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.
This particular issue is a very common occurrence in our area. People often use addresses other than where they physically live to put their children in a different school. There are all kinds of 'reasons' behind them doing this. Maybe because they want them in a school closer to where they work. Maybe their want the same care provider to transport their child to and from school that they've been with since a baby. maybe they want a full day kindergarten and their district only offers half day.
I have never done that myself, nor do I ever plan to do so, so let me say up front that I don't think people should not follow the rules. We actually moved in order to get our younger two in a better school situation. However, that doesn't mean I don't understand why some people do it.
The parents do have to provide a legal document of some sort to validate the address, but it can simply be a lease, electric or water bill with the same last name on it and the schools won't typically research any further on their own. Their reason for that is because the school gets paid by the student and their attendance, and that money is more important to them than whether or not that family is actually paying taxes for that district. (Often they are paying into the district, just aren't zoned for that particular school)
The districts get their tax money from anyone who resides within their zones, so the only time it becomes a problem is if the taxes received are out of balance due to empty/abandoned homes or those who just fail to pay. It makes no difference to them whether it's John Doe with no children paying or Jane Smith with 10 children paying.
The only time a school usually challenges a student's residency is if the student has become a discipline issue or if someone ELSE makes a stink about them attending a school they aren't zoned for, especially if sports are an issue.
The thing is, she lives in a area where they decided to search for those not following the rules and was caught. She fought against the school and lost the battle.
My only question is, do they do this every year? Or was this something done because they decided it was now a problem? Basically, what was their reason for this action that has become such a huge news story?
My School District, Requires Verification @ K (or enrollment), 3rd grade, 6th grade, 9th. For everyone. If they have a questions about your status they can request it at anytime.
A District about 50 miles away does it each year, the neighboring district lost its accreditation. And they had a bunch of new student over the next month. They send out the verification request to everyone again those students magically left.
The woman's father allegedly owed years in back taxes. He also is being accused of falsifying income/marital status to receive government disability support. There allegedly were other government programs where applications were fraudulently submitted by both the woman and her dad.
Fraudulent theft of services hurts those who are truly entitled to receive them. It is not a victim less crime because others have to pay for the extra costs. A common form of abusing federal programs is not identifying a father when, in fact, in many instances the father is living in the house. This allows subsidized housing assistance, food stamps, child support, daycare, etc., to many who are not truly entitled to those benefits.
There needs to be a line or just about any law could be ignored to justify any inequity.
Last edited by Lincolnian; 01-27-2011 at 10:34 AM..
When people lie about their residency to get their children into better schools, they should get in trouble and fined the amount it cost the school district. I work in a district that is situated right between three major cities. While we certainly aren't a high performing district, parents in the inner city districts around us have tried for years to get their kids into our schools. What happens is that we then have class numbers grow while resources shrink. My district has gone to extremes to get these people out. We now require reregistration of all students every school year. People still sneak in though. I've had kids slip and tell me where they really live and I do report it to the residency officer. The problem is, we have one person that does checks and it takes a long time to get them out.
The law that is unjust is the one that started her course of action, the one regarding residency and district attendance.
No-you never answered. You are making a statement that is related to the case but you are not answering the question that I am asking. You are answering the question that you want me to be asking but not the actual question I am asking.
There is a law that makes it a crime to lie to public officials. That is the law that she is accused of breaking. How is that law (the one she is accused of breaking) unjust?
Can you answer the question I asked without spewing forth other nonsense?
No-you never answered. You are making a statement that is related to the case but you are not answering the question that I am asking. You are answering the question that you want me to be asking but not the actual question I am asking.
There is a law that makes it a crime to lie to public officials. That is the law that she is accused of breaking. How is that law (the one she is accused of breaking) unjust?
Can you answer the question I asked without spewing forth other nonsense?
I NEVER said that lying to officials was an unjust law so why do you keep pretending I did? Have you heard of a strawman because its applicable here.
What I said was unjust is the original law she broke; all of the other "crimes" are predicated on that original action. Example, Rosa Parks was arrested and tried for inciting a boycott, but that was predicated on the original "law" she she broke which was unjust. Same here, all of this woman's actions are predicated upon breaking an unjust law.
I really am sorry you do not understand that she was only convicted because she decided to place her children in a school system against a statute on residency and district attendance. On the other hand its obvious that you are hung up on the authoritarian issue and cannot grasp any other viewpoint. There is really no point in continuing to go around and around in circles.
A lie is a lie. Period. Just because you do not like or agree with that law does not make it OK to break that law.
That is your opinion. I would argue that any unjust law is inherently meant to be broken. Whether its Jim Crow laws, or segregation based on SES, as is the case here, those laws are meant to be broken, that is the very idea on which our country was founded.
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.
