If convicted, her education will have been for nothing. They don't allow convicted felons to be teachers.

Well, yes. Those of us who live in the better school districts pay the taxes to support those schools. I'd love to pay the city taxes and send my kids to the suburban schools. Everyone loves a bargain.

I paid $4,000 this school year, and I don't even have children in the schools anymore. Am I supposed to pay her share, too? In case I haven't made it plain enough, I am not at all sympathetic.

I am all over vouchers. I pay less taxes than the people in Austin proper, and have much better schools.

You shouldn't have to go to jail to give your kid a chance.

10 days in jail, 3 years probation isn't a felony.

"When my home got broken into, I felt it was my duty to do something else," Williams-Bolar said.

It's called moving, and that would have solved several problems. Yes, vouchers would have eased one problem but you work with the system you have, not the one you wish you had. Here's the money quote (emphasis mine):

While her children are no longer attending schools in the Copley-Fairlawn District, school officials said she was cheating because her daughters received a quality education without paying taxes to fund it.

How is this different than the illegals jumping the border? aren't some of them attempting to give their children a better chance via a better education?

I'm all for creative solutions to public school problems; I have a friend who teaches at a charter school, and I spoke at a career day there. I was impressed with the apparent quality of the education, and the behavior of the students, most of whom I suspect would be considered at-risk for various reasons. I'd like to see more of these kinds of schools.

But I don't want my tax dollars going to private schools. Voucher programs are at best a short-term band-aid that helps a few kids get out of bad schools right now, but in the long run would seem to create disincentives for parents to put pressure on public schools to improve, which seems the only scalable solution to our education problems.

Private schools are simply too small and too expensive. My guess is that those most likely to be take advantage of vouchers aren't the truly poor, because vouchers won't cover tuition at most private schools; instead, it would be the middle class who would use them to get out of public schools, leaving them only to those with little social or political clout. The effect would be to help some kids now, make things worse for a bunch more as school quality decreases, and diminish the likelihood that school problems get addressed.

@Christopher: "Private schools are simply too small and too expensive."

You might want to provide some support for that; I've also heard it said that private schools spend less per pupil (on average) than public schools do, while providing a better education. Now, I don't know enough to contradict you outright, and, of course, the cost versus quality ratio will vary greatly from place to place and school to school. In any case, I'd be interested in seeing some evidence either way.

--The school district accused Williams-Bolar of lying about her address, falsifying records and, when confronted, having her father file false court papers to get around the system--

Did some of that quality education include lessons on doing what you think is best, for you, until you get caught? Rules and laws are for Other People, after all...

And while it's too bad her house got broken into, I'm missing the part where sending her kids to a better school has anything to do with it.

Look there is nothing that is stopping parents from simply refusing to support a broken system. If a few dozen parents decided to yank their kids from the school and form their own private education entity what is to stop them? Yes they'd have to come out of pocket collectively, but bucking the system has a price.

The problem with charter schools is laid out here:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/despicable_lies_fW6zc3UTKREFonlPiQTn8J

The stakes, you see, are huge: If charters -- public schools that are generally not unionized -- out-compete labor-run schools in middle-class areas, it would spell big trouble for the union.

In most states,50% of property taxes go directly to funding schools in that state. All funds from those property taxes go to the general state fund, with the exception of special levies, that have to be approved by voters.

Note I said general fund. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that public schools cannot be funded based only upon local property taxes. So if you think your property tax in San Jose is staying in San Jose, you're wrong. That's illegal. It goes into the general state fund, unless the residents of San Jose vote for ADDITIONAL property taxes than then would stay in the city.

I pay property taxes, as well as other state taxes. I can go to any DMV to get my license. I can go to any ABC store to buy vodka. I can drive on any state road. My kids should be able to attend any public school. This is what California does in some areas, and it works. The money is attached to the child, NOT the school. If Billy goes to school A, school A gets 15 grand from the state. That's how it should be. Intra and Inter District choice will allow for competition, improving the market.

UW Girl, I believe you are wrong, at least as far as you cite "most states."

In upstate NY, I get a separate bill for school taxes, based on the assessed value of property within my school district. It is not part of the general fund. It is different from my town and county tax bill in both the rate and timing. The school tax rates differ among school districts. Were this not so, your argument would have merit, and nobody would care very much about residency. There may be other sources of funds in the school budget, but the vast majority is a direct levy on the property owners in this school district.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't care enough to look it up, but this sort of lawsuit was tried, and shot down, in NY state. I don't remember if the remedy sought was to equalize state spending per pupil, or to focre the wealthier school districts to forfeit state aid (there's a euphemism for you - read that as share of state income taxes.) Either way, it failed.

I think cooler minds realized that this would trigger an exodus of the already overtaxed working class from NY.

@MarkD

I'm trying to find the Supreme Court decision now. I believe it was handed down in the late 1970s. I know in 1972, State Supreme Courts in CA,MN, TX, and NY had upheld that it was illegal to dole out money to schools based upon local assessed property taxes.

What you're talking about is exactly what I referred to in my first post. Many places raised additional funds for schools by having county residents vote on raising taxes. You're right - you probably are paying more property taxes than a person two counties over from you. But that's because at some point, the people in your county voted to pay taxes above and beyond state levels in order to fund county schools.

That still supports my arguement, though. If I'm paying state level property taxes, plus the additional voted upon taxes, then I should still be able to send my kid to any public school in said county.

Although it's 30 years old, Milton Friedman's PBS series "Free to Choose" had a segment on What's Wrong With our Schools." His ideas are even more valid today as we have slipped further into central planning by the feds. I would encourage everyone to watch the entire series. The debate in the last part of each segment is what's most interesting.

UW girl, there are many cases on school funding and the various aspects of it. Some of them are federal and others are state cases heard by State Supreme Courts. Even a federal Supreme Court decision does not necessarily have universal appliction becuase they are only ruling on one specific set of circumstances, and they are not rewriting the law for the legislatures in all 50 states. Your state funding formula may be the result of a federal case, but again it may not. The only way to know for sure is for someone to chllenge it in court and take it all the way, which does not happen often.

I R A Darth Aggie writes: 10 days in jail, 3 years probation isn't a felony.

Please read the first sentence of this article. And please don't be stupid. Thanks.

Hey, Patrick, the ABC news article didn't mention the word "felony". Thanks for enlightening me.

But don't call me stupid. The word you're looking for is ignorant. Thanks.

With all due respect, you didn't say that it wasn't a felony, you suggested that it couldn't have been a felony when you said "10 days in jail, 3 years probation isn't a felony."

Obviously, it can be.

I'm just a little fed up with online lawyers, to be blunt. Particularly birthers, who seem to make up the laws as they go, claiming for instance that Obama's parents would have to both be legal citizens of the U.S. for Obama to be a natural born citizen, and various other nonsense, such as the marital status and religion of his parents.

I was also watching a video of the delightful tale of woe surrounding Shelwanda Riley, who, three years ago at the age of 15, was picked up by one officer Dan Gilroy for violating curfew and other suspicious conduct.

She refused to comply with his clear instructions, resists his efforts to put her in handcuffs, whines and cries throughout the entire procedure and one point bites him. For her efforts, she gets a much-deserved face of pepper spray. And during the procedure, Gilroy conducts himself with professionalism, courtesy and restraint...yet the outcry of the online lawyers is "EXCESSIVE FORCE!"

Bottom line? Don't say something "isn't a felony," or what the law is, unless you actually know.

"If a few dozen parents decided to yank their kids from the school and form their own private education entity what is to stop them?"

I don't know what it takes to get classified as a "school" but the requirements to homeschooling vary from state to state. In some states setting up a homeschool co-op isn't so hard. In other states they require you to have everything pre-approved by a "real" unless you've got a bachelor's degree and have passed the national teacher exam. And then the cooperation of the school district varies from district to district at the whim of the beuraucrats. Even if they are legally required to allow homeschoolers into extra-curriculars (and not every state requires this), the school board is the final determinant in how cooperative and welcoming they are prepared to be.

Granted, none of this stops the dedicated home educator and it seems a damn sight better than getting thrown in jail. But thanks to a set of prevailing myths about homeschoolers that the NEA is only too happy to perpetuate, a lot of people dismiss the idea even before they take a serious look at whether they can make it work.

"I paid $4,000 this school year, and I don't even have children in the schools anymore. Am I supposed to pay her share, too? In case I haven't made it plain enough, I am not at all sympathetic. "

And not too used to thinking a situation through either, apparently. Because unless you plan on euthanizing those kids, you're going to

"Look there is nothing that is stopping parents from simply refusing to support a broken system. If a few dozen parents decided to yank their kids from the school and form their own private education entity what is to stop them? "

It's illegal in some states. Lots of states have mandatory schooling laws, dating back to when people wanted to keep kids home to do farm work or whatever, or thought they didn't need any education beyond the King James Bible. It was an effort to join the modern world and leave the Third World. And sending them to someone's madrassa in their basement doesn't cut it either.

"How is this different than the illegals jumping the border? aren't some of them attempting to give their children a better chance via a better education?"

You just disappeared up your ass there, big guy, because the obvious difference is that these kids are in native-born citizens. And that one little bit of similarity of wanting a better education is just weak.

This is an example of the strangle hold of teachers' unions that someone mentioned above. In Washington State for instance, parents can apply to have their kids go anywhere, to another school in the district, and even to a completely different district, and if there's room, they're in. The schools love to take them because the money is handed out based on the number of students you get. It's a form of school choice, just within the public school system.

"But I don't want my tax dollars going to private schools. Voucher programs are at best a short-term band-aid that helps a few kids get out of bad schools right now, but in the long run would seem to create disincentives for parents to put pressure on public schools to improve, which seems the only scalable solution to our education problems... Private schools are simply too small and too expensive. "

Christopher, here's the problem with that. I was reading a thread about this at Joanne Jacobs' earlier today and a commenter, who claimed to be a former union official (of course we don't know for sure, but what he wrote appeared credible) had some interesting comments. He points out that the unionized teachers, by and large, have come to think of their jobs as a lifetime sinecure, guaranteed by law. Thus, any reform effort of any kind only makes the union more powerful -- because if the laws that provide that guarantee are threatened, then the union can bill itself as the only friend and protector of teachers, and this plays extremely well with the union members. So, all efforts to reform public schools are self-defeating because they only have the effect of making the status quo even more secure. I've recently seen the term "Morton's fork", meaning a situation where all possible choices lead to the same bad outcome, and it certainly seems to apply here.

However, that union official also let slip what the union's Achilles heel is: lots of small schools. He said that the problem is that below a certain threshold (he didn't give a number, unfortunately), it becomes cost-ineffective for the union to make the investment in organizing a school. This is why the unions haven't really opposed the wave of public-school consolidation that has been taking place over the past 15 years or so: having larger and fewer schools makes it easier for the union to maintain complete control.

The union fears the emergence of a bunch of small charter and private schools. The faculties of these schools would be beyond the reach of the unions and the public school boards that they control. So here lies the strategy for breaking the grip of the unions: break up and shut down the big public schools, and let people choose from among a selection of smaller private or semi-private schools. The problem is, as you point out: there are a lot of people who can't afford to pay property taxes (either directly, or indirectly via rent) and also pay private school tuition. So what has to happen is to either get these schools access to the tax spigot, or get the spigot shut off. Public support for the latter is probably not there yet. However, it is for the former, and we know how to do it: vouchers.

This is why the unions react with rage at the word "voucher": they have no cogent argument against it. The "spending isn't high enough" argument is disproven by the numbers; the "public schools deserve another chance, we promise to do better, pinky swear" argument doesn't draw much sympathy anymore -- we've all heard that one already. They've already had their second and third chance, and they kept right on doing what they were doing all along. And the arguments about rendering American education asunder ring pretty hollow when you look at what the public school system has already done and continues to do.

I just don't see vouchers working on a large scale. Think about it. If every kid comes with $1,000, isn't that just going to make private school tuition go up by $1,000? Kinda like what happened with college tuition and the government loans?

Bring on the vouchers, y'all.

It's true that government loans did send college tuition up...but I doubt that will happen with K-12 vouchers on a large scale, and here's why.

Private schools want business, and they're competing against neighborhood schools and other schools that will give the education away at NO out-of-pocket cost. There isn't really anything comparable with student loans; no college is giving education (and the degree) away for absolutely nothing out of pocket, unless you're the smartest guy or best football player on the block. I suppose if you hold the idea that the private schools are more interested in remaining elite than making money, you might be skeptical of this. And, I'll admit, there are certainly a few schools that would go this route...but most are more interested in making money and educating kids than in holding onto that image.

One of the issues with student loans is that they enable anyone, at any age, to take out a loan and enroll in college. So, the demand for a college education could be almost unlimited...you don't have to live in the area, you don't have to be between 5 and 19. K-12 vouchers on the other hand have a relatively contained demand, so the supply isn't squeezed enough to go up so dramatically.

NicoleK: I just don't see vouchers working on a large scale. Think about it. If every kid comes with $1,000, isn't that just going to make private school tuition go up by $1,000? Kinda like what happened with college tuition and the government loans?

What private school only costs 1000 dollars a year?

Regarding vouchers, simply put, a stupid idea that was signed into law by a stupid president.

Vouchers, first of all, do not cover a full tuition. So, if you think having a voucher is going to send your kid to Andover, you thought wrong.

Second of all...how much space do you think the private schools have? You think there are enough seats in private schools to accommodate every kid who has a voucher?

Oh, yes, they'll just build more space and hire more teachers...which of course will mean that the tuition goes up more.

If you support vouchers, plain and simple, you are incredibly short-sighted.

The big problem I see is the schools are pretty full. Thus, poor performing schools would still get kids enrolled simple because there is no other place for them to go.

I remember reading of an investigation of the local schools vs the local private schools. This was the results as I remember based on the newspaper (so you can tell it was awhile ago).

Private schools paid less especially for sr. teachers yet the teachers appeared to be higher quality. The paper attributed it to the fact the private school could easily fire poor performing teachers and also many of the private schools were religious and many of the teachers indicated they felt it was part of their religious duty.

Many private schools required parent involvement such as volunteering at the school. (sidebar: My friend's two kids are in a private school and he has to "volunteer" 100hours/yr or pay an extra $2000.

Many of the private schools were part of a church and the church provided things like landscaping that was not accounted for as a school expense.

Disruptive and poor performing students were kicked out of private schools... public schools generally couldn't do that.

A huge expense was special needs kids. At one school that one class was 40% of the budget. The private schools didn't take these kids except for a couple of special schools that are just for those kids and they were extremely expensive.

Public schools had higher adm costs, but not that much on a per student.

I just don't see vouchers working on a large scale. Think about it. If every kid comes with $1,000, isn't that just going to make private school tuition go up by $1,000?

Yes and no. The private schools have to prove themselves to the parents on a cost/results basis. This is the same comparison of buying a desk at Wal-Mart to a furniture store to having a beautiful oak heirloom made by a master craftsman.

There will be the parents that will take lowest, cheapest school they can find. So you will have the Wal-Mart school saying "We'll teach your kid, and even let you keep $500 of the voucher." The furniture store will be "We'll teach your kid at cost -- but look at this special program your kid can get for an extra $500, we'll throw in a tutor for free.") The master craftsman will say "You pay what we want to charge -- but your kid can get into any ivy league college they want to."

The issue is that the government distorts the system. Currently the PC movement, zero tolerance, D.A.R.E., NLCB, plus the local politics (i.e. Texas School Board) all force changes in the curriculum in a school.

If the schools were free market with vouchers -- they would have to compete on a cost-to-value ratio to keep the doors open, and a other factors such as if they were a religious or secular school, or they have sports.

Here is how schools should be organized

1)Government Bureaucracy
_ a)Federal Dept of Education
__ i)One part time volunteer to recommend federal standards for high school graduation
_ b)State Dept of Education
__ i)One part time volunteer to recommend state standards for high school graduation
__ ii)4 employees
___ (1)One to verify all prospective teachers applications are true
___ (2)One to hire teachers if their application got passed employee #1
___ (3)One to verify high school are in compliance with minimum federal and state recommendations
___ (4)One to build and put up signs at schools that are not in compliance with state and federal standards

2)School Districts
_ a)Three School districts per county
__ i)One for K-6
__ ii)One for 6-8
__ iii)One for 9-12
__ iv)One building for all three of the district staffs to work at. No remodel work/new buildings to be done on the district building until every school in the district has been rebuilt. Exceptions to be made only in the case of total destruction.
_ b)No employee of any district to make more than 10% more than lowest paid teacher in the state
_ c)No ‘closed door’ sessions during public meetings

3)School Teachers
_ a)Any teacher complaining of spending personal money to buy class supplies will have their salaries reduced by 5% each year until they stop as they are obviously being paid too much.
_ b)No tenure, ever.
_ c)Cameras recording class rooms at all times when school in session
__ i)Live feed that any parent with a password can access
__ ii)Files to be stored for 6 months – public to be made aware of data storage
___ (1)Each day can be individually burned to DVD for complaints against students or staff – cost to be borne by those requesting data
___ (2)Any claims of impropriety by anyone after files are past storage date to be viewed as harassment on part of complainant – depending on severity of such claims students may be expelled and teachers may be fired

4)School Funding
_ a)School funds spit into three separate funds
__ i)Building maintenance
___ (1)Bare bones. You people want trees and shrubs and sculpted hedges feel free to donate extra money on your own
__ ii)Employee salary
__ iii)Student funds
___ (1)Money in student fund split between students, funding for each student to be awarded to the individual school that that student attends – students can attend any school in the county

5)Student Education
_ a)K-8 or to age 14
__ i)Free
_ b)9-12 or over age 14
__ i)Free if you have good grades
_ c)9-12 or over 14 if you have C-/D+ average.
__ i)Either leave school and get a job(we always need janitors), or your parents can pay an extra fee to keep you in school – let say between 5K and 10K per yr

6)Miscellaneous

School Buses – reasonable routes – you live too far away because to want to transfer your kids to a better school drive them yourself or make arrangements. The government is not responsible for making your life easy

Special needs tutors – pay for them your self, sounds harsh but if little Timmy needs 12 different types of government funded therapist to learn how to tie his shoes and use a spoon that is thousands of dollars WASTED that could be used to produce a productive member of society. Someone who will get a job and pay the taxes that will be little Timmy food when you die and there is no one to care for him and he winds up in a government home. So what do you want more Little Timmy to starve on the streets when the economy collapses cause you needed help trying to teach him skills no one was ever going to hire him for anyway, or Little Timmy to live and for you to teach him how to tie his shoes yourself?

2)School Districts
_ a)Three School districts per county
__ i)One for K-6
__ ii)One for 6-8
__ iii)One for 9-12
__ iv)One building for all three of the district staffs to work at. No remodel work/new buildings to be done on the district building until every school in the district has been rebuilt. Exceptions to be made only in the case of total destruction.
_ b)No employee of any district to make more than 10% more than lowest paid teacher in the state
_ c)No ‘closed door’ sessions during public meetings

Why should we have government run schools in the first place? Why not have privately owned schools from the outset?

The only thing the government has the "right" to enforce is that if you aren't a specialized school -- i.e. a vo-tech, a gifted student, nothing but special needs -- that you have to take X% of special needs kids like Timmy.

And you (or your community) could also create your own four room school 9K-3, 4-6, 7-9/9-12) because the kids are required to pass all the tests before getting awarded a certification for that grade level in a subject.

As an example -- I was somewhat above average on standardized tests in math, but nothing exceptional. My results for reading and comprehension in 9th grade was at 1st year college level.

@Old RPM Daddy:
You appear to be right about private schools appearing to have lower per-pupil costs than public schools, at least according to a Cato report I read. The Former Banker's post above offers some reasons why private schools may have lower costs, but your point still stands.

The union fears the emergence of a bunch of small charter and private schools. The faculties of these schools would be beyond the reach of the unions

The disempowering of the teachers' unions is a big reason why I favor charter schools. Teachers' unions and other public sector unions are horrible for those they serve.

The one I just heard today is that most teachers in most states don't pay social security taxes. They have to pay into their state's pension fund. But most of them will get something in the end. Where there is a 90% chance SS is going belly up.

So they can do 20-25 years as a teacher, do the odd/side job during the summer. And then retire and get enough years to get SS when they finally hit retirement. Essentially double dipping.

I will grant that I defend this for the military retirees. But the general level of sacrifice to be in the military -- and the requirement to do a minimum 20 years -- to get the pension benefits differentiates it from working as a teacher. Plus the G.I.s pay SS while serving.

Jim you really really REALLY missed my point.

I wasn't advocating that parents fail to get their kids educated by saying "Pull em" read the entirety of the post and you'll see that I was advocating that parents take action to form private educational entities for the benefit of their own children.

I think the people getting hung-up on the money issue are missing the boat here. Even if the poor schools simply did not have enough money to provide a decent education, society as a WHOLE owes children at least a fighting chance at equal opportunity. The children are in no way responsible for their own poverty, and should not be punished for it by society.
The other huge question and issue is that it does not seem to be about the money, not so much. In 2008-2009 Canada spent $10,100 per student, nation wide. In 2009, according to the US Census, America spent $10,499 per student. Now, there are various rankings of educational achievement done. But Canada ranks third or fourth in the world for education pretty consistently, while America ranks 20th - 24th or so. Clearly it is possible for America to do far better for the children than we are now, without spending more money, and without giving the wealthy kids any worse of an education than they get now. The question we should be asking is, why are the Canadian kids getting an education that is so superior for the same money? Then we need to ask how to make sure our kids get the same level of education as well. Or you can just do what I did and realize that the only way I could afford to live in a "good" neighborhood that was safe and had good schools was to move to Canada myself, which I did.

"The question we should be asking is, why are the Canadian kids getting an education that is so superior for the same money?" It has been a long time, and I missed this - but I suggest that climate drives grades.

Northern American states do better than those further South. This is NOT because these people are more noble, or not rednecks. It's because remaining indoors is advisable for part of the year, and because the climate enforces the idea that you better be done with your outdoor plans by a certain date each year, or Old Man Winter is going to take them from you.