How much would you lie for your kids?

[JanaDee]

Well, having school choice WITHIN the district is one thing.
But, I don't know where school choice is state or nation wide....

I know somebody who lists her relatives address, and I think the kid goes home with his cousins every day, and his picked up there.

Yes, they are basically lying...
And, yes, this might be considered theft-of-services.
She is not paying property taxes or rent in that county.

Thing is, this is a single mother, and it must be a huge effort to have to drive him that far to school over in the next county/district every day.

We live in the northern part of our county...
They have brought back 'bussing' here!!!!
The better, newer, high school is here in the northern part of the county.
My son knows TWO kids from the far south of the county to catch the bus at like 6:20a.m. to be bussed up here.
One kid is in his Scout Troop.
Crazy...
That isn't the answer either!

Open enrollment is state-wide in Wisconsin. There are conditions on whether a certain school district can accept students, though. It isn't just anybody can go anywhere they want.

 

[bear_mom]

We have school of choice here, but they would never not allow a child to go to their home school. If you live within the boundary, you are guaranteed a spot. Once you are accepted through school of choice, you are also guaranteed a spot every year.

This. I know several kids go to dds school who aren't in the district. Some for ease of the parents, they work in town, and others because the schools are better.

 

[Rainman415]

What I find disturbing about this thread is that some feel that you should only be entitled to go to a good school if you can afford to, that if you want the better school, you should buy a better home. This is impossible for some. And the attitude scares me. The way it's going, only the affluent will be able to afford an education. Is that what everyone wants?? My children go to school in a great district, however, if I couldn't afford to live here, I can say with absolute certainty that I would lie to get my kids in a better district. You can condemn me for it all you want, I don't care! I pay plenty in taxes, but who am I to say that someone that makes less money than my husband, therefore buys a less expensive house, is not entitled to as good an education as my child. Flame away!!

 

[Poohforyou]

Yeah, here it is a per parcel tax, same tax on a $100k home as a $5 million home plus the chunk the state kicks in. About $9,800 per student per year. Given than private school tuition is about $11,000 and that covers 100% of the cost plus profit for the owner, I guess it's in the ball park.

Wow, that's awfully low for a state like California. We're in one of the top nj districts and our per pupil spending is about $16,800. Private school easily runs $30,000.

Our district has a few ways for kids from other districts to attend like through the STEM or performing arts programs. The sending district pays though and parents have to pick up the difference. No one can sneak in.

 

[mamasuf]

No flame here but I'd be very careful. Happens occasionally in my district and I guess the Superintendent had enough. They prosecuted a couple for sending their daughter to elementary school (even though the grandfather lived in the district). They were fully ready to send them to jail for a time but I think they cut a deal. It was a big deal around here a few years ago. My son has told me that they have taken kids right out of class which would be quite embarrassing, I'm sure.

 

[Poohforyou]

What I find disturbing about this thread is that some feel that you should only be entitled to go to a good school if you can afford to, that if you want the better school, you should buy a better home. This is impossible for some. And the attitude scares me. The way it's going, only the affluent will be able to afford an education. Is that what everyone wants?? My children go to school in a great district, however, if I couldn't afford to live here, I can say with absolute certainty that I would lie to get my kids in a better district. You can condemn me for it all you want, I don't care! I pay plenty in taxes, but who am I to say that someone that makes less money than my husband, therefore buys a less expensive house, is not entitled to as good an education as my child. Flame away!!

If your child's education is important to you than you need to make the sacrifices necessary to make that happen legally and honestly. You buy or rent the smallest house on the least desirable street in the best school district you can. In our district you can get a 2 bedroom condo near the highway for just under $200k all the way up to multi-million dollar sprawling mansions. I'll be damned if someone sneaks in and takes resources away from my child when they could be here legally if they made the right choices.

 

[NewRVLady]

OP-how would you even KNOW this?
I have no clue what schools my neighbors kids attend, unless they are wearing a specific private school uniform

 

[Colleen27]

That's interesting. We've had school of choice here for quite a while and I thought it was available everywhere.

That would be very difficult for the children to have to live a lie like that.

School of choice is a tricky thing, though. It is subject to both an opt-in and district-established enrollment limits so generally speaking the best districts opt to accept few if any school choice enrollments. To use a couple Detroit-area examples... The nationally ranked Bloomfield Hills school district isn't a school of choice district at all, while the almost-as-good West Bloomfield district only accepts applications for kids in grades K-2 and holds a lottery to award the limited number of "choice" seats available.

In reality school choice is mostly average schools competing for students (and the associated dollars) from failing schools, not a way for middle-income families to access top-notch public schools.

 

[disykat]

No, I would not lie. I would go through whatever processes are available to open enroll my child. I would research the best programs available and fight to have my kids in them.

We moved right before my oldest started Kindergarten specifically to be in a new district. Yes, we were priviliged to be able to do so, however, we made sacrifices to do so. We were not at the best elementary school, but it was fine and I provided extra support at home. My goal was getting them in line for the junior high and high school I wanted.

If we had stayed in the district we were in, I was looking at school specific programs that I could enroll my children in to avoid our neighborhood school. For example: spanish immersion, STEM, montessori - all programs that actively look for students and accept students from out of the neighborhood.

I don't think this is a "poor people aren't entitled to the same education" issue. This is an "I feel entitled enough to teach my kids to lie their way through life to get what they deserve" issue. IME, entitlement of that sort isn't usually a poverty issue. Quite the opposite actually.

 

[roliepolieoliefan]

If your child's education is important to you than you need to make the sacrifices necessary to make that happen legally and honestly. You buy or rent the smallest house on the least desirable street in the best school district you can. In our district you can get a 2 bedroom condo near the highway for just under $200k all the way up to multi-million dollar sprawling mansions. I'll be damned if someone sneaks in and takes resources away from my child when they could be here legally if they made the right choices.

I agree.

We have made alot of sacrafices when we moved to the community we currently live in 7 years ago to give our kids a better education.

Our current house costs way more than our previous house and our taxes tripled but its worth it knowing my kids are going to a better school.

If i found out someone was lying to be in our district , I would turn them in a minute.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

We looked into sending our kids to a neighboring district mostly for convenience (elementary actually MUCH closer to us & we both worked near the secondary schools). They wanted over $7,000 per kid for tuition.

I found that odd as the average home in that district only coughs up about $2,000 a year in property taxes, of which the school only gets a portion. And they'd get the same $ from the state either way.

 

[tvguy]

Wow, that's awfully low for a state like California. We're in one of the top nj districts and our per pupil spending is about $16,800. Private school easily runs $30,000.

Our district has a few ways for kids from other districts to attend like through the STEM or performing arts programs. The sending district pays though and parents have to pick up the difference. No one can sneak in.

Yup, California is number 49 in spending per student in the public schools but have the 4th highest average teacher pay. It's an expensive state to live in, but that doesn't leave a lot of breathing room for supplies and equipment.

$30k a year is college with and room and board territory not private school.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not sure how far I'd go... Fortunately we've never been in a position of having to choose between sub-standard schools and lying to get our kids an adequate education. I think this is one of the most fundamentally broken things about our educational system and the primary reason upward mobility in our country has stalled - we as a society simply accept the premise that if you can afford to live in an expensive zip code your kids are entitled to a better education than the children of parents who can only afford poorer areas. We're quick to condemn those poor kids if they don't take the initiative to succeed despite inadequate teaching, overcrowded classrooms, and lack of educational experiences but reluctant if not entirely unwilling to acknowledge the role that a "get what you pay for" public educational system contributes to the cycle of poverty.

 

[StephMK]

What I find disturbing about this thread is that some feel that you should only be entitled to go to a good school if you can afford to, that if you want the better school, you should buy a better home. This is impossible for some. And the attitude scares me. The way it's going, only the affluent will be able to afford an education. Is that what everyone wants?? My children go to school in a great district, however, if I couldn't afford to live here, I can say with absolute certainty that I would lie to get my kids in a better district. You can condemn me for it all you want, I don't care! I pay plenty in taxes, but who am I to say that someone that makes less money than my husband, therefore buys a less expensive house, is not entitled to as good an education as my child. Flame away!!

We have school of choice here, but they would never not allow a child to go to their home school. If you live within the boundary, you are guaranteed a spot. Once you are accepted through school of choice, you are also guaranteed a spot every year.

That's the way it is here too. I grew up only being able to go the neighborhood schools so it was a change to have the opportunity to pick schools for my kids. I researched schools like crazy before we moved here to get them in the ones I liked best. I have always picked homes based on the schools and have been fortunate to be able to do so.

However, if my situation were dire and such that I couldn't afford the area, I would also lie to get them in. I don't agree that there are always affordable homes in the areas with good schools. I work with a lot of low income families and if one them cared enough to want their kids in a top school and found a way to make that happen, I wouldn't say a thing.

Luckily, around here, school choice eliminates most of those issues. OP -if she is found out, that will be hard for her kids to have to change schools.

 

[emer95]

I teach in an affluent district (public school), and each year we have several families who get caught lying about residency. The district is cracking down hard on these cases. I have one in my class right now that I'm suspicious about. Often it's the kids who say something to tip us off.

Years ago, teachers were able to bring their own kids to our school for free. They ended that in 2002. Tuition to attend for children of teachers that don't live in the district is somewhere around $3,000.

 

[low-key]

I would lie to get her a better opportunity in life, I would never lie to get her out of trouble, example "my daughter would never do that, she was with me when that happen" wouldn't do that. get her in better school district, Im lying

 

[tvguy]

OP-how would you even KNOW this?
I have no clue what schools my neighbors kids attend, unless they are wearing a specific private school uniform

Where kids go to school is a common neighborhood topic of discussion on my block and on their sports teams which bring together kids from a lot of different schools. I also know where my neighbors work, and have their phone numbers on the Neighborhood Watch list so I can call them if their alarm goes off, their pool pumps spewing water into the air, or if their dog gets out.
None of the kids on my block attended their assigned High school, all opted for other schools, which is which is interesting because the Principal of our assigned High school live on our block.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I'm not sure how far I'd go... Fortunately we've never been in a position of having to choose between sub-standard schools and lying to get our kids an adequate education. I think this is one of the most fundamentally broken things about our educational system and the primary reason upward mobility in our country has stalled - we as a society simply accept the premise that if you can afford to live in an expensive zip code your kids are entitled to a better education than the children of parents who can only afford poorer areas. We're quick to condemn those poor kids if they don't take the initiative to succeed despite inadequate teaching, overcrowded classrooms, and lack of educational experiences but reluctant if not entirely unwilling to acknowledge the role that a "get what you pay for" public educational system contributes to the cycle of poverty.

Of course the flip side is that the failing districts are often victims not of poor teaching or inadequate facilities/experiences, but rather the demographics of the student body.

In our district, one elementary school consistently outperforms the rest & because of this, the district allows students to go there who should be at one of the other schools. And all the best kids from those schools end up at the "good" school. Well, maintaining status as the "good" school isn't too tough when you have all the best students. Likewise, throwing all your resources at a school in a bad neighborhood is t going to produce the same results it would elsewhere.

 

[Colleen27]

Of course the flip side is that the failing districts are often victims not of poor teaching or inadequate facilities/experiences, but rather the demographics of the student body.

In our district, one elementary school consistently outperforms the rest & because of this, the district allows students to go there who should be at one of the other schools. And all the best kids from those schools end up at the "good" school. Well, maintaining status as the "good" school isn't too tough when you have all the best students. Likewise, throwing all your resources at a school in a bad neighborhood is t going to produce the same results it would elsewhere.

True, but that's a case of "a few bad apples". It doesn't take much in terms of demographics to have a huge impact, especially when coupled with inadequate funding and (more often than not) aging facilities that require more upkeep dollars than their newer counterparts in affluent areas. Is it really right to say to those students who are doing their best to rise above a bad situation, "Too bad. If you want an education your parents will need to find a way to afford a more expensive home"?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

True, but that's a case of "a few bad apples". It doesn't take much in terms of demographics to have a huge impact, especially when coupled with inadequate funding and (more often than not) aging facilities that require more upkeep dollars than their newer counterparts in affluent areas. Is it really right to say to those students who are doing their best to rise above a bad situation, "Too bad. If you want an education your parents will need to find a way to afford a more expensive home"?

It's not right, but to an extent it'll never be fixed. We have some districts so well funded here that they get zero state help. Not like you can divert funding away from a district that gets none anyway.

And beyond the "few bad apples", the bad districts also have poor parental involvement with the "good" kids too. Just too many issues money can't fix even if it were available.

I'm not saying we should accept the status quo. But the previous attempts to fix things have mostly been failures. Something radically different may be the answer.