Get Schooled

By JustMe

May 21, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

I was very upset by this verdict.

It was clear that the parent gave false information and that is illegal. How could a jury not see that? The job of the jury is to simply say ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ and IMHO, the jury really botched this up.

Once the jury should have found guilt, it would be up to the judge to decide on the degree of punishment up to the limit of the law.

There is wide-spread abuse of this. I teach in a highly sought after high school and we regularly find students attending that not only live out of school district, but also out of school-system district. This is not fair to the students in attendence whose parents are paying taxes to support that school. Why should the free-loaders get a free ride?

When we find free-loaders, we don’t prosecute (I wish that we would), but rather escort them out of the door and say “don’t come back.”

By Teacher Teacher

May 21, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this

I understand that the parents had purchased a townhouse in Marietta, so, as property owners, aren’t they allowed to send their children to Marietta schools?

By JustMe

May 21, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

Teacher, Teacher,

Let’s think for a moment…..

If the parents had really purchased property in the appropriate area in a timely manner, do you really think that they would have prosecuted? I don’t think so.

By Truth Filter

May 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

I think the parent should be sent to the SuperMax for DARING to try to get a better education for her children!

Yes, she was wrong and yes, this is a problem. But let’s not treat this Mom like a common criminal. People want what’s best for their kids. I don’t advocate lying and cheating to do that, but the intention was good.

Remember: Sometimes school segregation is economic, not racial.

By Teacher Teacher

May 21, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Well, I heard the DA talking this morning about the case. He said they had purchased a townhouse. He also said that no jail time would have been meted out had a guilty verdict been handed down, just community service and possibly a fine. Why, then, all the hoopla?

By Joy in Teaching

May 21, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Personally, I think her family should have to pay a “pro rated” out of district/county fee for the days before the family purchased property in that district. That would have ended it all right there and the taxpayers would have been satisfied.

Then again, perhaps she was prosecuted because of the Mexicans?

By JustMe

May 21, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Teacher, Teacher,

Here are some variables that may help explain…

It is completely besides the point on her “intentions to get a good education for her child.” If a thief steals your TV and stereo to sell in order to get food for his child, isn’t that still against the law?

By Lisa B.

May 21, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

This is a problem in Southwest Georgia as well. Students in Lee County schools earn higher test scores than students in surrounding counties. Housing is comparatively expensive and there is little rental property. Parents have to show several documents to prove residency. I think criminal prosecution may be excessive though. Lee County just kicks the students out if they are discovered to be living out of the system.

By teach overseas

May 21, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

Just wanting what is best for your children is not carte blanche to lie, cheat and steal.

The best schools in the world are not going to undo the example this mother has set for her children.

By Jeff

May 21, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Lisa:

If the students I know at LHS are any indication, high test scores do NOT mean that the school doesn’t have problems… only that they are hidden…

By Lisa B.

May 21, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Jeff,

I agree with you. My point is that whenever one school or school system is perceived to be better than a neighboring school or system, people often lie about residency to get their kids enrolled.

Certainly no school system is perfect and without problems. I am curious however about what specific problems your fiance is concerned about.

By jim d

May 21, 2007 2:21 PM | Link to this

All the more reason for the $$ to follow the student.

This goes on in every school, what I find troubling is that it is my tax $$.

I’d much prefer that it be done honestly and that those responsible for the cost were baring the burden.

As for the mom and verdict in Cobb? Anyone else ever heard of jury nullification? Unless I’m mistaken Jury nullifican allows a jury to ignore the law. This tends to drive a few judges and prosecutors crazy, but a jury is within their legal rights to do so.

Set,

would you explain in detail jury nullification?

By Larry

May 21, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

This isn’t quite the outright theft some think it is.

I own two houses in different school systems, live in one and my mother lives in the other. It’s really a matter of convenience which of us claims residence where, but I pay full school taxes on both homes every year, even though my kids obviously can’t simultaneously attend two schools. The school my kids attend, which is functionally my choice, is the one that gets state and federal funding, because these funds are based on enrollment.

This is financially - not legally - the same situation with line hoppers. The school where the kids are enrolled gets state and federal funds, typically half the cost to educate a student. The wrong part is that the other half of this cost is supported by property taxes which are collected by a different school system. It’s more an intentional misallocation of funds than anything.

I didn’t see what the jury saw, so I won’t second guess their decision, but it appears (and I’m forcing myself to type this) we may need legislation to specifically address this particular act to avoid a laundry list of charges that, to many, seem extreme compared to the crime.

By Ernest

May 21, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this

In fairness, we don’t know all the evidence that was presented. That said, based on what I understood through the media, I thought she was guilty, according to the rule of law. I sure the judge would have used discretion regarding the penalty, i.e. a fine in lieu of jail time.

I wonder if this verdict might embolden other parents to do similar and use this as a precedent….

By Teacher Teacher

May 21, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this

The DA this morning explained that she did not want her children in Marietta schools for better education. He said she wanted them there so that some of her relatives/friends would make sure her kids made it to and from school safely. It seems that she and her husband have jobs that take them away from the house at varying hours, so she was, supposedly, attempting to make certain no harm came to her children going to and from school.

By thomas

May 21, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this

The reality is that the WOMAN LIED REPEATEDLY ON SCHOOL DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO GET WHAT SHE WANTED. It is a jail offense- no, but wrong nonetheless.

This exact problem is pervasive in schools— parents lying and cheating in order to get some outcome or privilege for their children. It goes from class assignments, grades, special privileges, where they are going to sit in the class, what class they will be in, etc, down to what school they will be in.

The ironic thing is that for all the fighting and lying going on, NONE OF IT is about any real education.

By JustMe

May 21, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

No excuses for breaking the law. If someone breaks the law then there should be consequenses.

The mother admits to breaking the law. I am ashamed of the jury that came back with a ‘not guilty’ verdict. It is the jurys job to accurately determine guilt or innocence - and the mother clearly admitted guilt.

It would have been the judge to decide on any type of punishment. And, the prosecuting attorney stated that he would have asked for the minimum. However, the jury removed any chance of consequences by voting ‘not guilty.’

I agree that none of this is about education. It is about honesty and following the law.

By jim d

May 21, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

Just me,

No excuses? Fortunately not everyone holds your views.

Jury nullification is a reminder that the right to trial by one’s peers affords the public an opportunity to take a dissenting view about the justness of a statute or official practices.

A 1969 Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, affirmed the right of jury nullification, but also upheld the power of the court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.

“We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.” U.S. vs Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).[1]

Whether you agree with the verdict or not, our system of justice has been proven to work. The mom was found “not guilty” so get over it.

By JustMe

May 21, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

jim d-

Once again, you are exasperating to the extreme. Nice to know some things never change….

By jim d

May 21, 2007 4:18 PM | Link to this

You mean like your regard for certain law but total disregard for others?

By jim d

May 21, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this

Just me,

It just occured to me that while you can appear very opinonated that you never provide any documentation. You merely spout your unsubtantiated thoughts and become rather testy when someone does provide supporting documentation to their opinons.

Why is that?

By SET

May 21, 2007 4:35 PM | Link to this

This is all very amusing.

In CA the criminal courts don’t have time to provide quality control for white school districts trying to keep out non-residents. Our criminal court systems are already on triage which you will find out of you ever allow yourself to become a “victim” around here.

What you get is the lowest common denominator. The simplest criminal charges and the lowest sentencing imaginable. The smaller the town the tougher the criminal justice. San Francisco is a murderer’s paradise.

And as far as the juries go - it’s casino justice. As long as the defendant wasn’t stupid or inexperienced enough to confess on video a good defense attorney (I don’t mean public defender) can at least hang the thing (reasonable douby standard is too difficult for at least one dummy juror off the street). Since most of our criminal defendant’s are only too happy to plea bargain - 99% of our cases go that way - it’s all really a question of what kind of deal you can strike.

Look at the Urban Crime stats in any large “diverse” city and follow the trends for 20 years - then go 10 or 20 years forward. There is no place or time for criminal school district residency disputes here. They can all sue each other - where they have to pay for the jury cash up front..

Besides, our white & asian public school districts have private detectives and do a serious background check on the family to verify residence. They don’t need police for quality control.

And I use the term “White” school district toungue-in-cheek. The black and brown families in those districts are even more determined to keep the ghetto trash families from enrolling than the whites are… The minority families in the good school districts have no white guilt and no illusions about protecting their schools from ghetto infiltration. And if you are making the payments on a $1 million house (tract home I might add) here, anybody from a cheaper place is ghetto!

Glad you don’t have these problems back east!

Brave New World!!

By SET

May 21, 2007 5:42 PM | Link to this

Jim D is right about jury nullification.. but what is happening now is that smart money is immunizing themselves from juries altogether. Your credit card company and your banks have got you with arbitration clauses. Soon all the employers will do so.

Even failing that, smart money is relocating themselves to preferred locales (Like Haliburton moving to Dubai).

Anything that turns our courts into casinos harms us all.

By catlady

May 21, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this

Makes you wonder why that jury in Rome did not use jury nullification to acquit that boy accused (and serving 10 years) for rape of that girl?

Using this family’s argument, I could “hire” a babysitter in a favored school district and claim to be able to send my kids there because I was trying to protect them.

IMHO, the family should have had to pay for the years they sent their kids to a district WHERE THEY DID NOT LIVE. I own property in Alabama, but I would not claim by virtue of owning it that I can send my kids to that school. I don’t LIVE there. (Praise God!)

And, like other bloggers, I fear for what the children have learned.

By SET

May 21, 2007 5:58 PM | Link to this

Years ago when Video stores first appeared, the stores tried to get the criminal system to file theft charges when people signed up as customers and failed to return the videos. Back then the videos were rather expensive. Maybe a few cases were filed. Very quickly it was realized that the stores weren’t qualifying their customers or getting deposits for the videos and expected the Criminal Justice System to recover their property when they rented to junkies or deadbeats.

So the DA’s and Cops started openly refusing services to the video stores. The stores stopped doing business with deadbeats and junkies and the problem solved itself.

A smart DA & Police agency knows when to refuse services. Now if the Video Stores had arranged a State or Federal Grant for Video Store Theft Prosecutions you would still see those cases in the courts. Just like the “Battered Women” cases…

And they say money has nothing to do with justice!!

I predict the your school districts will soon be told to handle their own affairs and stay out of the criminal courts. I see no reason to subsidize poor quality control by the districts with expensive criminal justice resources.

The usual reason listed on the turn down form from the DA on this type of nonsense is “sufficient administrative remedies” or “sufficient civil remedies”.

By catlady

May 21, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

To the question posed: we are a very small system without a lot of choice where kids go. Yet, we have a few parents who try to send their kids to other schools. It usually unravels, however, when the kids cannot get home on the bus (it does not go to their area) and the parents get tired of bringing and picking them up.

I had a child this year who moved and the parents lied about where they were living (not in our district). The kid was missing or late 2-3 times a week. When confronted, the parents went to a district level administrator who ruled that, since the year was “almost over” (this was in early February, with 4 months left) the child did not have to change back to her real school. 3 months and 25 absences and tardies later, the parents were told that, since they were not getting her to school, she would have to go to the school where she was zoned. Finally! This was a child who was already under an attendance contract because of absences in the past! Have the parents been taken to court? NO! In our county it is up to the local school administrators to check on residence, which they do only if someone suspects that there is lying going on. The Latino child I had whose parents were bringing him from another county (for after school safety) were told to get him moved to his home county school right away. I am aware of 2 other lying families who were told their child was not allowed to come to our school because they were out of district. They also claimed child care issues.

I think some of the folks who claim that this woman was justified don’t understand what it takes to run a school system in terms of planning. And if their children were inconvenienced due to massive fraud, I don’t think they’d be too happy.

By SET

May 21, 2007 6:20 PM | Link to this

Catlady: You have a point. But CPS moves against parents who mess up their kids school attendance - there is no jury trial in juvenile dependency court. There are other ways and better ways of altering behavior than giving these people an expensive jury trial/forum for whining where the outcome is not even certain.

For Example: DMV cancels the driving license & privilege in CA of anyone under age 21 committing any liquor violation (like being in possession) or any drug offense regardless of whether criminal charges are filed and even if there is an acquital. All DMV needs is a faxed police report of the incident. Administrative actions do not require beyond a reasonable doubt.

The action is for at least a year or even more - an administrative action. It causes havoc in CA on the defendant’s ability to work and attend school. They can have administrative hearings and appeals, but never a jury trial (on the DMV action).

The Jr college aged people are really crying, I’ve interviewed some of them. This causes cascading damages for them. They really learn their lessons about behavior out in public.

We need to stop using the criminal justice system as a primary way to control entry-level or petty anti-social behavior - and give it a rest. We have more than enough major felonies to work on.

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 8:11 AM | Link to this

catlady,

You bring up good points. It seems that many here are “for the lady” that broke the law and yet have no idea of how things work….

Think of the legal citizens. They are paying money into their school district for their children. That money goes to pay for the salary of teachers, for the facilities, for the materials, etc. When a student not living in that area attends, that basically means they are “stealing” the resources from the students whose parents have paid. That results in over crowded classroom, insufficient classroom materials for instruction, etc.

And, think of budgeting. The administrators have a projection of the number of students that will attend based on the population living in the area. They create a budget to pay for everything based on the projected number of students. If suddenly there is an influx of students coming into the school that shouldn’t be there, that throws everything out of wack.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 8:36 AM | Link to this

Just me,

Generally speaking there is no “large influx of students that should be attending other schools”. Many of those kids are there already and have filtered in over the years.

The projected attendance estimates in Gwinnett, which have historically been uncanally accurate, take the number of enrolled students from the previous year, add for growth which has been pretty consistant and for the number of students that will be turning of school age and factor in the historical error factor to ascertain an estimate for the next year. So budgeting really doesn’t become much of a factor, at least in Gwinnett.

By Lee

May 22, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

I wonder if the school would have been as zealous to prosecute if the kid had been a “star quarterback”? Just thinking out loud….

The post also said that this was Marietta City Schools? So, Marietta has it’s own school system outside of Cobb County school system?

I’ve always thought that having a city and county school system was wasteful. In the old days, they did this primarily to keep the blacks and the poor white trash out of their schools. Taxpayers need to be questioning why they are paying for two superintendents, two central offices, etc, etc. (city taxpayers are getting hit twice, city and county tax)

Years ago, the city of Dalton had one of the richest schools systems in the state while the surrounding county schools were among the poorest. In an ultimate twist of fate, the city schools have now been overrun by hispanics and have gone to h3ll in the proverbial wastebasket.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 9:11 AM | Link to this

Lee,

We must first understand the mentallity of the folks running the school system. I suspect the entire legal proceedings were brought to intimidate. Much like GCPS did in sending cops to visit and harass parents opposing their Gateway test a few years ago, when someone leaked their top secret test to the press, even though they already knew it was an assistant principal that had leaked it.

Many of our school systems have become bullies. They have their private police force, that only answers to someone with no background in law enforcement(supers) and will threaten parents with inprionment and even resort to using DEFACS to whip parents into submission. (I have the audio tapes if you doubt this)

By decaturparent

May 22, 2007 9:12 AM | Link to this

Here is how I look at it. In our school system it costs $6750 per year as of next year to attend if you live outside of the district. If someone cheats their way in, they are stealing $6750 per year.

If someone stole $6750 from you what would you want to do with them? It’s grand larceny to steal $6750 isn’t it?

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this

jim d-

I really don’t care to correspond with you due to your exasperating nature. I may do so only on certain occasions. I have little respect for your debate/combative type style of communication. I feel that these blogs are for sharing ideas and thoughts, not for argueing. As others have pointed out (it is not ‘justme’), you come off as always having to be right and you refuse to admit the possibility that you could ever be wrong at all. You enjoy argueing, over often irrelavent tangent points, and love to post any links to anything that supports your position, regardless of how discrediting the source may be. What you need to do is to write a book of your thoughts - because you obviously refuse to absorb anything that anyone else may say. It must be nice to always be right and to know everything.

Lee -

It is my undersanding that the old GA State law did allow for city school systems to exist inside of county school systems. In addition to Marietta, there is also the City of Decatur inside of DeKalb County as an example.

However, the State law has since been changed and a city can no longer create their own system inside of another system. For example, the new City of Sandy Springs cannot now create their own school system within Fulton County.

I wonder if the old City school systems could voluntarily be absorbed into the County school systems, if they wanted to?

By Ernest

May 22, 2007 9:21 AM | Link to this

Lee, DeKalb (APS & Decatur), Fulton (APS), and Gwinnett (Buford?) have city school systems within the borders of the county. I believe there are several others around the state. I seem to recall these were ‘grandfathered’ when the decision was made to not allow anymore counties and school systems.

I’m pretty sure Decatur residents pay a higher tax to support their school system. I would suspect the same applies for the other city school system. I say more power to them if they are willing to do that. When SPLOST votes are done, all school systems within the borders of the county get a portion based on their percentage of students in that county. For DeKalb, APS and Decatur both get about 4% of each dollar with the remaining to the county school system.

Interesting question you raise regarding if her children were star athletes. I think it still came down to right and wrong with regards to the law.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this

Yo Lee,

Why not earmark the funds you don’t use, for a student from out of district? Think it would work?

Everyone complaining that this is stealing needs to cough up the funds that homeschoolers and kids attending private school are not using.

To reiterate The $$$ needs to follow the student this would resolve these issues.

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 9:23 AM | Link to this

decaturparent -

I agree with you 100%.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this

Just me,

Suits me.

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

Homeschooling and private schools are choices made by parents. They pay the property taxes and then chose to also pay for homeschooling or private school. No one is forcing them to do this.

There should be no refund because of the parents choice.

Money should not follow the student. The student should attend the home school aka the local school. That is where their property is located and that is where the tax money is allocated.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this

Not really.

Are you familar with the Quality Basic Education Act (QBE) of 1985?

By jim d

May 22, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this

Sorry, wasn’t discussing your opinon only the last sentence because in accordance with QBE your tax dollars are shared to some extent.

By beccaanne

May 22, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

Residents in the city of Buford do not pay Gwinnett County School taxes. The Gwinnett County School system has tried unsuccessfully several time to take over Buford. Most of the residents want Buford to stay independent.

By threedeep

May 22, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

After piloting a program for two years, Fulton county schools is now mandating all students must have a notarized statement and documents to prove their residence. Of course this will only be a hurdle for the truly criminally minded who are going to have their children attend a specific school no matter what.
It is going to be interesting by September when the kids are going to be told to go home and not come back until the parents can prove residency or go back to their home school.

A couple of years ago I would often see a family in traffic coming to school. Since I was coming from another county I soon realized that they were coming from out of district, aside from the fact they had Dekalb county tags. If the district mandated each school designate tag takers during every quarter and follow up with the students getting out of cars with out-of-state tags, part of this mess would be resolved.

Each county has several legal loopholes for parents to file exemptions for a child to attend out of a school zone as long as they are a county resident. Once a child is in high school the can apply to magnet schools or other schools that offer programs their home school does not offer. I believe this problem is greater at the elementary and middle school level than high school.

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 11:46 AM | Link to this

threedeep -

That does sound like it will somewhat a mess.

But, evidence of real residency shouldn’t be that hard. A copy of a recent electric bill, phone bill, cable bill, etc. would all have the address on it. Also, a copy of the car registration should also have the address on it.

Yes, if someone was determined to break the law, they could go to the effort to forge these documents. But geez, with all of that effort and also the effort to transport the kid yourself, it would be easier to just move to the correct area and be within the law!

It is probably easiest for someone to break the law by having a relative that lives in the correct area. But you would still have to transport the kid on your own.

A personal story….. for my senior year, the school system rezoned all high schools for integration. My mom was crushed because I was going to be valedictorian and being forced to another school would mean that I could not be (won’t have enough credits at the new school for it to count). So, my mom bought a trailor and we lived in it for my senior year, parked in the correct area for my ‘home’ school.

Did we break the law? I don’t think that we broke the letter of the law, but maybe the intent of the law. And yes, I was valedictorian.

By WFC

May 22, 2007 12:11 PM | Link to this

Parents “faking it” to get their children into “good schools” is common. I recently retired from Northview High School (two governor’s cups!) in North Fulton and saw lots of this. Here’s the problem: children who bring limited skills and intelligence simply cannot compete. Pure and simple. “Good schools” are not “magic kingdoms.” No matter what supporters of NCLB may say, NOTHING replaces good parents and lots of money. Beau Casey will leave the “cheaters” so far behind that thay will need the Hubble telescope to see him in ten years. Take it to the bank.

By JustMe

May 22, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

Anyone know the details about the Charter School Act signed by Perdue today? It is sad that this has not gotten more publicity…. not even an article about the Act in ajc before becoming law?????

I wish the ajc was better.

By jim d

May 22, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

just me,

Are we talking about the special needs scholarship bill that we blogged on here some time ago?

By jim d

May 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this

just me,

I know you hate when I post links to sources, but here’s one you might find of interest.

http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/pdf/sb39.pdf