Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They investigated 30 or 40 parents for doing this. They gave them all the option of removing their children but she was the only one to not admit to the scam. They followed her with a PI for more than 2 weeks and found out she was driving them to a bus stop from her own home which was 45 minutes away.
And her father lives in town and pays taxes. My point remains, her family pays taxes into the school system and only has her two children in it.
She drives them 45 mins to get them to school? Good for her and her kids. I had a freshman whose parents couldn't be bothered to put a coat on her today.
And her father lives in town and pays taxes. My point remains, her family pays taxes into the school system and only has her two children in it.
She drives them 45 mins to get them to school? Good for her and her kids. I had a freshman whose parents couldn't be bothered to put a coat on her today.
The kids can only live in one place. They can not live with their grandfather and go to that school district while claiming to live with their mother for subsidized housing purposes.
The kids can only live in one place. They can not live with their grandfather and go to that school district while claiming to live with their mother for subsidized housing purposes.
The district gave her a bill because the issue here is MONEY, except her father pays taxes to the school district.
Again what if it had been the children's father in the town instead of grandfather. Would it have been okay then?
The district gave her a bill because the issue here is MONEY, except her father pays taxes to the school district.
Again what if it had been the children's father in the town instead of grandfather. Would it have been okay then?
If they had actually lived with their father, sure. It would have been fine if they actually lived with their grandfather, but a Private Investigator proved that to be a lie.
If they had actually lived with their father, sure. It would have been fine if they actually lived with their grandfather, but a Private Investigator proved that to be a lie.
You keep ignoring the fact it is about money and not where they live. If it was ONLY open to children who LIVE there then they wouldn't have been given the tuition option. Children who want to go to a school but whose parents do not pay into the school district through taxes (either directly or indirectly) can pay tuition to go there. These children did have a family matter who paid into the school district.
The idea that if it was their father and they would have to live with them is ridiculous as well. I know LOTS of children who split their time equally or not between parents homes in different towns and no one is there measuring how much time they are in each house. Know why? Because its really about the MONEY, and as long as one household is in the district it doesn't matter.
This is a much bigger problem than most people realize. Gaming the system is not a sustainable solution.
The quality of the educational experience is reflective of the value placed on education by the community. Large amounts of money have been funneled to many poor-performing districts to address not just the educational inequities, but housing, health care, daycare, and other family supports as well.
We will not meet the objectives for education that the president outlined in the SOTU last night from a top-down educational initiative. It needs to start from the bottom up. People must have pride in themselves and be willing to put forth their best effort regardless of their economic status. Parents need to model good values in their homes and show their support for education by demanding nothing less than their child's best effort.
We can't continue to penalize a shrinking middle America, a group that is increasingly being asked to shoulder more and more of the costs for the solutions to the problems of American society.
I can understand the mom wanting her kids to get a better education. However, that being said, what she did is wrong regardless - it is fraud, forgery, and teaching kids to lie and cheat. A couple years ago I had a parent who had done the same thing - the only difference was going from a worse high school where she was zoned for, and lying/falsifying her address and bringing her 2 kids to our school instead in the same district. She was caught and forced to withdraw her kids and send them to where they were supposed to be - not sure if there were other consequences imposed as well. And if this woman was pursuing an education degree as I've also read, she should have considered the possible consequences to her future as a teacher - and I believe the judge also has said that under Ohio law she cannot get a teaching license due to her conviction in this. Big price to pay all the way around, both now and later as well. The kids are living with the grandfather, but from what I read they are no longer in that school district - so where are they attending?
If your answer is no, then why is it acceptable for me to pay for a school via taxes when I have no children?
I didn't say it was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
