Mom jailed for sending her kids to a "GOOD" school.

[villain_the_foe]

Can't make this sh*t up.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/26/ohio-mom-jailed-for-sending-her-kids-to-a-better-school/

Whats worse about this story is that this lady was a teachers asst. and was working on her degree to become a teacher. This "felony" just took that opportunity away from her.

[Theguyingreenandwhite]

That's just stupid

[Falcon63]

Seriously? It's not like everyone doesn't do this anyways. Down in Florida I knew about 150 people who did this to not get put in the ghetto a$$ schools.

[RutgersJetFan]

This is actually a huge problem for Ohio schools, districts nationwide really. Been going on for decades in the state and district courts. Ohio's school systems are supported by property taxes, and the courts have taken on the opinion that if you don't live in the district, and you're not paying property taxes, then you're basically stealing from the school district by enrolling your kids there. They get the grand theft charge from the tuition being 30 grand, which is the amount of the property taxes that the school systems offer as tuition if you'd like to send your kids to a different district. The problem being, of course, that if you had a spare 30k laying around, this probably wouldn't be a problem for a parent like this lady.

The judge said she wanted to make an example out of her with the ruling, but I think it should have been done in a different case. And certainly not to this degree. The father lives in the district. And a felony? Come on. This stuff happens in NJ and NY all the time; and really all they do is make the kids leave or give the parents the option to pay the tuition. Otherwise, see ya. Of course there is the notion that a kid whose parent is actually paying the taxes is being deprived of a class or closer attention because of parents like this falsifying records, but you really have to be a heartless SOB to take on that view.

The good news is that hopefully the national attention this is getting hopefully shines some lights on the horrendous way that the state of Ohio goes about funding its schools.

[Bob]

They overcharged her, in my opinion, but filing false documents is fraud and should be punished. She should have either paid tuition to the suburban district or made arrangements to live there.

[villain_the_foe]

This is actually a huge problem for Ohio schools, districts nationwide really. Been going on for decades in the state and district courts. Ohio's school systems are supported by property taxes, and the courts have taken on the opinion that if you don't live in the district, and you're not paying property taxes, then you're basically stealing from the school district by enrolling your kids there. They get the grand theft charge from the tuition being 30 grand, which is the amount of the property taxes that the school systems offer as tuition if you'd like to send your kids to a different district. The problem being, of course, that if you had a spare 30k laying around, this probably wouldn't be a problem for a parent like this lady.

The judge said she wanted to make an example out of her with the ruling, but I think it should have been done in a different case. And certainly not to this degree. The father lives in the district. And a felony? Come on. This stuff happens in NJ and NY all the time; and really all they do is make the kids leave or give the parents the option to pay the tuition. Otherwise, see ya. Of course there is the notion that a kid whose parent is actually paying the taxes is being deprived of a class or closer attention because of parents like this falsifying records, but you really have to be a heartless SOB to take on that view.

The good news is that hopefully the national attention this is getting hopefully shines some lights on the horrendous way that the state of Ohio goes about funding its schools.

I agree. I actually did the same thing when I was in High School. My mother didnt want me to go to schools in the Bronx because I was getting into too much trouble in junior high. My God father lived in Mt. Vernon and I had to travel 2 and 1/2 hours for four years to go to school. Best decision that she ever made for me. I was 1 of a few from my childhood friends growing up that actually graduated high school and had the opportunity to go to a university. I dont think opportunities that I have today would have been available for me if my mom didnt take measures to give me an opportunity yesterday.

The school eventually knew that I didnt live in the Vern, but they actually left me alone. During my senior year my history teacher Mr. Chinery, I'll never forget, used to pick me up every morning from the train station in the bronx to drive me into Mt. vernon to help cut my time down some. I really appreciated that. For someone to tell my mother that she's a felon simply because she wanted to give me the education that in all actuality should be available to all children is retarded and comes from the mind of an immoral felon.

Hopefully this will show people that there IS in fact issues with the school system. Its much more than just a "section" of people failing in school. There's something wrong with the system itself...to the point where parents are becoming felons just to give their kids a shot at a better life. That part is usually not recognized.

[war ensemble]

It's really a tough situation to be in. Pouring money into the bad school districts doesn't help either (as much as Zuckerburg might want you to think). I've always wondered how much of it is socioeconomic at home and how much has to do with better funding (granted, the latter is a product of the former). I don't know how to fix the system either, to be honest. The problem is plain to see when one compares within a state each district, and it's even obvious when one considers the American educational system as a whole vs other European/Asian countries.

I got lucky to have parents in fairly good financial standing, so me and all my siblings went to catholic grade schools. If I didn't get into my current high school, my parents still would've been able to afford sending me to a decent private school. If they were not in good economic standing, things might have been very different. Yonkers doesn't give a f about students that don't get into the non-"gifted" track--i.e. PEARLS/Montessori --> Yonkers High, and they don't do much to hide that fact.

(By the way, Villain I can empathize with your commute. Mine's about the same and I have to get up at 4:15 for it. 'Tis splendid!)

[sirlancemehlot]

This is a shame. Mom did something wrong, but for all the right reasons. Couldn't they simply have expelled the kids...even requested restitution? The school district actually hired a private detective to track the family down? But doesn't the father, who lives in the district, pay taxes too? The problem as I see it, and the cause for this overzealous reaction is simple: our schools are vastly underfunded. NJ schools were actually granted a huge sum by President Obama in order to help allay some of the cost crunch, but the Governor suggested taht schools hold it and not use it to avoid teacher layoffs, so that they can have more money to spend next year when the budget will be even tighter. Bigger classes, fewer teachers, less educational opportunity and school districts in fear of using too many paperclips have caused hysterical reactions like the one above. Personally, I say tax me more and keep my kids smart and my streets safe. But hey, thats just me.

[villain_the_foe]

This is a shame. Mom did something wrong, but for all the right reasons. Couldn't they simply have expelled the kids...even requested restitution? The school district actually hired a private detective to track the family down? But doesn't the father, who lives in the district, pay taxes too? The problem as I see it, and the cause for this overzealous reaction is simple: our schools are vastly underfunded. NJ schools were actually granted a huge sum by President Obama in order to help allay some of the cost crunch, but the Governor suggested taht schools hold it and not use it to avoid teacher layoffs, so that they can have more money to spend next year when the budget will be even tighter. Bigger classes, fewer teachers, less educational opportunity and school districts in fear of using too many paperclips have caused hysterical reactions like the one above. Personally, I say tax me more and keep my kids smart and my streets safe. But hey, thats just me.

This has less to do with funding, more to do with placism. situation's like this keep sections of people trapped in lower income districts to where they have to depend on a handout...or public funding. The funny thing I find is that the people that end up being dependent on those fundings tend not to get the same level of education/opportunities as people who dont have that problem. So what good was the funding? Here's the answer...

The educational structure is simply showing me that not everyone can be the Doctor, someone has to be the janitor.

[sirlancemehlot]

This has less to do with funding, more to do with placism. situation's like this keep sections of people trapped in lower income districts to where they have to depend on a handout...or public funding. The funny thing I find is that the people that end up being dependent on those fundings tend not to get the same level of education/opportunities as people who dont have that problem. So what good was the funding? Here's the answer...

The educational structure is simply showing me that not everyone can be the Doctor, someone has to be the janitor.

There is some truth to this. Privelidge has its rewards. But still, more money=better teachers=better education. Who is going to look for a teaching job now? With teachers being villified and jobs being cut? Education on all levels and in all places should be a priority. The wealthy will always have better access. They can afford the best education. The public school system is damaged and its getting less effective, leaving the less fortunate to attend schools with burned-out overworked teachers and even shoddy school buildings and grounds. For every kid that has the resolve to fight through the system, ther are hundreds who will have to dig ditches because they never had the support, the funding, or the one good teacher who got through to them. Its getting more scary by the day.

[#27TheDominator]

Isn't there an issue with letting the "good" kids go to different schools? You are perpetuating the problem. Kids that want to seriously study and get ahead leave the district and nothing is left but kids that don't take eduacation seriously. I don't think what they did to this woman is the answer, but letting people get away with it isn't going to help the problem long term. Make no mistake, like almost everything else, it is a money issue. Chris Rock does a whole bit about this. His father sent him to an Italian neighborhood for school. Not sure if it was Bensonhurst.

[villain_the_foe]

Isn't there an issue with letting the "good" kids go to different schools? You are perpetuating the problem. Kids that want to seriously study and get ahead leave the district and nothing is left but kids that don't take eduacation seriously. I don't think what they did to this woman is the answer, but letting people get away with it isn't going to help the problem long term. Make no mistake, like almost everything else, it is a money issue. Chris Rock does a whole bit about this. His father sent him to an Italian neighborhood for school. Not sure if it was Bensonhurst.

I dont think it was the kids decision of being more serious about education that led the parent to change the school district in which their child goes. If it was simply about kids taking school seriously then there would be no reason for the more wealthy to pay for an education system that's no different from the publicly funded one. You dont see kids from those districts running to the publicly funded schools at all to get the same level of education while saving money that they would have spent on their district school. Makes no sense. It also would make no sense for kids in the funded schools to go to the other schools if all they had to do is take education seriously.

The problem is that the level of education in these sections are poor, and poor for a reason. I havent heard the Chris Rock bit, but a gentlemen named Tim Wise breaks this down rather well the obvious problem in the school system.

[#27TheDominator]

I dont think it was the kids decision of being more serious about education that led the parent to change the school district in which their child goes. If it was simply about kids taking school seriously then there would be no reason for the more wealthy to pay for an education system that's no different from the publicly funded one. You dont see kids from those districts running to the publicly funded schools at all to get the same level of education while saving money that they would have spent on their district school. Makes no sense. It also would make no sense for kids in the funded schools to go to the other schools if all they had to do is take education seriously.

The problem is that the level of education in these sections are poor, and poor for a reason. I havent heard the Chris Rock bit, but a gentlemen named Tim Wise breaks this down rather well the obvious problem in the school system.

I didn't read this woman's case, but back in the '70's and '80's plenty of people were shopping districts for public schools. That's what I was talking about. A lot of times it was for safety more than education.

[villain_the_foe]

I didn't read this woman's case, but back in the '70's and '80's plenty of people were shopping districts for public schools. That's what I was talking about. A lot of times it was for safety more than education.

Excellent point...I agree. The problem with this is that back in the 60's when the govt was issuing those FHA home loans to people shopping for districts to live in as you said, many of those loans were not given to people of color because of the obvious racial separation & prejudice during that point in time. Today it still plays a major role because families have grown up in the districts that they wanted to get out of because of safety/educational reasons. But today when a parent decides to give their child a better education by putting them in a school in which the district educates their young they're called felons??? Yet no one talks about the raw deal that these families got back in the 60's when these FHA loans were given out to people in a discriminatory fashion that basically created the middle class in the first place. This is far from particular folks not looking for districts to live in back in that era, because they were. This is also not about kids from lower favored districts not taking education seriously. Its about the misfortune of some designed by the "system" that can never be put on front street (and when I say that, I dont mean black/white people directly..I mean the actual SYSTEM, because its the system who runs that black/white bullsh!t in the first place). The 60's and 70's (as you stated yourself) proved that point, and the effects are evident today with the new type of "felon". How dare this lady attempt to get her kids a better education. Now because of her "felony" she cannot become a teacher, something that she's been working hard for in order to not just support her kids, but to also provide a positive example. What do you think these kids are going to think of the system that just destroyed their mothers career aspirations and threw them back in the district where they dont get the same level of education dom?

You're a smart dude dom, I'll NEVER doubt that. I've spoken to you (even in our disagreements) long enough for me to know that you're not blind.

[#27TheDominator]

Excellent point...I agree. The problem with this is that back in the 60's when the govt was issuing those FHA home loans to people shopping for districts to live in as you said, many of those loans were not given to people of color because of the obvious racial separation & prejudice during that point in time. Today it still plays a major role because families have grown up in the districts that they wanted to get out of because of safety/educational reasons. But today when a parent decides to give their child a better education by putting them in a school in which the district educates their young they're called felons??? Yet no one talks about the raw deal that these families got back in the 60's when these FHA loans were given out to people in a discriminatory fashion that basically created the middle class in the first place. This is far from particular folks not looking for districts to live in back in that era, because they were. This is also not about kids from lower favored districts not taking education seriously. Its about the misfortune of some designed by the "system" that can never be put on front street (and when I say that, I dont mean black/white people directly..I mean the actual SYSTEM, because its the system who runs that black/white bullsh!t in the first place). The 60's and 70's (as you stated yourself) proved that point, and the effects are evident today with the new type of "felon". How dare this lady attempt to get her kids a better education. Now because of her "felony" she cannot become a teacher, something that she's been working hard for in order to not just support her kids, but to also provide a positive example. What do you think these kids are going to think of the system that just destroyed their mothers career aspirations and threw that back in the district where they dont get the same level of education dom?

You're a smart dude dom, I'll NEVER doubt that. I've spoken to you (even in our disagreements) long enough for me to know that you see what I see.

Thanks, but I didn't mean buying houses in the right school district. I meant saying you lived in a different district to get your kid into a better (public) school. There was plenty of that going around. That's what Rock's family did and it's why on his show he goes to "Don Corleone"

[villain_the_foe]

Thanks, but I didn't mean buying houses in the right school district. I meant saying you lived in a different district to get your kid into a better (public) school. There was plenty of that going around. That's what Rock's family did and it's why on his show he goes to "Don Corleone"

But thats my problem. Why do you have to "do that"? do you know how many more families just like rocks family didnt have that ability to do that? Public schools are still considered "zone" schools. Which is privatized by zoning laws. If you didnt have the ability to move to that public zone then what options do you have?

Thats what im saying. I did the VERY THING when I was in high school. It doesnt take away the fact that many of my own friends didnt have that opportunity because they didnt have a family member that lived in mt. vernon to do that, or any other alternative zone for that matter. Thats a problem and imo its obviously by design.

Rock's story shows how messed up the school system is. Yet these same schools have 40 kids per classroom learning nothing but getting passing grades. They'll end up at some type of internet school like D'vry while the people who get the job graduated from Michigan U.

Its a repeating cycle of being "under privileged". Rock was one of the very few lucky ones.

[serphnx]

It's all a farce anyway. The only difference at a "good" school is the students are better connected and better funded, and thusly will have better careers. Nobody actually gives a damn at all what anybody knows or how good of a student they are. If they did, standardized testing would generally be the major factor for hiring, or maybe IQ tests.

There is no real solution, unless you want the old Chinese systems where everyone takes standardized tests that determine where you end up. But the US does not want that at all, because that takes away the advantage that the higher classes have.

[villain_the_foe]

It's all a farce anyway. The only difference at a "good" school is the students are better connected and better funded, and thusly will have better careers. Nobody actually gives a damn at all what anybody knows or how good of a student they are. If they did, standardized testing would generally be the major factor for hiring, or maybe IQ tests.

There is no real solution, unless you want the old Chinese systems where everyone takes standardized tests that determine where you end up. But the US does not want that at all, because that takes away the advantage that the higher classes have.

Generally speaking, you're absolutely right. Its all about connections. When I was in college I seen/heard about it all the time, how a kid was able to get accepted at the university, not because he had the grades, but mom or day was even an alumni or had given donations to the program of the schools etc.

In all honesty, thats cool. But morally, it eliminates alot of people who dont have the chance to compete. I dont have a problem with competition, but whats happening is that the obstacles are so outrageous for some that its nearly impossible to establish assets.

Connections got me to my high school. Connections got me every job I've ever held out of college except 1, which is when I went into business for myself. Thats a very good point Serphnx.

[#27TheDominator]

But thats my problem. Why do you have to "do that"? do you know how many more families just like rocks family didnt have that ability to do that? Public schools are still considered "zone" schools. Which is privatized by zoning laws. If you didnt have the ability to move to that public zone then what options do you have?

Thats what im saying. I did the VERY THING when I was in high school. It doesnt take away the fact that many of my own friends didnt have that opportunity because they didnt have a family member that lived in mt. vernon to do that, or any other alternative zone for that matter. Thats a problem and imo its obviously by design.

Rock's story shows how messed up the school system is. Yet these same schools have 40 kids per classroom learning nothing but getting passing grades. They'll end up at some type of internet school like D'vry while the people who get the job graduated from Michigan U.

Its a repeating cycle of being "under privileged". Rock was one of the very few lucky ones.

That's exactly what my point was. Just leaving the school works for the individual, but does nothing to correct the problems in the system.

It's all a farce anyway. The only difference at a "good" school is the students are better connected and better funded, and thusly will have better careers. Nobody actually gives a damn at all what anybody knows or how good of a student they are. If they did, standardized testing would generally be the major factor for hiring, or maybe IQ tests.

There is no real solution, unless you want the old Chinese systems where everyone takes standardized tests that determine where you end up. But the US does not want that at all, because that takes away the advantage that the higher classes have.

I find it odd that Villain agrees with this post, but not some of the others. It's basically the same point. There are a bunch of issues, not the least of which is a culture that doesn't value education and grades. That seeps from the families to the students to teachers and administration. I don't know where you get the idea that it is the "higher classes" trying to get rid of standardized testing. Generally it is done to correct some real or perceived bias in the tests which invariably means the "lower classes" are doing worse.

[war ensemble]

I find it odd that Villain agrees with this post, but not some of the others. It's basically the same point. There are a bunch of issues, not the least of which is a culture that doesn't value education and grades. That seeps from the families to the students to teachers and administration. I don't know where you get the idea that it is the "higher classes" trying to get rid of standardized testing. Generally it is done to correct some real or perceived bias in the tests which invariably means the "lower classes" are doing worse.

Yeah, average SAT scores from wealthy high school districts are much higher than the corresponding scores from poorer districts...

Check this out: http://php.pressconnects.com/satdb The Bronx only has two public schools that have average composites over 1000 (and I believe both are magnet schools...). Compare that with Westchester, which has a full page of schools with average composites over 1000.

[#27TheDominator]

Yeah, average SAT scores from wealthy high school districts are much higher than the corresponding scores from poorer districts...

Check this out: http://php.pressconnects.com/satdb The Bronx only has two public schools that have average composites over 1000 (and I believe both are magnet schools...). Compare that with Westchester, which has a full page of schools with average composites over 1000.

I think there is an issue with trying to make standardized tests less "eurocentric". The fact is, we live in a eurocentric culture. To the extent that is what these kids are going to be out living and working in, I don't think it should be completely avoided. If they taught to improve those test scores, they could do it. Back when I went, there were some lesser law schools that were designed to have high bar passage rates. They did not have the brightest students, or produce the best lawyers, but they had high bar passage rates. I'm not sure it's the best way to educate though.

[villain_the_foe]

That's exactly what my point was. Just leaving the school works for the individual, but does nothing to correct the problems in the system.

I find it odd that Villain agrees with this post, but not some of the others. It's basically the same point. There are a bunch of issues, not the least of which is a culture that doesn't value education and grades. That seeps from the families to the students to teachers and administration. I don't know where you get the idea that it is the "higher classes" trying to get rid of standardized testing. Generally it is done to correct some real or perceived bias in the tests which invariably means the "lower classes" are doing worse.

To be fair I agreed with the "connections" part. I think thats a very valid statement. The standardized tests I do have a problem with, I think the lack of value from the education system seeps from administration on down, not the other way. Remember, many of these families dont have a choice but to deal with these schools. its seems like when the dept. of education took over the public schools thats when you began to see the decline in the level of education across the board.

Beforehand we were #1 in many categories, since the development of the dept. of education we went from #1 to #47 where we are today. Our centralized education system has to go, no one is benefiting from it. That'll be a great way for gov't to save money. I think that people even in poor neighborhoods would be able to not only afford education for their children, but because they have control of the education system again the children would actually learn in school no matter the district.

[The Gun Of Bavaria]

They overcharged her, in my opinion, but filing false documents is fraud and should be punished. She should have either paid tuition to the suburban district or made arrangements to live there.

Agreed. Purposely creating and providing false documents is a crime, period, end of story. There was a legal way to do it and she chose the illegal way. That said, charging her with a Felony, which most Frauds are, seems to be high given the reason for her actions. It would have been nice to see a Misdemeanor charge or plea. We have Schools of Choice in Michigan and there are plenty of people who utilize it in a legal manner.

[villain_the_foe]

Agreed. Purposely creating and providing false documents is a crime, period, end of story. There was a legal way to do it and she chose the illegal way. That said, charging her with a Felony, which most Frauds are, seems to be high given the reason for her actions. It would have been nice to see a Misdemeanor charge or plea. We have Schools of Choice in Michigan and there are plenty of people who utilize it in a legal manner.

Its not so "cut and dry" G.O.B.

There are many reasons why people like this lady and her family ended up in poor education districts. Maybe if competition was on a level playing field we wouldnt see things like this occur. Its cool to just look at the crime and say its a crime, end of story, but to look deeper into situations that drive parents to do things like this in the first place is deemed unnecessary. That in itself is a crime.

[JohnnyHector]

Its not so "cut and dry" G.O.B.

There are many reasons why people like this lady and her family ended up in poor education districts. Maybe if competition was on a level playing field we wouldnt see things like this occur. Its cool to just look at the crime and say its a crime, end of story, but to look deeper into situations that drive parents to do things like this in the first place is deemed unnecessary. That in itself is a crime.

If I mug you so that I can feed my hungry kid, should I not be charged with a crime?

Moral relativism is wonderful when it comes to dicussion and debate, but it doesn't render moot the laws that are on the books.

And as far as a level playing field, school districts in lower-income neighborhoods have budgets made up of a much larger percentage of state funding than those in "better" neighborhoods, whose "better" schools are funded by the tremendous amount the homeowners that live there pay in school taxes. The state is already engaging in a form of wealth redistribution by taking tax dollars - in large part provided by the middle- to upper-class - and sending aid to schools in lower-income areas, How would you propose making things more equitable for all?

[villain_the_foe]

If I mug you so that I can feed my hungry kid, should I not be charged with a crime?

Moral relativism is wonderful when it comes to dicussion and debate, but it doesn't render moot the laws that are on the books.

And as far as a level playing field, school districts in lower-income neighborhoods have budgets made up of a much larger percentage of state funding than those in "better" neighborhoods, whose "better" schools are funded by the tremendous amount the homeowners that live there pay in school taxes. The state is already engaging in a form of wealth redistribution by taking tax dollars - in large part provided by the middle- to upper-class - and sending aid to schools in lower-income areas, How would you propose making things more equitable for all?

Though your comparison has nothing to do with the situation at hand, i'll answer your question anyway. It depends on the context. If im the direct reason why your kid is going hungry (I stole your kids food) then I dont see it as a crime because you're only taking back whats yours. You ask me a question, but it depends on the context of the situation Hector which would determine if it was a crime or not (something that's ignored by "cut and dry" thinking). Critical thinking is what I would use to answer a question like that.

If you mug me so you can take whats mine to then turn around and call it a situation of me being simply "under privileged" should you be charged with a crime? Of course. You look at the fact that the lady enrolled her child in a better school, but (as usual) ignore the fact about how families like this ended up in poor districts with poor schooling having to depend on govt funding in the first place.

Most would like to call it a situation of being under privileged, as if there's "NO REASON" why these folks are under privileged. By definition if there's an under privileged their must be an over privileged. We dont EVER hear about the over privileged though, thats not politically correct to talk about.

Turning this situation into a "mugging" (lol) and ignoring the context is something im not surprised of. Probably because the middle/upper class dont understand what it is to come from a back ground like that. And because they're not part of the under privileged they dont have to identify with it because it has no impact in their life because its something that they can easily ignore. People coming from these districts dont have that luxury to ignore things, their circumstance are too dire to do so. So they have to take chances (outside of govt funding/dependency) to establish themeselves because lets be serious, no one is going to be able to live fulfilling lives on govt funding. They'll remain in the projects getting just enough funding to remain poor. You name me one (1) poor person who got educationally/economically wealthy on govt funded dependency and I'll shut up.

This mother shouldnt be looked at as a mugging criminal, she should be commended for her courage and commitment to her children...given the context.

And as for the upper/middle class. If you dig and figure out how in the 60's the middle class was created (I've already mentioned it in this thread) you'll see how it impacted (even today) the people who were "stuck" in the lower districts.

Its all about the context, not simply the moot law books built for a moot court.

[JohnnyHector]

Though your comparison has nothing to do with the situation at hand, i'll answer your question anyway.

I wasn't literally comparing this situation to a mugging; I was citing another example of someone breaking the law under circumstances where they are trying to improve the quality of life for their children.

If im the direct reason why your kid is going hungry (I stole your kids food) then I dont see it as a crime because you're only taking back whats yours.

In making this flimsy analogy, are you suggesting that the taxpayers in the district to which this woman was fradulently sending her child were "stealing" opportunities from her?

the context of the situation Hector which would determine if it was a crime or not (something that's ignored by "cut and dry" crime). Critical thinking is what I would use to answer a question like that.

Again, moral relativism is great for debate, but it doesn't mean that you can ignore laws in a situation in which you deem them to not be applicable. It has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with making a decision in ethics to do what one deems to be best for themselves.

You look at the fact that the lady enrolled her child in a better school, but (as usual) ignore the fact about how families like this ended up in poor districts with poor schooling having to depend on govt funding in the first place.

Most would like to call it a situation of being under privileged, as if there's no reason why that person is under privileged. By definition if there's an under privileged their must be an over privileged. We dont EVER hear about the over privileged though, thats not politically correct to talk about.

Clearly, this is how capitalism works. Some have a great deal, some have very little, most fall somewhere in between and many have to struggle from ending up at the "very little" end of the spectrum. And people always bitch about rich people, so I don't really get your last statement.

Turning this situation into a "mugging" (lol) and ignoring the context is something im not surprised of. Probably because you dont understand what it is to come from a back ground like that. And because you're not part of the under privileged you dont have to identify with it because it has no impact in your life because its something that you can easily ignore. People coming from these districts dont have that luxury to ignore things, their circumstance are too dire to do so. So they have to take chances (outside of govt funding) to establish themeselves because lets be serious, no one is going to be able to live fulfilling lives on govt funding. They'll remain in the projects getting just enough funding to be poor.

If you think access to education is all that keeps people from improving their situations, then you're in denial.

Do you think that parental involvement in education has any bearing on a child's success? Now, I understand there are situations where you have single mothers working multiple jobs to make ends meet, but you still have a responsibility, as a parent, to take an active role in your child's education, no matter how tired you are or how desperately you want to go on a date so you can find a man. My motivation to do well in school was that I never wanted to let my parents down, because they expected the best from me, because they knew that's what I was capable of. My wife, on the other hand, despite living in a decent district and being a bright person, didn't perform anywhere near her capabilities, because she had a sh*tty situation at home and noone to re-inforce the importance of education - something she still laments to this day.

Do you think that poor behavior in the classroom doesn't detract from those who are there to learn? Don't you think that kids would learn more from teachers who didn't have to act primarily as wardens with education becoming secondary? How is this the fault of the "over-privileged"?

Without hard work and sacrifice, no level of education is going to take someone from the projects to Park Avenue, save for becoming a professional athlete or an entertainer.

Now, this woman seems like she's probably a very good mother and had the best intentions. However, to ignore - and even commend - the fact that she committed fraud (while probably not worthy of a felony charge) is something I can't do. Should we simply let everyone decide on an individual basis where they think their kids should be allowed to attend school?

You still didn't answer the most important question I asked. How would you make the education system equitable for all?

[JohnnyHector]

As an aside, there's something to be said about someone who has boasted in the past about not paying taxes that has no problem with those who fraudulently send their children to districts funded by other's tax dollars.

[villain_the_foe]

I wasn't literally comparing this situation to a mugging; I was citing another example of someone breaking the law under circumstances where they are trying to improve the quality of life for their children.

It still doesnt change the fact that it depends on the context of the situation. Follow me?

In making this flimsy analogy, are you suggesting that the taxpayers in the district to which this woman was fradulently sending her child were "stealing" opportunities from her?

research this flimsy info.

Again, moral relativism is great for debate, but it doesn't mean that you can ignore laws in a situation in which you deem them to not be applicable. It has nothing to do with critical thinking and everything to do with making a decision in ethics to do what one deems to be best for themselves.

Law's are ignored everyday for the under privileged. What are you talking about?

Clearly, this is how capitalism works. Some have a great deal, some have very little, most fall somewhere in between and many have to struggle from ending up at the "very little" end of the spectrum. And people always bitch about rich people, so I don't really get your last statement.

So clearly, something's wrong with capitalism, because its based on usury and manipulation (yet the manipulation is then blamed on the people hit by it). Obviously free market capitalism works better.

If you think access to education is all that keeps people from improving their situations, then you're in denial.

No, thats not what im saying at all. The "lack" of access to education keeps people from improving their situation more often than not. Thats what im saying.

Do you think that parental involvement in education has any bearing on a child's success?

Absolutely. In fact, my wife and I will be home schooling our children. Im not putting the mind of my child in the hands of the capitalist that you speak of. Why would I ever do that?

Now, I understand there are situations where you have single mothers working multiple jobs to make ends meet, but you still have a responsibility, as a parent, to take an active role in your child's education, no matter how tired you are or how desperately you want to go on a date so you can find a man. My motivation to do well in school was that I never wanted to let my parents down, because they expected the best from me, because they knew that's what I was capable of. My wife, on the other hand, despite living in a decent district and being a bright person, didn't perform anywhere near her capabilities, because she had a sh*tty situation at home and noone to re-inforce the importance of education - something she still laments to this day.

I can tell you missed my whole point completely with this very statement. Goes to show that I was right about the Ignoring part of being privileged lol.

Do you think that poor behavior in the classroom doesn't detract from those who are there to learn? Don't you think that kids would learn more from teachers who didn't have to act primarily as wardens with education becoming secondary? How is this the fault of the "over-privileged"?

Without hard work and sacrifice, no level of education is going to take someone from the projects to Park Avenue, save for becoming a professional athlete or an entertainer

because the overprivileged leave the scraps for the rest, which have to be rationed through the masses. How could one ever compete in a situation like that? C'mon man, this isnt rocket science. Most of this is common sense.

Tell that to the over-privileged, who never worked a hard day in their life...but have hard workers do it for them.

Now, this woman seems like she's probably a very good mother and had the best intentions. However, to ignore - and even commend - the fact that she committed fraud (while probably not worthy of a felony charge) is something I can't do. Should we simply let everyone decide on an individual basis where they think their kids should be allowed to attend school?

You still didn't answer the most important question I asked. How would you make the education system equitable for all?

Fraud to who? Not me. EVERYONE is entitled the opportunity to a good education. My mother did the same for me, and I'll never call her a fraud. I didnt understand when I was 14, but now at 30 I know exactly the type of world that im living in.

Easily, make it available to all, and not simply to the privileged. Get government out of the school system, allow people to home school their kids. Choices my friend is much more equitable than funded dependency.

[JohnnyHector]

I'll have to pick this up tomorrow, as I'm taking my privileged self to the Knicks game now.

[villain_the_foe]

I'll have to pick this up tomorrow, as I'm taking my privileged self to the Knicks game now.

Enjoy.

[villain_the_foe]

As an aside, there's something to be said about someone who has boasted in the past about not paying taxes that has no problem with those who fraudulently send their children to districts funded by other's tax dollars.

unapportioned tax on ones labor is fraudulent (Do you know THIS type of fraud?) and its usury by the over privileged. Maybe if the poor didnt have that lingering over their heads they could pay for a good education and give back to their communities willingly, and not have to commit fraud to get a proper education. You wouldnt understand that though because you think im boasting, when the situation in itself is f'ing sad. Only a person who can identify with the "under privileged" can empathize.

Also, it isnt like the items I buy dont have tax attached to it. Atleast I know the things that I purchase I support, and the things that I dont support I wont put one red cent into (willingly that is). Figure that one out. I'll pay when there's no more people under that "privileged" line of dependency.

Definition of dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else. Thats slavery bro, not free market capitalism. I know the difference quite well given that im from the cloth of the under privileged so my history teaches me. And im not a robot, I dont support things because the majority have been trained to do so. If it aint morally/ethically right im not supporting it. Maybe you should identify, and do the same.

[war ensemble]

Definition of dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else.

Either you're completely self-sufficient which is practically impossible (unless you're Amish or something?) or you rely on free market capitalism for your survival. How can you attach a negative stigma to the latter when it's a necessary part of modernization?

[Vudu]

Nice use of tax payer dollars. Why not just give her a fine and send her on her way. I swear the justice system is designed for the rich.

[villain_the_foe]

Either you're completely self-sufficient which is practically impossible (unless you're Amish or something?) or you rely on free market capitalism for your survival. How can you attach a negative stigma to the latter when it's a necessary part of modernization?

Where did I attach a negative stigma on free market capitalism? Please show me, i'll correct myself if so.