Mother jailed for lying about children's school residency [Archive]

Skeptic Ginger

31st January 2011, 06:58 PM

Three days in jail? As a family law attorney, I can tell you that just the feel of a handcuff against the skin is an excellent motivator for parents to come up with overdue child support. I think that a criminal consequence for the worst civil offenses can act as a very effective general and specific deterent - more of a deterent than in cases of "traditional" crimes.It was 9 days, not 3, and with a felony conviction she might have to kiss her education and teaching career goodbye.Cosgrove sentenced Williams-Bolar to five years in prison on the tampering charges, but suspended all but 10 days to be served in the county jail.

She also was given two years of probation and 80 hours of community service.

Williams-Bolar was released from jail Jan. 18, one day early, after being given credit for time served when she was jailed immediately following her 2009 arrest.

But it turns out since the jury failed to convict the grandfather, the mother's verdict was declared a mistrial and the school district dropped the charges.

Grand theft charges dismissed (http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/114941719.html) Edited to add, I'm confused by the story. It says charges were dropped but a trial date for grandpa hasn't been set. I'll try re-reading it.

So what about the taxes paid by the grandfather? Whose kids' education do those taxes pay for?

The more I think about this, the more disgusting this prosecution becomes.

There are some blacks in the school district if one goes by the picture of the basketball team, so I don't know what the issue was here, poverty bigotry is one possibility. Someone had a problem if they authorized a private detective to follow the kids. That's absurd given the "crime".

This is confusing: Grand theft charges have been dismissed in the Copley-Fairlawn school residency case against Kelley Williams-Bolar and her father, Edward Williams.And:Defense attorney Kerry M. O'Brien said Williams-Bolar will file an appeal of her convictions and sentence in Akron's 9th District Court of Appeals.And:Meanwhile, in the continuing case of Edward Williams, a Feb. 9 pretrial hearing is scheduled in Cosgrove's court involving felony charges that were severed from the joint trial.

Those charges, also involving grand theft and tampering, are in connection with allegations of fraud to obtain various benefits from county and state public service agencies.

A trial date in the Williams case has not been set.Maybe someone else can make sense of this story. :boggled:

Skeptic Ginger

31st January 2011, 07:07 PM

Thanks, LL, that's a part of the story I should have added into the OP.

The mother was first asked to pay restitution and did not. I'm assuming she didn't have the money to do so, but still, its worth noting that she was given the opportunity to do so before she was indicted.Right, like a single mom in school living in a housing project can just come up with 30 grand. :rolleyes: I ask again, whose kids were grandpa's taxes spent on?

pipelineaudio

31st January 2011, 07:38 PM

If only the money could follow the kid from district to district

Who could possibly oppose that? :)

Skeptic Ginger

31st January 2011, 07:42 PM

Here's an NPR interview with the school district superintendent. (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/28/133306180/Mother-Jailed-For-School-Fraud-Flares-Controversy) Not one word is said about how many other parents paid the tuition. He only claims the other cases were settled. He goes on to blame the courts, the prosecutor, the law, and totally denies any personal or district culpability in the prosecution. So who hired the private investigator? Who pressed charges?

This is a one sided interview. My guess is the mother in this case didn't know how to work within the system the same way the other 47 families did. She probably didn't respond to the district's demands for $30,000. It is pretty intimidating for a poor family to be threatened with.

The superintendent says:MARTIN: And how were they resolved?

Mr. POE: Some families have offered compelling evidence that they do live within the district. Other families have withdrawn from school. Some families have moved into the district legally. And other families have chosen to apply and to pay tuition.

"Apply and pay tuition", as in pay to stay in the school, not pay past amounts? But how about the other sentence I bolded. Didn't these kids withdraw?

There's more here than this superintendent is admitting to.

scratchy

31st January 2011, 08:08 PM

If only the money could follow the kid from district to district

Who could possibly oppose that? :)
That is what we have here in the socialist kingdom of Sweden. As long as the schools have room for you, you can choose anyone. The money even follows the kids to private schools. Seems to work quite fine, and nurtures healthy competition among the schools.

pipelineaudio

31st January 2011, 09:19 PM

That is what we have here in the socialist kingdom of Sweden. As long as the schools have room for you, you can choose anyone. The money even follows the kids to private schools. Seems to work quite fine, and nurtures healthy competition among the schools.

Weird, it gets violently opposed by the socialists every time it gets brought up here. Perhaps you guys could export some of yours to teach ours

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/vouchers/

I wonder if this is really a union thing more than anything else

Schrodinger's Cat

1st February 2011, 06:21 AM

It was 9 days, not 3, and with a felony conviction she might have to kiss her education and teaching career goodbye.

But it turns out since the jury failed to convict the grandfather, the mother's verdict was declared a mistrial and the school district dropped the charges.

Grand theft charges dismissed (http://www.ohio.com/news/break_news/114941719.html) Edited to add, I'm confused by the story. It says charges were dropped but a trial date for grandpa hasn't been set. I'll try re-reading it.

So what about the taxes paid by the grandfather? Whose kids' education do those taxes pay for?

The more I think about this, the more disgusting this prosecution becomes.

There are some blacks in the school district if one goes by the picture of the basketball team, so I don't know what the issue was here, poverty bigotry is one possibility. Someone had a problem if they authorized a private detective to follow the kids. That's absurd given the "crime".

This is confusing: And:And:Maybe someone else can make sense of this story. :boggled:

It is quite a convoluted case. In interpreted the above as meaning she was conviced on some charges and had others dismissed.

What I am more confused about is how other families cases were handled. As you said, the superintendent in his interview doesn't go into a whole lot of detail. He states that some simply withdrew their students from the school, but that is what this mother did as well. Were those other students made to pay the past balances owed to the school? I have looked at a few different articles on this but unfortunately have not found any further clarification.

However, SG, I wouldn't jump on the "racial/poverty bigotry" bus so quickly. I went to University of Florida, where there was a very big difference in price for in and out of state students. Also, its harder to get into UF as an out of state student than as an in state. I was out of state myself and never tried to claim otherwise, but I know it was a really big deal when the school suspected an out of state student was lying about residency and they would investigate students suspected of doing so. And even then, the tuition for out of state students isn't all THAT high (its actually quite low when contrasted to comparable college tuition rates), and UF has a LOT more money than some private elementary school. It's hard to say if there was some kind of bigotry involved without having more information on how other parents cases were handled, its certainly a possibility...but that's a pretty big accusation against the school that I wouldn't make without any evidence to support it.

As I said, I do feel bad for this woman. I live right next door to Brookline, a wealthy community. Their public schools are extremely high ranked, some of the best in the country. My husband have already decided that if we have kids and still live in Massachusetts, we'll live in Brookline just to get our kids in a good school, even if it means living in a much smaller apartment or home than we would be able to afford outside of Brookline. However, if this woman was living in public housing, she just couldn't afford to do even that.

But at the end of the day, is a crappy system an excuse for breaking the law to try and get around that crappy system?

So what about the taxes paid by the grandfather? Whose kids' education do those taxes pay for?

Yeah, and I don't have a car and so I don't use the roads, and I pay for schools in a district I never went to school in and don't plan to have children in, what does that have to with anything? We all have taxes that go towards services that we don't use personally. And in turn, other people pay taxes for services we use and they don't. That's how it works. Also, if he always lived in the same place, his taxes would have gone towards his own children's education. He also is paying to NOT live in the kind of community that would arise if children were simply not educated.

So what if her grandfather pays taxes? That would make a difference if he was their caretaker. He's not. What does simply being a blood relative matter?

Are you honestly suggesting as an excuse, "Well I have a relative whose taxes are going towards services they don't use to the fullest, so that means I get to steal and not get in trouble for it?" Let's say I didn't use the subway ever here in Boston, and my sister comes to visit me. Should she get to jump the turnstile and then, when arrested, say, "But my sister pays taxes here and never even uses the subway!"

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 09:32 AM

Are you honestly suggesting as an excuse, "Well I have a relative whose taxes are going towards services they don't use to the fullest, so that means I get to steal and not get in trouble for it?" Let's say I didn't use the subway ever here in Boston, and my sister comes to visit me. Should she get to jump the turnstile and then, when arrested, say, "But my sister pays taxes here and never even uses the subway!"No, that's not the argument. The argument is that everyone pays taxes which entitle them to government services wherever they are in this country. If I'm driving through Nevada, stop for some lunch, walk out of the restaurant and find my car stolen, I wouldn't expect the Nevada police to say, "You're a California resident. You didn't pay our salary. Find your own car."

Governments are not supposed to condition the provision of basic services on the payment of taxes. You are required to pay taxes. The State is required to provide services.

Schrodinger's Cat

1st February 2011, 10:04 AM

No, that's not the argument. The argument is that everyone pays taxes which entitle them to government services wherever they are in this country.

No, that's not the case at all. Where did you get that idea? It's completely false. I work at a hospital. If you have Medicaid from one state, you don't get to just go to any state and get medical care there. You only get medical care from the state you have Medicaid in UNLESS your medicaid program has a prearranged contract with the out of state hospital the patient is going to. Even if a hospital out of state takes their own local Medicaid, that doesn't mean you get to use another state's medicaid to pay for those services. You don't. You only (again, unless your program has an exception contract attached to it) get to use your medicaid in the state where you reside.

Paying taxes absolutely does not entitle you to government services anywhere in the country.

Also, I don't *think * that was what Skeptic Ginger was arguing, because if that was the argument, then why would she mention the grandfather's taxes? By the argument you pose above, she would just say that the mother's taxes should entitle her children to school anywhere, and the mother's taxes should "follow" her wherever she sends the child to school. Of course, not being skeptic ginger, I can't say that with any certainty, so we'll just have to wait for her to come back to clarify the point she was making. The point she was making seemed to be: her grandfather pays taxes and doesn't have kids, so since he's paying taxes but not using the schools (which very likely isn't true, since he had children at SOME point and may have always lived there and as I already stated, he certainly reaps the advantages of living in a community where children receive education), then a relative of his should get to since he does not.

If I'm driving through Nevada, stop for some lunch, walk out of the restaurant and find my car stolen, I wouldn't expect the Nevada police to say, "You're a California resident. You didn't pay our salary. Find your own car."

Governments are not supposed to condition the provision of basic services on the payment of taxes. You are required to pay taxes. The State is required to provide services.

Your example doesn't really work. The crime took place in Nevada, so the Nevada police are responsible for it, because taxes go to pay Nevada cops to solve Nevada crimes. They're being hired to solve crime for the sake of the community at large, not the individual victim. For instance, the police will often charge someone with a crime even if the victim doesn't want charges pressed. An individual paying taxes has nothing to do with police solving crime committed against them. If someone was visiting from Germany who just got off the plane and never paid a cent of taxes in the United States was robbed in Nevada, the Nevada police would still be responsible for handling the case.

An example that would be more analagous to the situation at hand would be: you are a resident of New Mexico. Your car is stolen in New Mexico. You don't like the cops in New Mexico, so you call Nevada and tell them you want THEM to investigate the theft.

And they wouldn't do it, because its not their responsibility. Just like its not the responsibility of a district these children do NOT live in to provide them with an education.

The argument you post above seems to be how you think it SHOULD work, not the way it DOES work, legally.

Alt+F4

1st February 2011, 10:28 AM

I want to know the underlying motive here because I don't believe the story is so obvious. My first guess is the girls let slip they live in a housing project and some parents had a bigot fit.

My first guess is that the girls were extremely disruptive and the school wanted them out.

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 11:46 AM

No, that's not the case at all. Where did you get that idea? It's completely false. I work at a hospital. If you have Medicaid from one state, you don't get to just go to any state and get medical care there.Your example is about something totally different. Notice it's not "if you live in one state" it's "if you have Medicaid from one state".

Paying taxes absolutely does not entitle you to government services anywhere in the country.That's correct. There is no connection whatsoever between paying taxes and receiving government services. Receiving government services is a right of citizenship.

Your example doesn't really work. The crime took place in Nevada, so the Nevada police are responsible for it, because taxes go to pay Nevada cops to solve Nevada crimes.That makes my point. The school is in some particular area. She is in that area requesting services. Taxes go to pay that school to educate people who come to that school.

They're being hired to solve crime for the sake of the community at large, not the individual victim.Public education is likewise for the sake of the community at large.

For instance, the police will often charge someone with a crime even if the victim doesn't want charges pressed. An individual paying taxes has nothing to do with police solving crime committed against them. If someone was visiting from Germany who just got off the plane and never paid a cent of taxes in the United States was robbed in Nevada, the Nevada police would still be responsible for handling the case.Exactly. If you come to Nevada and ask the Nevada police for services in Nevada, they will provide them to you because that is their job.

An example that would be more analagous to the situation at hand would be: you are a resident of New Mexico. Your car is stolen in New Mexico. You don't like the cops in New Mexico, so you call Nevada and tell them you want THEM to investigate the theft.Exactly, but she isn't asking some random school district to educate her in her home district. She is going to a school district and asking it to provide the very school services it was created to provide.

And they wouldn't do it, because its not their responsibility. Just like its not the responsibility of a district these children do NOT live in to provide them with an education.So why can't the Nevada police argue that it's not their responsibility to provide people who do not live there with police response services? If someone is in Nevada and needs police services in Nevada, it's the job of the Nevada police to provide them. Similarly, if her child is in the district and needs an education, it's the responsibility of the public schools in that region to provide them with one.

The argument you post above seems to be how you think it SHOULD work, not the way it DOES work, legally.I'm well aware that you can often legally get away with screwing someone over. I'm pointing out that this is precisely what happened here.

They have found a legal way to say "you don't pay us taxes so you don't get our services". That is precisely what the government is *not* supposed to be allowed to do, and it's a gross breach of public trust.

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 12:03 PM

I'm sorry, I think it's a bunch of garbage. There are families in every school district who do this, it is hardly a crime wave, and other school districts haven't worried it was affecting their bottom line. I want to know the underlying motive here because I don't believe the story is so obvious. My first guess is the girls let slip they live in a housing project and some parents had a bigot fit.
There are some blacks in the school district if one goes by the picture of the basketball team, so I don't know what the issue was here, poverty bigotry is one possibility. Someone had a problem if they authorized a private detective to follow the kids. That's absurd given the "crime".
My first guess is that the girls were extremely disruptive and the school wanted them out.

You're absolutely wrong. Just about every suburban school district guards its borders from out-of-district kids. They all have investigators. Many don't charge tuition, meaning that they have no mechinism by which an out-of-district child can attend the school.

Once a month, I get a call from a parent or guardian about a child whose residency is being challenged. These individuals are of every race and usually of decent economic standing. I recently negotiated an end to a case where the district found out a child was not a resident and demanded that he leave even though he was at the top of his class and a star football player. (And it was during football season!)

There is nothing unusual at all about the school district's actions.

So what about the taxes paid by the grandfather? Whose kids' education do those taxes pay for?
I ask again, whose kids were grandpa's taxes spent on?

That's easy. The grandfather's taxes were going to educate the children in his district. Why? It's simple. A society that educates its children makes them more productive. This increases the wealth of the entire society. This increases the standard of living of everyone, even people who don't have children. You don't even have to wait 30 years to see the results. Imagine the crime rate if your local high school shut down tomorrow. Imagine the eight extra hours a day 16 year-olds would have at their disposal.

Schools improve every aspect of public life.

Now, perhaps taxes should be distributed more fairly than on a per-district basis. Perhaps they should be distributed by the state or fed on a per capita basis. But there's one good reason why they're not:

Nobody really wants it that way.

Schools have, since the beginings of public education in the US, been entirely local affairs. There was actually quite an uproar over the creation of the federal Department of Education because localities thought they would be ceding control to the fed. And every Secretary of Education has gone out of his/her way to make it clear that they are there to support local schools, not dictate to them.

Whenever a plan to redistribute school funding is proposed, it just dies a quiet death. It never makes it anywhere at the state or federal level.

So, I suggest you campaign for per capita education funding: it solves almost all of your concerns; it's an exciting hobby; and it's utterly pointless.

Governments are not supposed to condition the provision of basic services on the payment of taxes. You are required to pay taxes. The State is required to provide services.

Actually, the state isn't really required to do anything. The fact that it provides any services at all is kind of a miracle. We could easily live in a kleptocracy.

Mr. Purple

1st February 2011, 12:06 PM

Regardless of the current rationale for their purpose, I submit that prisons/jails should be used for the warehousing of violent criminals. They are not appropriate for "crimes" such as these.

It isn't doing anyone, any good to have this lady in jail. Quite the contrary, you are making it harder for her to be a productive member of society, raise her children to do the same, and you are costing the tax payer money.

I am not saying she is without blame, or that she shouldn't have to make amends, I am just saying that jail is not the answer.

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 12:16 PM

It isn't doing anyone, any good to have this lady in jail.

What about it's effect as a general deterent?

Alt+F4

1st February 2011, 02:48 PM

You're absolutely wrong. Just about every suburban school district guards its borders from out-of-district kids. They all have investigators. Many don't charge tuition, meaning that they have no mechinism by which an out-of-district child can attend the school.

Since you haven't indicated that you are personally involved in this case there is no way that you can know that I'm absolutely wrong. Yes, suburban schools that border "bad" urban districts do guard their borders but I have never seen any district push a case this far.

I've been a public school teacher for 17 years and I know the extremes a district can go to get rid of children they don't want....and it has nothing to do with money.

Alt+F4

1st February 2011, 02:51 PM

Schrodinger's Cat

1st February 2011, 02:53 PM

Your example is about something totally different. Notice it's not "if you live in one state" it's "if you have Medicaid from one state".

That's correct. There is no connection whatsoever between paying taxes and receiving government services. Receiving government services is a right of citizenship.

So why did you say....

The argument is that everyone pays taxes which entitle them to government services wherever they are in this country.

That makes my point. The school is in some particular area. She is in that area requesting services. Taxes go to pay that school to educate people who come to that school.

Public education is likewise for the sake of the community at large.

Exactly. If you come to Nevada and ask the Nevada police for services in Nevada, they will provide them to you because that is their job.

Exactly, but she isn't asking some random school district to educate her in her home district. She is going to a school district and asking it to provide the very school services it was created to provide.
So why can't the Nevada police argue that it's not their responsibility to provide people who do not live there with police response services? If someone is in Nevada and needs police services in Nevada, it's the job of the Nevada police to provide them. Similarly, if her child is in the district and needs an education, it's the responsibility of the public schools in that region to provide them with one.I'm well aware that you can often legally get away with screwing someone over. I'm pointing out that this is precisely what happened here.

They have found a legal way to say "you don't pay us taxes so you don't get our services". That is precisely what the government is *not* supposed to be allowed to do, and it's a gross breach of public trust.

Ummm....I think you are very confused. I think what *you* think is that the mother lived in the district where this school is, but didn't pay taxes, and that's why they refused services. Of course that's not the case. First of all, even the indigent pay taxes on SOMETHING. Second, if you're talking about income taxes, of course those aren't necessary for your children to be educated. It's not like children of the unemployed are kicked out of school.

The mother DOESN'T live in the school district she sent her children to, and neither do her children. She LIED and said she DID in order to get her kids services from a district she did not live in. Is it right next door? Sure. But its still a different district, and she's no more entitled to the services of that district than one 2,000 miles away.

You know, if you're going to participate in a thread and comment on an article, it's only polite to read the article you're commenting on. In fact, it doesn't even appear that you read my OP, or any of the posts preceeding the post you commented on. Or the thread title...considering the thread title is, "mother jailed for lying about children's school residency"

Why are you commenting in a thread where you clearly haven't read the opening post, nor the article being discussed, or even the thread title?

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 05:13 PM

So why did you say....The fact that everyone pays taxes entitles everyone to government services. The fact that you pay taxes does not entitled you to government services. The goverment has an obligation to provide services to those who request it because it is funded by taxes.

Ummm....I think you are very confused. I think what *you* think is that the mother lived in the district where this school is, but didn't pay taxes, and that's why they refused services. Of course that's not the case. First of all, even the indigent pay taxes on SOMETHING. Second, if you're talking about income taxes, of course those aren't necessary for your children to be educated. It's not like children of the unemployed are kicked out of school.I understand this. I don't pay Nevada taxes because I don't live there. But if I go to Nevada and need the assistance of Nevada police to deal with a Nevada crime, they have to help me. They cannot use the fact that I didn't pay taxes in Nevada to deny me services. Nor can they justifiably use some other excuse as a backdoor way to deny me services because my taxes don't pay their salary as a Nevada resident's do.

The mother DOESN'T live in the school district she sent her children to, and neither do her children. She LIED and said she DID in order to get her kids services from a district she did not live in. Is it right next door? Sure. But its still a different district, and she's no more entitled to the services of that district than one 2,000 miles away.Why is she not entitled to the services of that district? Her child is in that district requesting those services. She requested the services. The school exists to provide them.

You know, if you're going to participate in a thread and comment on an article, it's only polite to read the article you're commenting on. In fact, it doesn't even appear that you read my OP, or any of the posts preceeding the post you commented on. Or the thread title...considering the thread title is, "mother jailed for lying about children's school residency"

Why are you commenting in a thread where you clearly haven't read the opening post, nor the article being discussed, or even the thread title?It seems like you're not reading what I'm writing. I understand all this. Try reading what I wrote again with some kind of presumption of good faith.

The residency requirement is an excuse. What they really want to do is deny schooling to those who don't pay taxes in that district. They can't do that, so they deny it to non-residents as a way to get the same effect. It's a gross breach of the public trust because provision of government services is not supposed to be conditioned on payment of taxes.

Why do they care where she lives? Hint: It's because those who don't live in the district don't pay the taxes that pay for that school.

Why did they offer to let her pay tuition? Hint: It's because her tuition wasn't paid for by her taxes.

Public schools were supposed to be America's great equalizer.

quixotecoyote

1st February 2011, 05:25 PM

The fact that everyone pays taxes entitles everyone to government services. The fact that you pay taxes does not entitled you to government services. The goverment has an obligation to provide services to those who request it because it is funded by taxes.

I understand this. I don't pay Nevada taxes because I don't live there. But if I go to Nevada and need the assistance of Nevada police to deal with a Nevada crime, they have to help me. They cannot use the fact that I didn't pay taxes in Nevada to deny me services. Nor can they justifiably use some other excuse as a backdoor way to deny me services because my taxes don't pay their salary as a Nevada resident's do.

Why is she not entitled to the services of that district? Her child is in that district requesting those services. She requested the services. The school exists to provide them.

It seems like you're not reading what I'm writing. I understand all this. Try reading what I wrote again with some kind of presumption of good faith.

The residency requirement is an excuse. What they really want to do is deny schooling to those who don't pay taxes in that district. They can't do that, so they deny it to non-residents as a way to get the same effect. It's a gross breach of the public trust because provision of government services is not supposed to be conditioned on payment of taxes.

Why do they care where she lives? Hint: It's because those who don't live in the district don't pay the taxes that pay for that school.

Why did they offer to let her pay tuition? Hint: It's because her tuition wasn't paid for by her taxes.

Do you live in some small country with a single level of government? I ask because you have some idea of how US government works that's totally at odds with reality and ignores the fact that what services are available to you can, depending on the service, vary wildly depending on which governmental bodies you are under.

eta:To use your analogy, if you live in California, you can't demand Nevada police investigate a local crime because you think they do a better job.

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 05:31 PM

I've been a public school teacher for 17 years and I know the extremes a district can go to get rid of children they don't want....and it has nothing to do with money.

I've been a family law attorney for 14 years with a strong focus on student rights including disability, discipline and residency. I've forced districts to take back students they tried to turf. I've forced districts to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for residential schools a thousand miles away. I've even secured waivers for unvaccinated children. I've represented families before the school district, hearing examiners, the Commissioner of Education, the New York State Supreme Court and Federal District Court. I have been published in legal reference books and periodicals on the subject of education law.

Are those sufficient bona fides for you?

Sherman Bay

1st February 2011, 05:39 PM

If only the money could follow the kid from district to district

Who could possibly oppose that? :)Actually, that's the way it works in Wisconsin. You need to declare your intention to enroll your child in some other district than yours a little in advance, so they can plan ahead, but it's entirely the parents' choice where the child goes to school.

The state pays each school according to the enrollment numbers, although the state aid is not the entire budget. AFAIK, property tax money is not adjusted according to enrollment.

No reason for enrollment choice need be given. Sometimes it's merely the transportation situation; one parent can give a child a ride on the way to/from work. Other times it's because of curriculum choices, or a parents' belief that one school is better than another.
Just about every suburban school district guards its borders from out-of-district kids. They all have investigators. Many don't charge tuition, meaning that they have no mechinism by which an out-of-district child can attend the school.Wisconsin does. It's called Open Enrollment and it works very well.

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 05:52 PM

The goverment has an obligation to provide services to those who request it because it is funded by taxes.

No, the government really doesn't. The government has no obligations except those which it voluntarily undertakes. Even in the US, which provides extensive government services of every type, the government can choose simply not to provide them at any time and for any reason so long as they're not discriminating on the basis of color, sex (but not sexuality), old age (but not youth), or religion (but not really weird ones).

But if I go to Nevada and need the assistance of Nevada police to deal with a Nevada crime, they have to help me.

No, they don't. See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A2d 1 (1981). "[A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

Her child is in that district requesting those services.

No. The children did not live in the district.

The residency requirement is an excuse. What they really want to do is deny schooling to those who don't pay taxes in that district. They can't do that, so they deny it to non-residents as a way to get the same effect. It's a gross breach of the public trust because provision of government services is not supposed to be conditioned on payment of taxes.

Your paragraph above is nonsensical. It makes no sense.

Sherman Bay

1st February 2011, 05:52 PM

That makes my point. The school is in some particular area. She is in that area requesting services. Taxes go to pay that school to educate people who come to that school.
<snip>
Public education is likewise for the sake of the community at large.
<snip>
Exactly, but she isn't asking some random school district to educate her in her home district. She is going to a school district and asking it to provide the very school services it was created to provide.It wasn't created to provide HER with services, since she was not a resident.

Perhaps you don't understand how much of the public school system is set up in the USA. School districts have boundaries just like cities and towns do (but not necessarily the same boundaries). You either live in District One or District Two. District One taxes its citizens to provide services for its citizens (only), and District Two, for theirs.

So this mom lived in District One and wanted to use services in District Two. Her taxes (property taxes, probably) went to support One, not Two. So District Two owes her nothing, unless the state has some Open Enrollment plan as does Wisconsin.

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 06:04 PM

eta:To use your analogy, if you live in California, you can't demand Nevada police investigate a local crime because you think they do a better job.Of course, because the crime took place in California. She is not asking the school to come to her district and provide her child with an education. She is going to the school and asking the school to provide her child with an education in its own district. That is its job.

fuelair

1st February 2011, 06:12 PM

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 06:20 PM

Wisconsin does. It's called Open Enrollment and it works very well.

It's a fascinating system. It's interesting that Wisconsin's largest city, Milwaukee, has only 600,000 or so residents and is the 22nd largest city in the US. it has a population density of 6,300 people per square mile. Its second largest city, swollen with college students, still only has 230,000 people total. It's the 81st largest city in the US.

In contrast, New York City has 8.4 million people and a population density of 27,532 people per square mile, over four times as dense as Milwaukee and fourteen times as large.

I initially qualified my statement about school districts guarding their borders by limiting it to "suburban" schools. Perhaps Wisconsin's success is tied to the fact that there is less of a difference between urban and suburban there than on the east coast.

Still, I'm very interested in reading more about Open Enrollment and trying to learn whether any of it could ever be made to work here.

JoelKatz

1st February 2011, 06:29 PM

No, they don't. See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A2d 1 (1981). "[A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."This is a principle of tort law and sovereign immunity. It has no relevance here. If it did, Nevada police could refuse to accept any complaint submitted by a California resident as a matter of policy. It would be relevant if she were suing a public school for failing to provide her child with a proper education.

"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." - Warren v. District of Columbia

There is no question that agencies that provide government services have a general duty to provide those services to the public at large. Warren v. District of Columbia mentions this several times.

I'm not arguing that the schools owed her children a specific personal duty to educate them. I'm simply arguing that they have a general duty to provide public education to persons in their jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not those people pay them taxes. Using residency as a backdoor way to exclude people who didn't pay taxes into the jurisdiction is a gross breach of public trust.

Public education was supposed to be America's great equalizer, given every child an equal chance to succeed.

fuelair

1st February 2011, 06:30 PM

Of course, because the crime took place in California. She is not asking the school to come to her district and provide her child with an education. She is going to the school and asking the school to provide her child with an education in its own district. That is its job.

No, that is not it's job unless it is a very unusual school system - and if it was, the court and police would not have needed to get involved. It's job is to provide the best education it can based on it's resources to the students it is required to accept from the specific geographic area assigned to it by the school district (and, sometimes the courts). Federal and state requirements have reporting procedures and pass down monies based on that -even local tax distribution to the schools in a specific district is based on that. If the numbers get skewed because a few student's parents pull this little trick for any of the reasons they might some schools wind up with more money than they should be getting and others get less than they should be.

The system is not perfect, but, then the schools are not getting nearly enough money to do the job properly anyway (pop into the average chemistry lab in a high school and check what they have - then look through the lab manuals/texts to see what they actually should have to teach it right - loads of other examples there).

EeneyMinnieMoe

1st February 2011, 06:54 PM

Perhaps someone can clarify this- why was she forced to pay 30,000 dollars in tuition? Wasn't it a public school?

Are the taxes devoted to public schools in Akron, Ohio really 15,000 a year per every taxpaying adult?! :confused: That's impossible.

Or was it a private school? In that case, why wasn't she made to pay upfront as soon as she enrolled her daughters?

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:02 PM

...
However, SG, I wouldn't jump on the "racial/poverty bigotry" bus so quickly.I'm not. I don't see clear evidence here of why this woman was singled out. If you check the school district web page, it appears to be an integrated district.

But something happened and from the evidence we have, either someone had a problem with this mom, or the mom did something to make the situation worse than the other 47 families did. Two possibilities, but by no means the only possibilities, are 1) that living in a housing project was the issue or 2) the mother not kowtowing to the system or to someone'e satisfaction had something to do with it.

...I went to University of Florida, where there was a very big difference in price for in and out of state students. Also, its harder to get into UF as an out of state student than as an in state. I was out of state myself and never tried to claim otherwise, but I know it was a really big deal when the school suspected an out of state student was lying about residency ...There's a huge difference at the college level and being out of state vs just out of the district.

...
But at the end of the day, is a crappy system an excuse for breaking the law to try and get around that crappy system? My issue was with criminalizing it when it should have been a civil matter, and worse, turning the charge into a felony was ridiculous.

...Yeah, and I don't have a car and so I don't use the roads, and I pay for schools in a district I never went to school in and don't plan to have children in, what does that have to with anything? We all have taxes that go towards services that we don't use personally. And in turn, other people pay taxes for services we use and they don't. That's how it works. Also, if he always lived in the same place, his taxes would have gone towards his own children's education. He also is paying to NOT live in the kind of community that would arise if children were simply not educated.

So what if her grandfather pays taxes? That would make a difference if he was their caretaker. He's not. What does simply being a blood relative matter? The point was claiming this was $30,000 grand theft is trumped up. The crime was lying on some forms and lying about an address. The crime was not grand larceny.

...Are you honestly suggesting as an excuse, "Well I have a relative whose taxes are going towards services they don't use to the fullest, so that means I get to steal and not get in trouble for it?" Let's say I didn't use the subway ever here in Boston, and my sister comes to visit me. Should she get to jump the turnstile and then, when arrested, say, "But my sister pays taxes here and never even uses the subway!"No. What I'm saying is the theft was all on paper. And you can shuffle those papers in different ways to make the crime have a different flavor.

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:05 PM

My first guess is that the girls were extremely disruptive and the school wanted them out.
Could be, but the kids were gone and the mother was prosecuted for the following 2 years.

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:07 PM

You're absolutely wrong. Just about every suburban school district guards its borders from out-of-district kids. They all have investigators. Many don't charge tuition, meaning that they have no mechinism by which an out-of-district child can attend the school.

Once a month, I get a call from a parent or guardian about a child whose residency is being challenged. These individuals are of every race and usually of decent economic standing. I recently negotiated an end to a case where the district found out a child was not a resident and demanded that he leave even though he was at the top of his class and a star football player. (And it was during football season!)

There is nothing unusual at all about the school district's actions.So you've heard of other parents being convicted of a felony for this crime and who've spent time in jail?

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:08 PM

What about it's effect as a general deterent?What about the 47 other families that no one went to jail over? Why does this woman deserve to be the deterrent case?

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:09 PM

Would you say the same thing about Bernie Madoff?Madoff stole entire life savings from individuals.

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:14 PM

I've been a family law attorney for 14 years with a strong focus on student rights including disability, discipline and residency. I've forced districts to take back students they tried to turf. I've forced districts to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for residential schools a thousand miles away. I've even secured waivers for unvaccinated children. I've represented families before the school district, hearing examiners, the Commissioner of Education, the New York State Supreme Court and Federal District Court. I have been published in legal reference books and periodicals on the subject of education law.

Are those sufficient bona fides for you?So in your vantage point in the system, you should have other examples of parents convicted of felonies and sent to jail for similar residence fakery. Got any examples?

I don't think people are saying the woman was within her rights. My guess is she was playing the field. If she had the kids reside with grandpa, she probably wouldn't have qualified for the subsidized housing. So she said the kids lived with her to get housing and the kids lived with grandpa to go to school.

But if she was working to get an education, I'm not that upset she played the system.

What people are complaining about is the punishment, a felony conviction and jail time, did not fit the crime.

Skeptic Ginger

1st February 2011, 07:22 PM

Perhaps someone can clarify this- why was she forced to pay 30,000 dollars in tuition? Wasn't it a public school?

Are the taxes devoted to public schools in Akron, Ohio really 15,000 a year per every taxpaying adult?! :confused: That's impossible.

Or was it a private school? In that case, why wasn't she made to pay upfront as soon as she enrolled her daughters?
The superintendent's story was odd. He claimed they got a fixed amount from the state per student. That was where the figure of $30,000 came from, 2 kids, ~$6,000/yr times a couple years.

But the superintendent also claimed that the amount from the state was based on a fixed number of students and adding 10 out of district kids a year was a burden. What I didn't get was how the state pays per student without taking into account the number of students. And if that was the issue, why not just have the state shift the money from one school to the other? It was very fuzzy. Maybe someone else knows the details that would make it clear.

Loss Leader

1st February 2011, 07:59 PM

Perhaps someone can clarify this- why was she forced to pay 30,000 dollars in tuition? Wasn't it a public school?

Are the taxes devoted to public schools in Akron, Ohio really 15,000 a year per every taxpaying adult?! :confused: That's impossible.

The amount of tuition charged by a public school to an out of district student is set yearly by federal law. It does not represent the amount each resident of the district pays, but the cost of educating that student. For every in-district student, there may be two, three, four or five in-district adults whose taxes pay their tuition. People without children pay school taxes because schools make public life better.

However, the out-of-district student has no in-district adults to tax. That student must bear the full cost of tuition.

It should be mentioned that schools do not have to offer tuition at all. They can, and often do, say that they do not accept tuition and that out-of-district students cannot attend under any circumstances. In my county, of eight school districts, only one accepts tuition.

My guess is she was playing the field. If she had the kids reside with grandpa, she probably wouldn't have qualified for the subsidized housing. So she said the kids lived with her to get housing and the kids lived with grandpa to go to school.

Even your guess wouldn't have worked. A child is presumed to live with his parents. A child not living with parents will be considered out-of-district if the primary reason for moving in to the district was to take advantage of the school system.

I had a case a few years ago where parents in Connecticut were having great trouble with their teenage daughter. They sent her to live, under a voluntary custody agreement, with her strict aunt and uncle in my county in New York. The local school district rejected her, saying she had moved in just to take advantage of the pretty good education.

I won the case by pointing out that the school district she had left in Connecticut was superior in absolutely every way. The only thing our local school had that her old school didn't was the lack of her 24 year-old drug-dealing boyfriend.

a felony conviction and jail time, did not fit the crime.

It depends on your views on the purposes of punishment. Seeing the press that the case has gotten and the awareness of the issue it has raised, it may deter many people from attempting similar nonsense.

The Central Scrutinizer

1st February 2011, 08:04 PM

So what about the taxes paid by the grandfather? Whose kids' education do those taxes pay for?

Is this a serious question? They go to pay for the kids in his district. Just like my taxes do, even though I don't have kids. Do you really not know this?

quixotecoyote

1st February 2011, 10:42 PM

Of course, because the crime took place in California. She is not asking the school to come to her district and provide her child with an education. She is going to the school and asking the school to provide her child with an education in its own district. That is its job.

And if she went to Nevada (the other district) and asked the police (school) to investigate (educate) the crime (child) that took place in California (the district she actually lives in), they wouldn't. Because it's not their job.

Her district is responsible for her services. The other district is not. Period. It doesn't matter if she brings the child to the other district, because the services are based on residency. Similarly, you won't get a state college to waive an out-of-state fee increase by pointing out that you have traveled to their state to attend the college, and thus they should treat you as if you lived there. Their response will probably be to regret accepting your application, as that's the exact reason they charge more.

pipelineaudio

1st February 2011, 11:25 PM

So while the schools in AZ are fined and forced to educate the illegals who are in NOBODY's district, somehow we gotta make a martyr of this woman who is, legally paying taxes in one district, probably very comparable to the amount she's paying in another district?

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 12:59 AM

Her district is responsible for her services. The other district is not. Period. It doesn't matter if she brings the child to the other district, because the services are based on residency. Similarly, you won't get a state college to waive an out-of-state fee increase by pointing out that you have traveled to their state to attend the college, and thus they should treat you as if you lived there. Their response will probably be to regret accepting your application, as that's the exact reason they charge more.So why can't the Nevada police refuse to investigate a crime that took place in Nevada on behalf of a California citizen by saying, "I'm sorry, the services are based on residency"? I get the fact that they base their services on residency. I'm arguing that this is a breach of public trust.

Your college analogy has more differences than similarities. First, no law requires anyone to get a college education. Second, college education is not intended to equalize opportunities the way universal free public education is. Third, we have decided as a society to make primary education a free government service and we have not made a similar election for secondary education. Fourth, college residency divides state residents from non-state residents while this divides state residents into categories. Fifth, State colleges have all kinds of programs that help people who want to go to a particular college and cannot afford to attend it, these public schools have no such programs.

A college education provides a benefit we accept that only some people will want. People generally tend to live and work in the same State and so the State tends to get the benefit of those State residents it provides a college education to. In contrast, everyone is supposed to have a comparable primary education. People generally do not live and work in the same local area and there is not supposed to be some unique benefit to having those you provide a high school education to in your jurisdiction because that's supposed to be the norm everyone achieves.

"How do we charge for something that is not supposed to be free and universally provided?" is a different question from "When can we charge for something that is supposed to be free and universally provided?".

Dancing David

2nd February 2011, 04:32 AM

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/26/ohio-mom-kelley-williams-bolar-jailed-for-lying-about-kids-scho/

I'm pretty torn. I have a lot of sympathy for this woman. She lived in a poor area with crappy schools and wanted her kids to get into a good school, so she lied about their residency to get them into a nicer one. She wanted to help her family, and the fact that if you live in a poor area, your kids more often then not get sent to a bad school through no fault of their own - the fact that she would even feel the need to do such a thing - is a pretty chilling indictment on our education system. Jail, even a short sentence like this, seems pretty harsh.

However, at the end of the day, she committed a crime and defrauded a school. Having your family's well being as your only motivation isn't some kind of get out of jail free card.

Thoughts on this? Both the crime, and the context in which it occurred?

This is no big deal, it happens all the time.
The school district is just practising white middle class entitlement rage.

The solution? Fund all schools equally.

Dancing David

2nd February 2011, 04:35 AM

It depends on your views on the purposes of punishment. Seeing the press that the case has gotten and the awareness of the issue it has raised, it may deter many people from attempting similar nonsense.

Not really, it is a common practice, the only thing that it points out is that all students should be funded equally, instead of archaic property based systems.

Industry and people moved to the suburbs in the last century, so did the tax base for schools.

Foolmewunz

2nd February 2011, 05:46 AM

26 or 27 years ago, I was this woman. We were pioneering the Loisaida area when it looked like Dresden after the war. The local grammar school was a disaster area, literally (broken out windows, high turnover of teachers, shooting galleries across the street) so I registered my daughter care of my mother's address, and she got to attend P.S. 41, probably the best public grammar school in NYC.

Was I gaming the system? Yes. But the salient facts were that A) no local children were being refused entry into P.S. 41 at that time, so we didn't prevent a worthy local child from attending, and B) there are no district school taxes for the NYC public school system. The schools all get their dole from the Board of Ed based on enrolment, so I cheated the bad local school out of the endowment for one headcount. (And I lose a lot of sleep over that, let me tell you.)

A choice between finessing my kid into a legendary Greenwich Village School versus sending her to a war zone? I didn't waste a second thinking it over. (There was no tuition paying available at that time.) And I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

I'm torn on the moral right/wrong on this story because I don't know how the local schools are funded where the woman is from. If it's really local assessment or homeowner taxes that fund the schools, then she deserved a stern lecture and a chance to work off the tuition. If it's like NYC or Wisconsin, and the state or region picks up the tab, then it would seem a minor issue. (I get the distinct impression from the articles that it's pretty definitely not the latter, though.)

I cannot see jailing her. I cannot see them wanting to jail her unless she blatantly flaunted this and told them to shove their bill/assessment, or something similar. I agree with SG on that point.... Why this example?

Beth

2nd February 2011, 06:30 AM

As I said, I do feel bad for this woman. I live right next door to Brookline, a wealthy community. Their public schools are extremely high ranked, some of the best in the country. My husband have already decided that if we have kids and still live in Massachusetts, we'll live in Brookline just to get our kids in a good school, even if it means living in a much smaller apartment or home than we would be able to afford outside of Brookline. However, if this woman was living in public housing, she just couldn't afford to do even that.

But at the end of the day, is a crappy system an excuse for breaking the law to try and get around that crappy system?
Actually, for this situation I would say yes. A crappy system is justification for breaking the law via lying about residency in order to get your child a superior education. It's a minor misdeed and a rather common one to boot. My sister does something similar for her son. I also support attempts to improve the current crappy system via things like open enrollment and vouchers, but until the system improves, I will support parents who attempt to get around the crappy system for the benefit of their children's education.

quixotecoyote

2nd February 2011, 10:10 AM

So why can't the Nevada police refuse to investigate a crime that took place in Nevada on behalf of a California citizen by saying, "I'm sorry, the services are based on residency"? I get the fact that they base their services on residency. I'm arguing that this is a breach of public trust.

Because the relevant point in the analogy that the crime took place in California, not Nevada but she's going to Nevada for what she percieves as superior serices. If you change it so that everything relevant happens in Nevada, then you've created a false analogy that doesn't apply to the situation.

Your college analogy has more differences than similarities. First, no law requires anyone to get a college education. Second, college education is not intended to equalize opportunities the way universal free public education is. Third, we have decided as a society to make primary education a free government service and we have not made a similar election for secondary education. Fourth, college residency divides state residents from non-state residents while this divides state residents into categories. Fifth, State colleges have all kinds of programs that help people who want to go to a particular college and cannot afford to attend it, these public schools have no such programs.

Those are five differences that are totally irrelevant (as is the snipped following paragraph) to the fact that college change the fees for services based on residency. If you want in to an out-of-state college you have to pay the higher tuition. If you want in to a different district like this woman, you have to pay the tuition.

If you don't like the system, argue it's a bad system. Don't argue the system is actually how you'd like it to be. That way lies Freeman-On-The-Landism.

"How do we charge for something that is not supposed to be free and universally provided?" is a different question from "When can we charge for something that is supposed to be free and universally provided?".

And both questions are different from "does any citizen have identical access to all government resources regardless of which system of government is in question and whether they are a part of that system at the time?" which is the actual question you're trying to argue.

Skeptic Ginger

2nd February 2011, 11:12 AM

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 02:34 PM

Because the relevant point in the analogy that the crime took place in California, not Nevada but she's going to Nevada for what she percieves as superior serices. If you change it so that everything relevant happens in Nevada, then you've created a false analogy that doesn't apply to the situation.I don't follow your reply. Her child went to a school and where that school was requested the very services that school provides. She didn't ask the school to come to her. She didn't ask the school to provide services someplace else.

As for her traveling being for superior services, I can't believe you honestly think that's a determining factor. Say I don't feel safe in New York, so I spend a vacation in Nevada because of its superior police services. Are you saying that if I then go to the Nevada police in Nevada requesting services for a crime that happened in Nevada, they should be able to deny me services because I'm not a Nevada resident and am vacationing in Nevada because the police services are superior there?

Those are five differences that are totally irrelevant (as is the snipped following paragraph) to the fact that college change the fees for services based on residency. If you want in to an out-of-state college you have to pay the higher tuition. If you want in to a different district like this woman, you have to pay the tuition.Why are those differences irrelevant? They're substantially the same as the factors courts have cited in upholding the college tuition differences.

If you don't like the system, argue it's a bad system. Don't argue the system is actually how you'd like it to be. That way lies Freeman-On-The-Landism.I am arguing it's a bad system. I grant that what the district is doing is legal.

And both questions are different from "does any citizen have identical access to all government resources regardless of which system of government is in question and whether they are a part of that system at the time?" which is the actual question you're trying to argue.Whatever the answer to that question is, it is more or less universally agreed that a government cannot hinge the provision of basic services on the payment of taxes, which is the rule of fundamental fairness that the district is evading here. That citizens of the United States are free to travel among jurisdictions and retain rights to government services is a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal law.

Sherman Bay

2nd February 2011, 02:52 PM

I don't follow your reply. Her child went to a school and where that school was requested the very services that school provides. She didn't ask the school to come to her. She didn't ask the school to provide services someplace else.
It. Doesn't. Provide. Services. For. Her. But. For. The. Taxpayers. In. The School's. District.

It may sound wrong to you, but that's that way it is legally set up. You don't pay, you don't get.

Imagine if I drive into a gas station and demand fuel but refuse to pay. "Isn't this a gas station? Isn't that what you provide, gas? Then give me what you provide to everyone else who pays, free!"

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 05:56 PM

It. Doesn't. Provide. Services. For. Her. But. For. The. Taxpayers. In. The School's. District.

It may sound wrong to you, but that's that way it is legally set up. You don't pay, you don't get.

Imagine if I drive into a gas station and demand fuel but refuse to pay. "Isn't this a gas station? Isn't that what you provide, gas? Then give me what you provide to everyone else who pays, free!"It is extremely well-settled law that government agencies cannot condition the provision of services on the payment of taxes. As the United States Supreme Court said in Shapiro v. Thompson: "Appellants' reasoning ... would permit the State to apportion all benefits and services according to the past tax contributions of its citizens. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits such an apportionment of state services."

I would hope that the idea that a government can restrict services based on the payment of taxes should sound wrong to everybody. My point is that the school is using a backdoor way to legally do precisely what it is morally prohibited from doing -- using the legally permissible criterion of citizenship instead of the legally and morally impermissible criterion of being subject to the district's property tax where the two criteria produce nearly identical results.

quixotecoyote

2nd February 2011, 06:43 PM

I am arguing it's a bad system. I grant that what the district is doing is legal.

...

Whatever the answer to that question is, it is more or less universally agreed that a government cannot hinge the provision of basic services on the payment of taxes, which is the rule of fundamental fairness that the district is evading here. That citizens of the United States are free to travel among jurisdictions and retain rights to government services is a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal law.

Could you please have a conversation among yourself and get back to us when you're in agreement? If what the school is doing is legal, then it's not a violation of a fundamental constitutional right and federal law.

JoelKatz

2nd February 2011, 08:41 PM

Could you please have a conversation among yourself and get back to us when you're in agreement? If what the school is doing is legal, then it's not a violation of a fundamental constitutional right and federal law.As I explained, they found a backdoor way to get the effect of something that is illegal while remaining within the technical confines of the law. This is an example of a government agency treating a fundamental legal right as a drafting challenge and finding a legal way to substantively deny that right.

Please read Sherman Bay's post #58, which I fully cited in the post you are replying to, again.

fuelair

4th February 2011, 07:00 PM

Joel, you can think that all you want. Doesn't change the fact that the government and the courts do not agree with you. If you move in and become a resident of (not the child, the family) a district, they must provide those services - but you cannot, say, live in Delaware and collect jobless benefits from New York. Which is what you seem to believe is part of US Law. It is not. That's why the lawyer explained how it works above. In a rare show of something, here I believe the lawyer and the actual court cases.

JoelKatz

5th February 2011, 03:25 AM

If you move in and become a resident of (not the child, the family) a district, they must provide those services - but you cannot, say, live in Delaware and collect jobless benefits from New York. Which is what you seem to believe is part of US Law. It is not.Rather than make assumptions about what I seem to believe, why not read my posts so that you'll know what I actually believe? As I explained in the example of college tuition (which is much more similar than your example above) there are numerous differences between the two cases that justify the difference in policy.

As just one example of a difference between your example and the topic of this thread, there is no particular social policy reason every State should have the same unemployment benefits. Quite the opposite, there are many good reasons they should not. For example, the cost of living is different in the different States. However, the public primary education system is supposed to be America's great equalizer.

quixotecoyote

5th February 2011, 11:50 AM

Rather than make assumptions about what I seem to believe, why not read my posts so that you'll know what I actually believe? As I explained in the example of college tuition (which is much more similar than your example above) there are numerous differences between the two cases that justify the difference in policy.

As just one example of a difference between your example and the topic of this thread, there is no particular social policy reason every State should have the same unemployment benefits. Quite the opposite, there are many good reasons they should not. For example, the cost of living is different in the different States. However, the public primary education system is supposed to be America's great equalizer.

I'm trying to raise my post count for egoboo purposes. And that's one more right there.

...

Loss Leader

5th February 2011, 02:20 PM

As I explained, they found a backdoor way to get the effect of something that is illegal while remaining within the technical confines of the law. This is an example of a government agency treating a fundamental legal right as a drafting challenge and finding a legal way to substantively deny that right.

Completely wrong.

That's why the lawyer explained how it works above. In a rare show of something, here I believe the lawyer and the actual court cases.

That may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. I'm actually misting up over here.

However, the public primary education system is supposed to be America's great equalizer.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that our public education system has, since its very start, been deeply rooted in local control. Local (not even state) control over the schools has been of fundamental importance to voters since before the nation was even founded. Any attempt to shift the balance of decision-making upward has always been resisted. This included very harsh criticism for even having a federal Department of Education, even in the absence of giving it any actual authority.

I don't think it's the best way to educate the nation's youth. I just think, rightly, that it's the current way.

JoelKatz

5th February 2011, 03:18 PM

Except that you're ignoring the fact that our public education system has, since its very start, been deeply rooted in local control. Local (not even state) control over the schools has been of fundamental importance to voters since before the nation was even founded. Any attempt to shift the balance of decision-making upward has always been resisted. This included very harsh criticism for even having a federal Department of Education, even in the absence of giving it any actual authority.

I don't think it's the best way to educate the nation's youth. I just think, rightly, that it's the current way.I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring that fact or why that contradicts what I'm saying. If all schools were literally identical, it would make no difference which school anyone went to. It's because schools are so different that it does make a difference.

Can you explain why the school wanted to charge her tuition when they wouldn't charge someone subject to their school tax tuition? Is there any other explanation than that it's a backdoor way to provide services only to taxpayers? (Residence and being a taxpayer overlap nearly perfectly in this case, unless you're homeless. Whether you buy or rent, some portion of your dollars pay the school tax directly or indirectly.)

JoelKatz

5th February 2011, 03:21 PM

...You're far too subtle for me. If you have a point, you'll have to tell me what it is. Is it to show me that you're capable of taking a quote out of context?

redwards

5th February 2011, 05:49 PM

School choice based on residency is a *********** terrible idea. Parents should be allowed to send their children to whichever school they want to, and schools should be funded according to student population.

Loss Leader

5th February 2011, 06:17 PM

Can you explain why the school wanted to charge her tuition when they wouldn't charge someone subject to their school tax tuition? Is there any other explanation than that it's a backdoor way to provide services only to taxpayers? (Residence and being a taxpayer overlap nearly perfectly in this case, unless you're homeless. Whether you buy or rent, some portion of your dollars pay the school tax directly or indirectly.)

1. The school didn't want to charge tuition. The law creates a system in which a non-resident is required to pay tuition. The school could not waive the tuition requirement even if it wanted to. In fact, schools don't even have to offer the opportunity to pay tuition. They can just force the nonresident to leave.

2. The entire concept of only providing services to taxpayers that you keep repeating is wrong. It is utterly and thoroughly wrong. No such concept exists at all in law in any western country. (With the exception of use taxes which, really, are the exception. Even toll roads are only in small part funded by usage taxes.)

3. Schools provide services to residents of their districts (with some exceptions in the cheese belt). The manner in which schools are created, maintained, funded and planned for relies heavily on the student population in that district. Such population is derived from many sources including census data. Thus, a school plans to hire teachers based on what the census and past enrollment says about how many children will need educating five years from now. Whenever someone lies about their residency, it skews those numbers and makes a hash of all planning.

4. Federal aid is based on how many children attend school each day. Schools all over the country must accurately count attendance and the total number of days taught. Each missed day by each missed child equates to dollars lost by the school district. Thus, the poor district that a person avoids by lying about residency is made even poorer. The broken windows are made that much harder to fix.

5. Now, some may argue that the total number of people hopping districts is so small that 3 and 4 amount to mere pennies which should be written off. Those people are ignoring the fact that the total number is small precisely because it is illegal and expensive to get caught. The deterrents are working. And that is why the jail sentence in this case was so important - It kept dozens of people in that district (and maybe thousands of people countrywide) from pulling the same stunt.

Foolmewunz may have no regrets about defrauding the schools. However, the reason she was successful in cheating is because so many people didn't cheat. If every parent in the poor school's area had done the same thing, the bad school would crumble to dust and the good school would become an overcrowded, underfunded nightmare. She free-rode on the lawful conduct of others to secure a benefit, heedless of any negative externalities.

I could walk into pretty much any old age home in America, pretend to visit with some demented pensioner, and then go into their rooms and steal all their pain medications. You could, too. We don't, though. It's illegal.

fuelair

5th February 2011, 06:21 PM

Completely wrong.

That may be the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. I'm actually misting up over here.

Except that you're ignoring the fact that our public education system has, since its very start, been deeply rooted in local control. Local (not even state) control over the schools has been of fundamental importance to voters since before the nation was even founded. Any attempt to shift the balance of decision-making upward has always been resisted. This included very harsh criticism for even having a federal Department of Education, even in the absence of giving it any actual authority.

I don't think it's the best way to educate the nation's youth. I just think, rightly, that it's the current way.

Actually, I have not that much trouble with lawyers (with one exception and you are not it), just have to do that on occasion! My big problem is when a lawyer has a criminal client and knows he/she is guilty - especially for certain crimes - and gets him off anyway (I don't care a bit for that part of legal ethics US style or, as bad, using the same cover for letting an innocent person go to jail because saving him would put your client there. If the innocent had killed those two who did that a while back and finally admitted it a couple of years ago and I was on the jury he would have walked or had to be retried).

drkitten

5th February 2011, 07:09 PM

It is extremely well-settled law that government agencies cannot condition the provision of services on the payment of taxes.

It is also extremely well-settled law that government agencies can condition the provision of services on residence or citizenship, precisely because governments are supposed to provide services primarily to their citizens.

My point is that the school is using a backdoor way to legally do precisely what it is morally prohibited from doing.

And your point is wrong.

A more accurate description is that the school is doing what it is chartered to do: provide education services to residents in the school district.

JoelKatz

6th February 2011, 12:13 AM

It is also extremely well-settled law that government agencies can condition the provision of services on residence or citizenship, precisely because governments are supposed to provide services primarily to their citizens.So if you go to Nevada, your car is stolen in Nevada, and you complain to the Nevada police, there's no moral problem with them refusing to investigate your complaint just because you are not a Nevada resident?

And your point is wrong.You are repeating refuted arguments without addressing the refutation. You have to either argue that the police can do as I indicated above or you have to argue that primary education is somehow different from police services.

A more accurate description is that the school is doing what it is chartered to do: provide education services to residents in the school district.Well sure, and Nevada could charter its police to provide police services to residents in the State. The question is whether such a charter is morally defensible.

JoelKatz

6th February 2011, 12:21 AM

4. Federal aid is based on how many children attend school each day. Schools all over the country must accurately count attendance and the total number of days taught. Each missed day by each missed child equates to dollars lost by the school district. Thus, the poor district that a person avoids by lying about residency is made even poorer. The broken windows are made that much harder to fix.This has to be balanced against the reduced cost of providing educational services to fewer children. This also has to be balanced by the tax revenues of people who attend out of district schools that the district still receives.

In any event, the argument fundamentally makes no sense. This woman played no part in creating this system and there's any number of way it can be fixed. (For example, by allowing people who register across districts to indicate that they are doing this and fixing the payments between districts whatever way is most appropriate.) The Federal government set up this system. If it's inequitable, they can fix it.

It's bizarre to argue that intergovernmental accounting rules impose obligations on citizens to make those accounting rules fair.

brodski

6th February 2011, 12:48 AM

JoelKatz

6th February 2011, 02:07 AM

Wait, the illegals aren't there? So why are you so het up about them? Where are they?I assume he means that they are not legal residents of any county in the sense that they are not there legally. However, their residence is in fact in that county.

However, this arguments fails for many reasons. For one thing, it's pretty hard to dodge school taxes, since they're mostly paid for from property taxes. Most of the rest is from sales tax, which is actually more easily dodged by yuppies who buy online from out of state than it is by illegals who buy at local stores.

But it brings up an interesting question -- if provision of government services can't hinge on payment of taxes but can hinge on residency -- does/should it hinge on lawful residency and lawful presence? Or does/should it hinge on where the place you live is?

Frankly, illegal immigrants get the least in government services relative to the taxes they pay. This is largely because they tend to be too poor to pay any significant income taxes anyway and it's very difficult for them to obtain many of the government services they would be entitled to. Money is often withheld from their salaries that they are entitled to get refunded, but they generally don't file taxes and thus the government gets to keep their money. If their children are illegally present, they can't get the child tax credit that would give them back money that was withheld.

Foolmewunz

6th February 2011, 04:03 AM

<snip>

4. Federal aid is based on how many children attend school each day. Schools all over the country must accurately count attendance and the total number of days taught. Each missed day by each missed child equates to dollars lost by the school district. Thus, the poor district that a person avoids by lying about residency is made even poorer. The broken windows are made that much harder to fix.

5. Now, some may argue that the total number of people hopping districts is so small that 3 and 4 amount to mere pennies which should be written off. Those people are ignoring the fact that the total number is small precisely because it is illegal and expensive to get caught. The deterrents are working. And that is why the jail sentence in this case was so important - It kept dozens of people in that district (and maybe thousands of people countrywide) from pulling the same stunt.

Foolmewunz may have no regrets about defrauding the schools. However, the reason she was successful in cheating is because so many people didn't cheat. If every parent in the poor school's area had done the same thing, the bad school would crumble to dust and the good school would become an overcrowded, underfunded nightmare. She free-rode on the lawful conduct of others to secure a benefit, heedless of any negative externalities.

I could walk into pretty much any old age home in America, pretend to visit with some demented pensioner, and then go into their rooms and steal all their pain medications. You could, too. We don't, though. It's illegal.

Last I checked Foolmewunz is a he.

And I acknowledged that the deed cheated the crap school out of their little bit of money, but that's assuming we'd have stayed in the P.S. system, which we wouldn't have had she had to attend the elementary school near us. This was '83. Loisaida, later termed Alphabet City, was a war zone. Every second building on some blocks was a burnt out shell. Dealers and crackheads built fortresses in some buildings, and unless when you phoned 911 you said, "I think a cop's in there and I heard shots", the cops wouldn't even respond to calls in the area.

We lived on a tiny enclave on E. 9th St., just off the park, but the former P.S. on that block had been closed, and the nearest was a half a mile away, right on top of the nastiest part of the neighborhood.

The public buses would not go up Avenue B for about 5 years because the block from 3rd to 4th Streets on Avenue B was like a bazaar in Marakesh with dealers hawking their wares - from smack to works to shooting galleries to smoke to meth - by shouting out the street brands like fish mongers. The MTA re-routed the bus up Avenue C from 1980 to 1985 because it was deemed too dangerous! The P.S. in question was two blocks from there. No way in Hell was I sending my child there - we would've gone to the banks and put her through Little Red School House or Grace.

The P.S. Grammar Schools in the City in that era got by on their Board of Ed stipends, just barely. The parents at P.S. 41, the majority of the parents, were heavily involved in extra-curricular fund raising. Plus up until a few years later, they had pretty much the best teachers in the system.

Would I do it again? Yes. Would I have preferred that my daughter was able to go to her "local" school? Well, no. I'd grown up in the West Village, my mom, brother and sister had been residents of the area for twenty years, and all of my friends and associates were from the area. Ergo, that WAS "local" to us. The fact that my wife and I made the(at the time) dubious choice to pioneer in a sweat equity program in a really rough area should not have been cause for the traumatizing of my daughter, which is decidedly what would've happened.

Loss Leader

6th February 2011, 05:37 AM

Would I do it again? Yes.

I have no doubt that you are happy with your choice and that you did it out of love for the welfare of your children.

That changes nothing about the simple fact that the only reason switching schools worked for you is because sufficient people were discouraged from doing it. You took a free ride on the law-abiding nature of others.

Dancing David

6th February 2011, 06:45 AM

It is also extremely well-settled law that government agencies can condition the provision of services on residence or citizenship, precisely because governments are supposed to provide services primarily to their citizens.

I seem to remember the house burning down thread recently.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187581

Dancing David

6th February 2011, 06:51 AM

The issue is the archaic property tax base system of school funding, which again supports the wealthy who move to the suburbs and trashes the rest of the schools.

Here in Illinois rural school ditricts often don't have sufficient operational budget to maintain buildings. Allegedly the state pays $5,000 (maybe $7,000) per student but the rest is made up by property taxes in a local district.

So you have collar suburbs of Chicago that get something like $20,000 perstudent and rural districts that get less than $2,000 per student. From additional local taxes.

And there is a reason that the for profit public schools are not a success, unless they are charter schools. There is no profit margin, most schools are underfunded.

Yet, this is a state's rights issue and likely to remian so.

drkitten

6th February 2011, 06:54 AM

So if you go to Nevada, your car is stolen in Nevada, and you complain to the Nevada police, there's no moral problem with them refusing to investigate your complaint just because you are not a Nevada resident?

That analogy doesn't fit; the Nevada police aren't charged with investigating crimes against Nevada residents, but investigating crimes committed in Nevada.

They'd be within their rights to refuse to investigate a crime committed in California against a Nevada resident; their jurisdiction is defined by the location of the crime.

You are repeating refuted arguments without addressing the refutation.

No, I'm not, as your analogy is not a refutation.

You have to either argue that the police can do as I indicated above or you have to argue that primary education is somehow different from police services.

Done.

drkitten

6th February 2011, 07:01 AM

But it brings up an interesting question -- if provision of government services can't hinge on payment of taxes but can hinge on residency -- does/should it hinge on lawful residency and lawful presence? Or does/should it hinge on where the place you live is?

Yes to both. It can also hinge on citizenship without respect to residence. Examples of all three can be easily found.

However, since immigration policy is (by Constitutional mandate) the exclusive province of the Fed, it's generally only the Federal government that is permitted to condition services on immigration status. States and localities are generally permitted only to do it under Federal mandate, e.g. as in Federally mandated employment requirements.

drkitten

6th February 2011, 07:12 AM

The issue is the archaic property tax base system of school funding, which again supports the wealthy who move to the suburbs and trashes the rest of the schools.

That's part of the issue, but not the whole thing. There's also the question of where the local school board chooses to spend its resources that can determine the quality of the school.

As an egregious example, the school district where my mother taught for thirty-five years or something was notoriously underfunded and overcrowded; the single high school was running at something like 200% or 250% of rated capacity. The largest high school in the state. But for this reason, it was also routinely one of the best football teams in the state, since it had so many students to draw upon.

Best, and among the best-funded, because the school district considered football to be important, and physics labs -- or even classroom space -- wasn't.

This remained the status quo until Intel or HP or Sun or someone opened a plant on the edge of town, and the engineers who moved in to run the plant started to get active in local politics. Now there are two schools in town and two educational 'castes', depending on whether you live near the Intel plant (where the locals insist that physics labs need equipment) or in the rest of town (where the locals insist that the football team needs state-of-the-art tackling dummies).

JoelKatz

6th February 2011, 12:55 PM

That analogy doesn't fit; the Nevada police aren't charged with investigating crimes against Nevada residents, but investigating crimes committed in Nevada.Right, the question is *WHY* is there that difference between police services and primary educational services. You are saying, and I agree, that the police must investigate that crime. They can't use the residence of the person requesting the service as a reason to deny it. So the question is, why can the school? Your answer is essentially just saying "the police can't, the school can".

They'd be within their rights to refuse to investigate a crime committed in California against a Nevada resident; their jurisdiction is defined by the location of the crime.Exactly. So why is the school's jurisdiction justifiably hinged on residency?

No, I'm not, as your analogy is not a refutation.I don't follow. Why is it not? If we all agree police can't do this, and you can't explain a reason why police should be different from schools, it follows schools can't do it.

Done.Not done. What's the difference? Other than just repeatedly saying "police can, schools can't", which is what you've done by arguing they are "charged" with doing different things. My question is -- why is it justifiable to charge schools with teaching only residents and not to similarly charge police?

The only factor on which the school based its denial of services is the residency status of the child. It wasn't based on where the child was physically located at the time they requested services. It wasn't based on where the services were to be provided.

Loss Leader

6th February 2011, 03:57 PM

You are saying, and I agree, that the police must investigate that crime.

For, like, the millionth time, police have no duty whatsoever to investigate any particular crime. Ever.

They can't use the residence of the person requesting the service as a reason to deny it.

Wrong. They can use just about any reason or no reason to deny it.

JoelKatz

6th February 2011, 09:41 PM

For, like, the millionth time, police have no duty whatsoever to investigate any particular crime. Ever.And, for just as many times, the issue is not whether police have an obligation to investigate a particular crime that gives rise to tort liability if they do not but whether they can have a policy of not investigating crimes merely because they are reported by non-residents.

Wrong. They can use just about any reason or no reason to deny it.To 100% clarify, you believe it is morally okay for the Nevada police to adopt a policy of not investigating any crime reported by a non-resident. Is that what you're saying? If so, I'd say that's obviously monstrous. If not, then you haven't addressed the analogy, since that is effectively what the school is doing.

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 04:34 AM

That's part of the issue, but not the whole thing. There's also the question of where the local school board chooses to spend its resources that can determine the quality of the school.

As an egregious example, the school district where my mother taught for thirty-five years or something was notoriously underfunded and overcrowded; the single high school was running at something like 200% or 250% of rated capacity. The largest high school in the state. But for this reason, it was also routinely one of the best football teams in the state, since it had so many students to draw upon.

Best, and among the best-funded, because the school district considered football to be important, and physics labs -- or even classroom space -- wasn't.

This remained the status quo until Intel or HP or Sun or someone opened a plant on the edge of town, and the engineers who moved in to run the plant started to get active in local politics. Now there are two schools in town and two educational 'castes', depending on whether you live near the Intel plant (where the locals insist that physics labs need equipment) or in the rest of town (where the locals insist that the football team needs state-of-the-art tackling dummies).

Yes, that makes greats ense. I am just pointing out the galring inequity that the property based system brings in Illinois.

The funding for student education per student is not balanced, regardless of how the money is spent.

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 04:38 AM

And, for just as many times, the issue is not whether police have an obligation to investigate a particular crime that gives rise to tort liability if they do not but whether they can have a policy of not investigating crimes merely because they are reported by non-residents.

This continuing false dichotomy makes your argument really weak, by legislation (you know what statutes are don't you) school districts are mandated to provide services to the children who are residents in the defined school district. By legislation police are charged with the investigation of crimes that occur within an area (defined by the local scope of the agency they work for) regardless of residency.

Your false dichotomy is thus just that.

JoelKatz

7th February 2011, 07:03 AM

This continuing false dichotomy makes your argument really weak, by legislation (you know what statutes are don't you) school districts are mandated to provide services to the children who are residents in the defined school district. By legislation police are charged with the investigation of crimes that occur within an area (defined by the local scope of the agency they work for) regardless of residency.Right, and the question is -- what justifies this difference?

Your false dichotomy is thus just that.Okay, then explain why. Why is this difference justified? Why is it okay for schools to refuse service based solely on the residence of the person requesting services and it's not okay for police to do that? I submit that neither is okay. You say one is okay and the other isn't. So *why*? What is the relevant difference between these two services that justifies them being treated differently?

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 08:08 AM

Right, and the question is -- what justifies this difference?

the legislation written by the legislative bodies.

Okay, then explain why. Why is this difference justified? Why is it okay for schools to refuse service based solely on the residence of the person requesting services and it's not okay for police to do that?

I am not going to argue why you do not understand simple concepts like legislative mandate, if you are so concrete as to not have an abstractive capacity to undetsand common terms and words, I shan't argue with you about it. They both have different legislative mandates.

I submit that neither is okay. You say one is okay and the other isn't.

No, I didn't, further poor argumentation and a strawman on your part.

So *why*? What is the relevant difference between these two services that justifies them being treated differently?

You seem to confuse moral justification with legislative reality, if you actually read what i said, I explained why one and not the other. You can also work to change the system if you wish. But in terms of statute, you know, that body of the laws as passed by by legislatures, there is a clear distinction.

So if you object, you work to change the legislation. I will not explain abstract concepts to you, if you presist in your concrete false dichotomy.

Loss Leader

7th February 2011, 08:33 AM

To 100% clarify, you believe it is morally okay for the Nevada police to adopt a policy of not investigating any crime reported by a non-resident. Is that what you're saying? If so, I'd say that's obviously monstrous. If not, then you haven't addressed the analogy, since that is effectively what the school is doing.

I used to think that a black hole was the most dense thing in the universe.

JoelKatz

7th February 2011, 08:58 AM

You seem to confuse moral justification with legislative reality, if you actually read what i said, I explained why one and not the other.I've consistently made clear where I'm talking about moral justification and where I'm talking about legislative reality. You are the one who insist on interpreting claims clearly about one as if they were about the other, no matter how many times I explicitly make clear which is which.

I first made this quite clear as early as post #20, "They have found a legal way to say "you don't pay us taxes so you don't get our services". That is precisely what the government is *not* supposed to be allowed to do, and it's a gross breach of public trust."

Because this was missed, and a lot of other stuff was going on, I repeated it in post #50, "I'm arguing that this is a breach of public trust."

It was again misunderstood (in fairness, I did make a few legal points about a different issue, conditioning services directly on the payment of taxes which is illegal), so I repeated it in post #72, "Well sure, and Nevada could charter its police to provide police services to residents in the State. The question is whether such a charter is morally defensible."

Again, I made this clear in post #83, "Not done. What's the difference? Other than just repeatedly saying "police can, schools can't", which is what you've done by arguing they are "charged" with doing different things. My question is -- why is it justifiable to charge schools with teaching only residents and not to similarly charge police?"

I made the point again in post #85, "To 100% clarify, you believe it is morally okay for the Nevada police to adopt a policy of not investigating any crime reported by a non-resident."

And I made it again in #88, "Okay, then explain why.Why is this difference justified? Why is it okay for schools to refuse service based solely on the residence of the person requesting services and it's not okay for police to do that?"

Now you say *I'm* confusing moral justification with legislative reality?! I've been making the same moral argument consistently -- that it is no more justified for schools to refuse to educate a student based on his place of residence as it is for police to refuse to a investigate criminal complaint on the basis of the complainant's place of residence. (Well, that's a somewhat extreme statement. But you get the idea.) You have made it clear that you do not agree with me on this. And for some reason, you and others keep making arguments admittedly about "legislative reality" as if they refuted my point.

Of course, you are welcome to talk about whatever you want. However, I conceded the point that what they did was legal back at post #20 and repeated it, in case you missed it, again in post #57 (and other places as well). What I object to is you repeating this point and pretending that it is in any way responsive to the arguments I made in the posts cited above.

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 09:17 AM

I've consistently made clear where I'm talking about moral justification and where I'm talking about legislative reality. You are the one who insist on interpreting claims clearly about one as if they were about the other, no matter how many times I explicitly make clear which is which.

I first made this quite clear as early as post #20, "They have found a legal way to say "you don't pay us taxes so you don't get our services". That is precisely what the government is *not* supposed to be allowed to do, and it's a gross breach of public trust."

Wrong then and wrong now, each state decides how to fund public schools through legislation, again if you don't like it you have to change the legislation.

Under what statute or part of the constitution does it say that states can not allocate school funds based upon a system of local school districts providing services to the children who are resident in that district.

Where exactly does it say that this not not what governments are supposed to be allowed to do? Which part of the COTUS or a state constitutions does it say that?

You said there is some reason they are not supposed to do that, where is that in law?

Wheer is this statement of public trust ensconsed into law?

JoelKatz

7th February 2011, 10:38 AM

Wheer is this statement of public trust ensconsed into law?This argument makes no sense. A law prohibiting falsely claiming to have received military honors recently went into effect. Would you say that it was previously moral to make such false claims and it's now immoral?

There are certain cases where you can respond to a moral argument with a legal one. For example, people expect companies to disclose adverse events that the law requires them to disclose. So you can argue that the laws create a moral obligation because people rely on them. Similarly, in the absence of any law requiring people to file tax returns, it's impossible to argue there's a moral obligation to do so. However, once such a law is passed, it's possible to argue one has a moral obligation to comply with it. (And some people argue one has a moral obligation to comply with the law, so all laws create moral obligations except perhaps manifestly unjust ones.)

But if there's some way to make such an argument here, I don't see what it is. And without such an argument, your legal response to my moral argument doesn't work.

Laws tend to reflect morality. But many things that are immoral are not illegal, nor should they be.

In any event, I explained the reason it's immoral already -- it's the same reason it would be a breach of public trust for Nevada to adopt a policy of not acting on criminal complaints merely because the complainants are non-residents. You can either argue that such a policy is perfectly fine or you can argue a reason the two cases are not the same. But instead you keep pretending I haven't made this argument.

You can only make these kinds of moral arguments by analogy. You take something that people agree is immoral (such as torturing children for pleasure, stealing without unusual circumstances, and so on) and show that the action has sufficiently similar characteristics. You rebut such an argument by disagreeing that the similar thing is immoral or showing that the differences between the two things justify a moral difference.

Your choices are to argue that it's not immoral for a State to adopt a policy of having its police ignore complaints on the grounds that the complainants are not State residents or argue that there's some difference between such a policy and the school policy that renders the school's policy acceptable. If there's a third alternative, I don't know what it is. Pretending I didn't make an argument to support my claim is not it.

(Someone did make an argument of this type, but that argument was incorrect. They argued that the police had to investigate because the crime occurred in their jurisdiction. But that's no difference. In this case, the schooling is to occur in the school's jurisdiction too. The only grounds for refusing service in both cases is the non-residency of the person requesting the services. That is the only difference between cases where they provide services and cases where they don't. Police only have to investigate crimes that occur in their jurisdiction just as someone, whether resident or not, can't ask a school to instruct them without them having to come to the school.)

The Norseman

7th February 2011, 12:08 PM

Wrong then and wrong now, each state decides how to fund public schools through legislation, again if you don't like it you have to change the legislation.

Under what statute or part of the constitution does it say that states can not allocate school funds based upon a system of local school districts providing services to the children who are resident in that district.

Where exactly does it say that this not not what governments are supposed to be allowed to do? Which part of the COTUS or a state constitutions does it say that?

You said there is some reason they are not supposed to do that, where is that in law?

Wheer is this statement of public trust ensconsed into law?

Perhaps you need to hear this from another poster (other than Joel) but you and Loss Leader seem to be missing the moral points that he's been trying to discuss.

Perhaps you could weigh in on whether or not you believe the current situation in the country is moral or immoral or morally neutral. As it stands, you're coming across as meaning that because it's legislated, it's therefore okay to do.

drkitten

7th February 2011, 12:41 PM

Perhaps you could weigh in on whether or not you believe the current situation in the country is moral or immoral or morally neutral. As it stands, you're coming across as meaning that because it's legislated, it's therefore okay to do.

I'd say "moral." The legislature is obliged, morally and legally, to provide an equal opportunity for all children. This obligation is fulfilled by demanding that each district educate the children resident in it. At the same time, each district is allowed to determine the nature of the education it provides its children, in keeping with the moral principle of federalism, democratic government, and local control.

If you disagree with how your local school district chooses to set its priorities -- well, the downside of democracy is that you may not get your way. But the upside is that you can choose to live wherever you want, including in a school district that agrees with you.

This is another area in which the police analogy fails; few people choose to be victims of crime, but people definitely choose where they want to live, knowing how much they pay for local schooling.

Loss Leader

7th February 2011, 01:25 PM

Perhaps you could weigh in on whether or not you believe the current situation in the country is moral or immoral or morally neutral.

I would say moral. It could be better, but its drawbacks are not nearly so great as to make the system itself immoral.

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 02:33 PM

This argument makes no sense. A law prohibiting falsely claiming to have received military honors recently went into effect. Would you say that it was previously moral to make such false claims and it's now immoral?

More false dichotomy.
If state law says that school districts are to provide services based upon residency, there is no comparison.

Your argument is comparable to saying that my municipality should provide fire coverage to a town in another county.

There are certain cases where you can respond to a moral argument with a legal one.

Excuse me I asked yuo where 'public trust' is defined in law, did you do that?

For example, people expect companies to disclose adverse events that the law requires them to disclose. So you can argue that the laws create a moral obligation because people rely on them. Similarly, in the absence of any law requiring people to file tax returns, it's impossible to argue there's a moral obligation to do so. However, once such a law is passed, it's possible to argue one has a moral obligation to comply with it. (And some people argue one has a moral obligation to comply with the law, so all laws create moral obligations except perhaps manifestly unjust ones.)

Morals and law are frequently separate.

But if there's some way to make such an argument here, I don't see what it is. And without such an argument, your legal response to my moral argument doesn't work.

There are no moral obligations for citizens or government bodies.

Sure we should take care of each other, and that is fine.
However the social fabric outside of smaller social units is created by legislation.

By your argument religious people should not have to recognize any marriage that disagrees with their definition of moral therefore they don't have to recognize gay marriage if it becomes law.

Laws are the way governments express their duties. Morals are individual.

Laws tend to reflect morality. But many things that are immoral are not illegal, nor should they be.

And the definition of morality is variable, which is why laws are written and courts exist.

In any event, I explained the reason it's immoral already -- it's the same reason it would be a breach of public trust for Nevada to adopt a policy of not acting on criminal complaints merely because the complainants are non-residents.

No, that is the false dichotomy, for the reason that the state of Nevada has not done so and it would not stand up in court. They do however have Medicaid and Food Stamp programs that are solely for the benefit of the residents of that state. And most likely scholarships and fees that are based upon state residency. And if I understand you correctly you say it is immoral for a state to deny to issue a drivers license to non-residents?

You can either argue that such a policy is perfectly fine or you can argue a reason the two cases are not the same. But instead you keep pretending I haven't made this argument.

And I have countered, you have made an imaginary argument, and a false dichotomy. So should state's issue driver's licenses to non-resident's?

You can only make these kinds of moral arguments by analogy.

Nope, I have said that the basis of the distinction is legislative, not some imaginary morals.

You take something that people agree is immoral (such as torturing children for pleasure, stealing without unusual circumstances, and so on) and show that the action has sufficiently similar characteristics.

Fees for non-residents at State Parks, driver's licenses, out of state tuition, scholarships are all based upon residency.

You rebut such an argument by disagreeing that the similar thing is immoral or showing that the differences between the two things justify a moral difference.

i don't give a **** about morals, some morals support child abuse, spousal battery and rape. Morals are ********. I prefer laws. Now i have argued that the basis of the difference in funding for school districts is the way to address the issue, rather than some moral argument with no traction.

Your choices are to argue that it's not immoral for a State to adopt a policy of having its police ignore complaints on the grounds that the complainants are not State residents or argue that there's some difference between such a policy and the school policy that renders the school's policy acceptable.

Nope that is your false dichotomy. I have already argued that by making funding equitable the issue is resolved.

If there's a third alternative, I don't know what it is. Pretending I didn't make an argument to support my claim is not it.

Gee, which one is changing the structure of funding for education?

(Someone did make an argument of this type, but that argument was incorrect. They argued that the police had to investigate because the crime occurred in their jurisdiction. But that's no difference. In this case, the schooling is to occur in the school's jurisdiction too. The only grounds for refusing service in both cases is the non-residency of the person requesting the services.

It couldn’t be based upon the idea that the services are based upon residency, now could it?

That is the only difference between cases where they provide services and cases where they don't. Police only have to investigate crimes that occur in their jurisdiction just as someone, whether resident or not, can't ask a school to instruct them without them having to come to the school.)

I hope you do well in seminary.

Dancing David

7th February 2011, 02:41 PM

Perhaps you need to hear this from another poster (other than Joel) but you and Loss Leader seem to be missing the moral points that he's been trying to discuss.

Perhaps you could weigh in on whether or not you believe the current situation in the country is moral or immoral or morally neutral. As it stands, you're coming across as meaning that because it's legislated, it's therefore okay to do.

I have already stated that I feel the system of property based funding for education is inequitable. Morals are ********.

The system as it stands in Illinois is inequitable and allows for the middle class flight to the suburbs to harm the rest of the system.

I do not view it as a matter or morals because they are vague and ill defined. Saying that each student should recieve the same per capita amount for funding is very clear. Some will say that it is moral to have this property based system, other will not. Property based systems are inequitable to the per capita funding of students. Just as a sales tax system will be inequitable in terms of proportionate payment of taxes.

So I personally believe that the state of Illinois doing away with the property based system and replacing it with an income tax system would be equitable, as long as the funding per capita was the same for every student.

The Norseman

7th February 2011, 03:11 PM

I'd say "moral." The legislature is obliged, morally and legally, to provide an equal opportunity for all children. This obligation is fulfilled by demanding that each district educate the children resident in it. At the same time, each district is allowed to determine the nature of the education it provides its children, in keeping with the moral principle of federalism, democratic government, and local control.

If you disagree with how your local school district chooses to set its priorities -- well, the downside of democracy is that you may not get your way. But the upside is that you can choose to live wherever you want, including in a school district that agrees with you.

This is another area in which the police analogy fails; few people choose to be victims of crime, but people definitely choose where they want to live, knowing how much they pay for local schooling.

I would say moral. It could be better, but its drawbacks are not nearly so great as to make the system itself immoral.

I have already stated that I feel the system of property based funding for education is inequitable. Morals are ********.

The system as it stands in Illinois is inequitable and allows for the middle class flight to the suburbs to harm the rest of the system.

I do not view it as a matter or morals because they are vague and ill defined. Saying that each student should recieve the same per capita amount for funding is very clear. Some will say that it is moral to have this property based system, other will not. Property based systems are inequitable to the per capita funding of students. Just as a sales tax system will be inequitable in terms of proportionate payment of taxes.

So I personally believe that the state of Illinois doing away with the property based system and replacing it with an income tax system would be equitable, as long as the funding per capita was the same for every student.

Thank you all, I appreciate the additional clarity.

DD, your last post here gave me pause to rethink more my initial stance that the laws are immoral.

I absolutely do not believe that in this instance of the woman being beat with the felony stick is at all a legitimate way to solve the issue and, for now, I question Loss Leader's implications that these kind of severe penalties serve as an effective deterrent.

Francois2807

7th February 2011, 04:43 PM

Loss Leader

7th February 2011, 05:09 PM

I question Loss Leader's implications that these kind of severe penalties serve as an effective deterrent.

I didn't mean to imply anything. I meant to outright state it. These kind of sever penalties serve as an effective deterrent. In fact, usually far less severe penalties are enough to be effective: the threat of having to pay large tuition bills; the chance that your children could be ripped from their classrooms and friends at any moment; the public condemnation of those who follow the rules; etc. All of those failed in this case, and a greater deterrent was required.

To me the problem was probably one of quality education. If the mother sent her kids to the local school they would get a degree in thug life. She probably thought learning english and math would serve them better in the future.

I'm sure she had nothing but her children's best interests at heart. It doesn't change the fact that she selfishly took advantage of all of the other people who respected the law.

Travis

7th February 2011, 05:48 PM

My own high school had kids that didn't live in the district. In fact they were quite common. It took a bit of paperwork but it was something that a lot parents did because they wanted their kids at my school with high graduation standards.

But.....here's the kicker....my own school was very poor thanks to that idiot policy Prop 13. Granted we didn't have to have metal detectors and an armed army on campus like the poor schools in the city do.

Travis

7th February 2011, 05:49 PM

I also think this story shows that it is utter idiocy to be basing school funding off of property taxes. Complete idiocy.

The Norseman

7th February 2011, 08:08 PM

I didn't mean to imply anything. I meant to outright state it.

:o
Thought it'd be best to play it safe. A few here on JREF can throw apoplectic fits if even a hint is breathed that they may have said something outright.

JoelKatz

7th February 2011, 08:38 PM

Your argument is comparable to saying that my municipality should provide fire coverage to a town in another county.In both my police analogy and this school case, the only grounds for refusing services is area of residence of the person requesting services. I agreed that the location where the services were to be provided would be legitimate grounds to refuse services, which is the difference in the example you cite (I won't bother citing the posts). To make your example work, the fire department would have to refuse coverage to non-residents even if the premises burning were in their service area merely because the premises were owned by someone who lived out of the district or the call reporting the fire were made by someone who lived out of the district.

I hope you find that that's obviously unacceptable.

Again, the only issue was where her legal residence was. It wasn't where the services were to be provided. You are again repeating an argument that I've already responded to without addressing my response. The *ONLY* issue is where her legal residence was, there was no other grounds.

Dancing David

8th February 2011, 04:19 AM

Thank you all, I appreciate the additional clarity.

DD, your last post here gave me pause to rethink more my initial stance that the laws are immoral.

I absolutely do not believe that in this instance of the woman being beat with the felony stick is at all a legitimate way to solve the issue and, for now, I question Loss Leader's implications that these kind of severe penalties serve as an effective deterrent.

I agree, the issue is funding in equity and moreover the application is inequitable. The school district has not searched through every file to check residency of every child. There are probably students who are registered under seperated spouses who don't live with resident parents.

My guess is that the grandfather lives at an obvious non-resident site, like subsidized housing or a nursing home, and that the children are obviously 'those people'.

Again in my school district this is a common issue, especially amongst the low SES families. It is more often an issue of housing instability than an attempt to seek a better school. In some cases the family life is so chaotic that it is a source of stability for the child.

As in most laws the detterent effect is zero.

Dancing David

8th February 2011, 04:25 AM

To me the problem was probably one of quality education. If the mother sent her kids to the local school they would get a degree in thug life. She probably thought learning english and math would serve them better in the future.
We need to be able to expel students from the classroom that are just there to take up space until they begin their prison terms. I don't blame her for sending the kids to another school and consider the failure of our inner city schools to be more of a problem with not hurting the thugs self esteem at any costs to be pervaisive.

Welcome to the forum! (Despite my reply)

The effect of poverty on student acheivement is well documented so where does your social promotion and thug esteem theory gain any traction? The fact that there are no extra services for 'slow learners' means nothing to you. The fact that fetal alcohol exposute exists means nothing to you, but some cute little meme that is ******** does.

Really, and what data do you have on that, presevation of thug esteem sounds like some more moral crap. So where is you data for this ********?

So expel students in poverty, expel those with learning diabilities, expel those with FAS, expel those who are abused at home, expee those from chaotic homes.

Ah just like the good old days. "It is teh fault of those kids for choos9ing their parents."

(And believe me I am firm supporter of explusion, but funding equity would do more.)

Dancing David

8th February 2011, 04:28 AM

In both my police analogy and this school case, the only grounds for refusing services is area of residence of the person requesting services. I agreed that the location where the services were to be provided would be legitimate grounds to refuse services, which is the difference in the example you cite (I won't bother citing the posts). To make your example work, the fire department would have to refuse coverage to non-residents even if the premises burning were in their service area merely because the premises were owned by someone who lived out of the district or the call reporting the fire were made by someone who lived out of the district.

I hope you find that that's obviously unacceptable.

the buildings location is the key. the defintion of resident is the key.
False anaology again.

the issue is funding equity, not residency.

Again, the only issue was where her legal residence was.

Which is exactly how teh school district determines eligibility for services, and therefore it is germane.

It wasn't where the services were to be provided. You are again repeating an argument that I've already responded to without addressing my response. The *ONLY* issue is where her legal residence was, there was no other grounds.

Um it does work in the fire case. The fire district does not provides services to residences outside the district.

In the case of these schools, where you establish your residence is the key.
Again the issue is funding equity not residence.

Ethan Thane Athen

8th February 2011, 04:45 AM

These issues never cease to amaze me. In my part of the UK you just go to your local school, there's no moving around to get in a better one, or lying about where you live, 'cos there are no 'better' ones. They take it in turns to leap-frog eachother in the league tables but they're all much of a muchness. Everyone just automatically goes to the closest one and there's a mix of social groups / abilities in each.

I had no idea this wasn't how it was everywhere until I started work out of the area and it was a constant (though at first bemusing) topic of conversation as people talked about how if they didn't get their kids into so and so school then their kids lives were effectively over!

Incredible.

I fully accept that is more the norm but I do wonder why it doesn't seem necessary in my town (nor indeed the nearby towns or city).

It also seems a self-exacerbating system. If the parents who care enough jump through hoops to get their kids into a particular school at the expense of their 'local' one then the good schools will continue to have a 'higher quality' of pupil (generally - I accept this doesn't always automatically follow) and the supposedly poorer schools will continue to get the 'left overs' and so the cycle continues and the gap widens. Let's hope we never start down that slope in my area.

JoelKatz

8th February 2011, 05:08 AM

the issue is funding equity, not residency.While that might be in this specific case, it isn't fundamentally the issue. Her home district might spend more per student but because of worse management, higher costs, or just plain bad luck, it still might provide drastically inferior service. Or her child might really like band and her home district school has no band program because it chooses to spend its money on athletics -- or just as easily vice-versa. Some children thrive in larger schools, some in smaller ones.

I do agree that funding equity is also a very important issue. But it's only indirectly related to this one. It's but one reason she might want an out-of-district school.

Um it does work in the fire case. The fire district does not provides services to residences outside the district.Right, it only provides services inside its district, whether those services are to residents or non-residents. It's the nature of the service that's at issue, not the nature of the person requesting it. Just as Nevada police will investigate crimes that occurred in Nevada or that have an appropriate nexus to Nevada, but they cannot defend a policy to base their decision to investigate on the legal residency of the person requesting those services.

She brought her child to this school and asked it to provide her child with the very same educational services the school normally provides in the very same place the school normally provides those services. The only issue was that she and her child were not legal residents of that district. That was the only reason they would refuse. It's not because of where the services were to be provided. It's not because of anything about the services she was requesting. They were the exact same services. She just didn't live in their district.

In the case of these schools, where you establish your residence is the key. Again the issue is funding equity not residence.The issue might have something to do with funding equity or it might not. I don't know the specifics of this case, but likely her issue was that she felt the other school was better for her child. This might be due to it spending more money per child or it might not.

In any event, the school conditions its grant of services on residence. Everything but residence is the same. So that *is* the issue.

Dancing David

8th February 2011, 08:01 AM

The houses in the fire district are resident in the district, ie they reside in the district. Their physical placement determines services.

Dancing David

8th February 2011, 08:04 AM

The funding of her home district is exactly the issue in this case. The funding inequity is almost always the case.

JoelKatz

8th February 2011, 04:51 PM

The houses in the fire district are resident in the district, ie they reside in the district. Their physical placement determines services.Right, because the house is the place the service is delivered. It has nothing to do with the residency of the person who requests the service but with the service requested. This is nothing like the school case or the police hypothetical where it is solely the residence of the person requesting the services, and nothing about the services themselves or how they are to be provided, that is determinative. So this is not a difference between the school case and the police hypothetical.

Also, it's not the "legal residence" of the houses that matters but their physical location. If a house could somehow visit the district, if it were physically present in the district, they'd put it out. In both the school and the police case, people physically come to the district, they just aren't legal residences.

So this distinction doesn't work to make your point.

Loss Leader

8th February 2011, 08:31 PM

Right, because the house is the place the service is delivered. It has nothing to do with the residency of the person who requests the service but with the service requested.

You're equivocating about the word "residency" and, in so doing, creating a bad analogy. The houses are residents of a fire district like people are residents of a school district. You can't break your own analogy in order to talk about the residency of the owner of the house; you might as well insist on talking about the citizenship of the grandfather of the school-aged child.

But, by all means, keep repeating yourself because I honestly never get tired of finding something wrong on the internet.

JoelKatz

8th February 2011, 09:08 PM

You're equivocating about the word "residency" and, in so doing, creating a bad analogy. The houses are residents of a fire district like people are residents of a school district.Not at all. To provide service to a house outside of the district, the fire service would have to leave the district. The service has to be provided differently. It has nothing to do with legal residency.

You can't break your own analogy in order to talk about the residency of the owner of the house; you might as well insist on talking about the citizenship of the grandfather of the school-aged child.I don't follow you. The school district refused service based solely on residency. There was no difference in the service requested or how it was to be provided. This is the same in the police hypothetical.

But, by all means, keep repeating yourself because I honestly never get tired of finding something wrong on the internet.I guess we're at an impasse. We're both repeating ourselves. Nevertheless, your argument is wrong. The fire department is being asked to provide a service at a different location which requires them to do things differently from what they normally do. In the case of the school here, and the police hypothetical, the only difference was technical, legal residency. The service to be provided was *exactly* the same in all respects.