.

      • zigziggityzoo says:

        They can prosecute anything they’d like. Their argument was more persuasive than hers, probably due to poor representation.

    • George4478 says:

      Does power of attorney matter? He wasn’t their legal guardian, was he?

      You can give power of attorney to anyone just by signing the paperwork. That doesn’t mean he had any legal responsibility to provide anything for the kids.

      In my family, for example, my wife and I went on vacation for 2 weeks without our young kids. We gave power of attorney to my mother-in-law in case they needed medical care, etc. It did not mean they were suddenly residents of her county and had to attend those schools, etc.

      • zigziggityzoo says:

        The lawful method to “take up residence” is to physically live someplace.

        They live there for part of the time, meaning they have residence there. It does not matter whether the grandfather is the legal guardian in a case concerning residency.

        If the problem was that the individuals didn’t reside there more than X% of the time, then there’s a case. Otherwise, there isn’t one.

        • absherlock says:

          She lived in subsidised housing in Akron based on her children also residing there. She was either gaming Akron or gaming Copely-Fairlawn and it was the latter that opted to prosecute first. Had it been Akron jailing her for her theft by deception rather than C-F, would there be as much of an uproar? I think not.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      The private investigators followed her taking her kids to school from her home and picking them up back to her home. Grandfathers address doesn’t mean squat. She tried claiming part-time residence at her fathers because of a break in or something-more lies.

      I think the grandfather was prosecuted as well.

  16. RubyRedJess says:

    “Well, then she should move into a better neighborhood”… that is so stupid. Gee, do you think they don’t want to? They cannot afford to move into a “decent neighborhood.” Hell, I CAN’T and I don’t have kids.

    Why do the children of wealthy (or upper-middle class) families deserve a better education than kids born into poverty or the working class? Regardless of their financial class, these children are the future leaders of our country. We owe it to them to give all of them the same, fair shot at success.

    • Doubts42 says:

      Because you get what you pay for. As long as property taxes are lospided the services received for them will be. If I am paying thousands more in property taxes every year on my house then it is not out of the question for me to expect to receive more services.

    • KatieNeptune says:

      Why didn’t the woman choose to finish her schooling or have a better financial foundation for her children BEFORE she decided to have children in the first place? If you want to send your children to a better school, you need to be prepared to foot the bill. You are essentially penalizing the wealthy for being more frugal with their money or work harder/two jobs or plan better so they could provide a valuable and safe community for their children to grow in.

      If the children were living with their grandfather full time, that would be a legal work around for the situation. Sorry, but barging past the rules & regulations without regard to the process is not okay at all.

      • LanMan04 says:

        You are essentially penalizing the wealthy for being more frugal with their money or work harder/two jobs or plan better so they could provide a valuable and safe community for their children to grow in.
        ——————
        Boo fucking hoo. That’s the price you pay if you want to live in a stable society without roving gangs of starving homeless. Keep slicing away at those safety nets and watch what happens.

        • KatieNeptune says:

          I HAPPILY pay into welfare and I encourage those who are homeless to seek help and take advantage of what’s available to them. But those people need to demonstrate the need and they must qualify for assistance. I take no issue with people who need a leg up – it happens. I want them to find help, work, and get things together. If this woman wanted to give her children a better education by demonstrating the need in a legal way – possible scholarships for high achieving children? I know plenty of private schools that offer assistance to those who need it and those willing to work for it – it would be a completely different story. The bottom line is,t his woman is acting entitled to things that are not hers.

      • e065702 says:

        ‘You are essentially penalizing the wealthy for being more frugal with their money or work harder/two jobs or plan better so they could provide a valuable and safe community for their children to grow in.”
        What a joke.
        It might be that the only hope these two kids had was to get a good enough education that they could get into a good enough school for some decent paying job as adults.
        As it stands now the system is so botched the poor don’t stand a chance.
        Frugal? Work Hard? You haven’t seen frugality and hard work until you have seen a singel mom with kids trying to raise them right.
        The rich, the truly rich, have it completely gamed and have it set up so that the poor can only hope to access the resources the middle-class can no longer afford to share.
        Forget actually getting what the truly rich get; that is so rare it might as well be a fantasy.

        • KatieNeptune says:

          Why is a single, non-self-supporting woman having children before she’s ready? There are plenty of opportunities for adult individuals to make sacrifices for themselves BEFORE they have children – so, when the time comes, they can make sure their kids can have the life they choose.

          BTW, I use the term “wealthy” lightly – I’m certainly not saying the $100,000+ /year people, I’m talking people who manage to live without assistance in a place with a halfway decent school system. You don’t have to go to the best school in the district and the best college in the country to make a living. Public school, community college, state college all work very well, too.

      • hmburgers says:

        “You are essentially penalizing the wealthy for being more frugal with their money or work harder/two jobs or plan better so they could provide a valuable and safe community for their children to grow in.”

        Yes… because all “wealthy” people work hard, are frugal or work two jobs…

        Please, I’m 32, white, male and vote republican… and even I can see that some people are stuck in a certain position in their life because of what they look like, what they sound like or where they came from. The fact is that it is VERY possible to work HARD, two jobs, and still not be able to make ends meet.

        While I agree w/ the argument of being able to afford your children, the fact is that it doesn’t really apply here. They have a family member paying taxes within the area of this school system. He would be paying NO MORE and NO LESS whether those children were his or not… so let’s take a REAL look at this situation so that we can see that basically the change to the district is NET ZERO.

        “If the children were living with their grandfather full time, that would be a legal work around for the situation. Sorry, but barging past the rules & regulations without regard to the process is not okay at all.”

        First off, it wouldn’t be a “legal work around”, it would simply be the way it is… if they lived there full time, they would be eligible as students in the district.

        Second, I agree that what she did was not proper… however if we take even a casual look at the impact to the districts funding we can see that their $30,000 number is nonsense. The tax income for the area would be no less or more if she lived with her father… the funding to school is based on enrollment… they were enrolled students… so they were “counted” as students when deciding finding. The district is NOT OUT ANY MONEY… that’s the key point that people seem to be missing.

      • taaurrus says:

        Oh if only we all waited until we were financially stable enough to have children and own an home in a wealthy neighborhood so our kids can get a BETTER, FREE EDUCATION than the poor people across town. Get real! In a perfect world I guess that would be the case but this is the REAL world and things don’t work that way. Regardless – why should kids of wealthy parents be entitled to a better education that kids of poor parents? THEY SHOULDN’T. Where’s the equality? Where’s the fairness? And where is the law that says a parent can transfer their child to another district is their zoned school does not meet benchmarks?

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      Wealthier kids do not necessarily deserve a better education but they get it, legally.

      Perhaps they get it because alot of the SOCIAL problems that actually are the causes of a poor quality education don’t exist or are addressed in wealthier neighborhoods. As many parents in poorer areas that working when it comes time for parent teacher conferences or school board meetings there are just as many that simply don’t go taking a active role in their kids education. A school system is there to educate, not parent or solve all the social ills of that area. that’s a seperate government function.

  17. ARP says:

    I would send a bill for $30,000 to the district where she lives. She paid taxes, but didn’t use the services.

    /snark.

    • LanMan04 says:

      Exactly. At MOST, she should pay the difference between the costs of one district vs the other.

    • Geekybiker says:

      I should do that every year since I have no children.

      • KatieNeptune says:

        I shouldn’t have to pay taxes because I never use public transportation. I shouldn’t have to pay the cost to subsidize it. I shouldn’t have to pay taxes because I never have once called the police or fire department. I shouldn’t have to pay taxes because I only use 10% of the roads and don’t want to pay to maintain/plow the roads I don’t use.

        • ARP says:

          I know its snark, but that’s exactly what a number of Teabaggers say. I don’t directly use it, so why should I pay for it? Turns out if everything was usage based, things would get more expensive those times you needed it and probably wouldn’t make up for the cost savings of paying less taxes.

  18. absherlock says:

    According to other reports, there’s a lot to the story that’s being left out. She’s getting public assistance to live where she lives, she works as a teacher’s aide in the district that’s not good enough for her kids and her father is WAY behind on his taxes in the district that she did send her kids to. Also, he’s being investigated for fraud of his own involving medical insurance, I believe.

    Don’t get me wrong, I feel for her. She just wants the best for her kids. So do I. That’s why we choose to live in a much smaller house, drive old cars and not give to our kids all of the things their peers get (vacations, cars, fancy clothes) in order to stay in a much better school district.

    • obits3 says:

      “That’s why we choose”

      Bingo! I will want the best for my kids someday too, so I am willing to pay higher taxes and enjoy my 20’s less for them.

      • Bsamm09 says:

        How does paying higher taxes help your kids out? Wouldn’t keeping more of your money allow you to make your own decisions for providing whats best for your kids. Not hoping the gov’t can when they reach school age?

        • obits3 says:

          The “keeping more of your money” idea sounds good, but it creates issues because you lose economies of scale. What if everybody kept their money and built their own roads? That would be very inefficient compared to the cost per person.

          You might say: “What about toll roads?”

          To me, toll roads are like independent school districts. They don’t enjoy the full benefits of economies of scale (because of the restricted membership due to $), but they also avoid the overgeneralization. It is a nice balance.

          In a way, schools are like a type of quasi natural monopoly.

  19. goodfellow_puck says:

    Okay, a few things the short article leaves out that are important:
    #1 He father lived in the district and she and her kids sometimes lived with him. That means he was paying into the system for their education.
    #2 A lot of other parents were picked up for the same infraction and either agreed to pay, or else admitted wrongdoing. She fought the system and that’s specifically why they wanted to make an example out of her.
    #3 The woman is 13 credit hours from her teaching degree. Going to jail is going to have a severe impact on her ability to get a job.

    I think that wanting a better school for your children is not so horrible that they should put you in jail for it. Especially when her family WERE paying taxes in that district.

    • Youngfrankenstein says:

      This is very local to me. She has also been charged with a felony which *may* affect her ability to continue her teaching job. That will be up to the state board of education. She has already done the jail time but has 10 years of probation.

      The kids have not attended that school since 2008. Her best friend said that many others who were “caught” didn’t pay the money either. I still wonder what is missing from this story.

  20. HoneyB says:

    damn parents trying to give their children a better chance of a future! what’s the world coming to!?

    • obits3 says:

      Damn parents taking money from other parents to get something they didn’t pay for! what’s the world coming to!?

      Maybe I should go to my neighbors fridge and get some food since he has better food!

  21. wonderkitty now has two dogs says:

    There are legal ways to get your kid into a better school, especially with a relative living in that school zone- the term a friend used the other day was “educational guardianship”. I don’t have kids so I won’t go any further than that. Maybe someone else can expand on this topic.

    I do not think sending this woman to jail makes society a better place, and speaks very poorly of the school district pressing charges and the judge sending her there. No, I will not say that she sent herself there- I doubt she figured that using her father’s address would put her in prison and also, mostly likely, under the scrutiny of child protective services.

    My teacher friends would shoot themselves in the foot to have parents care this much about their children’s education. Instead, she is sent to jail for non-violent offensive that did not hurt anyone else. I say that because her father did pay taxes to support that district, and it should be perfectly fine to send his grandchildren to the school he pays taxes to support.

    This is just one massive fail.

  22. msbask says:

    I hate stories like this. I just do not understand why it’s not in EVERYONE’S best interest to provide a quality education to EVERYONE.

    After that, you’re on your own, but all children should have access to quality education.

  23. Khayembii Communique says:

    Vouchers and property taxes simply reward schools that are already performing well and are in richer neighborhoods, so they just exacerbate the problem.

    Teachers’ unions are responsible for higher paid and better skilled teachers in 99% of the cases.

  24. Jane_Gage says:

    Ideally I’d have had kids in my early 20s, but I didn’t finish my education or start my business until I was 30. I’m sorry, but I figured out how to use birth control. There are other reasons why you shouldn’t have kids if you’re drowning in poverty such as lead paint, exhaust fumes, poor healthcare, lice-riddled state subsidized child care, and having to work 3+ retail jobs just to buy a brick of cheese.

    • KatieNeptune says:

      This. Having children is a choice. Maybe her children’s education should have been a priority before she chose to have children without having the proper foundations in place. It’s called planning. You can’t be entitled to everything you want simply because you have children.

      • obits3 says:

        But you should pay for my 20 kids because I made them exist! If you don’t, you’re a horrible person!

        /sarc

        • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

          I don’t see that as very sarcastic – there are actually people who feel that they are entitled because they have kids. My favorite of course, is “Serial mommies” 6 kids by 5 Dads, collecting from 3 and getting help from the state too.

          Don’t say it doesn’t happen, or that they didn’t mean for it to turn out this way. I know them.

          • KatieNeptune says:

            Ugh. I know. I have a woman I work with who complains about her annual raise because it lessens the amount the state will pay for her apartment for her and her daughter…

            I know everyone isn’t like that, but the people who are give me an eye twitch.

  25. Jane_Gage says:

    Kid(s) plural. /eye roll

  26. momtimestwo says:

    I’ve thought about doing this same thing, but I just knew I’d get caught, and we didn’t want to take the risk. And we didn’t want our kids to have to “live a lie”. I feel for her, I really, really do.

  27. Maxamus says:

    Sounds fair. Why should I pay huge taxes so someone from out of my area can reap the rewards?

    • nutbastard says:

      You shouldn’t. That’s a large reason why education needs to be privatized.

      • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

        I am very receptive to that viewpoint–I’ve had run-ins with asshat school bureaucracy enough times to make me want to homeschool and do the job right–but the question I can’t answer is, what does society do with the kids whose parents don’t give a shit whether they’re educated or not? Do we let them roam the streets in packs or something?

  28. kkevin6154 says:

    Her father lives in the district. It doesn’t matter if the kids lived with him officially or not, the district stills receives the same amount of property taxes from her father. I don’t see what she did as being an issue. I could understand if she faked a completely random persons address, but all she did was register the kids under her fathers address. He pays Copley property taxes.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      If this women pulled the same stunt with let’s say a car insurance company saying she lived one place but resided in another they would either drop her and/or prosecute her for fraud(trying to obtain the lower rate by lying).

      They want to know where YOU reside and not your relative. She was asked where she lived in which she gave a fraudulent answer. The private investigators followed her and her kids in and out of the district daily.

  29. sjgarg says:

    Alot of problems with the American school system brought to light in this older report by John Stossel
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

  30. Mphone says:

    Basically, the poor need to go to poor schools. Keep classes in their place. Sure, we can sugar coat it and call it “Cheating Taxes.” But, we all know what they really mean.

    • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

      I hear what you’re saying, but in all seriousness, I’m not ashamed of objecting to poorly parented, poorly socialized kids taking all the teachers’ time and attention such that my own bright, well parented, well socialized kids’ educational experience suffers. Sorry, but you’re not going to make me feel guilty over that one.

  31. ellemdee says:

    Schools are allocated a certain amount of money for each child. The money comes from residents’ taxes. The truth is that, as a non-resident, she didn’t pay those taxes (for that district), but the district still had to fund her child’s education.

    Many districts will accept students from other districts, but some will not. For those districts, you just have to live there. The headline makes the story sound like something it’s not. Technically, this was fraud, not just a mother being thrown in the slammer because she sent her kids to a better school. How would you feel if you moved to a high-tax area because they offered better schools for your kids and the parents of the kids sitting next to yours were only paying half of the taxes you were for their kids to get the same education because they were lying about their child’s residency? Is that fair to the people who are honest and accept/pay the high taxes? Even if the tax rates were the same, it would still cheat the district, because they were funding that kid’s education but they weren’t collecting the corresponding tax dollars from the parents.

  32. DeepHurting says:

    A local school district bought 3 CASES OF IPADS for the computer lab. Have you ever seen a CASE of iPads? They also hired a contractor to “upgrade” all the new computers in the lab so they could run the $1,000 per license educational software that I’m looks like it was programmed in VB circa 1996. These kids can’t learn without an i7!

    I realize that this is anecdotal, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find this kind of heinous cost structure and spending in other schools as well. People always blame unions and teachers for the lack of funding, but the spendthrift attitude of the people running the schools deserve a look as well.

    • Cheap Sniveler: Sponsored by JustAnswer.comâ„¢ says:

      Schools require all the latest. (Secret: 2-3 year old computers for pennies on the dollar at school district surplus auctions!) And, of course, Windows 7, Office, etc.

      It may sound like a good idea to administrators, but they’ll learn a hell of a lot more about computers by building a working computer out of scrap parts, Linux, and Open Office – and save the districts a bundle of cash.

  33. nutbastard says:

    Everyone loves to talk about how ineffective, wasteful and untrustworthy our government is, and yet when it comes to the very education of our children, some people just cannot wrap their heads around the idea that maybe the government shouldn’t have anything to do with such an important facet of life.

    Property tax is a huge scam to begin with – what am I, renting land from the government?

    All schools should be either private or funded by charity and property tax abolished. With the extra money families would keep they’d have no problems affording one of those schools. Private schooling currently is expensive because of a lack of competition – When there’s only one private school in an area they can basically charge through the roof to narrow down admissions.

    Oh but no, everything should be ‘free’, the government is our lord and savior, blah blah blah blah.

  34. Ocyrus says:

    Patricia Cosgrove is just another racist in a town of racists.
    White flight protecting its own.

    • Youngfrankenstein says:

      I have to agree. I really don’t know what Cosgrove was trying to prove with this sentence.

  35. tfcocs says:

    School districts have often attempted to do this same thing to children who are in foster or kinship care settings. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for example, has web space devoted to the rights of children in alternative placement settings. Over the years, some of our school districts have tried to expell children whose parents live in neighboring cities, but the law is clear, at least in the commonwealth. Children can not be discriminated against here, at least by educators (in theory) due to their familial circumstances.

  36. Razor512 says:

    How are they gaming the system. property taxes pay for the school, her father lives there, paying property taxes , why can his daughter’s kids use the service since he is not using the service?

    • absherlock says:

      While not every tax dollar that’s collected from you goes to fund something that’s used by you there’s usually an understanding (at least at the local level) that all tax dollars collected are spent on residents.

      And there’s evidence that the father was also gaming the system in that he tried to avoid paying his property taxes by incorporating his property under a business in his wife’s name and that he has charges pending in a seperate case that he provided false information to Summit County concerning his marital status and his wife’s income.

  37. shadowhh says:

    l also wonder where they got that 30k number from.

    She needs to get a really slick lawyer. If that 30K was what 1 year of school costs for 2 students, then a slick lawyer should be able to get the school she did not send her kids to to pay it.

    Often the bad – inner city schools have a higher cost per student and are faiulres. The school she took them out of would probably have a cost closer to 40k per year for 2 kids. maybee she can make some money on this deal…… :p

    • KatieNeptune says:

      If I remember correctly, it was over 4 years, for both kids….

    • absherlock says:

      I think they said the “out of district” tuition was $800/month per student (which honestly does seem outrageous, but anyway…). $800 for 10 months for two years for two students is $32,000.

      • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

        My kids’ out-of-district tuition is $950/year down here in Texas, so I highly doubt it’s tennish times that in Ohio.

  38. iParadox{InLove} says:

    Hmmm…

    My sister and I actually had to do this for a while in Middle School. We had moved from Georgia to Alabama (a few miles, since we lived close to the border in both states.) but our mom wanted us to stay in the Georgia school we were attending, she got someone to go to the Board of Education and ask about tuition and the board told the woman she sent not to worry about it. They wouldn’t worry about the tuition or even try and track down who it was unless it was brought up by a higher party.

  39. chicagojim says:

    Lock her up and throw away the key. It’s fraud, plain and simple. Frankfort schools in Illinois are flooded with people trying to get into them illegally. The residency verification procedures that had to be implemented because of people who cheat like this cost money and are overly cumbersome. I chose to pay the high tax for better schools and anyone circumventing the system is stealing from me and all those who choose to pay the premium.

  40. Jane_Gage says:

    Plus she’s majoring in education. Or was, /snigger You’re supposed to refrain from moral turpitude to work that gig, moreover I guess she doesn’t have a problem working for a system she despises.

    • Erika'sPowerMinute says:

      Maybe she wants to improve it? You know, put her proverbial money where her mouth is, instead of just talking shit?

  41. hmburgers says:

    DISGUSTING.

    “School officials said she was cheating because her daughters received a quality education ***without paying taxes to fund it***”

    “…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***”

    OK Mr/s School Official… so IF she and her children were living with the father, they would be attending those schools “legally”… and would the state or your local township received any additional revenue from the father?? NO. The only thing you MIGHT be able to say is that if she were living there and they were completing census forms accurately, you might receive more aid from the state or federal government.

    The fact that they chose to prosecute her in this way is what is disgusting. They should have simply identified that she was having her children attend outside their district, and then made them change schools at the end of the school year.

    What was spent on the private investigation for this? How many administrative waste goes on in the process of prosecuting these horrible scofflaws??

  42. Papa Bear says:

    Just a question: If this was a white woman sending her kids to this district, would there be a problem? Or if a white family decided the black neighborhood schools were better and sent the kids there would this be a problem? Don’t counter with black schools are never better either because some of them are extremely good schools because of a dedicated community and teaching staff while neighboring inner-city predominantly white schools are trash. It happens, you know. Who knows, maybe race isn’t even an issue, but in cases like this, I have to ask. Oh, I’m white and I remember government mandated busing so black kids could go to better schools.

  43. Clyde Barrow says:

    Kudo’s to this woman and I applaud her for her actions. She is looking out for the best for her kids; obviously the school is not. And quite frankly, it’s none of their damn business what she does.

  44. Emily says:

    So are they going to then refund her $30,000 from the originating school district? There is no justification for charging her money.

    Really a despicable action by the authorities. The rational thing to do would have been to return her child to the correct school district… problem solved.

  45. JonBoy470 says:

    Whatever the legality of her actions, I can’t say I disagree, morally, with what she did. Parents have a moral responsibility to do the best for their kids, don’t they?

  46. dourdan says:

    is goign to the wrong school district really that bad? where do they get off totalling it at 30,000 dollars?!

    in san francisco there are no school discticts; it’s a lottery system. does that means certian people should get a tax refund?

  47. taaurrus says:

    Thats awesome! I’m so happy that that the law is out there busting all those terrible, violent parents who send their kids to better schools. I will sleep so much better tonight knowing she is off the streets! Good job! All schools should use the funds that should be used for the kids – to hire private investigates! Seriously? Did they run out of murders, rapists, robbers, violent criminals, druggies, etc – and just get bored? Did they figure this was a great way to spend our taxes for the private investigator, prosecutor, judge and now jail stay? And whats even more scary is NO ONE along the way (arresting officer, prosecutor, judge) thought “hey, maybe we should just plea this out & spend our resources on REAL criminals?” And if she “owes” this school district $30,000 for her kid’s FREE education – then shouldn’t the district SHE PAYS taxes in owe her?!

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      I’m so happy to that the law is taking these LIARS, these fraud committing felons off the streets as well.

      They did not start the investigation to criminally prosecute her. They investigated her to proove she wasn’t from the district or paying tuition/taxes herself. Many school districts including our have some staff who’s sole job it is to verify residency and/or verify and proove certain people are cheating the system. This women apparently was the only one who did not to come to some sort of settlement with the district as far as back tuition after getting caught. Basically it’s theft of service.

  48. sweetgreenthing says:

    I would do the same thing in a heartbeat if I lived in an area with terrible schools. It’s my job as a mom to make sure I’m doing the absolute best for my kids, and I applaud this woman for trying her best to do the same. I agree with everyone else who said the district she did pay taxes into should foot this bill, since she didn’t use those services.
    I’m super tired of the birth control issue being brought up- it’s tasteless. I got pregnant while on the pill BOTH times, and I can follow directions on medication. We do the best we can with what we’re given sometimes- and when after waiting way past your prime to have kids because you were making the world a more magical place you suddenly realize it’s not going to be a piece of cake- whoops. Guess you mastered that birth control a bit too well, eh? That was a choice, and maybe your insurance shouldn’t pay for those fertility treatments that cause my rates to be higher. Same argument to me…

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      I would do the samething in a heartbeat too-prosecute parents like you who lie or committ fraud or take services without paying for them. This nothing but another example of the ends justify the means.

  49. denisem says:

    Excellent that they are pressing charges against her! If you want your kids to go to a specific school then buy property in that school district. I don’t see why the taxpayers of this school system should subsidize her kids education when she contributes nothing for her share of the expense.

  50. brianisthegreatest says:

    Totally went to kindergarten in the district where my mom was babysitting. I guess it’s good my mom never got caught.

  51. Vinasu says:

    My kids go to an out-of-district school. The school they attend bills the school district we live in. We did have to work it out ahead of time, but it wasn’t a big deal. They said they do it all the time. Perhaps the school on question might consider doing something like that.

  52. Felrond says:

    Hmmm, nice to see the National media spin a story for once on a situation I actually know somethjing about. A coworker of mine lives and has children in the community this occurred in (Copley, Ohio).

    What you are not hearing from this superficial story is how this woman is taking section-9 housing money; with 2 kids she gets enough money to rent a decent size apartment in Akron. Then she shipped the kids to her dad’s house to go to school and avoided having to pay property tax. She wants the best of both worlds.

    What you are also not hearing is how a total of 50 families – including this woman and her father – were caught doing the same thing. The district gave each of them 3 choices: move into the district, pull your kids out, or pay the costs of their education. 49 of the families settled in one of these 3 manners… but THIS woman said no, it was here right to send her kids wherever she wanted and the school was just being racist, etc. So the school had no recourse other than pursue legal action.

    The school TRIED to resolve it, but this lady choose not to and is now paying the price. Boo freakin’ hoo.

  53. homer2324 says:

    Just to raise the awareness of racial sensitivity in this matter:

    The families lives in a school district that serves predominantly black communities.

    The school district that the mom put her child in serves predominantly white communities.

  54. melati says:

    I assume there are people living in this tony district who rent…and therefore don’t directly pay property taxes. Are they freeloaders too? Just shows you how dysfunctional the system is. Seriously…people in china have more choice about where to send there kids to school–don’t we deserve better?

  55. Gidea says:

    So now Taxes = Tuition ?
    At a public school?
    Other families were caught as well but she’s the only one who fought “The Man”

    Would the City be pissed if parents from that “better” school district
    sent their kids to the shittier crime-ridden school??

    Maybe they could have an exchange program.

  56. fiz~ says:

    Another player….another liar….another leech. The system of education is terrible for many reasons, but instead of making the necessary changes within her own family structure, she chooses to make this everyone else’s problem and expense.