"at concerned parents being prosecuted for stealing a free public education for their children."

Right, except it isn't free and it has been used as a justification to seize people's land for decades now. Good ol property taxes, which means your local prefecture owns the land, not you. Mix with union corruption and you have a big worthless mess, but its free!

"After spending nine days behind bars charged with grand theft, the single mother was convicted of two felony counts. Not only did this stain her spotless record, but it threatened her ability to earn the teacher's license she had been working on."
This wasn't the point - but does anyone else think it's odd that two felonies don't actually put a halt on getting a teacher's license?

Actually I'm not all that sympathetic in this case. For the kid, yes. For the parent, not so much.

The cold hard truth is, she did not pay taxes to support the school she sent her child to. Is she robbing the till? No. But is she putting an unsupported body into a school without having contributed to it? Absolutely.

Fact is a lot of schools suck. But these places exist for children, not for the people who work in them. If parents are unwilling to exercise the absolute authority they have to withdraw their child or demand and enforce change, then they get the school they deserve., instead of the one that their child does.

What Robert says, would be true if local schools were still run by local school boards, which could be influenced by parents. This is no longer the case.

Fact is, that the school system has been nearly destroyed by federal interference. Schools must respond to federal regulations, which puts parents totally outside of the picture. Add teacher unions, dedicated to preserving the jobs of even the most incompetent teachers. Add inner-city neighborhoods, where most kids belong to "families" that don't care if the kids misbehave, disrupt classes, etc.

My parents pulled exactly the same trick - registered me at my grandfather's address. The reason was that I had been selected to be bussed an hour across town, to an inner-city school, to provide some salt in a sea of pepper. One visit to the dirty, graffiti-covered school and it was clear: no one who cared about education would want their kids to go there.

Was this theft? Note that my parents didn't pay taxes in that school district, but in the one they wanted me to attend. Was it dishonest? Possibly, but - frankly - so what?

Two things would help: (1) Get the feds out of education. (2) Introduce school vouchers, and let the free market work.

"f parents are unwilling to exercise the absolute authority they have to withdraw their child or demand and enforce change, then they get the school they deserve., instead of the one that their child does."

What authority? She can't just keep the kids out of school altogether; that's illegal and certainly not what this woman would want. Private schools are expensive, and home-schooling is easier said than done, certainly not practical for a single parent.

And as far as demanding and enforcing change--what, should she demand that every other kid at her children's school be given a set of parents who enforce good values and value education? Demand that teachers unions immediately be dissolved and every child given a voucher for the school of her life? This isn't as simple as getting rid of one bad teacher or getting your kid moved to the accelerated reading class--this woman could spend her entire life crusading for school change and she's unlikely to see it in her lifetime, certainly not soon enough to make a difference in her children's education and future.

The criminal here isn't the women who wanted a better education for her children, it's the system that failed her--a system that she was forced to pay into (since she is paying taxes to the original school) and is giving her children nothing in return.

I also followed this article on the WSJ--lot's of interesting comments. Many commenters suggested that the women move her family to Mexico, sneak in through the border, and then her children would have their choice of schools along with health care, an extensive welfare net, and no fear of prosecution. I mean, of all the "felonies" that we could be processing, and we pick this woman?

There is absolutely nothing which stops a group of parents from withdrawing their children collectively from failing schools, and contributing a small part of their respective incomes to creating their own small private education center specifically for their children.

There are plenty of options available, the course of action this woman took was understandable, and should NOT be a felony, but nonetheless her choice was to place the cost of her child's education onto other tax payers.

That said though, I do believe in school choice and we need to give serious thought to why school systems seem to be structured by their administrators FOR the administrators. But there will be no change until people stop trying to cheat the system, and start FORCING the system to change.

"There is absolutely nothing which stops a group of parents from withdrawing their children collectively from failing schools, and contributing a small part of their respective incomes to creating their own small private education center specifically for their children."

Oh, Robert- there are a LOT of things that stop parents from doing this. Fortunately, I live in an "open-enrollment" state. I feel for parents who don't.

I am a fan of vouchers and school choice. In Texas we have charter schools and they rock, my kids go to one. That said: they knew what they were doing was illegal, and they got caught. If my kids lived in a crappy area and that was my only choice for a decent school, you better believe I'd do it, and I'd suffer the jail gladly if I got caught. Just like I would if I killed a molester who was targeting them.

YOu can't knowingly and intentionally break the law and then bitch when you get caught. No matter how stupid you think the law is.

Nor is that education "free" as the article suggests. You better believe the people living rightly in those high performing school boundaries pay a LOT in property taxes for them. So yeah, it's theft. From the neighbors of that school.

I worked for an education lobbyist. Their argument against education vouchers is always that it "takes money for public education and gives it to private institutions." While that's true, I have a hard time seeing why it's a bad thing. If someone in a poor neighborhood that feeds into bad schools can take an $8,000 voucher and get their kid enrolled in a good parochial school, or in the wealthy district across town where they'll get a good education, that seems like a much better use of taxpayer funds than forcing them to go to the neighborhood school.

The district where I live allows you to enroll your kids outside of the neighborhood schools, as long as there's room at the desired school. Makes sense to me.

I worked for an education lobbyist. Their argument against education vouchers is always that it "takes money for public education and gives it to private institutions." While that's true, I have a hard time seeing why it's a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because I, as a taxpayer, should have some say in what gets taught in public schools. If someone wants his or her kid to go to a place where they're taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and men once rode dinosaurs, Flintstones-style -- well, rock out, but you don't get to use my money to do it.

I need to comment but am torn, I want to allow kids to go anywhere, provided there is room, but if you are a problem child and from outside my attendance area, I don’t want you in my classroom. I firmly believe in school choice and that you should be able to send your kid to any school in the district/area provided that YOU get them there (your choice, your responsibility) and that there is room for the core neighborhood residents. I teach at an International Baccalaureate High School that draws competitive students from the entire district and is in a Low SES area of town. My neighborhood kids are also in the IB program and those that are not benefit from the increased standards at the school. This district also allows administrator to grant waivers on a space available basis to any student who wants to come. Most admins will use behavior and grades as criteria for granting the request. It comes down to how crowded do you want a school, a school built for 1200, now housing 1700 is stuffed, how many more can or should you fit in? Do I have to keep a kid that is here illegally if they are a behavior problem, or even on that is here legally? What if I get 40 new students, that’s enough to get a new teacher which I won’t, if the school year has started, can I kick 40 kids that are not from the attendance area? Where is the line?

Well, Kevin, it's the people who WANT creationism taught in public schools who are camping out at School board meetings in Texas. They're taxpayers, too, and they have their say. There are parts of this state where I could send my kid to a Catholic school and she'd get a more secular science education than the local public schools.

"YOu can't knowingly and intentionally break the law and then bitch when you get caught. No matter how stupid you think the law is."

I'm not sure she's bitching. They're just using her example to show what a stupid law it is. Parents like you, and her, are the kind taxpayers should hope to get at any school they're funding, rather than kids that win lotteries. Anybody can throw their kid's name in a hat. A parent who will risk prosecution for a better education is the kind that improves the educational experience for other students they're child attends school with, whether or not they directly pay in.

Here, your child can go to any school, but a parent may have to drive the distance to a school out of their zone, which kind of accomplishes the same thing.

It seems that if this woman had been an illiterate crackhead who didn't know or care what sort of crappy school her kids were going to, then she would be the perfect parent as far as the AFT was concerned.

She may not have paid the taxes for where she sent her kids to school, but her parents do! I really don't see the big deal. Someone in the family is paying the taxes for that school district. I moved to a move expensive area for a good school for my daughter, however, I must say, even this school is not really all that great. They are good if you are smart, but need some help and not so much. We are struggling with that and some bullying issues as we are not as well off as some in the district.

Grand theft? Of what?

==============================

[Vouchers are] a bad thing because I, as a taxpayer, should have some say in what gets taught in public schools. If someone wants his or her kid to go to a place where they're taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and men once rode dinosaurs, Flintstones-style -- well, rock out, but you don't get to use my money to do it. - Kevin

So ... you object to someone using your money to put their child in the school of their choice, but you have no issue with you (and those who think like you) determining what the school system can and cannot teach their children using their money.

Instead of worrying that some kids with vouchers might go to a school that teaches about the flying spaghetti monster, worry about what students in public schools are being taught: man-made global warming is about to destroy the earth, polar bears are dying due to the ice caps melting, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, America is an imperialist power, diversity and self-esteem are more important than actual accomplishments, reading at a seventh grade level is acceptable for a high school graduate, answers in mathematics are relative, etc.

You have a say in what is taught in the public schools, but only as much as the government and the teachers unions allow you to have. Worry about that.

And voucher schools, even religious ones, would still have to conform to a standard of education - including the teaching of evolution.

==============================

The cold hard truth is, she did not pay taxes to support the school she sent her child to. Is she robbing the till? No. But is she putting an unsupported body into a school without having contributed to it? Absolutely. - Robert

Granted she pays property taxes in another district. However, her father pays property taxes in that district.

So, what did she steal?

"Granted she pays property taxes in another district. However, her father pays property taxes in that district.

So, what did she steal?"

Obviously, knowledge that is only granted to those who "legally" can go to that school district. It must be kept under wraps so that it doesn't escape into the wild, where anyone can obtain it!

Sheesh, why does anyone use public schools anymore? Every day, it makes our decision to home-school look better!

This is an argument I've raises for years. Our public school district is huge- the largest in the state with dozens of elementary schools. Some of the schools are amazing. Some of them are beyond pathetic. Our school district will not, under any circumstances, allow students to change schools.
So.
I pay state and county taxes. I can go to any post office I want. I can go to any ABC store I want. I can go to any county library that I want. I can go to any one of the five county health clinics that I want. But my kids are only allowed to go to one school, even though the taxes I pay are distributed over the entire district. WTF?

Recommend the documentary "Waiting for Superman" to those of you who haven't seen it. It shines a light on many aspects of America's failing public school system, following multiple kids and culminating in multiple lotteries--absolutely heartbreaking.

Instead of worrying that some kids with vouchers might go to a school that teaches about the flying spaghetti monster, worry about what students in public schools are being taught: man-made global warming is about to destroy the earth, polar bears are dying due to the ice caps melting, carbon dioxide is a pollutant, America is an imperialist power, diversity and self-esteem are more important than actual accomplishments, reading at a seventh grade level is acceptable for a high school graduate, answers in mathematics are relative, etc.

I don't want any of those things that are false taught in the public schools to which I contribute. Nor do I want creationism/intelligent design or religious belief of any kind.

So ... you object to someone using your money to put their child in the school of their choice, but you have no issue with you (and those who think like you) determining what the school system can and cannot teach their children using their money.

Oh, horseballoons. If the system was set up so taxes could go to either public schools or vouchers, that would be fair. But, again, you can't have my money to teach religious hoo-ha of any kind in a public school. Simple as that. And if folks like you don't like it, then let those of us who chose not to have kids "Galt" out of subsidizing your lifestyle choices entirely.

There is absolutely nothing which stops a group of parents from withdrawing their children collectively from failing schools, and contributing a small part of their respective incomes to creating their own small private education center specifically for their children.

Typically, the worst-performing schools are in districts where the people are too poor to do such a thing, and they can't even redirect the property taxes they are responsible for into such a thing, they still have to keep paying for the underperforming schools.

If the system was set up so taxes could go to either public schools or vouchers, that would be fair.

That's exactly what the argument in favor of vouchers is about.

With vouchers, people can choose to opt out of a failing public school system by getting their tax money back in the form of a voucher and spending it on the school of their choice ... even, should they choose so, a religion-based one.

And if folks like you don't like it, then let those of us who chose not to have kids "Galt" out of subsidizing your lifestyle choices entirely.

First, I don't have kids.

So, I'd love to be able to opt out of paying property taxes to support what is essentially a welfare program for teachers unions and bureaucrats.

The argument that even the childless benefit by having publicly-financed schools is refuted by the illiterate and innumerate delinquents currently "graduating" from our public school systems.

Second, I'm not religious.

I think creationism and intelligent design advocates are doing a grave disservice to the scientific literacy of the population when they argue that their beliefs should be given equal weight with science in the education system.

And I'll join the protest if those doctrines supplant evolution in the science curriculum in our publicly-funded education system, whatever that system is.

That's why a voucher system needs to be accompanied by standards and some form of testing to determine that the standards have been met (the way most home-schooling programs are).

Your argument against vouchers was that parents might use the vouchers (your money) to send their kids to religion-based schools where things of which you disapprove could be taught. As long as the education they get meets a rigorous standard in all subjects, who cares if the students learn about the flying spaghetti monster alongside Newton, Pascal, and Shakespeare?

Our public schools are failing. Parents who pay property taxes (directly or through rent) to support the failing system should have the ability to get their money back and put it toward their children's education in a system or school that is not failing and that actually educates them. Society at large will be better off if children are actually educated rather than simply babysat for six hours a day.

And just because a school is religion-based doesn't mean the education won't be good. I spent three years in a Catholic middle school where the English grammar and math skills I learned enabled me to coast through those classes in a public high school. And evolution was taught in the science classes - with no mention of creationism or intelligent design as competing theories.

==============================

There are other issues with a voucher system which would also have to be addressed.

The Federal Student Loan system was expanded to include trade schools and engendered fraudulent proprietary trade schools whose only mission was to enroll as many "students" as possible, take a processing fee from the student loans, and shut down before the government could investigate and press charges for fraud. The tuition at these schools just happened to be the maximum student loan amount available per semester.

Steps would have to be taken to ensure such shennanigans did not happen with a public education voucher system.

I guess I'm lucky. First, we have very good elementary schools in my district. Second, you can go to any one of them IF they have an opening and you can get them there. An opening is simply determined by whether there is room after the families in a geographic area are provided for.

I could have had my kids go to a slightly better high school north of me, but it wasn't worth the hassle and while it's better in many respects, it also has a lot of very rich, spoiled kids whose parents dominate everything with the school.

There will never be enough of other people's money for what I want.

Here is the advice I would give a student:

In a class with 25 of you, your teacher will be stuck devoting most of his time to the five problem kids, leaving the rest of you to sort things out on your own. Therefore, your success will depend upon you taking initiative. This concept probably prepares you for success in life more than the subject matter of the class does. Also, don't be one of the problem kids.

Read the assignments in the book, do the homework, compare notes with other students, and teach yourselves. This is a multi-way street, and doesn't mean you try to mooch off the smartest kid in class. Instead, try to BE one of the smartest kids in class, and have something to offer.

When you can manage to snatch a little of your teacher's time, have your questions ready beforehand.

Sorry kids, but the adults in your life don't really know what's going on, and the system you will inherit from them stinks, precisely because the generations before you haven't learned how to work together. But YOU must learn to work together. That's going to be your only saving grace in the years to come.

If someone wants his or her kid to go to a place where they're taught that the Earth is 6,000 years old and men once rode dinosaurs, Flintstones-style -- well, rock out, but you don't get to use my money to do it.

I actually went to catholic grade school and high school. We got a FAR better education, including science, then the public schools tend to give out around here. Yes, there was some talk of things like creationism and it was specifically in the one religion themed class we had (at most 1 per year/semester).

The high school had a lot of honors and AP classes and a very high rate of graduation with attendance to college.

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that which gives people choice then continue to piss it away on the currently, severely broken public system.

Hmm. What makes you think that the taxes to pay for a particular "problem" school are paid by the people whose kids attend them?

I'd much rather my tax dollars go to that which gives people choice then continue to piss it away on the currently, severely broken public system.

Good for you. Just don't do it with my money. For me, vouchers for private education are no different than vouchers for private food. Imagine taking tax dollars dedicated to school lunches, giving it to parents and telling them to spend it at a restaurant of their choice. Nuh-uh.

The "parent trigger" law sounds like an excellent one. Of course, it will require follow-through by parents and students, or things won't improve. I'm sure there are plenty of slack-ass teachers, but most of the problems in public school seem to be the result of decades of parental uninvolvement.

I'm sorry but none of you are getting it.

• Why should the state or federal government be involved in education in the first place?
• How is it that I am responsible for paying to educate your child when I have no children?
• If the answer is "Good schools make the community better," then why couldn't private schools attract them?
• If the answer is the "Government needs to establish the standards," then why governmental standards? Why not standards established by the NEA or AFT?
• If the government is qualified to set the standards, then why aren't colleges held to government standards ?
• If the government is not the answer, why would you trust the NEA or AFT?
• What does having a piece of paper actually ensure?
• Do you really want to trust your health care to the same type of people who provided your education?

This is not the full list of questions that I could ask. But if you can actually answer them honestly -- you might be onto a path of liberty.

Good for you. Just don't do it with my money. For me, vouchers for private education are no different than vouchers for private food.

Then stop taking people's money by force to prop up a broken system and they won't need to get it back as a voucher to escape that system.

If the answer is "Good schools make the community better," then why couldn't private schools attract them?

Exactly.

Just because something needs to be done doesn't mean the government needs to do it.

A good selection of quality private schools and low property taxes would also make a community better.

Do you really want to trust your health care to the same type of people who provided your education?

I do not.

And I really don't want to entrust my healthcare to the people who are responsible for providing the education my nieces and nephews are getting now.

I completely understand her frustration at the school system, however... I moved out of one city school district- into a county district where the property taxes are 3x+ what I paid where I previously lived- so that my daughter could have a good, local school to attend.
Honestly, as a white person, this is really my only recourse besides paying for a private school.
Do I think that every child deserves a good education? Of course. Should I be the one that pays for it? Not really sure. I know if my property taxes went any higher, I would probably have to move back to where I was before.
I know I can definitely tell you that I've put my child's school before many things- nice car, nice stuff, etc.
Should she be prosecuted? I dunno...

" Parents who pay property taxes (directly or through rent)..."

Just wanted to say thanks for pointing out something a lot of people seem to not understand- renters pay property taxes, too.

If I was ever under the impression this wasn't so, it was certainly spelled out for me when the guy who owned the house I rented called me up and said "My property taxes are going up next year, so I'm going to have to increase your monthly payment if you want to renew the lease".

Honestly, as a white person, this is really my only recourse besides paying for a private school.-- RooRooDog at October 4, 2011 9:23 PM

I am going to have to call you on your comment. Where was race brought up in any of these comments but strictly as it concerned government actions in the 60's and 70's? I won't disagree that it was brought up. Race was brought up in the context from a_random_guy's post at October 4, 2011 2:34 AM. He was mostly neutral on the subject but put an honest statement out. The regular commenters and readers know him and that this was not brought up with malice.

Do I think that every child deserves a good education? Of course. Should I be the one that pays for it? Not really sure.-- RooRooDog at October 4, 2011 9:23 PM

What aren't you sure about? That you deserve to pay for your own children? The answer is an unequivocal Yes -- you are responsible for your child's education. If you are not a parent -- then the question of why are you responsible for someone else's child on an involuntary basis?

Are you also responsible for making sure that your neighbor's mortgage payment is made this month?

growing up, my school district tried it where kids could go to whatever school in the district if there was room. I most remember this as people telling me about it later as I was in about 3rd grade.

First, every student was assigned to their neighborhood school. Parents could then give up that space and be placed in a lottery for another school of their choice. A parent could also opt out and have there kids try to test into special program that was the gifted program before.

I remember nieghbor got into the gifted program, his younger sister did not make the cut. This ended up with us on the westside, he went to school down town and sister attended class in NE part of town.

It did little and was totally scrapped after a couple of years. The parents who kids were assigned good schools didn't give up there spot so there was no space so little changed.

"If I was ever under the impression this wasn't so, it was certainly spelled out for me when the guy who owned the house I rented called me up and said "My property taxes are going up next year, so I'm going to have to increase your monthly payment if you want to renew the lease".

That's not quite true. Of course, renters help recover much of the cost of ownership, but landlords can only charge as much as the local market will bear, which often doesn't mean that the rent even pays 50% of the taxes, insurance, or mortagage.

My property taxes are so high, that even with rentors, I'm usually at a net loss most years. And especially now with so many people struggling to make ends meet, I can't offer places for rent at a figure that will cover the costs and still be competitive.

Yet, it's standard for landlords to site rising costs, including taxes, when doing any type of rent increase. This is true, but rentors don't really "pay" taxes like property owners do.

And I agree with others who mentioned that the grandparents live in this district and pay taxes, so what was she stealing? The tax money the grandparents pay in should give them some right to an education for their grandchild.

In fact, the mom could just change the child's legal address to the grandparent's house. Who says a child can't spend a school year (or 12) with a grandparent? Are they going to send gestapo there to check if she's there every night?

"Yet, it's standard for landlords to site rising costs, including taxes, when doing any type of rent increase. This is true, but rentors don't really "pay" taxes like property owners do."

Whether my payment went to the local tax collector or the landlord, the total dollars I paid was directly related to the landlord's tax bill.

I'm sure things aren't like that everywhere (landlords able to pass along tax increases), but it's been like that in all the places I've lived.

So saying I didn't "pay" any taxes is a distinction without a difference.

I recommend this movie:
http://www.thecartelmovie.com/

it's on Netflix streaming (or was a couple weeks ago when I watched it.)

There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to.