Poll: Ohio mom jailed for sending kids to a better school district. Your thoughts?

[Writing on the Wall]

well i live in the uk but i pay my taxes so that every kid gets a decent standard of education. it's disgraceful that they turn around and say she owes them money. they owe her daughters the standard of education they were getting. they owe it to all students, not just those in wealthy areas.

 

[Jodah]

And by breaking the law she attempted to get a "free ride" for her child. Her child took resources from the children who legally attend that school. If the law was not enforced it would fail the community the school is located in. If she had paid a tuition or taxes for THAT school it would be different. However, she did not. Like I said, she was justified but she still broke the law and should be punished for it.

We elected the people that made the laws, we have to abide by them even if we don't like them.

Ah, the taxes... I see.

But slightly off-topic, it is wrong to follow a book no matter what. If the laws imposed show factual problems (such as when education level varies so greatly and true competition amongst schools is somewhat hampered) and they are so slow to fix it, this is just enough of a reason not to follow it. After all, we wouldn't be here in this forum if some people didn't break a law or two, and I don't mean just the fancy poetry (c) government inc. What I mean is that the instruments to criticize or adjust laws are too slow. Too damn slow. How many years have passed since the problem has been identified... Something must change radically, as the governments are currently quite the lag fests.

And there are ways to change the law without going through law makers. Jury nullification for example. In those cases the jury recognizes that the law is wrong and they refuse to enforce it. The problem is that is rare (as it should be) so one needs to be willing to accept the punishment. Attempting jury nullification is fine, even helpful, but if it doesn't work one cannot complain about the punishment (they can and should complain about the law though!) or their cause is harmed.

NO you don't just 'shut up and deal', but you seek to circumvent or remove that law through the legal remedies that are available to you.

Do this now: Go read this [http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Pure-Reason-Immanuel-Kant/dp/0521657296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296100856&sr=8-1] and this [http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Henry-David-Thoreau/dp/1449518583/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1296101127&sr=1-1] before you claim that breaking the law is ever the 'right' thing to do.

'kay?

I greatly appreciate that you brought some great sources for the understanding of how to deal with unethical laws; however I disagree that Thoreau, and later Martin Luther King Jr., sought legal remedies as the direct means of addressing wrongs. A key principal of civil disobedience is to publicly and blatantly ignore unjust laws, accepting the consequences dealt down by those who are enforcing the unjust laws.

This whole situation makes me want to go back and read Les Miserables.

This 154.34%! This is what I have been (trying) to say, just said much better apparently.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Well, I live in Australia, Queensland to be precise, and essentially, your child can pretty much go to any school he or she can get to (private school tuition fees notwithstanding).

I guess the idea of location-based enrollment restrictions is somewhat baffling to me.

 

[Sutter Cane]

SNIP

I'm sure you can agree, however, that before one has faced the more harsh reality of life (usually post-education) in their jobs, and have integrated themselves into the society as an "adult" - that they will hold idealistic views.

There is an old saying in Denmark, where I'm from, that goes: "When you're young, you vote with your heart. When you get older, you vote with your brain"

I am not pleading conservative opinions here, I am just asking you if you will not agree that one is more driven by emotion as one is young?

I am not going to dispute any of your points, as I find myself entirely in agreement, but will ask you, instead: "Can you not overlook the idealistic views of those who are young?"

Surely you were more driven by heart/less driven by brain, when you were young? I think such is the case with everyone. That being said, I agree entirely that quoting your out of question is besides that point, and shouldn't be swept under the rug because of it. Likewise, I think engaging in a debate with no other intention than "I disagree, but cannot be bothered to enter an actual argument" is equally nonsensical.

Mind you, I am not defending either of the people in question here, much less do I know them - I just think there is very little reason for you to be (or appear to be) so agitated.

Younger people will likely hold their idealistic views close to heart. You will be able to view a bigger picture. They will say "Well, it shouldn't be like that!", you will say "Well, it has to be like that, because of[...]". You cannot expect everyone you argue with to be as intelligent (not to mention knowing, given your own life-experiences and age) as you. I respect that you refuse to argue on such rubbish terms, but would then advice you to rather avoid the argument entirely.

I know this seems like some sort of raised finger, telling you what to do and what not to do, but that's not really the intention. I'm trying, in a diplomatic way, to have you accept that some young people on these forums are simply childish in the way they perceive the world - as is expected from them. There is no sense in becoming upset that these people will occasionally become rabble-rousers. It is in their nature.

You know what? You're entirely right about that. I do need to be a little more tolerant because yes, I certainly did react with my heart when I was but a sprout.

I guess I just have such a high opinion of posters on the Escapist that I overreact when I see somebody not even bothering to try and support their emotional opinions. I'll try and be more constructive in the future.

You know, it's not that I was reacted to with (relative) hostility that has me agitated, or that you attack my position. That i understand. I did act like a jerk in my first post. I apologize. What does get on my nerves however is that I'm being talked to like i'm a thirteen year old, and that the only reason I hold the opinions I do is that i am young and naive.

I just simply do not agree that a person should necessarily put a law (which may or may not be unjust) over what they personally believe to be moral or ethical, and while I agree that in most cases that lawful protest is better than unlawful protest, I don't see how breaking a law to protest it isn't justifiable in the more extreme cases.

 

[Amaury_games]

Right. I understood the relevance of this law. Do you know if there can be exceptions? Could this mom have talked to (or still talk to) someone in order to make a deal so her children could study in another school? If the big deal is because the money that is distributed to the schools count only the people that live in the area, couldn't there be an annotation that said that a certain number of people from certain areas are studying in schools of other areas? Are there precedents for discussions like this?

Massachusetts has a program that enables students from under performing districts to attend districts which are doing better. http://www.doe.mass.edu/metco/

Ah, so some states have already begun to correct this law's problem. I hope they all come up with improvements like this, or better than this, or learn with the problems that this initiative have gone/will go through.

Which is stupid because it still leaves students behind. Instead they should work at improving problem districts.

Well, in long term, yes, this won't solve the big issue (the schools of some districts are bad). But it'll help, and it's a start. Just because it's better to correct the big problem, it doesn't mean that we should forget the present and say "it sucks now, but someday we'll make it better". Can't we do both? Start improving the schools so people won't be jealous of other districts, AND allow that people can go to other districts' schools (charging a SMALL tax if it really is needed that much by the school). This way the long term project for improving educational system is making progress while people are not having their education hurt because the law won't let them study in a better place just because of where they live.

 

[bob1052]

Or maybe, its just that your sister had a taxpaying legal guardian living in the district of the school. This isn't proof of "oh white people get treated so good and black people get pissed on by the state", this is just you trying to blame anyone except the person you feel you can relate to even the slightest, regardless of how wrong they are.

Okay. Trying again:

My sister lived in town A with her mother. My father lived in town B. My sister went to town B's schools.

Kelley Williams-Bolar's and her daughter live in town C. The father of Kelley Williams-Bolar's daughter lives in town D. Kelley Williams-Bolar's daughter went to town D's schools.

They're complete parallels. In fact, my sister has never lived with my father, even part time, which is something that Mrs. Kelley Williams-Bolar claims her daughter had done.

You explicitly ignored the part of my post where I told you to re-read the article because you missed something pretty major.

No honestly, read it again. Kelley Williams-Bolar's father was living in town D. That is her child's grandfather.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Meh...

She did do something wrong, but she should have just tried to work it out with the school district or just legally changed their adress to that of their father's for the year.

 

[Fleischer]

No honestly, read it again. Kelley Williams-Bolar's father was living in town D. That is her child's grandfather.

I read it again, and I understand what you are saying. My mistake for thinking the daughter was reported to be living with her father when it was claimed she was living with her grandfather.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Sucks man. I just hope that you got it all worked out in the end. And by any chance is that avatar from Repo! The Genetic Opera?

In a way it has, but I try avoid talking about it because it still pisses me off. And yes, it is the repo man. I love that movie

 

[Acier]

I get the strange feeling that not many people in this thread have attended a school that was overcrowded because of situations like this.

I did. It was horrible. If you want your child to go to that school, move into the district or get the proper documents for out of district attendance.

Throwing her in jail for 10 days? While it may be a bit over zealous, I'm sure she'll live.
Overcrowded schools are horrible annoying and can be a safety hazard. Not to mention it can hurt the original school's chance to improve if the brighter kids are leaving to go somewhere else.

 

[CruxisCalling]

She's justified in wanting to give her kids a better education, and I completely agree with what she did. On the other hand, she's an idiot for risking jail time to send her kids to Copley of all places. I went to that school. Trust me, it's nothing special. In fact, it's a horrible school. "Highly ranked" or not, it sucks. But, by the other standards in the area, it's the lesser of several evils, I guess.

Though I do find it hilarious that all the comments Copley students have been making over the years are true: Copley has way too much time and money that they're just wasting. They really hired a PI for this? Try paying to heat the place first. It really doesn't surprise me though.

 

[internetzealot1]

How about going to a private school, hm?

Really? Did you think before you posted?

Yes, I did. And I thought after I posted, too. And I'm thinking right now. And each time, I come to the conclusion that if the woman didn't like the shitty education that was being provided to her kids with other people's money, then she should go out and choose for herself a school that doesn't suck.

 

[Gilhelmi]

So I think everyone deserves an equal opportunity, but of course that would be COMMUNIST! and it will bring DEATH to the almighty USA!

I stopped watching the video when the school district person said "she wasnt paying the right taxes to let her daughters attend their school. GOD FORBID we ever decided to lend a helping hand to those that need it. I hope that school gets taken down a peg or two.

I find it hilarious that we have to pay taxes at all to schools, regardless of how good of an education they provide.


this sounds selfish/evil but I would love to see a report that her daughters were injured or something because they were back in their original district. A lawyer worth his weight in bad suits and briefcases would be able to show that the District would be responsible for negligence.

Any lawyer would lose that case. The school was following the law. She was not. She did have other legal options other then falsifying documents.

ALSO, I understand that schools get a budget based on how many students attend in correlation to the number of residents that live in the district, but there are ways to let your child attend a different district school while living out of the district.

I think the School didnt even think about talking to her about that.

It was not their job, it was her job. I bet she did not even look for legal alternatives. There are free resources, usually at the public library, that might have helped her there.

here is hoping that eventually Education will be free to all children in the USA.

Education will never be free, facilities need to be built and maintained, teachers paid, ect. We all pay taxes to pay for primary (1-6) and secondary (7-12) education. I even pay taxes and I have been out of school for years. I think of it as repaying the system for giving me a basic education.

I have to side with the school on this one, because if they let her get away with it then another 20 parents will try it, suddenly that district is broke because the budget ran out, and is no longer a better school district. If the district there is so much better there, she could have sent the daughters to live with dad during the school year and brought them home on the weekends and non-school year. That is just one legal option she had. I can think of others but this post will drag on as it is.

School is never free and never has been, even if you were homeschooled you still have to pay for textbooks and the like.

Lastly, education is not the magic bullet that automatically grants success. It is hard work, or higher intelligence then average, or education. Usually, it is a combination of two or more. Education is important but so is hard work. If her daughters work hard, in even a poor school, they can still be successful.

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

Thank you Jodah for finishing my thought.

 

[Snooder]

One thing that most of the non-Americans (and a few who slept through government classes in high school) seem to fail to understand is the nature of our federal system and what it means vis-a-vis local services like secondary school.

See, in America, the federal government by and large doesn't do all that much and is actually constitutionally restricted from doing so. The national government has expanded quite a bit in modern times (i.e. since the New Deal), but for the most part, most things that people interact with on a day to day basis are run by the state through local government authorities like municipalities.

What this means, in regard to the specific issue at hand, is that school districts are run primarily by the people in that district. They elect the school board. They set the property tax rate. They decide how much and where funds for education go. The federal government supplements those funds, and in some states the state government chips in a bit as well, but mostly schools are run by the people who live there and whose kids go to that school.

Now this is a two-edged sword. Yes, it means that kids in districts where people vote for more money to be spent on education have better schools. However, it also means that people actually have control of their local school districts instead of having mandates come down from afar. So one school can decide to ban soft-drinks and candy while another decides to get money from pepsi to put vending machines in the school. One school can spend millions to build a new football stadium while another spends the money on a new computer lab.

The other thing that really needs to be addressed is what many other posters have mentioned; which is that the original school probably wasn't all that bad. It's not as if we're talking about dirt huts with zero educational standards. I went to several different schools, and while there was certainly a difference between the rich schools and the poorer ones, every school had the basics. You had your books, you had homework and you got grades. Especially these days with No Child Left Behind, every school has the annual tests anyway, so you all learn the same crap. The differences was that the rich schools had extra, fancy stuff like a-la-carte cafeteria food or 3 different tennis courts or indoor swimming pools. And yeah, that stuff's ok, but you can do without it.

 

[InfiniteSingularity]

Justified? Yea, probably. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Whether or not a law is right or wrong does not dictate whether it should be followed or not. There are many laws I do not agree with but if I break one of them and get caught, I expect to be punished. It may lead to me trying to change the law in the future but that does not excuse past crimes.

For the will to abide to the laws to be so strong that even when they fail you follow them, there should be a better reason aside from "the book says so". Seriously, how much they paid you?

Read the rest of the thread and then come back. You will see your opinion is in the minority. When a law is made everyone is expected to follow it. If it is immoral and someone breaks it they will still be punished, as they should be. This may end up causing the law to be changed but this does not give one permission to break the law.

If the criteria for whether a law should be followed or not becomes morality then we will have anarchy. There are a great many people that think it is morally justified to kill abortion doctors. Would it be okay with you if nobody got punished for doing that?

As I (and many others in this thread) have said she was justified. However, she still broke the law whether you agree with it or not. That means she should be punished and anyone else who does the same thing should be punished until the law is changed or removed.

You didn't read my post. I said, the law clearly fails the mom. This is purely a question of facts that the education is rotten in some of the districts and yet the law says you should go rot some more. I don't see any morals here, just logic (nor do I care who's in whose minority).

And by breaking the law she attempted to get a "free ride" for her child. Her child took resources from the children who legally attend that school. If the law was not enforced it would fail the community the school is located in. If she had paid a tuition or taxes for THAT school it would be different. However, she did not. Like I said, she was justified but she still broke the law and should be punished for it.

We elected the people that made the laws, we have to abide by them even if we don't like them.

Your logic here is flawed. Firstly, you don't elect people who make laws. You vote for people who you think will make the right laws by your. Right? Now if your vote is in the minority, whoever you voted for doesn't get in. So if you vote left but the right gets in, why should you be expected to be content with the laws if you didn't elect for them? Secondly, you are putting the law - a mostly arbitrary list of rules made by some guy no one knows that we all must follow or else - over the standard of living and education for two young girls and their mother. Now is the law more important than these two girls lives? I don't think so, but if you do I believe you have your morality misplaced

I used to live in Ballarat in Australia, and a friend of mine (who lived just out of town) had the choice of going to either Sebastopol High, which is the shithouse public school where people get stabbed and beaten and the teachers are scared of the students and the standard of education is quite low, or Ballarat High, which is a much better public school where the standard is quite high and people have a good chance of a good education. Now, my friends mother was going to send him to Ballarat, but because of where she lived he had to go to Sebastopol. Now you tell me how, in a 'free country', that is fair

 

[solidstatemind]

SNIP

You know, it's not that I was reacted to with (relative) hostility that has me agitated, or that you attack my position. That i understand. I did act like a jerk in my first post. I apologize. What does get on my nerves however is that I'm being talked to like i'm a thirteen year old, and that the only reason I hold the opinions I do is that i am young and naive.

I just simply do not agree that a person should necessarily put a law (which may or may not be unjust) over what they personally believe to be moral or ethical, and while I agree that in most cases that lawful protest is better than unlawful protest, I don't see how breaking a law to protest it isn't justifiable in the more extreme cases.

Again, I apologize for 'talking down'; you're right, just because you are young doesn't automatically mean that your position is without merit. Blame that on me: I have come to believe that education isn't quite as important as experience, and sometimes, that bleeds through into my attitude.

I guess I can sum it up in this fashion: too often, people say "I don't agree with that law, so I'm going to ignore it" when the truth is, they want to gain something from the breaking of the law. This is the situation I perceive with this story. Why, exactly, are this woman's kids more important than the other kids in the school district she was trying to avoid? If conditions were so bad, shouldn't she not only break the law (and take care of her own kids) but also crusade for the other kids trapped in the bad school district?

No, this wasn't about justice, or inequality in school funding or educational opportunities, this was a woman seeking to exploit the system (or at least find a loophole) for the gain of her kids. It is undeniable-- NOTHING she did would've had an impact on anyone but herself and her own children.

That's where you absolutely cannot compare this to an act of conscious protest over a civil rights issue. MLK would get up out of his grave and slap you for trying, if he could.

What I think is often overlooked is that Thoreau, et al, stressed (to be overly simplistic in paraphrasing) that you must pick your battles. Not every law you disagree with is worth engaging in active defiance: if it were, you would have chaos and anarchy, because of the guy who believes in 'survival of the fittest', so he blows away the bank clerk and steals money, while across town, the dude who is a pederast and feels that the age of consent laws are wrong molests children who are not sufficiently emotionally mature to make reasoned sexual decisions. Etc. Etc. Point being: everyone would find a law they didn't particularly care for, and break it, in the name of 'civil disobedience', when the truth is that they wouldn't be fighting injustice, they'd be using an excuse to fulfill their greedy, selfish desires. (Which, you know, are exactly the kind of things that many laws were put in place to curb!)

You have to- HAVE TO- limit civil disobedience to the gravest of injustices, like racism, suffrage, the draft, etc. There are many great causes out there, and I'm sorry, this woman's cause is not among them. Holy shit: let the gay couples go nuts ignoring the laws and having same-sex unions-- THAT'S a worthy cause!

But this? This is somebody being selfish. Period. End of story.

Again, I apologize that I reacted so vociferously, but the truth is, when I see somebody trying to clothe their selfishness in some sort of lame-ass claim of 'injustice', it really sends me over the edge. The proverbial 'adding insult to injury', if you will.

Edit: and if you really think that personal morals and ethics supercede the laws at a person's discretion, you realize you are justifying this guy's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Loughner] actions, right?

 

[TheLaofKazi]

So you only get as much education as you're willing to pay for? So that's where Cameron got the idea from.

That's pretty much how property tax funded education works in practice. It's stupid, it should be based off of a statewide budget appropriated to schools based on size.

Other interesting information about this is that the woman is a teacher's aide in her own school district.

That sounds like a much, much better idea then what we currently have.

 

[Belgariontheking1]

No she is not justified in breaking the law. If she really wanted her children to go to this school district she could move there or any number of things. Its not hard I went to a school outside the school district I lived and it was absolutely no trouble at all. All she had to do was fill out a short form and pay the right taxes. This woman was arrested for forgery and tax evasion which are illegal for a reason.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

Read the rest of the thread and then come back. You will see your opinion is in the minority. When a law is made everyone is expected to follow it. If it is immoral and someone breaks it they will still be punished, as they should be. This may end up causing the law to be changed but this does not give one permission to break the law.

If the criteria for whether a law should be followed or not becomes morality then we will have anarchy. There are a great many people that think it is morally justified to kill abortion doctors. Would it be okay with you if nobody got punished for doing that?

As I (and many others in this thread) have said she was justified. However, she still broke the law whether you agree with it or not. That means she should be punished and anyone else who does the same thing should be punished until the law is changed or removed.

I'm probably going to do a terrible job of explaining this, but I guess I'll try.

My morality has no regard for laws, thus if it were up to me, I wouldn't punish her, which is probably why I don't want to be a judge or police officer, because I wouldn't feel comfortable doing my job. Of course I can't expect someone whose job is to enforce the law to not enforce it, so I can understand why she would be punished, but I still don't personally agree with it. When I think of problems and crimes, my focus isn't often how we should punish people and enforce the law, it's the factors that cause those problems.

And yes, I would be Ok with someone who murdered an abortion doctor to not be punished if that person's punishment serves no practical purpose other then to dish out some form of "justice" for an immoral act. That certainly doesn't mean I would be fine with nothing being done, someone just killed another human being. Ideally, I would want to address the issues that caused a person to murder instead of punishment. But that's often not feasible, so I would be in favor of putting a person in jail, but not in pursuit of punishing a wrongdoer, only in protecting people.

But my answers to these kinds of questions regarding law enforcement are always really fucking stupid, because with the way I think, I often focus on the bigger problems at hand that make people do certain things. Such as with the case with the mom, a deeply flawed and unfair education system being the general problem, and would instead rather focus on that. Which again, is why I'm not a police officer.

There is no correct, perfect solution here. The solution to problems like this won't come through law enforcement and punishment, those kinds of things only temporarily keep order. That's all. They do absolutely nothing to address the issues that caused the mom to commit the crime in the first place. Now, don't get me wrong, law enforcement has it's place, because it takes time to solve these deep rooted problems, and while we attempt to do that, we have to keep some sort of order. But that doesn't mean punishing her is morally justifiable, because she has already been done a great injustice by falling victim to a broken education system, and that is what truly needs to be addressed. The only problem is, it's easier to do something about an individual person breaking the law, then an extremely complicated set of issues in an institution.