This is why I believe in school choice!!

[TXMomof4]

*That* is a hot button issue! It seems most people think it is perfectly fair - if other people want to live in the better school districts, then they need to live there, right?

 

It isn't just a funding issue, though - some poorer schools get extra funding and still have low achievement. The real problem is the "achievement gap" which seems to fall along socioeconomic lines. Unfortunately, it will take much more than money to fix the problems that lead to this (which are more complicated than just, "the kids are poor.")

 

I understand the sentiment of this mother, though. Since we are no longer homeschooling and we are moving, picking a school district has become a major issue. Simply renting a house in the best school district really isn't an option for us due to the costs. However, we will *not* live in a low achieving district, so it is difficult to determine where exactly we *will* live.

 

ETA: There are charter schools in very poor areas that do very well. The difference is that the families who go after enrollment in these schools are highly motivated. Unfortunately, there aren't enough spots in the schools for all the motivated students/families. Also, some families that *would* go after enrollment, but other obstacles get in their way. What is needed is not necessarily more money, but more people who are willing to put in the time. Many of the best teachers go to better districts because they may pay more (this is true in NC - the local supplement in one poor district is $900 a year while in a wealthier district it is $10,000 a year.) And this just begins to describe some of the differences.

 

:iagree:This goes so far beyond funding. If there are fights in the halls everyday, it doesn't matter if the kids have $10,000 or $20,000/year spent for them. The risk of attending that school will damage the learning environment.

 

I went to a magnet program that was in a low income school specifically to get the schools more integrated. The same program was also available at a school in a high income area. The differences in the programs were astounding - not because there was different materials, or different qualities of teachers - I had fantastic teachers. I was attacked in the hallway twice for racial reasons. A gang incident occurred in art class and a gun went off. The racial tensions were overwhelming between the Latinos and the black. They had great opportunities at that school, but the culture in that neighborhood didn't encourage them taking advantage of those opportunities.

[Audrey]

It's like something out of a bad comedy. :glare: Sure she lied, but the punishment just does not fit the crime in this case.

 

Open enrollment should be an option, but I can understand some stipulations on that. In my province you can petition to attend any public school and must be accepted as long as 1) it is not overenrolled -- residents of its catchment area have first priority in enrollment, and 2) you provide your own transportation if you live outside its catchment area.

 

I have no problem under those stipulations. I don't even have a problem with the fact that it drains the enrollment of the crappy schools down to nothing so they end up being closed. Crappy schools don't deserve to operate IMO. There is a move to pool all school taxes and apportion them per student from a provincial level rather than from a district level. The school districts have become quite large with all the amalgamations that have occurred in the last 10 years. With the huge variations in income and tax levels across the province, it would be much more equitable if they consolidated down to 1, IMO.

[bettyandbob]

I dunno. She lied. The tuition amount was essentially what she stole. Whether or not the amount of tuition was equal to the cost to the district does not figure into the legal analysis of the situation. The amount was what qualified her for a felony. She had multiple opportunities to get out before prosecution. She kept lying. I'm sorry her kids were dragged into this. She did not need to do this to her kids. She made the choice.

 

I pay taxes. The high school near me is good, but of the eight elementary schools that feed into the high school 1 is a school has serious problems and another is questionable. I live where the questionable school is. That's how I got into home schooling so many years ago. Other neighbors followed the district process to get transfers (generally this is for daycare). I know people who live near the more problematic school who just flat out lied. I find it totally offensive. If you wanted the better school, suck it up and living in the smaller house (the people I know who lied were people who had decent incomes and options)

 

You make choices all the time. The reason why your house was bigger and cheaper was because of the school it was near. You could buy a smaller house that's zoned for a better school, but then you might not have a yard and separate rooms for all your kids. It's a choice. If you do research you can often find cheaper housing in neighborhoods with better schools, but you have to do the research. You have to be willing to share bedrooms and not have a yard.

 

You make choices your whole life and the choices you make at each step affect the choices you may have at the next step. No, not every kid can go to a "better" school. But there are honest people who make significant sacrifices to do so. This woman was taking a short cut. Did she investigate one bedroom or efficiency apartments or renting a basement in the better neighborhood? Did she look at these options in other nearby districts that may have been as good as her dad's?

 

I feel bad for the kids, but not the mom. Mom should not get a pass on this.

[mommaduck]

(the people I know who lied were people who had decent incomes and options)

 

 

 

Key.

 

I knew people that lived in East St Louis that would use a relative's address to send them to Belleville and O'Fallon (one of the uppity towns with one of the best schools in that state) schools (St Clair County, IL). If you know anything about that area, you know that these aren't people with "decent incomes and decent options" let alone decent housing. These are people who's children are fortunate to make it home alive and are fortunate to be living to make it to the next school week. The fact that these families, or extended families, are trying to make it possible to send the kids where they will actually get an education and be able to do so in a safe environment show that they care and are thinking in the best interest of the child. Honestly, yes, the mother was wrong legally...but I can't say that I blame many of these families.

[unsinkable]

Key.

 

I knew people that lived in East St Louis that would use a relative's address to send them to Belleville and O'Fallon (one of the uppity towns with one of the best schools in that state) schools (St Clair County, IL). If you know anything about that area, you know that these aren't people with "decent incomes and decent options" let alone decent housing. These are people who's children are fortunate to make it home alive and are fortunate to be living to make it to the next school week. The fact that these families, or extended families, are trying to make it possible to send the kids where they will actually get an education and be able to do so in a safe environment show that they care and are thinking in the best interest of the child. Honestly, yes, the mother was wrong legally...but I can't say that I blame many of these families.

 

I understand WHY this mom did it and part of me does not fault her at all.

 

BUT once she got caught I think she should have backed down. Pull the girls out and then try something else.

 

WHY did she insist on being untruthful in the face of being caught? :confused:

[DawnM]

I think most school districts have open enrollment, however, open enrollement is ONLY in your own school district AND is only going to work IF there is room in the school.

 

At least this is the way the several districts I have lived in work.

 

I would love for my child to attend a magnet program in the next district over. I can't. We don't live in that district, open enrollment or not.

 

Dawn

 

I plan on homeschooling through high school, but I am suddenly grateful for open enrollment in MN. It is also free.

[DawnM]

Honestly, I think what they offered her was more than fair, "Pay the money your kids stole from the district and we won't prosecute." The money was a criminal amount.

 

They didn't even have to offer to let her pay restitution.

 

Dawn

[DawnM]

Can you all tell me how school choice would look?

 

Right now local schools have busses to carry students who can't get a ride from their homes to the local schools. How would busses travel a 75 mile radius picking up 2000 kids in their homes? Poor kids/families do not always have transportation, which is a criteria for our school choice (they state they do NOT offer bus services for those who live outside the boundaries even if they are able to come to the school.).

 

Also, there would be a bombardment of applications for the best schools, so who chooses who gets to come? First come? Lottery? If neither of these, I would see schools once again ending up with "good schools and bad schools."

 

And what about neighborhoods? Would the 10 children on street X all go to different schools all across town because they can no longer attend the local school down the street?

 

How about the declining schools? Who has to get "stuck" going there? Will YOU allow YOUR child to go into the inner city 20 miles away because you weren't able to get into the "good, clean, nice" school down the street any longer?

 

I am asking as I am genuinely interested in responses.....it sounds nice that everyone can go to the school of his/her choice, but it doesn't work that way....someone still has to go to the "bad" schools.

 

Dawn

Edited January 27, 2011 by DawnM

[mommaduck]

I understand WHY this mom did it and part of me does not fault her at all.

 

BUT once she got caught I think she should have backed down. Pull the girls out and then try something else.

 

WHY did she insist on being untruthful in the face of being caught? :confused:

It doesn't sound like she insisted on being untruthful, as she was already caught. It sounds like she simply refused to back down, withdraw her children, or pay up. Yes, she should have done SOMETHING to amend this situation (unless perhaps she was hoping to use herself as a martyr/example for change...not sure where I stand on that one; it definitely did not work in her favour).

 

This is an issue that needs to be addressed with the current system though. I like what Audrey brought up. I'm for school choice and would like to see more competition for students and more options opening up.

[regentrude]

And, the school's entire argument that she "didn't pay property taxes" and so didn't help fund the school is bogus. What about all the children whose parents rent their homes? Do they have to pay tuition? Of course not.

 

 

For rental property, the owner still has to pay property tax - and he hands it down to the tenants via rent. So yes, renters do pay property tax.

[MSNative]

Can you all tell me how school choice would look?

 

Right now local schools have busses to carry students who can't get a ride from their homes to the local schools. How would busses travel a 75 mile radius picking up 2000 kids in their homes? Poor kids/families do not always have transportation, which is a criteria for our school choice (they state they do NOT offer bus services for those who live outside the boundaries even if they are able to come to the school.).

 

Also, there would be a bombardment of applications for the best schools, so who chooses who gets to come? First come? Lottery? If neither of these, I would see schools once again ending up with "good schools and bad schools."

 

And what about neighborhoods? Would the 10 children on street X all go to different schools all across town because they can no longer attend the local school down the street?

 

How about the declining schools? Who has to get "stuck" going there? Will YOU allow YOUR child to go into the inner city 20 miles away because you weren't able to get into the "good, clean, nice" school down the street any longer?

 

I am asking as I am genuinely interested in responses.....it sounds nice that everyone can go to the school of his/her choice, but it doesn't work that way....someone still has to go to the "bad" schools.

 

Dawn

 

This link deals only with Vermont, but I think it has good info and answers to some of your questions (at the bottom)

http://www.schoolreport.com/vbe/articles/goal1.htm

[Whereneverever]

Can you all tell me how school choice would look?

 

Right now local schools have busses to carry students who can't get a ride from their homes to the local schools. How would busses travel a 75 mile radius picking up 2000 kids in their homes? Poor kids/families do not always have transportation, which is a criteria for our school choice (they state they do NOT offer bus services for those who live outside the boundaries even if they are able to come to the school.).

 

Also, there would be a bombardment of applications for the best schools, so who chooses who gets to come? First come? Lottery? If neither of these, I would see schools once again ending up with "good schools and bad schools."

 

And what about neighborhoods? Would the 10 children on street X all go to different schools all across town because they can no longer attend the local school down the street?

 

How about the declining schools? Who has to get "stuck" going there? Will YOU allow YOUR child to go into the inner city 20 miles away because you weren't able to get into the "good, clean, nice" school down the street any longer?

 

I am asking as I am genuinely interested in responses.....it sounds nice that everyone can go to the school of his/her choice, but it doesn't work that way....someone still has to go to the "bad" schools.

 

Dawn

:bigear:

[DawnM]

Well, I really don't think they dealt with the "creaming" idea at all. They glossed over it. There will indeed still be "good" schools and "bad" schools. Most of it deals with those in poor areas being able to attend good schools. I can't tell if this particular study is similar to the Wisconsin vouchers where only those who meet the socio economic criteria qualify or if it is for everyone. I personally don't think that article debunked my concerns.

 

Dawn

 

This link deals only with Vermont, but I think it has good info and answers to some of your questions (at the bottom)

http://www.schoolreport.com/vbe/articles/goal1.htm

[justasque]

Can you all tell me how school choice would look? Right now local schools have busses to carry students who can't get a ride from their homes to the local schools. How would busses travel a 75 mile radius picking up 2000 kids in their homes?

 

In my neighborhood, the school district busses to the local public school and to any private school that is within 10 miles (of which there are quite a few, mostly Catholic or Friends schools). All of the high school kids, for example, regardless of which school they attend, are picked up at a stop near their home and bussed to the local public high school. The public school kids then start their day. The private school kids then get on a bus for private schools in a particular area (one bus for schools to the south, etc.). Their school day starts later than the ps. After school, it pretty much happens in reverse; the private school kids might ride the "activities" bus with the public school kids who had been at clubs or in detention. The private school kids spend about an hour on the bus each way. (They quickly learn to use that time effectively.) There is no late bus for the private schools; parents must provide transport if their kids stay late.

 

ETA: My state also provides some funding for the purchase of textbooks and other school supplies for kids who attend private schools. There are limitations - no consumables, no religious or foreign language texts, texts cannot be resold, they can only be used by kids from our state, etc. It's a good program that allows families with kids in private school get some benefit from their tax dollars (both educational materials and transportation), without involving the state in the purchase of religious materials, etc.

Edited January 27, 2011 by askPauline

[Tea Time]

For rental property, the owner still has to pay property tax - and he hands it down to the tenants via rent. So yes, renters do pay property tax.

 

To be clear, renters do not pay taxes. They pay rent. They will never be held responsible for the taxes on a property if they are not paid. The property owner is responsible for taxes whether or not they are receiving rental payments that are sufficient to cover the taxes. Rental incomes are market driven, they are not driven by the mortgage, repair costs, or taxes of the property. Sometimes the market is friendly and sometimes not (that goes for both parties).

 

Property ownership entails a lot of responsibility that renting does not. It has risks that renting does not. Property owners pay for public education, and it is far from free.

[bettyandbob]

In my neighborhood, the school district busses to the local public school and to any private school that is within 10 miles (of which there are quite a few, mostly Catholic or Friends schools). All of the high school kids, for example, regardless of which school they attend, are picked up at a stop near their home and bussed to the local public high school. The public school kids then start their day. The private school kids then get on a bus for private schools in a particular area (one bus for schools to the south, etc.). Their school day starts later than the ps. After school, it pretty much happens in reverse; the private school kids might ride the "activities" bus with the public school kids who had been at clubs or in detention. The private school kids spend about an hour on the bus each way. (They quickly learn to use that time effectively.) There is no late bus for the private schools; parents must provide transport if their kids stay late.

 

ETA: My state also provides some funding for the purchase of textbooks and other school supplies for kids who attend private schools. There are limitations - no consumables, no religious or foreign language texts, texts cannot be resold, they can only be used by kids from our state, etc. It's a good program that allows families with kids in private school get some benefit from their tax dollars (both educational materials and transportation), without involving the state in the purchase of religious materials, etc.

 

 

My dad used to say something for private schools could be funding with public money if it started with a "T". Transportation, Textbooks, and lunch (Tuna fish). My district doesn't provide these things, but I do know districts in a neighboring state do.

[Renee in NC]

To be clear, renters do not pay taxes. They pay rent. They will never be held responsible for the taxes on a property if they are not paid. The property owner is responsible for taxes whether or not they are receiving rental payments that are sufficient to cover the taxes. Rental incomes are market driven, they are not driven by the mortgage, repair costs, or taxes of the property. Sometimes the market is friendly and sometimes not (that goes for both parties).

 

Property ownership entails a lot of responsibility that renting does not. It has risks that renting does not. Property owners pay for public education, and it is far from free.

 

Right, but if a landlord isn't making enough to cover the expenses on a property (which does NOT include a mortgage - a mortgage is not an expense), then they get to take the loss on their income taxes, much like any other investment. The whole point of an investment is to make a profit over time - if they weren't making enough to cover the expenses over the long-term, then they wouldn't have rental property as an investment. (People renting out houses because they can't sell them is a whole 'nother story.)

[In The Great White North]

This link deals only with Vermont, but I think it has good info and answers to some of your questions (at the bottom)

http://www.schoolreport.com/vbe/articles/goal1.htm

 

Vermont does not provide transportation to students in "tuitioning" towns, nor do they provide any transportation to any private schools.

 

Vermont discriminates on the basis of religion because a Catholic or Christian school cannot receive the state money whether the child's town has a school or not.

 

Vermont only pays the state dictated amount towards their tuition - not what the tuition actually is.

 

Vermont has a property tax system of skimming from towns with high property taxes and giving it to towns with lower property taxes. This has not provided equity. Some towns have figured out how to game the system, by donating large amounts to the school booster club, thereby lowering their property taxes while still funding their schools at the level they would like (and receiving state funds from other, less devious, towns.)

 

"Creaming" still happens, especially in discouraging special ed students from tuitioning town by claiming to not have the services necessary for them.

 

Most people live too far away from the next high school to realistically consider driving their children there, even if there were total school choice.

 

It is cheaper to rent an apt in the local "cream" district than to pay tuition, which is much lower than the article cited.

[angela in ohio]

In Ohio, there is school choice. She could have applied to have her children go to the other district. If they have too many, she might have had to send them to a different school. But everyone doesn't get to just pick the school their dc go to; that would cause chaos.

 

In Michigan, there IS equality of funding. It is state law. And maybe you've all heard of the Detroit city schools? The money is NOT the issue.

 

What about all the children whose parents rent their homes? Do they have to pay tuition? Of course not.

 

This is an accusation often thrown at those who rent their homes when school funding issues come up. They do indeed pay proprty taxes, though it takes one more step on the way to the schools (through the landlord.) Renters' children have just as much right to an education as any other child, and their parents have paid for it.

 

With all the media attention she will probly get a very good attorney, and win billions from the school district after she wins her appeal! ;)

 

After all, this is America ;).

 

And then we will all wonder why the school can't afford smaller classes. ;)

Edited January 27, 2011 by angela in ohio

[Audrey]

To be clear, renters do not pay taxes. They pay rent. They will never be held responsible for the taxes on a property if they are not paid. The property owner is responsible for taxes whether or not they are receiving rental payments that are sufficient to cover the taxes. Rental incomes are market driven, they are not driven by the mortgage, repair costs, or taxes of the property. Sometimes the market is friendly and sometimes not (that goes for both parties).

 

Property ownership entails a lot of responsibility that renting does not. It has risks that renting does not. Property owners pay for public education, and it is far from free.

 

 

This is another reason why education funding needs to be untied from property taxation. It's inequitable in so many ways.

[LibraryLover]

This is another reason why education funding needs to be untied from property taxation. It's inequitable in so many ways.

 

 

Don't try to make sense, dear. :)

[kewb]

She broke the law. She got caught. She had options, she chose not to utilize them.

[mommaduck]

She broke the law. She got caught. She had options, she chose not to utilize them.

 

What were her options? She didn't have money to pay the tuition back and her only "option" was to send her kids to a crappy school.

[Audrey]

Don't try to make sense, dear. :)

 

 

Silly me. Sense and schoolboards -- an oxymoron to be sure.

[Guest Dulcimeramy]

You know, this has gotten much worse with the housing crisis.

 

All of these helpful suggestions to move to a better district are worthless for many of us in 2011.

 

I don't have an opinion on this woman and her case but it absolutely breaks my heart that so many American children are trapped in worthless educational settings.

 

Come on, people! This country will not rise again unless ALL children have an opportunity to learn. They may not all take the opportunity, but for God's sake, we have got to change how we view this thing.

[LibraryLover]

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

You know, this has gotten much worse with the housing crisis.

 

All of these helpful suggestions to move to a better district are worthless for many of us in 2011.

 

I don't have an opinion on this woman and her case but it absolutely breaks my heart that so many American children are trapped in worthless educational settings.

 

Come on, people! This country will not rise again unless ALL children have an opportunity to learn. They may not all take the opportunity, but for God's sake, we have got to change how we view this thing.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

You know, this has gotten much worse with the housing crisis.

 

All of these helpful suggestions to move to a better district are worthless for many of us in 2011.

 

I don't have an opinion on this woman and her case but it absolutely breaks my heart that so many American children are trapped in worthless educational settings.

 

Come on, people! This country will not rise again unless ALL children have an opportunity to learn. They may not all take the opportunity, but for God's sake, we have got to change how we view this thing.

 

:iagree: And many are not only worthless but are downright damaging:(

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is another reason why education funding needs to be untied from property taxation. It's inequitable in so many ways.

 

:iagree: I agree that it needs to be untied from real estate taxes. I do think renters pay their share of taxes as well. I would rather see a more equitable way fund schools. I agree that money is not the complete answer here since many school districts squander the money IMHO with olympic pools, stadiums and ineffectual, fuzzy curricula and the list goes on:)

 

 

I think school choice would work if charters and vouchers for all were in the mix so that every student would get a choice.

[RanchGirl]

Can you all tell me how school choice would look?

 

Right now local schools have busses to carry students who can't get a ride from their homes to the local schools. How would busses travel a 75 mile radius picking up 2000 kids in their homes? Poor kids/families do not always have transportation, which is a criteria for our school choice (they state they do NOT offer bus services for those who live outside the boundaries even if they are able to come to the school.).

 

Also, there would be a bombardment of applications for the best schools, so who chooses who gets to come? First come? Lottery? If neither of these, I would see schools once again ending up with "good schools and bad schools."

 

And what about neighborhoods? Would the 10 children on street X all go to different schools all across town because they can no longer attend the local school down the street?

 

How about the declining schools? Who has to get "stuck" going there? Will YOU allow YOUR child to go into the inner city 20 miles away because you weren't able to get into the "good, clean, nice" school down the street any longer?

 

I am asking as I am genuinely interested in responses.....it sounds nice that everyone can go to the school of his/her choice, but it doesn't work that way....someone still has to go to the "bad" schools.

 

Dawn

 

In what I imagine to be a true school choice system, the parents would have vouchers or tax credits that they can take to the school of their choice. Schools that were well run would receive applicants and their vouchers. New, possibly schools would appear in neighborhoods because suddenly those parents had money to make choices. The "bad" schools would no longer be subsidized for continuing to fail. The building would probably be leased by someone with a dream of opening a new great school there. It's similar to charter schools - supply and demand (in fact I know of a classical model charter school that can't find a building right now).

 

The bussing thing is an interesting comment. Private schools here arrange for bussing and carpools for their students. But our public school boards in several large districts are the ones trying to "desegregate" neighborhood schools. Instead of improving the education that lower income children receive in failing schools, they are going to raise the test scores of those schools by bussing affluent children from across the district into those schools. Parents on both sides of the tracks (so to speak) don't want their kids bussed 6+ miles away, they just want a safe quality education in a neighborhood school that is close enough for them to be involved with. But the school boards are on a higher mission of social engineering... they think they know better.

 

As a previous poster mentioned, here in MN we have open enrollment. All property tax dollars earmarked for schools are sent to the state, federal funds are added, it's divided equally and then the dollars follow the student. If a child attends a charter, the money goes to the charter, not the local school district. If a child "open enrolls" into a different district, the money goes to that district. Angry parents are sick of school boards ignoring them on this and many other issues so they are threatening to leave and take their kids' state/federal money with them. They are also not voting to approve levies anymore (This extra tax money, plus grants and donations and such, is the only advantage one city might have over another).

 

If a child goes to private school or homeschool, the money goes straight to the unions I think. (Just kidding, the state keeps it and mismanages it some other way.)

[angela in ohio]

In what I imagine to be a true school choice system, the parents would have vouchers or tax credits that they can take to the school of their choice. Schools that were well run would receive applicants and their vouchers. New, possibly schools would appear in neighborhoods because suddenly those parents had money to make choices. The "bad" schools would no longer be subsidized for continuing to fail. The building would probably be leased by someone with a dream of opening a new great school there. It's similar to charter schools - supply and demand (in fact I know of a classical model charter school that can't find a building right now).

 

But we have this school choice in Ohio already, and it isn't working. There are a dozen charter schools downtown in our nearby big city, and they are performing just as badly as the public schools. Changing schools doesn't change the things that really impact achievement: SES level, parent's level of education, etc. Research has shown that even if you take a child out of one of the low performing schools in a low SES neighborhood and send him orher to the best school across town, their achievement will not increase much. School funding issues are really not the issue; but they are much easier to talk about than the real problems.

[Tea Time]

Right, but if a landlord isn't making enough to cover the expenses on a property (which does NOT include a mortgage - a mortgage is not an expense), then they get to take the loss on their income taxes, much like any other investment. The whole point of an investment is to make a profit over time - if they weren't making enough to cover the expenses over the long-term, then they wouldn't have rental property as an investment. (People renting out houses because they can't sell them is a whole 'nother story.)

But investors do get stuck with properties that will not sell just like any many home owners. And local gov'ts are reluctant to reduce the tax value, often taking years to lower taxes on places that have dropped substantially in value. Tax burdens make property ownership unprofitable, and this reduces investor activity which reduces the available rentals as well. These burdens hurt everyone.

 

This is an accusation often thrown at those who rent their homes when school funding issues come up. They do indeed pay proprty taxes, though it takes one more step on the way to the schools (through the landlord.) Renters' children have just as much right to an education as any other child, and their parents have paid for it.

 

 

 

And then we will all wonder why the school can't afford smaller classes. ;)

I agree that renters and landlords should not be pitted against one another. They work together in a healthy economy to make options available for housing and to shoulder the burden of taxes. It is sometimes expedient for politicians to use class warfare to pit these two groups against each other when often landlords who own lower income housing are not that far up the economic ladder from those they are renting to.

 

Schools can't afford smaller classes because there is no economic mechanism for feedback in a system that has no competition. There is no efficiency of use of resources because there is no incentives for there to be. Only competitive forces allocate resources efficiently, and only school choice will fix the problem. I doubt vouchers will do much good. They would be like Pell Grants have been for funding college. They have only driven up tuition prices and made another mess.

 

If people want their child educated, they have to take full responsibility for making it happen. They must be innovative. This woman did that, but she did not do it the right way. She was creative, but she was not creative in the right way. We can be though, and homeschoolers know it.

[DawnM]

There is so much more I want to say, or that I am thinking, but I can't do it without being VERY political. I do agree that what is going on right now is not working. I also agree that we need strong education, but in order for that to happen there needs to be radical change, not just school choice. It isn't that simple (nor is school choice simple when you really look at all the logistics of how to implement it fairly and equitably.)

 

I am hoping someone like Michelle Rhee can get in there and really change things.

 

Until then, I will continue to thank God that we do have the resources to homeschool and the financial resources to live in areas where the public schools are considered good. I still won't send my kids to the local school for a lot more reasons than academics, but that is for another thread.

 

Dawn

[unsinkable]

But we have this school choice in Ohio already, and it isn't working. There are a dozen charter schools downtown in our nearby big city, and they are performing just as badly as the public schools. Changing schools doesn't change the things that really impact achievement: SES level, parent's level of education, etc. Research has shown that even if you take a child out of one of the low performing schools in a low SES neighborhood and send him orher to the best school across town, their achievement will not increase much. School funding issues are really not the issue; but they are much easier to talk about than the real problems.

 

I never heard that but it reminds me of a case here where a teenaged boy from the city was convicted of arson. A firefighter lost a limb battling that arson fire and the boy got probation. He was also convicted on another charge (of carrying a concealed weapon, I think.) His sister begged to be allowed to let him live with her in a suburb and go to an awesome school district and give him a chance to get his life on track. He was allowed to go live with his sister.

 

A few months later, he beat a classmate so badly...at school...that he broke bones in the victim's face. He's in jail, now, finally, which is where he should have been after the arson.

 

It is just mind-boggling.

[Melinda in VT]

Vermont has a property tax system of skimming from towns with high property taxes and giving it to towns with lower property taxes. This has not provided equity. Some towns have figured out how to game the system, by donating large amounts to the school booster club, thereby lowering their property taxes while still funding their schools at the level they would like (and receiving state funds from other, less devious, towns.)

 

The state closed this loophole several years ago. You can still donate money, but it doesn't lower your property taxes. :glare:

 

I live in a so-called "gold" town, and although I applaud the idea of equal funding, the reality is not working out well here. The recipient schools don't seem to be improving, and the taxpayers in my town have lost control over our taxes. Yes, they can vote for or against the local school budget, but 60% of our taxes for education go to other towns, and we have not control over their spending.

[Renee in NC]

But we have this school choice in Ohio already, and it isn't working. There are a dozen charter schools downtown in our nearby big city, and they are performing just as badly as the public schools. Changing schools doesn't change the things that really impact achievement: SES level, parent's level of education, etc. Research has shown that even if you take a child out of one of the low performing schools in a low SES neighborhood and send him orher to the best school across town, their achievement will not increase much. School funding issues are really not the issue; but they are much easier to talk about than the real problems.

 

That is true overall, but if you take higher achieving students from a low SES school and send them to a higher SES school, they will do better and go farther. If you take lower SES students and send them to high performing charters, then they often do better (because going to a charter takes motivation.) Not all charters are created equal anymore than all public schools are created equal.

 

I think schools like KIPP work so well because of the atmosphere and scheduling. Outliers by Malcolm Gladstone analyzed the research and showed that students made the same progress during the school year overall regardless of SES. The difference came in the summer - low SES students regressed while higher SES students gained. The higher SES kids went to camp, played sports, visited the library and museums, etc. while the lower SES kids didn't. KIPP schools replicate that within the schools because the parents are not able (or in some cases are not willing, but I would think that would be less true for parents who go out of their way to find their kids a better education.)

 

I recently read a book called "Framework for Understanding Poverty" which was written for educators. It made me realize the true differences in the thought processes and backgrounds that are often found in lower SES families. It made me understand that while my family is considered poor, we really aren't because of the resources (not just financial) that we have because my dh was raised in a middle class family and my extended family is upper middle class. Financial resources are important, but not in isolation. Families also need emotional, mental, and physical resources, support systems, role models, and knowledge of the middle class "hidden rule" (you'll have to read the book to see what each of those means.

 

That is why simply increasing funding doesn't work! There is much more involved than simple money.

[Tree House Academy]

That is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous. It makes me sick. You can tell by looking and listening to that mother that she did this for her kids!

 

You know what - my mom did the SAME THING for me so I could go to a school in KY. We said I lived with my dad. I am so glad no one went after her asking for money we didn't have just because she loved me enough to try to make a better life for me!

[RanchGirl]

But we have this school choice in Ohio already, and it isn't working. There are a dozen charter schools downtown in our nearby big city, and they are performing just as badly as the public schools. Changing schools doesn't change the things that really impact achievement: SES level, parent's level of education, etc. Research has shown that even if you take a child out of one of the low performing schools in a low SES neighborhood and send him orher to the best school across town, their achievement will not increase much. School funding issues are really not the issue; but they are much easier to talk about than the real problems.

 

 

I think those are two separate issues. I agree with you that vouchers won't solve the problem of families that do not wish to support their children's education. It would offer options to parents who want a better education but can't afford it, like the mom in the original story. To me, that would be more fair and give parents more power.

 

I also agree completely that throwing more money at the problem is definitely not the answer!!

[kewb]

What were her options? She didn't have money to pay the tuition back and her only "option" was to send her kids to a crappy school.

 

Her option was to live with her father who lived in the district.

 

We don't always like the choices we have but we do have choices. She committed a crime. Yes, it sucks that the schools where she lives are crappy. But that doesn't give her the right to commit fraud. I get why she did it. I may have made the same choice. But I would make the choice knowing I could get caught and that I was committing a crime. She chose to commit a crime. I happen to think the punishment does not fit the crime but it wasn't my decision to make.

[mommaduck]

Her option was to live with her father who lived in the district.

 

We don't always like the choices we have but we do have choices. She committed a crime. Yes, it sucks that the schools where she lives are crappy. But that doesn't give her the right to commit fraud. I get why she did it. I may have made the same choice. But I would make the choice knowing I could get caught and that I was committing a crime. She chose to commit a crime. I happen to think the punishment does not fit the crime but it wasn't my decision to make.

 

Really? Her dad gave her that option? I didn't read that anywhere.

 

Btw, I agree that it was not legal, that we may have made the same choices realising there would be consequences in her situation, and that the punishment does not fit the crime. I disagree that she had "options".

Edited January 29, 2011 by mommaduck

[DawnM]

And what happens when you take B and C students in high achieving schools and make them go to low SES schools because there is no longer room for them in their local school?

 

It is very easy to talk about getting everyone into a better school, but all students still need to be educated, so what happens when those schools everyone wants to get into are full? Where does everyone else go?

 

I am not going to get into the KIPP issue because that was a select group of students. If they randomly chose students from a lower economic income area and proved test scores radically changed, I would be more willing to agree with their findings.

 

Dawn

 

That is true overall, but if you take higher achieving students from a low SES school and send them to a higher SES school, they will do better and go farther. If you take lower SES students and send them to high performing charters, then they often do better (because going to a charter takes motivation.) Not all charters are created equal anymore than all public schools are created equal.

 

 

[mommaduck]

And what happens when you take B and C students in high achieving schools and make them go to low SES schools because there is no longer room for them in their local school?

 

It is very easy to talk about getting everyone into a better school, but all students still need to be educated, so what happens when those schools everyone wants to get into are full? Where does everyone else go?

 

I am not going to get into the KIPP issue because that was a select group of students. If they randomly chose students from a lower economic income area and proved test scores radically changed, I would be more willing to agree with their findings.

 

Dawn

 

Again, I like what Audrey mentioned. That they take from their own district first and then accept students from other districts as long as there is room.

[Renee in NC]

And what happens when you take B and C students in high achieving schools and make them go to low SES schools because there is no longer room for them in their local school?

 

It is very easy to talk about getting everyone into a better school, but all students still need to be educated, so what happens when those schools everyone wants to get into are full? Where does everyone else go?

 

I am not going to get into the KIPP issue because that was a select group of students. If they randomly chose students from a lower economic income area and proved test scores radically changed, I would be more willing to agree with their findings.

 

Dawn

 

I don't know what you mean about KIPP schools. In NC, charter schools have to take anyone and they do it through a lottery system - they don't get to choose which students they get. Here is a link to the KIPP-Gaston School Report Card:

 

Gaston Prep

 

What is astonishing isn't that the school overall does better than the state average - look specifically at the breakdown by race and SES. *That* is what is amazing! Of course, students who go to charter schools have a leg up in the beginning because it shows they have parents who care about their dc's education.

 

As for the high SES kids going to a lower achieving school - generally they don't. They have more options because they have more money. In Durham, NC, the wealthier kids go to one of the numerous private schools or their parents move into areas where the schools are better. The same was true in Cincinnati, OH, when we lived there. It's true in many places - parents who can afford it do whatever it takes to make sure their dc get a good education. Parents who can't afford it may or may not do everything they can, but many times "everything they can" isn't good enough.

 

My point is that there shouldn't be such a huge difference in schools at all. Threads here talk all the time that everyone has the same opportunities if they'd just take advantage of them, but it simply isn't true. I do know (and agree) that schools can't work miracles without the support of parents and the motivation of students, but *all* children should have access to good schools. Good in the sense of having qualified teachers (and that doesn't mean just certified), facilities in good repair, and a safe environment.

[mom2scouts]

I live near where this case happened and the national news make this woman seem like a victim. There is much more than this story than a poor mother who just wants her kids to have a better education. There are other schools she could have sent her kids to, it's interesting that she picked one of the wealthiest schools in the area. Oh, and to the person who said homeschooling may not have seemed an option to her because it wasn't common, there's a HUGE homeschooling group that meets right down the street from the area where she lives. It's also likely that she didn't move into the district with her father because she was living in government housing and she probably needed the kids to get or keep that housing and having kids lowered her rent. I don't know if her father offered to let the kids live with him, but he was too busy defrauding the welfare department already. Oh, and one more thing, this mother WORKS as a teacher in the "terrible" school district where she wouldn't send her kids.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/114811999.html

Edited January 29, 2011 by mom2scouts

[unsinkable]

I live near where this case happened and the national news make this woman seem like a victim. There is much more than this story than a poor mother who just wants her kids to have a better education. There are other schools she could have sent her kids to, it's interesting that she picked one of the wealthiest schools in the area. Oh, and to the person who said homeschooling may not have seemed an option to her because it wasn't common, there's a HUGE homeschooling group that meets right down the street from the area where she lives. It's also likely that she didn't move into the district with her father because she was living in government housing and she probably needed the kids to get or keep that housing and having kids lowered her rent. I don't know if her father offered to let the kids live with him, but he was too busy defrauding the welfare department already. Oh, and one more thing, this mother WORKS as a teacher in the "terrible" school district where she wouldn't send her kids.

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/114811999.html

 

mom2scouts,

 

A few days ago, I read about 7 articles about this case at ohio.com.

 

The details there really do add to the story. I don't remember which article it was but in one the woman herself said she lived at both houses. Her dad's house was her family home and the housing project one was kept so she had something for her own place.

 

Now the housing project people are investigating her.

 

The other thing that is interesting in one of those articles is that she wasn't billed $30,000 at first. Her first bill was something like $1600 (for 2 months maybe?) and then just kept adding up month by month until she left.

 

She also changed her driver's license at one point to her dad's address and tried to give him power of attorney over the kids.

[unsinkable]

This is from the article mom2scouts quoted:

 

''Prior to prosecution, she had many options available that did not include breaking the law, including working with the Copley school district before the case reached a criminal felony level. There are many single mothers and families in similar situations who want the best for their children who are not breaking the law.

 

''In fact, dozens of other similar cases in recent years have been resolved at the parent level prior to prosecution because they either removed their children from the school district, paid tuition or moved into the school district.

 

''Ms. Williams-Bolar was the only case that could not be resolved at the parent level because she would not acknowledge that she did anything wrong and she refused to cooperate in any way.

 

''As such, this office had no choice but to take action against Ms. Williams-Bolar, in accordance with the law and on behalf of residents that choose to follow the rules.''

 

The part I bolded is the key (to me, anyway.) The more I read, the more I think she believed that her kids belonged at that school b/c she she said she had 2 homes: the one in Akron and her dad's (which she called her family home.)

[Dawn in Ohio]

I live in Akron and three years ago, I lived in the same neighborhood that Kelley Williams-Bolar lives in. Now I live about 2 miles away in a slightly better Akron neighborhood. So many people feel sorry for her because they think she had no other options, but I don't see it that way.

 

Akron Public Schools has open enrollment throughout the district. So Williams-Bolar could have enrolled her daughters in a different Akron high school at no cost and without breaking the law. The one near me has a very good reputation and it would have been almost as good as the Copley Fairlawn schools that she lied to get into.

 

If your public school is in academic emergency for 2 of the last 3 years, you can use the Ohio Ed Choice voucher system and the state will pay up to $5,000 a year for tuition at a private school. My children are in a private Christian school now and lots of kids there get free tuition and a fantastic education because of the Ed choice program. And once you are accepted into this program, it is renewable every year regardless of how your home public school performs.

 

There are many charter school options in Akron.

 

So to say that she had no options just isn't true. She was unwilling to cooperate and wanted to make a big scene. I don't feel sorry for her.

[mommaduck]

If she was claiming her dad's home as a residence, then she was committing fraud on the public welfare system with the housing. THAT is where she should be fined.

[angela in ohio]

I live in Akron and three years ago, I lived in the same neighborhood that Kelley Williams-Bolar lives in. Now I live about 2 miles away in a slightly better Akron neighborhood. So many people feel sorry for her because they think she had no other options, but I don't see it that way.

 

Akron Public Schools has open enrollment throughout the district. So Williams-Bolar could have enrolled her daughters in a different Akron high school at no cost and without breaking the law. The one near me has a very good reputation and it would have been almost as good as the Copley Fairlawn schools that she lied to get into.

 

If your public school is in academic emergency for 2 of the last 3 years, you can use the Ohio Ed Choice voucher system and the state will pay up to $5,000 a year for tuition at a private school. My children are in a private Christian school now and lots of kids there get free tuition and a fantastic education because of the Ed choice program. And once you are accepted into this program, it is renewable every year regardless of how your home public school performs.

 

There are many charter school options in Akron.

 

So to say that she had no options just isn't true. She was unwilling to cooperate and wanted to make a big scene. I don't feel sorry for her.

 

Exactly! The very things that people are calling for because of this situation are already in place and used by many.

[unsinkable]

If she was claiming her dad's home as a residence, then she was committing fraud on the public welfare system with the housing. THAT is where she should be fined.

 

and i think that is been mentioned in the articles, that there is going to be an investigation into that.

 

It is a can of worms, certainly.

[unsinkable]

I live in Akron and three years ago, I lived in the same neighborhood that Kelley Williams-Bolar lives in. Now I live about 2 miles away in a slightly better Akron neighborhood. So many people feel sorry for her because they think she had no other options, but I don't see it that way.

 

Akron Public Schools has open enrollment throughout the district. So Williams-Bolar could have enrolled her daughters in a different Akron high school at no cost and without breaking the law. The one near me has a very good reputation and it would have been almost as good as the Copley Fairlawn schools that she lied to get into.

 

If your public school is in academic emergency for 2 of the last 3 years, you can use the Ohio Ed Choice voucher system and the state will pay up to $5,000 a year for tuition at a private school. My children are in a private Christian school now and lots of kids there get free tuition and a fantastic education because of the Ed choice program. And once you are accepted into this program, it is renewable every year regardless of how your home public school performs.

 

There are many charter school options in Akron.

 

So to say that she had no options just isn't true. She was unwilling to cooperate and wanted to make a big scene. I don't feel sorry for her.

 

Exactly! The very things that people are calling for because of this situation are already in place and used by many.

 

This article is from this morning:

 

http://www.ohio.com/news/114850844.html

 

I think this part is very interesting:

 

The Rev. Bruce Butcher, who is serving as a spiritual adviser to Williams-Bolar, spoke Friday outside Prince of Peace Baptist Church, where more than 100 supporters gathered.

 

''The family wants nothing less than complete exoneration for what's going on,'' Butcher said. ''And no half messages, no skullduggery, no tricks. They're going to hold out until they receive that.''

 

Williams-Bolar, 40, is reacclimating herself from her jail stay, he said, surrounded by friends and family, while her story is sparking national debate on school funding.

 

Butcher reiterated what Williams-Bolar has always said: that her decision to move her children from Akron schools to Copley-Fairlawn was not based on a belief of her children receiving a better education in suburbia.

 

Williams-Bolar, who works in special education for Akron schools, told the Beacon Journal last week that moving the girls to their grandfather's home in Copley was intended to ensure their safety and avoid a latch-key situation.