How much would you lie for your kids?

[mom2rtk]

How about another piece of mail like a bill, bank statement or even a magazine?

In our district you can notify people that you suspect are not living in the district. The enrollment officer will investigate and watch the house. On more than one occasion they have found students being brought to the house in the morning.

I wish they would do that. But apparently they don't. And the ones lying to say they are living with Grandma or Auntie have lots of leeway to get whatever they need.

 

[TAX GUY]

Again, very glad I live in an area that has school choice. Clearly its a major issue in other parts where they don't have it. Its sad to see some of the replies in this thread too (perhaps its just the way I'm reading them). Also glad I don't have to live/deal with this situation as many seem to be.... never mind. Just glad my area isn't like this.

 

[daughtersrus]

I wish they would do that. But apparently they don't. And the ones lying to say they are living with Grandma or Auntie have lots of leeway to get whatever they need.

In our district if you live with Grandma or Auntie, they must have paperwork from the court showing that they have legal guardianship of the student.

 

[chiefmickeymouse]

I wouldn't lie, but I understand the temptation. As a military family we have moved every few years and picked every housing situation completely based on the schools.

Unfortunately we reached one small southern town where there was no good choice. All the schools were performing poorly. It was a situation where everyone with money sent their kids to private school. We couldn't afford private school.

We moved to a different town an hour away and my husband commuted for a better school, and I felt fortunate that we were able to do that. I feel for the families who don't have a choice and I always think that it could be us, very easily.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

From what I read Florida does have the out of district option in at least the High Schools. So it may have been an option. This was directly from the Florida state of Education.

When I was in school it didn't. So that is good to know.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

In our district if you live with Grandma or Auntie, they must have paperwork from the court showing that they have legal guardianship of the student.

What about if the parents also live with them? There are families that do live together. I would think if the family legitimately resides with a relative that only permitting the child of the relative has guardianship would be a violation of the student and their family's rights.

 

[mom2rtk]

What about if the parents also live with them? There are families that do live together. I would think if the family legitimately resides with a relative that only permitting the child of the relative has guardianship would be a violation of the student and their family's rights.

I'm not talking about. I'm talking about the situations were Grandma lives in the district. Child's family resides in the next district over. They list Grandma's address only to get into the other school district. They say they live with Grandma but don't.

My kids were friends with a number of them through the years. When you have to pick the kid up for at their real address for football practice, or Cub Scouts you figure these things out. I would never turn them in, but it has irritated me more in recent years as class sizes have edged higher.

 

[barkley]

I know more than one person who has just forged a rental agreement to get into our district. You no longer need a utility bill if you are "renting" an apartment in the home of someone else.

some districts are looking to local zoning laws to help with this issue. in some places in order to rent a whole or partial home/apartment/room, the property owner has to have a landlord rental license. if a person tries to enroll their child they either have to provide the deed (listing their name) on the property address they are reporting, OR if they say they are renting-a copy of the lease listing ALL the occupants AND a copy of the deeded property owner's CURRENT landlord rental license.

I know of one district that did an amnesty program in recent years-they publicized that they were going to use the laws on the books and (1) immediately disenroll the illegally attending students, and (2) prosecute the parents for providing false residency information. they offered something like a 30 day window for people to fess up, and if they did their student was able to finish out the year at the school/apply for out of district acceptance. if they didn't and were found out-kiddo was immediately disenrolled/da received complaint for prosecution (and the da was supporting the efforts of the schools). for kids in high school this was HUGE-being disenrolled from a course mid year that either wasn't offered/had a wait list at the high school they should have been attending could endanger graduation.

 

[Coonhound]

How about we stop making it a rich vs poor thing? It shouldn't be that way.

Now, I don't have a problem with portable classrooms. Dd takes an English class in one now. Space in most schools has been a problem for forever. I wouldn't lie or change schools based on that.

What I do have an issue with is one public school not having the money for the proper text books or the technology that another public school has. IMO, the problem is not the haves and the have nots its the fact that no money is spent on the schools doing without.

All kids deserve an equal footing and an equal education. If a school needs a police officer on duty, then the school should have it. Kids deserve to feel safe at school. If the school needs a computer lab, then they should have it. If the school hasn't had new text books in so long that their books are no longer relevant, then they should have them.

There will always be poor neighborhoods and rich neighborhoods. There will always be kids living in poverty. Those things cannot be made equal. But every school having the same opportunities for the same education should be. If we want to give every child the chance to educate and work themselves out of poverty then we need to give them that chance.

Education should be the most important thing, not who can afford to live in the most affluent neighborhood.




BTW, I wouldn't pat myself on the back about "earning" the right school for my kids. My parents worked hard for 25-30 years to have the house we had in the area we had it in. It WAS the affluent area. And then the school lines changed. So, yes, you really should be thinking "there but by the Grace of God, go I".

It's very easy to say "everyone should have this", but it gets a little more problematic when it comes down to HOW these things will be provided.
Taxes pay for these things, and if you don't live in an area where taxes are higher, then your area cannot afford this stuff. It just makes sense that people in areas with high taxes get more benefits...they're paying for it!
If you live in a bad area and your taxes are low, then you're simply not going to have all the benefits of a higher taxed area.
It may seem unfair to the children...but, we don't live in a communist county, things are not equal and you get what you pay for.
And although it's unfortunate for the kids, I don't feel it's wrong...it makes sense that in life you must pay more to have nicer things. How is this unfair?
And remember you also a hear about the kids who realized "hey my life isn't easy here and the schools aren't good, when I grow up I'm going to work really hard to make sure I can move to a better area and give my kids more". Motivation is a priceless thing.

 

[barkley]

It's very easy to say "everyone should have this", but it gets a little more problematic when it comes down to HOW these things will be provided. Taxes pay for these things, and if you don't live in an area where taxes are higher, then your area cannot afford this stuff. It just makes sense that people in areas with high taxes get more benefits...they're paying for it! If you live in a bad area and your taxes are low, then you're simply not going to have all the benefits of a higher taxed area. It may seem unfair to the children...but, we don't live in a communist county, things are not equal and you get what you pay for. And although it's unfortunate for the kids, I don't feel it's wrong...you get what you pays for seems absolutely fair to me. And remember you also a hear about the kids who realized hey my life isn't easy here and the schools aren't good, when I grow up I'm going to work really hard to make sure I can move to a better area and give my kids more. Motivation is a priceless thing.

it is also driven by how an individual school/district budgets their funds.

we live in a district that has lower school taxes than the nearby ones. voters have not necessarily voted them down, it's just that our district hasn't asked for bond after bond b/c they do an excellent job at budgeting their existing funds. despite receiving less revenue than adjacent districts, they provide many excellent services, programs and classes that other districts dropped long ago (or never offered). they have excellent supplies and resources. while there is an active boosters group for the schools-it pales in size and effort as compared to most others (VERY rural area-100% bussed in students), so while there's some parent involvement it not near what we experienced living in traditional communities elsewhere. the key to their success comes from budgeting, and making it known to the community and the families what cost cutting/dollar stretching measures they are taking. by doing this when they do ask for a bond the property owners know the money is being appropriately spent-and they support/pass the bond votes. it's also very common for the schools to let the public know if there's a particular want or need facility or supply wise-and have much of it met through private and business donations of $, or more often item of need/labor (think 'barn raising' but make it about football bleachers, computer labs and such-it's amazing what can happen when people donate their time and skills).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

some districts are looking to local zoning laws to help with this issue. in some places in order to rent a whole or partial home/apartment/room, the property owner has to have a landlord rental license. if a person tries to enroll their child they either have to provide the deed (listing their name) on the property address they are reporting, OR if they say they are renting-a copy of the lease listing ALL the occupants AND a copy of the deeded property owner's CURRENT landlord rental license.

I know of one district that did an amnesty program in recent years-they publicized that they were going to use the laws on the books and (1) immediately disenroll the illegally attending students, and (2) prosecute the parents for providing false residency information. they offered something like a 30 day window for people to fess up, and if they did their student was able to finish out the year at the school/apply for out of district acceptance. if they didn't and were found out-kiddo was immediately disenrolled/da received complaint for prosecution (and the da was supporting the efforts of the schools). for kids in high school this was HUGE-being disenrolled from a course mid year that either wasn't offered/had a wait list at the high school they should have been attending could endanger graduation.

We list all occupants on our leases. Where we are moving, my whole family is listed on the lease. Good protection for tenant and landlord even without the schools trying to require it.

It's very easy to say "everyone should have this", but it gets a little more problematic when it comes down to HOW these things will be provided.
Taxes pay for these things, and if you don't live in an area where taxes are higher, then your area cannot afford this stuff. It just makes sense that people in areas with high taxes get more benefits...they're paying for it!
If you live in a bad area and your taxes are low, then you're simply not going to have all the benefits of a higher taxed area.
It may seem unfair to the children...but, we don't live in a communist county, things are not equal and you get what you pay for.
And although it's unfortunate for the kids, I don't feel it's wrong...it makes sense that in life you must pay more to have nicer things. How is this unfair?
And remember you also a hear about the kids who realized "hey my life isn't easy here and the schools aren't good, when I grow up I'm going to work really hard to make sure I can move to a better area and give my kids more". Motivation is a priceless thing.

Schools are also state funded. That could help balance things out.

 

[powellrj]

Again, very glad I live in an area that has school choice. Clearly its a major issue in other parts where they don't have it. Its sad to see some of the replies in this thread too (perhaps its just the way I'm reading them). Also glad I don't have to live/deal with this situation as many seem to be.... never mind. Just glad my area isn't like this.

You and me both. I am glad that the state lets the money they spend for her education follow her to whatever school she attended.

Everyone keeps talking about moving where you want your child to attend. That is what we did until the district decided to close her school and send her to a failing school. We know families whose children attended 4 different schools in 5 years and they never moved. They finally did what we did and transfered out of the district and into a more stable one. Love that we have school choice in Indiana!

 

[mommasita]

She was called to task several pages back. She is simply defending herself. Her comment is not for situations such as yours but for the general situations of a population that gets the crappy schools.
Not once was she attacking those with medical difficulties. She is referring to a systemic problem that prompts the topic at hand.

You don't have to agree with her assessment. But getting offended by one statement out of context is not fair either. It seems you don't get what she was trying to say for that reason. Because she certainly was not attacking you.

I wasn't offended. I never thought she was attacking those with medical difficulties.. I those she was just labeling everyone together, and as wrong as I think that is on it's own, I was trying to point out isn't always black and white.. Another side. She was a little superior with her comments, and THAT was what I was addressing..

I got what she was saying, plain as day.. I don't think you got what I was saying..

 

[luvsJack]

It's very easy to say "everyone should have this", but it gets a little more problematic when it comes down to HOW these things will be provided.
Taxes pay for these things, and if you don't live in an area where taxes are higher, then your area cannot afford this stuff. It just makes sense that people in areas with high taxes get more benefits...they're paying for it!
If you live in a bad area and your taxes are low, then you're simply not going to have all the benefits of a higher taxed area.
It may seem unfair to the children...but, we don't live in a communist county, things are not equal and you get what you pay for.
And although it's unfortunate for the kids, I don't feel it's wrong...it makes sense that in life you must pay more to have nicer things. How is this unfair?
And remember you also a hear about the kids who realized "hey my life isn't easy here and the schools aren't good, when I grow up I'm going to work really hard to make sure I can move to a better area and give my kids more". Motivation is a priceless thing.

Like someone else said money is not the only thing that makes a quality education. There is no way to make things completely equal from school to school and that is not what I am talking about. Nor am I talking about taking from one school to make it equal at another school. I am talking about making education for ALL children a priority.

Its really easy to say that its all about motivation but that simply isn't true. Its a combination of motivation and opportunities. For a person to be successful in higher ed. they have to have a background that gives them the opportunity to be successful. A kid without the background to take an Eng. Comp course and pass can't even get through most vo/tech programs right now--all of which require Eng Comp or Public Speaking. And when they are unprepared because their school couldn't give them a text book or a novel that was required to read, then that, imho, is inexcusable.

All I am really talking about is giving all children a level playing field to start with. What they do with it and what the school system does with it is up to them.

The school that I was supposed to attend was in the same district as the school I did attend. Both of those schools are still open and both of those schools are in the same situation now as they were all those years ago. I know teachers that worked in both schools that have said, when the better school gets new textbooks, the other school gets their old ones. I don't believe this is the only district in the country where this happens. And its wrong. The folks in that district pay the same taxes regardless of which school their kids attend.

There are other schools systems in this country where the people pay huge taxes and yet have some of the worse schools. Simply because no one is being held accountable and education is not made a priority.

Its not about "nicer" things, its about having equal basics. Textbooks, things that are required of any classroom, computers, basic equipment.

Its also easy to pat yourself on the back and say "well my kid deserves this because WE work hard and WE pay for it". Its not that simple.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I wasn't offended. I never thought she was attacking those with medical difficulties.. I those she was just labeling everyone together, and as wrong as I think that is on it's own, I was trying to point out isn't always black and white.. Another side. She was a little superior with her comments, and THAT was what I was addressing..

I got what she was saying, plain as day.. I don't think you got what I was saying..

She wasn't.

I got what you were saying. I didn't see the need to call her out though for something she wasn't doing.

And when others attempt to make you feel inferior, you tend to respond accordingly. Which is what she did.

 

[mommasita]

She wasn't.

I got what you were saying. I didn't see the need to call her out though for something she wasn't doing.

And when others attempt to make you feel inferior, you tend to respond accordingly. Which is what she did.

Because I disagree ..

I actually will be acting as a moderator and leaving a thread which is violating a lot of guidelines..

I think that you should think back and look at a lot of your own actions.. Not to myself, we are simply not seeing eye to eye, but to others..

 

[TAX GUY]

She was a little superior with her comments,

There seems to be a lot of that here (IMO)

She wasn't.

I got what you were saying. I didn't see the need to call her out though for something she wasn't doing.

And when others attempt to make you feel inferior, you tend to respond accordingly. Which is what she did.

I've read through the thread and didn't see where she explained her thoughts/feelings? Did she message you and that's how you know why she posted what and how she did? Or maybe some replies were deleted before I had a chance to read them?

 

[Colleen27]

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.

Our funding is a bit different because it essentially all comes from the state, but some districts get more than others based on their funding levels at the time of the changeover from local to state funding. So the best district in our state gets around $12K per pupil while the base amount for lower-funded districts is around $7K per pupil. The power to change the system rests well within the state's power but the residents of those well-off communities have much more influence and political/social capital to leverage to preserve the status quo than those in underfunded and failing districts have to advocate change. And since our elected officials reside mainly in those successful districts they have a vested interest in opposing any plan that would level the playing field at the expense of advantages they currently enjoy.

What I don't understand is the mentality of "I want to have the benefits, but not pay for it" If you live in an area with higher taxes you usually have more benefits. You can't live in a place where you don't have to pay the taxes but get the same resources as the people who ARE paying the taxes.

Our area schools have a lot of resources and we have a Rec center with all kinds of great things.
Kids from the neighboring city come to our rec center and their parents want to join, but they get upset when we tell them the non-resident fees are quite a bit higher than what residents pay.
We explain to them that the resident fees are less, because residents are paying taxes to the building, and non-residents don't pay taxes to us, so to make up for that, their membership fees are higher.
Then they complain that they have to come to our rec center because their city doesn't offer a rec center...but every time they have tax votes they vote against higher taxes, so it's no wonder they don't have the things our city has.
I mean, you can't get things for free. SOMEONE has to pay for it: It makes sense that the areas with higher taxes have more resources. It isn't right to go to another district and use their resources while your tax money is going somewhere else.

I don't think you can compare a luxury like a rec center to something as fundamental as education.

Every child should have a good education period, on that we can agree.

Here is the reality part, the higher priced houses are in the good school districts most of the time. The rules are set up that way.

I have no shame that I can afford to buy a nice house in a nice district. I have worked long and smart to get here. What I find disturbing is finical success is demonized.

It isn't demonizing financial success to say that a quality education shouldn't hinge on being able to afford a higher priced home.

Well...no one is saying this because they'd be accused of being elitist, but let me ask this- Why don't these parents want their kids to go to these "bad" schools they are districted for? It's usually not the teachers, the building, the administration, the curriculum, etc, it's the demographic of the student body. The parents lying to get their kids in the school they don't belong also seem to think they are above such "riff-raff" or they'd keep their kids in their community schools.

I think it is frequently all of the above. We moved from a community we enjoyed living in because of the schools, and the "riff-raff" was only a tiny part of that. In my opinion you can run into bad kids anywhere. But you're not going to get a good education in a school with 35 kids in a class, textbooks that can't be taken home to study because multiple classes share a single set, astronomical teacher turnover because no teacher wants to stay in an environment where they're paying for basic essentials out of their own pockets, kids wearing coats to class because the heating system isn't reliable enough to maintain a reasonable room temp, computers that were obsolete a decade ago, etc.

 

[U2_rocks!]

Our schools get the same Government funding, same textbooks etc., but what makes the difference is the student body and the quality of the teachers. Certain schools have more prestige based on past reputation, and that's where the best teachers want to work. The schools that can attract the more affluent families also tend to, for the most part, have more active PTAs that raise money for all the little extras for the school. The poor kids often have struggling parents who tend not to support the school very much, usually because their life is struggle enough without adding the burden of volunteering too. The schools that can attract the foreign expatriates get more support too, because for the most part the moms can't work here and are active in the PTA because they are desperate for something to do all day. I don't know why this is, but the schools in the poorer areas are also more prone to lawlessness, bad behaviour, vandalism (the bathrooms are atrocious!) etc. I hate to make this a rich/poor thing, because I know that's too simplistic, but in our country it is a fact. The schools that the rich kids go to, although funded the same by the Government, are definitely a lot less "rough" than the others.

 

[Colleen27]

Here's the problem though: if a school is so bad that it's unsafe, who wants to go to it? But someone has to. So the ones who get stuck there are:
- the parents who really don't care one way or the other about their kids' safety (for whatever reason)
- the parents who haven't figured out how to game the system, or have tried and didn't succeed
- the super honest families who suffer through

Everyone else is doing whatever they can to get into another school district.

If another school district can absorb them without compromising the standard of the school or turning away kids who more legitimately should be there then I guess it doesn't matter all that much. But is this really the norm? Can the better schools in the area really absorb all the kids that are trying to get away from the other schools? Certainly our better schools are bursting at the seams.

Yes, someone does ultimately get stuck in the lousy districts even when families have other choices (honest or otherwise). And unfortunately it is most often the kids with the most stacked against them to begin with - parents who just don't care enough to find better schools or who lack the resources even to get them to the better schools that are available. I'm not sure there is a solution for that unless/until we find a way to ensure all schools perform adequately. And that would be ideal. But as a parent my primary job is raising my own kids. I may also get involved in advocating for a better system as a whole but I'm not willing to leave my kids in a situation of not getting what they need to become successful adults while I work to change it. Change is slow; childhood is fleeting.

This is true but it cuts both ways. You live in an urban area where space is an issue. I live about 4 hours north of Detroit where space is not so much of an issue. I know several families who send their kids to a school that is not in the district they live in. It means no bussing of course but many families make it work.

Space isn't an issue at most Detroit area schools right now. The whole area is aging and losing population. The schools I cited that don't accept school of choice applications are operating well below capacity in many of their buildings, but they'd rather continue to do so than let the "riff-raff" someone mentioned up thread attend.

I actually don't live in the Detroit area any more; we moved to a rural area about an hour north of the city because we couldn't afford a home in a decent school system in suburbia nor could we afford private school. I could kick myself sometimes for that because we have two of our three in private school now anyway because the local schools are declining rapidly (ex: 16 kids in DS16's kindergarten, 24 in DD13's, 33 in DD6's had we enrolled her in the neighborhood elem), and it is mostly due to declining enrollment/closing buildings/consolidating services. No one does school of choice into our district, though we'd gladly take them and are still one of the best districts in our county, because of the transportation issue - with gas prices what they are and people working more hours for less money few families are willing to consider school of choice to a town 10+ miles away.

I never said poor people don't work hard, I will agree they aren't working smart, to better themselves to get our of poverty and don't give me the line of they can't. that's pure bull.

No, pure bull is this position - you're saying, in effect, that it is just fine that a large percentage of our population should live with inadequate schools because they aren't well-off. We will always need cashiers and bus drivers and janitors; we can't all be lawyers and doctors and CEOs who can afford to live in the best school systems, even if every single individual was "working smart".