# Mother jailed for tampering with records



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/akro-m07.shtml


			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> An Ohio mother of two was jailed for nine days, placed on two years’ probation and required to complete 80 hours of community service for sending her two daughters to suburban schools. Her January 15 conviction provoked an outpouring of outrage.
> 
> Kelly Williams-Bolar was convicted of two felonies for tampering with records to enroll her daughters in the Copley-Fairlawn school district, just west of Akron, where her father lives. Williams-Bolar was originally sentenced to two concurrent five-year terms. But the judge reduced the sentence to time served after she made an impassioned appeal to not be taken from her daughters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

$6,000 doing a back-check on ONE family!? That's just a bit much, no?


----------



## qlum (Mar 7, 2011)

what's the problem with going to school in another district than where you live?


----------



## Law (Mar 7, 2011)

qlum said:
			
		

> what's the problem with going to school in another district than where you live?



Placement systems. Most schools give priority to children who live in the area, whilst this woman committed fraud to get her children in.


----------



## bowser (Mar 7, 2011)

The punishment seems very harsh though. Couldn't they have let her off with a warning?


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 7, 2011)

She committed a "crime" for the sake of putting her children in a better school, yet the Government makes a big deal when your children don't go to school.

Fuck the United States.


----------



## emigre (Mar 7, 2011)

brandonspikes said:
			
		

> She committed a "crime" for the sake of putting her children in a better school, yet the Government makes a big deal when your children don't go to school.
> 
> Fuck the United States.



And thus denied a child with a legitamite claim a place at that school. It's illegal and wron, you may be able to justify for itbeing the good of her children but it doesn't excuse what she did. ANd it's not just the US it happens in a lot of places because parents are willing to cheat the system.


----------



## The Phantom (Mar 7, 2011)

Isn't that great, the government forces you to buy an inferior product that it has a monopoly on and if you say that school sucks I'm want my children to have a chance at a decent education the government says "no you have to use the really bad school" and if you send your children to a good school you're a felon. people should have school choice or vouchers for private schools but the socialist teachers union forces students into failing schools. Doesn't make any scene unless you're in the teachers union but then public schools weren't created to line the pockets of the teachers union even though it's ended up that way.


----------



## nando (Mar 7, 2011)

schools are messed up. my kid's school threaten to sue us because my son was late to school over 20 times in a year. yes that's a lot of times but he was like right after the bell rang, not an hour or even 5 minutes later.


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

I wonder why the School District did this in the first place... Did they say to themselves that it was suspicious for kids to be living with their grandfather and not their actual mother? Or did they just wing it and follow a random family?
It's likely the first but still... They couldn't have just let her go on? Jail for nine days isn't bad but it's still something PLUS the probation and community service.

I hope there was more to it than I'm just reading


----------



## PerfectB (Mar 7, 2011)

qlum said:
			
		

> what's the problem with going to school in another district than where you live?



Taxes.  When you live in a particular school district, the taxes you pay support that public school.  You can go to a school outside of your district, but it costs quite a bit, since you have to pay for the tuition as it's not covered by your taxes (and additionally, the taxes you pay cover most of the tuition to your local school, so in essence you're paying twice).

What this lady did was fraudulently claim the kids were living in the area covered by the other school district to skip on paying the tuition rate.  This is illegal, but it's sort of up in the air whether or not you'll get caught (for example, an aunt of mine claims that her kids' home address is really their business address, in order to go to a better school).

The district spending $6k on private investigators seems really really excessive, especially since that was probably taxpayer money as well.  But the point is it's a form of 'tax evasion' in a way so of course law enforcement will take it seriously if you're caught.


----------



## The Phantom (Mar 7, 2011)

emigre said:
			
		

> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You show me the child that lost his or her place in a school because of this. The fact is when a child goes to another school the dollars follow that child then the child's new school is able to hire more teachers.There's not a finite number of seats in a school district or school districts would have to turn away students when a district grown in population and we know that doesn't happen. The law says this if fraud and the law is wrong. You shouldn't be forced into a failing school. Would you want that for you're children?


----------



## Law (Mar 7, 2011)

The Phantom said:
			
		

> emigre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe it doesn't happen so often in America, but over here plenty of children get turned away because the schools just don't have the room and staff needed to teach kids in seven different languages, and the money they get just isn't enough to cover all the bills.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

emigre said:
			
		

> brandonspikes said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More like the system has cheated them. The family was pigeonholed into either accepting a terribly funded public school district (one that has had trouble with mugging and crime, according to the article) or "fraudulently" attending one that had better financial luck. I think that's pretty "wron," don't you?


----------



## nando (Mar 7, 2011)

i think in oakland we have an open district system but you go on a waiting list if you want to go on another district. we had a district (piedmont) become it's own city because they didn't want to support oakland schools. so there is a different city in the middle of oakland. we were thinking of renting an apartment there so out kid can go to high school there


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Mar 7, 2011)

OK, what this woman did was wrong, but state funded education should not be better in more affluent areas. A child in a "rough" inner city school should have access to the exact same level of equipment and staff as a student in a nice little suburban school.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 7, 2011)

Title is wrong.

*Title:* Mother jailed for enrolling kids in suburban school district
*Content:* Kelly Williams-Bolar was convicted of two felonies for tampering with records

She was jailed for tampering with the records, which is a crime.
The site seems to think the ends justify the means?


----------



## notmeanymore (Mar 7, 2011)

PerfectB said:
			
		

> qlum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally someone who can explain the matter. Thank you sir for not allowing me to think that the United States is *completely* retarded. Just the state of Ohio


----------



## emigre (Mar 7, 2011)

The Phantom said:
			
		

> emigre said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can play the whole "families," shouldn't have to be forced to send thier kids to failing schools, all you want. But it doesn't excuse using fraudulant information to get something you don't qualify for. You have parents (in the UK at least) playing the system to send little Tarquin into school X, which ultimately means you have parents with the knowledge and money (or even pretending to be religious) to get their child into the school of their choice which leaves kids from socially disadvantaged backgrounds to the failing schools. For your information, I went to a really shit school so I'm sorta know a failing school is like. My parents are immigrants who don't have a qualification between them and I ended up having a pretty bad education. I only left school with 5 GCSEs to my name. I'm now doing politics at a Good University becasue of a brilliant teachers (who happened to be a Socialist).

What parents should be doing is organising themselves and placing pressure at education boards to get better people running the schoolsb ut I won't go into a rant about (the British) education. Or alternatively you have politicians doing their bloody job.


----------



## Foie (Mar 7, 2011)

This is why the United States public school system sucks.  There is no competition and the bullheaded unions guarantee that bad teachers keep their job.  This leads to kids, usually poor ones, getting stuck in bad city schools with no other options.


----------



## emigre (Mar 7, 2011)

TBF you could be talking about any state school system in the world. I've never understood the idea of competition into schools though. Competition is economic and should be applied to fast food not schools which is quite different. In the UK, we've soon some market principle into teh school system and it hasn't actually really improved anything but league table distortion.


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 7, 2011)

The US school system is F***ed. In the ass. They give more budget to rich schools and less budget to poor schools, the budget is poorly managed, a school I used to go to somehow "let" seniors go $10,000 over budget for their prom (They had announced it the next day) -_-. Worst part is, you can't do shit about it, more people can't speak English, yet we dump more money into foreign language, we chop off libraries, we cut art programs,  and *Most* teachers grade on a curve and/or are incompetent as a teacher.  We had this coming, I really really hope this school gets a lot of bad press mainly about the 6 grand they spent on *one* detective on *one* family.  Technically the family is stuck because of the way the law works, sympathy doesn't win court cases. I feel bad for them though and I hope they find some way out of the crap school they would have to go to.


----------



## tbgtbg (Mar 7, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> OK, what this woman did was wrong, but state funded education should not be better in more affluent areas. A child in a "rough" inner city school should have access to the exact same level of equipment and staff as a student in a nice little suburban school.



You can throw all the money and equipment at certain public schools, and they still wind up a giant hole of suck. Bad management, too many kids with parents that don't give a f*ck so their kids have no respect for authority, teachers that don't give a f*ck and only act as babysitters so the worst kids don't burn the place down, etc. Quite often these schools wind up spending more per student than the nice little suburban school, but it just doesn't matter. No one's there to actually teach, no one's there to actually learn.


----------



## Nujui (Mar 7, 2011)

Sort of sounds like what this one mother I know is doing.

I actually live in ohio, but this is the first I've heard of it.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

#1. She *lied about where she and her children resided*. She payed taxes to one locality, then took advantage of another. Sending her kids to the other district *deprived that district* of money paid by parents in that district for their own kids.

#2. She could have paid the difference to send her kids to the "better" school, but she *falsely claimed she was poor* (she didn't tell them all of her earnings), and calimed she "couldn't afford it".

#3. She *falsely claimed she was deployed in the military* to evade the school district.


This lady is a scumbag, plain and simple. If she wanted her kids to go to a better school, there were plenty of non-fraudulent ways of doing so that include:

1. Moving to the district (and paying taxes there) of the school district she wanted her kids to go to.
2. Paying the district the cost of her childrens education.
3. If money was an issue, having the grandfather take custody (who lived in the district), and have the children live with the grandfather.

Plus she lied about serving in the military to try and avoid them. This lady is garbage, and set a poor example for her children.


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> #1. She *lied about where she and her children resided*. She payed taxes to one locality, then took advantage of another. Sending her kids to the other district *deprived that district* of money paid by parents in that district for their own kids.
> 
> #2. She could have paid the difference to send her kids to the "better" school, but she *falsely claimed she was poor* (she didn't tell them all of her earnings), and calimed she "couldn't afford it".
> 
> ...


Maybe a little too much you got there? Sure she lied and what not and it was wrong but you make it seem like she's America's worst criminal. She tried to do something good for her kids but in the wrong way. She doesn't deserve a break but I wouldn't stoop to call her a "scumbag".


----------



## Fear Zoa (Mar 7, 2011)

Thats messed up....we do this all the time in the city because city schools are shit.....and the county schools are more tame....

I don't see anything wrong with it as I've done it myself in elementary school .....

and honestly it happens all the time....


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

nebula91 said:
			
		

> Maybe a little too much you got there? Sure she lied and what not and it was wrong but you make it seem like she's America's worst criminal. She tried to do something good for her kids but in the wrong way. She doesn't deserve a break but I wouldn't stoop to call her a "scumbag".
> 
> She is a scumbag. If she robbed a bank to pay for her kids to go to college, would that have excused the crime?
> 
> ...



Oh, the "I did it too, that makes it okay" excuse. Well played.


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> nebula91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course not but that's not the case here. She tried to work around the system and got caught. I'm not saying it's right for her to have done so but my definition of scumbag might fall under someone who had commit a more serious crime or hurt me personally. You know... Murder, arson, [censored], etc.... The lowest of the low.

Btw, her kids are in middle school. I'm sure they'd be more than understanding that mommy went to jail for a few days for trying to put them in a good school even though it was done wrongfully.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

nebula91 said:
			
		

> Of course not but that's not the case here. She tried to work around the system and got caught. I'm not saying it's right for her to have done so but my definition of scumbag might fall under someone who had commit a more serious crime or hurt me personally. You know... Murder, arson, [censored], etc.... The lowest of the low.
> 
> Btw, her kids are in middle school. I'm sure they'd be more than understanding that mommy went to jail for a few days for trying to put them in a good school even though it was done wrongfully.



How is it not the case here, stealing is stealing, and we aren't talking pocket change. She effectively stole thousands of dollars (that she was billed for, and she fought tooth and nail).

So what are you saying is an acceptable amount to steal, for the sake of her children?


----------



## Fear Zoa (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Fear Zoa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Never said its was okay....just said I don't see anything wrong with it personally.....I mean if i did Id be a hypocrite....
I'm definitely a bit sympathetic towards the situation though......


----------



## Sterling (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> nebula91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think she stole anything. If you wanna talk tax evasion, go look into large corporations and corrupt politicians. What this woman evaded is a molecule of a drop of water in a bucket. It may not be right, but the law abiding citizens are the ones who suffer. I agree with what she was trying to do, but the way she did it, she just royally fucked herself over. She spent money to get a teaching degree, and even one felony will prevent you from ever teaching.

Besides, the tax money the school spent to prove her fraudulence was possibly double what they stood to lose over one or two years. Money the government took from every day citizens and used irresponsibly.


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 7, 2011)

Simple solution to anyone's problem with crime ridden and underperforming schools: VOUCHERS!
My god! If we are paying taxes to get a child educated even if we have no children, then at least let the parents decide where to send their child with a voucher. Public education has always been complete bullshit. I learned more in college than I ever did in public schools. Wonder why? I paid for a decent education! This is a damned problem that won't ever fix itself so allowing people to decide where that money should go and to better teachers (not just all day babysitters) will solve that issue. /end rant

Anyways, yeah, she did commit a crime and was punished accordlingly. I think simply allowing her not to be a teacher in the state of Ohio anyways would have been punishment enough though.


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (Mar 7, 2011)

is this the same story that was on dr. phil the other day?


----------



## Veho (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't get the American school system. 



			
				kai445 said:
			
		

> She payed taxes to one locality, then took advantage of another.Wait, so _public_ schools are funded _locally_ and not on a state (or even federal) level? Yet education "standards" are set and regulated on a federal level?
> 
> QUOTE(kai445 @ Mar 7 2011, 09:51 PM) How is it not the case here, stealing is stealing, and we aren't talking pocket change. She effectively stole thousands of dollars...


Didn't she pay taxes? Did she claim tax exemption on some ground or other? Or are public services really funded locally, down to city block level?


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

Argentum Vir said:
			
		

> I don't think she stole anything. If you wanna talk tax evasion, go look into large corporations and corrupt politicians. What this woman evaded is a molecule of a drop of water in a bucket. It may not be right, but the law abiding citizens are the ones who suffer. I agree with what she was trying to do, but the way she did it, she just royally fucked herself over. She spent money to get a teaching degree, and even one felony will prevent you from ever teaching.
> 
> Besides, the tax money the school spent to prove her fraudulence was possibly double what they stood to lose over one or two years. Money the government took from every day citizens and used irresponsibly.



So your argument is:
1. She didn't steal anything.
2. Large corporations and corrupt politicians evade taxes, so we shouldn't care about her.
3. She did steal, but it wasn't much.
4. It isn't right, and she hurt law abiding citizens. (?)
5. You think what she did was okay, but how she did it was wrong.

Have you considered being a political consultant? Or maybe becoming a television personality on Fox?


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> nebula91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^This.

Try to lighten up, bro.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Argentum Vir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The capitalist system and its assault on public education in the name of corporate interests is far more at fault than the actions of this woman. And just for clarification, it is highly likely that Fox news would end up taking your position than Argentum's.


----------



## SaltyDog (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Wait, so _public_ schools are funded _locally_ and not on a state (or even federal) level? Yet education "standards" are set and regulated on a federal level?


The schools are funded here are by property taxes. So, to keep this brief, poor neighborhoods with low property value thus will have lower property taxes = higher crime areas. Affluent, rich, white (prove me wrong anyone I dare you!) neighborhoods have higher property value thus they pay higher taxes = better schools. That is why schools are districted. It is still segragation just hidden to make us all feel better.


----------



## Sterling (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Argentum Vir said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey man, I'm just saying we have bigger problems than some soccer mom switching her kids to another district fraudulently. What I meant by 'anything' is very little. When the school used potentially double the funds to sniff her out, I have a problem with that. I mean what the fuck. If schools did this every time there was suspicion, they would be bankrupt. This is the problem I have with paying taxes to incompetent money handling politicians. There is a reason my state is one of the only debt free entity of the US.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

Veho said:
			
		

> I don't get the American school system.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In America, public services are all funded locally. Police departments, fire departments, ambulance services, garbage collection (and recycling), and school systems are all funded locally. Some funding does come from the state (grants, etc.) and the federal government, but the bulk of funding typically comes from the city or town. In some unincorporated places, you have to pay a separate fee to have fire department services (and if you don't pay, they don't put out the fire). Heck, in some places in America, there is no public garbage collection.

So, she did pay taxes, but to one locality. The other locale spends *more money* on their kids education than the town she lives in. So she wants to reap the benefit of the other community (that has higher taxes and/or spends more) but live where it's cheaper (that has lower taxes and/or spends less on education).

Toma chocolate paga lo que debes.


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 7, 2011)

So the majority of this thread in my opinion is this.

>She stole.
She stole what? Taxes? Tax Evasion? She didn't apply for any tax exempt from what I read.

>SHE NO LIVE IN DAT NEIGHBORHOOD SO SHE STEALZ TAXES FROM THE PEOPLEZ IN THAT NAYBORHOOD!!!!11!11
How so? They were taxes that didn't go anywhere except to the schools and "for the students" I don't think her two kids raised any tax and the school got more money by having more kids attend.  I'd be more concerned about the $6,000 the school spent on a private detective that came out of taxpayer money.

>SHE LIEZZZ LIAR LIARRRR!!!!!
You're going to tell me you wouldn't lie to get your kids out of  a shithole school?

>SHE COULDA MOVED HURRR
In this housing market? Are you out of your damn skull?

>Politicians and corporations steal, so forget about her!
Good point, HOWEVER she was caught, and however BS this is, law doesn't work like that unfortunately, we'll get to the ones who have power eventually.

>VOUCHERS
Possibly the best idea in this whole thread. I also vote for some sane systematic way to get rid of teachers who can't do their job right, there's plenty to shave off.  I've seen far too many districts covering for teachers when BS happens and too many teachers are hanging by the very fringe of Tenure because a school/district denies everything.


----------



## nando (Mar 7, 2011)

the kid's grandfather live in the district, and weather the kid's live with him or not he pays taxes and his grandchildren should be allowed to attend there.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

Argentum Vir said:
			
		

> There is a reason my state is the only debt free entity of the US.
> 
> I bet your state takes in more federal funding than it pays, which would account for that. I am going to guess Alaska, or perhaps some other red state?
> 
> ...



She's the only one that spit in the face of the district, and fought them by lying every step of the way. You're being willfully ignorant of the fact that she did steal money from the district. Her *tuition bill was $20,000* to allow both of her children attend.

*In what world is $20,000 chump change?* If you robbed a bank, you wouldn't even make it out of there with $20,000 half the time (assuming the vault is locked, and you're stealing all the money in the tellers tills).

You guys are ridiculous.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

nando said:
			
		

> the kid's grandfather live in the district, and weather the kid's live with him or not he pays taxes and his grandchildren should be allowed to attend there.



Fine, and if he had custody of those children (which was something she could have worked out), and they lived with him, there wouldn't be a problem. The fact is, that wasn't the case, she didn't do that, and she repeatedly lied and continued to break the law instead of correcting the situation.

If I live in NY, and decide I want to attend Penn State, and they charge me out of state tuition... if I lie and say I live in PA, and I say "well, my grandparents live in PA", does that make it okay? No! It doesn't! There is not even an argument here!


----------



## Veho (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> In America, public services are all funded locally. Police departments, fire departments, ambulance services, garbage collection (and recycling), and school systems are all funded locally.That's retarded.
> 
> QUOTEThe other locale spends *more money* on their kids education than the town she lives in.


For a _public school_? That's _all sorts_ of retarded. 

The mere idea that public schools get different funding depending on the area's average income is absurd. But, apparently, true. It would be funny it if weren't so tragic.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

Thesolcity said:
			
		

> So the majority of this thread in my opinion is this.
> 
> >She stole.
> She stole what? Taxes? Tax Evasion? She didn't apply for any tax exempt from what I read.
> ...


If you understand how the voucher system works, you shouldn't have assumed she paid money to the school district she was sending her kids to... only a voucher system would have enabled that. So either you don't get vouchers, or you don't understand the flow of tax money.


----------



## Sterling (Mar 7, 2011)

@ Kai: Get your facts straight. I edited my post. It isn't the only low debt state.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-1...xas_090002.html


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> nando said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here, you are acknowledging the potential inequality of the public school system, by pointing out the contradiction between state funds for public schools and local district funding. This crisis is being exacerbated by the capitalist bourgeoisie's assault on public education by either closing them down or transforming them into charters. It's disappointing that we don't know why this woman had turned custody of her children over to her father, but then again, she also shouldn't have to.

Oh, and by the way: The "this is America" line is a stupid and bankrupt line of logic, and the Wall Street bailout proves that cheaters and liars indeed get ahead, even with the help of the US state. Drop the misinformed nationalism on your way out, if you don't mind.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

Argentum Vir said:
			
		

> @ Kai: Get your facts straight. I edited my post. It isn't the only low debt state.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/44/debt-1...xas_090002.html



Get your facts straight.

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=texas...-8&oe=utf-8

Texas has a $27 billion dollar deficit to close. Interesting that Forbes doesn't show that, isn't it?


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

How am I being ignorant? 48 Students are all let off with being expelled from where ever they're at and then this one family gets caught in a legal situation because they school board or whoever decides to randomly get up off their ass and do something for a change.
They spend $6,000 of their own money investigating and then asked her to pay $30,000 back in tuition once she's officially been caught in the act, she refuses to do so, and then and issue of fraud is brought upon her in court.

It's almost as if you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with the outcome. She got in trouble, as she should had. It's just the manner of how all this plays out is kind of bitchy. They're just using her as an example for others but I highly doubt it'll make much of a difference to anybody who is still doing it or will be doing the same later on. Although it's wrong of her to do so I understand what she's doing and I have a bit of sympathy. 

... And yet again I state my problem with you is that you call her a "scumbag" for trying to do something good for her kids in the wrong manner. There are MANY families throughout America doing the same thing so I guess they're all scumbags for hurting themselves to help others (their kids). Not everybody gets far by playing it safe and she's an example of this. I see it as Kelley taking the hard road and risked whatever she had to make things better for her children and NOT as OMFG SHE'S STEALING MONEY OH LAWD AMERICA IS TERRIBLE WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS AND NOBODY SHOULD BE ON HER SIDE CUZ IT'S WRONG stuff I keep reading.


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 7, 2011)

@kai Didn't really want to quote everything, so I'll put it in numbers.

1)Yes she did, she still payed taxes though, so she wasn't evading taxes.

2) What the? Schools *or some* get funded based on attendance of the students, so yea, more students= more funding.

3)If I had a choice between lying so I don't have to worry about my child's safety, yes, maybe you don't value human life as much as me...

4)Guess what, this is reality. Hard work can and usually does end up still getting you laid off in this economy.

5)That wasn't directed towards you, someone else brought it up.  Point is, we can't do anything about the corporations *YET*.


----------



## chartube12 (Mar 7, 2011)

Veho said:
			
		

> kai445 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It gets even more retarded. When I was in second grade our school teachers went on a massive strike. The strike lasted 2 and a half months. The school district to this day has the worst teach of our state. Even back than it was really bad. Even so the teachers won the strike and got a massive pay rise. Do you know were the Over Bad Crappy Teachers money comes from? That's right the district's School tax. Pretty much making our towns go to hell. Many nice and friendly people ended up moving away with rich snobby and rude jackasses taking their place. Those who couldn't sale their homes for one reason or another had to buy less food for their families or work second jobs. Notice I said towns. The school district covers 5 or 6 small and medium size towns. I almost forgot: the missed school time all students had to make up during the summer. Leaving hot and grubby kids only have a week vacation between the school years.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> kai445 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, tell that to Bernie Madoff, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Sterns. You can look them up in Jail, Bankrupt, and Bankrupt.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 7, 2011)

nebula91 said:
			
		

> How am I being ignorant? 48 Students are all let off with being expelled from where ever they're at and then this one family gets caught in a legal situation because they school board or whoever decides to randomly get up off their ass and do something for a change.
> They spend $6,000 of their own money investigating and then asked her to pay $30,000 back in tuition once she's officially been caught in the act, she refuses to do so, and then and issue of fraud is brought upon her in court.
> 
> It's almost as if you're not reading what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with the outcome. She got in trouble, as she should had. It's just the manner of how all this plays out is kind of bitchy. They're just using her as an example for others but I highly doubt it'll make much of a difference to anybody who is still doing it or will be doing the same later on. Although it's wrong of her to do so I understand what she's doing and I have a bit of sympathy.



You aren't understanding the timeline, here's a breakdown:

- She lived in Town A (and pays taxes, tax money which goes to Town A School).
- She sent kids to Town B School (who recieved no money from her, or from Town A School)
- Town B School found out, started sending her bills.
- She sent them a notice that she can't pay because she was poor, provided them false information about her income (including omitting child support she was recieving) to make it look like she was poor to get a subsidized or reduced rate.
- Town B School investigated, found that she was lying, continued to send her bills for tuition.
- She sent them a notice that she was deployed in the military, so she can't respond further.
- Town B School investigated, found that she was lying.
- School took her ass to court.

She was being billed *before* she was brought to court. She was being sent bills. *She was being investigated because she lied to them repeatedly.*

If she agreed to the expulsion, she wouldn't have gotten in this mess, and could have gone about her life. The fact is that she was expecting something for nothing, rose a big stink about it, and she got smacked for it.

Too bad, so sad, game over.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Does it matter what level of education?


Uh, yes. It certainly does. Decent education, especially in public schools, is becoming increasingly scarce or sold out to privately-run charters. The fact that she pulled this stunt is an expression of desperation of working/ordinary people in opposition to the policies pursued by the state and the bourgeoisie. She acted because the school system refuses to be fixed. It's yet another symptom of the decay of American capitalism.
Oh, and Madoff and Co. are small fry compared to the big hitters. This list might keep you busy for a while as to the grand scale of this corruption: http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list/index


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 7, 2011)

So this is either a moral or legal issue.

>Can we sue a mom for wanting to give her children a better education?
No, but she committed fraud, so yes we can.

>Is she to blame for what she did?
Fraud, yes. But about her kids, what she did was....mmm hard to say. She tried to ensure her childrens' safety by moving them out of a shithole school and thus, out of harm. And she had reason to believe harm would come to her kids if they stayed.  I know what a shithole school is like and I'd do anything to get out of them, even if it was technically illegal.  I don't have a problem with her being sued but it brings up funding issues for schools. Why base it on property tax? That really makes it seem like a purposely made system to keep the poor poor and the rich likewise. And poor schools are forced to chop off programs rich schools have the luxury to keep. For some people its no fault of their own where they're at but pointing blame isn't going to solve this problem. Hmm....what to do.. I'm beginning to understand Kai's point but still, something isn't right.


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

It seems you aren't understanding that I could give two flying craps about what she was doing wrong.

>Woman does many things wrong to keep her kids in a safer school
That's what I'm reading here and that's what I sympathize. I know what she did and I don't care. In the end she got in trouble for it.
It was wrong blah blah blah she shouldn't have done it blah blah blah I don't care. She screwed up her own life to help her kids and that's all I'm speaking of.

The only conversation between me and you was the "scumbag" part which I don't agree on. Is she a scumbag because she performed unlawful actions? Because you feel the need to label her as something in this entire situation? I would agree on the term if I didn't know that she was doing this all for her kids (as said in all of these articles).

At this point that conversation seemed to have gotten buried within this whole school and money talk the rest of you are having.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

nebula91 said:
			
		

> At this point that conversation seemed to have gotten buried within this whole school and money talk the rest of you are having.


I apologize if I contributed to that. I fully defend the mother's actions, albeit conditionally. The true culprit of this debacle is the capitalist bourgeoisie.

@thesolcity: I would argue that it is wholly a political issue, i.e. having everything to do with the state of the American political system.


----------



## Nebz (Mar 7, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> nebula91 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not a problem. What you guys are speaking of gives me something decent to read about here with your differences and similarities in opinions. I just feel more or less like I'm being attacked for being sympathetic towards the obvious situation when in the beginning of it all I was just asking him how is she a "scumbag" by definition. I'll say it again... The things she done were wrong and she does deserve to be dealt with (IMO) but in the end the lying and "stealing" ...and whatever else was all for the safety of her children. Can you really call someone a scumbag for that?


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2011)

nando said:
			
		

> schools are messed up. my kid's school threaten to sue us because my son was late to school over 20 times in a year. yes that's a lot of times but he was like right after the bell rang, not an hour or even 5 minutes later.


I am late by 5 minutes to school everyday almost.  Thank god my school doesn't give a shit about anything even if you cut a class.  I don't find anything wrong of what the mother did, she wanted her children to go to good schools.  A lot of people that go to my school aren't zoned to it.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

nebula91 said:
			
		

> It's not a problem. What you guys are speaking of gives me something decent to read about here with your differences and similarities in opinions. I just feel more or less like I'm being attacked for being sympathetic towards the obvious situation when in the beginning of it all I was just asking him how is she a "scumbag" by definition. I'll say it again... The things she done were wrong and she does (imo) deserve to be dealt with but in the end the lying and "stealing" (...and whatever else) was all for the safety of her kids. Can you really call someone a scumbag for that?


Certainly not. At least, not in the context of disintegrating public education in private interests, bank bailouts, and the like. The financial system is inexorably more powerful than individuals who choose to break the law in this manner, especially if she acting in the interests of her children. If that context is ignored, than it allows for all sorts of capitalist ideologues to heap abuse upon her and treat her as Ayn Rand does her anti-monopolist enemies in "Atlas Shrugged." "Legalese" and "jurisprudence" are invoked, despite the fact that they operate in the interests of the wealthy rather than that of people like this mother. It is impossible to make an informed judgment on this matter if all one concentrates on is what the mother did.


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Mar 7, 2011)

Wow the justice system is HAXED, the mother is in prison with charges on helping her children to be inside a 'school' that's there. You got a person who killed six people point blank and is released from prison pleading not guilty. Obama, before you can think of anything else in the middle east or not the USA. PLEASE look at the freaking justice system and how flawed it is right now!

Edit: I'm being serious! This is the same one that cut funds from NASA to transfer (really there's to place a fund in another location right now) money to children's education right? Those same children who rather go to school and get a 'passed or barely passing' grades just to make out of high school then be on welfare when they realize how 'UNFAIR' it is for them to struggle. Yeah, nothing is wrong with Obama's world.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

Canonbeat234 said:
			
		

> Wow the justice system is HAXED, the mother is in prison with charges on helping their children to be inside a 'school' that's there. You got a person who killed six people point blank and is released from prison pleading not guilty. Obama, before you can think of anything else in the middle east or not the USA. PLEASE look at the freaking justice system and how flawed it is right now!


He knows. And it's unlikely that he cares. The Obama administration is allowing the disgusting treatment of Bradley Manning, and he's protecting Ashcroft from being pursued by those who were oppressed by their "War on terror" policies during the Bush Administration: http://wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/kidd-m05.shtml


----------



## Canonbeat234 (Mar 7, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> Canonbeat234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's not that he doesn't care, he's looking at the bullshit happening around him. Figure that what can I do to help boost my ratings before the end of my Presidential campaign. He can't help the justice system out it will be take too long and no one will notice the change quickly. He can't create any more money (No not borrowing money from country that has like about 60% of their products here) so he needs to have something to lean on before the end of his in 2012.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 7, 2011)

Canonbeat234 said:
			
		

> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He may not be able to create any money, but he could certainly expropriate the bourgeoisie in order help solve the social ills that have been fostered under capitalism. Even Roosevelt had done that much, though his reforms were deliberately limited. But Obama won't. He has even extended Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. His position as a corrupt, bourgeois, politician comes before such petty concerns like the privatization of public education (of which his "Race to the top" program has helped said privatization and "merit" pay). And don't get me started on the Wall Street bailout. I repeat: He doesn't care.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Mar 7, 2011)

How dare she?!

Why in the world would she even think about sending her children to a good school?


----------



## Nebz (Mar 8, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:
			
		

> How dare she?!
> 
> Why in the world would she even think about sending her children to a good school?


How dare she risk going to prison so her children can attend somewhere safe!?

lol


----------



## YayMii (Mar 8, 2011)

I don't see why the kids weren't allowed to get enrolled in the first place. Does this only happen in the US?
Because my school is nearly an hour from where I live, and that doesn't cause me any problems. In fact, there are people in my school who live in the city north of where I live, and I don't think _they_ have any problems with the school system (except for maybe transportation issues), even though my school's at the south end of my city.


----------



## SPH73 (Mar 8, 2011)

Wow, so this idiot school board spent $6000 on PI's just to nail some mother who just wanted to give her kids a better education. 

And they're worried about her wasting their money. Unbelievable..


----------



## Pyrmon (Mar 8, 2011)

First of all, why go through the damn trouble? Why spend 6000 bucks to do that? I don't see the point. 
Second, why can't she send her kids where she wants? In Canada, you can send your kids to any damn school you want. They don't care where you live. What the fuck is wrong with people making these laws?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 8, 2011)

SPH73 said:
			
		

> Wow, so this idiot school board spent $6000 on PI's just to nail some mother who just wanted to give her kids a better education.
> 
> And they're worried about her wasting their money. Unbelievable..



Agreed, I do find that schools waste the money in the most unnecessary ways.

When I was in middle school, every sixth grader would go to this awesome camp for three days. I remember it fondly, one of my childhood memories. But we were the last class to ever do that since they cut it because of budgetary reasons. Now sixth graders get a lame ass trip to a local watershed for a day to do lame teambuilding activities (which I attended because of some extracurricular crap I'm doing). Wow.

But the school district is still willing to pack schools full of smartboards or buy laptops for all the teachers, despite many of the computers in the school failing and being terribly outdated. Smartboards are cool, but I grew up without even seeing a damn smartboard and I'm a pretty good student. As for laptops, pretty much every teacher should own a computer of some sort and the school has an e-mail system and remote access to the servers (where all the saved data for every person in the school is kept). I'm sure they can access their materials just fine.

But school rant aside, I do agree this is a bogus case. The poor lady was just trying to get her kids into a school. Jail time is ridiculous, hell, any punishment is ridiculous.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 8, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:
			
		

> But school rant aside, I do agree this is a bogus case. The poor lady was just trying to get her kids into a school. Jail time is ridiculous, hell, any punishment is ridiculous.


The ends justify the means?


----------



## Nebz (Mar 8, 2011)

pyrmon24 said:
			
		

> First of all, why go through the damn trouble? Why spend 6000 bucks to do that? I don't see the point.
> Second, why can't she send her kids where she wants? In Canada, you can send your kids to any damn school you want. They don't care where you live. What the fuck is wrong with people making these laws?


As someone else in this thread said it's just another form of segregation filled with B.S.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 8, 2011)

Rydian said:
			
		

> Guild McCommunist said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In this context of decaying capitalism and unabashed corruption at society's highest layer, yes. The ends justify the means. She was given a choice that only the mythical devil could relish: send her children to an underfunded school in a crime-ridden district, or compromise "legality" in order to get them a better chance of education and not have to worry so much about the possibility of a drive-by.


----------



## Prophet (Mar 8, 2011)

It's events like this that make me consider that there are times in history when acts of terror and insurrection become necessary. If the system can not be reformed, then let it be destroyed.


----------



## RoyalCardMan (Mar 8, 2011)

brandonspikes said:
			
		

> She committed a "crime" for the sake of putting her children in a better school, yet the Government makes a big deal when your children don't go to school.
> 
> Fuck the United States.


I would kind of agree that it was wrong for the mother to use "fraud" information, if I am correct, to put them in better schools, but the thing is the government should care that they want to put their children in a GOOD school to get them a good education.

So, both ways, there is legal complications.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 8, 2011)

This is all a bit stupid. If there was room at the school for the kids to go there, why should it matter whether they lived in the district or not? It's not her fault where she lives is a tougher area. Hell, when I was in high school I had to take a bus to a school because there wasn't one within reasonable distance of my house. There is now but it's a Catholic school and I say screw religious based schools with a rusty saw blade. The fact that the school would hire someone to follow the kids home just to prove that she was lying is a huge stretch, and now the woman won't get her teachers certificate because she has a criminal record.


----------



## GundamXXX (Mar 8, 2011)

Only in America would they spend $6000 to make sure kids dont get a proper education and get mothers who have the intention of benefitting society put into jail

GG AMERICA


----------



## Evo.lve (Mar 8, 2011)

Reminds me of:









Spoiler



*Only in America.*


----------



## GeekyGuy (Mar 8, 2011)

Says she was convicted for "tampering with records," not for enrolling her children. Those are two very different acts. Don't re-write the news. Phyllis Steele needs to brush up on her communication ethics.


----------



## Law (Mar 8, 2011)

Evo.lve said:
			
		

> Reminds me of:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not only an obvious photoshop, I highly doubt the question would have been formatted in that way.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 8, 2011)

GeekyGuy said:
			
		

> Says she was convicted for "tampering with records," not for enrolling her children. Those are two very different acts. Don't re-write the news. Phyllis Steele needs to brush up on her communication ethics.


I agree that the title of the article is somewhat misleading. The record-tampering is something that should have gone there first. But the central issue here directly revolves around the capitalist bourgeoisie's assault on public education in the name of private interests; in this context she was given a terrible choice that involved either legally sending her children to a terrible school in illegally sending them to a decent one. That she had to break the "law" in order to do this reveals quite a bit. Other than the title though, I don't think there's any ethical breach.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Mar 8, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> GeekyGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Don't misunderstand me, I completely sympathize with the sentiment of the story, and I don't necessarily feel the lady did anything wrong. The issue here, and where ethics and morality diverge, is that news is about facts, not semantics. Steele's headline is not only misleading, it is false. The mother was not, in fact, convicted simply for enrolling her children in a particular school. That type of news reporting is considered highly unethical amongst most communication professionals.


----------



## kai445 (Mar 8, 2011)

MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
			
		

> I agree that the title of the article is somewhat misleading. The record-tampering is something that should have gone there first. But the central issue here directly revolves around the capitalist bourgeoisie's assault on public education in the name of private interests; in this context she was given a terrible choice that involved either legally sending her children to a terrible school in illegally sending them to a decent one. That she had to break the "law" in order to do this reveals quite a bit. Other than the title though, I don't think there's any ethical breach.



You keep calling it the "capitalist borgeoisie's assault on public education", and I've seen you use it three times, and it's patently ridiculous. We aren't talking about the defunding of the public school system, nor are we talking about charter schools, nor are we talking about vouchers, all of which would have been an actual beorgeois assault on education.

Like it or not, this isn't Canada. The public school system is funded and run by each municipality. She chose to live where she does, and if she didn't like the schools, she can either move, or change them_[1]_. If she wanted to, she could have joined the local PTA, or become an advocate for reform and the betterment of her own community. She could have lobbied for increased funding for her local schools, she could have lobbied for better teachers, started a petition drive and caused a stir to create change. She could have gone to the local news and shamed the teachers, or shamed the principal if they weren't living up to their duties. All of these would have been things within her locus of control, yet she didn't do any of them. So stop canonizing this lady, because she isn't a saint. She had no desire to bear the torch of injustice, all she cared about was herself.


Footnotes:
[1] _When people look into buying a house and start a family, they check out the school system! They don't go "well, we like the house, and f*ck it, we can just ship our kids a town over and lie about where we live"._


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 8, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> MEGAMANTROTSKY said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Patently ridiculous? I disagree. The "defunding" of the public school system along with the growth of social inequality is crucial to understanding this incident. In my opinion, while this process does not entirely explain what the mother did, it underlies the incident from beginning to end. For the sake of brevity, I won't even go into Obama's draconian "Race to the Top" program, which directly ties teacher's pay to standardized test scores. The US state is encouraging states and districts to compete with one another, which will only produce disastrous results if we accept the basic inequity of education funding in the US. In fact, I believe you pointed this out yourself. The union leadership have, in reality, put up little resistance to this trend because they are all but embedded in the Democratic and the Republican parties. Government and private interests come in heavily here. Inevitably, the influence of the private sector, represented by the bourgeoisie, must be pointed out. They objectively exist as a ruling social class, and they are not simply limited to the US. Despite the Canadian state's pretensions, they too are based on the capitalist profit system. The fact that the Democrats are already trying to compromise the strikes in Wisconsin is an expression of how the US system strangles opposition in the name of their highest earners.

Why are you assuming that this mother had every opportunity presented before her, that she was quite in control of her life? That doesn't contribute to a logical conclusion, that's pitiful bias based on capitalist ideology. True, there were many reformist measures she could have pursued as opposed to breaking the law. And yet she chose to do exactly that. She isn't alone, either. Apparently there are many others that have followed her example in the past. You're simply taking the easy way out but blaming the individual instead of looking at the broader context.

Lastly, I would argue that I am not trying to make her into a saint as much as you're trying to portray her as a monster. The "stir to create change" is not being waged in the interests of the common citizen. The political system failed to give her plight proper expression, so she chose to fail the system.

Edit: Oh, and I must say that your footnote is rather lacking.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 8, 2011)

I see nothing wrong here. You deprive a child of a spot in that school that truly needs it, and you get punished for it


----------



## gtmtnbiker (Mar 8, 2011)

I think kai445 is just about the only sensible poster in this thread.  All of the posters against him are spouting nonsense for the most part without understanding the issues.

I live in a top-10 school district in Mass.  My taxes are one of the highest in the state because the residents support the schools.  Even though it's one of the wealthier towns in the state, there's still affordable condos and apartments if one should desire to live here and send their children to the schools.

Although a school helps educate a child, it's only a small part of their life education.  What really determines if a child will do well in school and in life is the family.  Having better schools/teachers won't change a child's upbringing.  A child from a broken unsupportive family is just not going to do as well as other kids.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 8, 2011)

gtmtnbiker said:
			
		

> I think kai445 is just about the only sensible poster in this thread.  All of the posters against him are spouting nonsense for the most part without understanding the issues.
> 
> I live in a top-10 school district in Mass.  My taxes are one of the highest in the state because the residents support the schools.  Even though it's one of the wealthier towns in the state, there's still affordable condos and apartments if one should desire to live here and send their children to the schools.
> 
> Although a school helps educate a child, it's only a small part of their life education.  What really determines if a child will do well in school and in life is the family.  Having better schools/teachers won't change a child's upbringing.  A child from a broken unsupportive family is just not going to do as well as other kids.


There are far more factors in capitalist society that exist outside the family unit. I'm not saying that it isn't of any importance, but your remark only serves to deter attention from the objective economic factors.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (Mar 8, 2011)

kai445 said:
			
		

> Like it or not, this isn't Canada. The public school system is funded and run by each municipality. She chose to live where she does, *and if she didn't like the schools, she can either move, or change them[1].*



Got to agree with this, even though I don't agree everyone chooses where they live. And I've got to admit I just assumed that schools and funding was a state matter and not city by city. That gives her much more room to try and change the school system for everyone's children in that area. Like you said the PTA, but she could have also run for local office. Even if an independent single issue campaign may be useless at the polling booths it would at least show the other candidates that this matters to the local citizens and if they take it up too they have more chance of winning.

Is the curriculum the same? By the city? Or is that at a national or state level? I'm not too sure about how these things work in the US, but if it's national there's got to be some system where schools in poorer areas can at least get one off funding from federal or state government or some charity to bring the school up to scratch in the areas that really matter too. And if not she could have run fund raising herself.


----------



## Veho (Mar 9, 2011)

TwinRetro said:
			
		

> You deprive a child of a spot in that school that truly needs it, and you get punished for it


She was punished for tampering with records. I doubt anyone got kicked out of the school or denied attendance because her daughters enrolled there, or we would be hearing about it.


----------

