Ohio Mother Jailed For Protecting Her Kids From A Crappy School


#1

This mother used her Fathers address for residency so her kids would not be forced to attend a horrible school.

Of course, she lands in jail.
Ohio Mom Kelley Williams-Bolar Jailed for Sending Kids to Better School District - ABC News

I went to war with my school district years ago to get my kids transferred to a neighboring district that was much better.

It was called a “district transfer” and they fought me every step. I had to actually go to the district office and say “Even if you manage to prevent this I promise you that not one of my kids will ever sit in one of your classrooms again”.

They finally relented when they realized that Home School was my plan B and not sending them back to the Liberal Mill.

Then I had to go through this every year for each child for the next 5 years before they finally gave up trying to get them back.

This woman is a national hero for going to jail in the effort to protect her children’s education. The dragon she is facing is quite powerful, I wish her the best.


#2

I’m all for public school reform, in particular when it comes to being able to go to any public school of your choice, but this mother and the grandparents both lied in this instance - Mom didn’t want to have to give up living in her government-subsidized residence.


#3

Seems to be a bit fuzzy there - she claimed to live part-time with her father. So she’s not paying taxes in the district? Lots of people are paying taxes that don’t - and perhaps some never did - have children in the district. I have been paying taxes in our current school district for 23 years, and my youngest was graduated from public schools 5 years before we bought this property. My kids never even went to school in this state.


#4

Of course they lied, they did not have the option of school choice or more expensive housing in the district they wanted to send the kids to.

What is the greater sin, lying to the government to gain access to a better school for your kids or accepting the inevitability of a lousy and unsafe education for your kids in order to be honest with the government that prevents school reform from occurring?

Seems to me if she had to sin she chose the right option.
Although I doubt most people would consider disregarding your child’s safety and education a “sin” these days.

Whatever it takes to save your kids is fine with me. I don’t care how many Nazi tax eaters she has to lie to or how many of the millions of regulations she has to ignore.

I can bet you that none of the Parents who completely disregard their children in every way (that make her designated district an unsafe crappy school) has spent any time in jail for their offense.

It is clear what this city considers the greater crime, no good deed goes unpunished.


#5

[quote=“Susanna, post:3, topic:28975”]
Seems to be a bit fuzzy there - she claimed to live part-time with her father. So she’s not paying taxes in the district? Lots of people are paying taxes that don’t - and perhaps some never did - have children in the district. I have been paying taxes in our current school district for 23 years, and my youngest was graduated from public schools 5 years before we bought this property. My kids never even went to school in this state.
[/quote]I know what you mean. I pay school taxes and all my children are grown with children of their own and they do not live in this area. In fact there was some deal made where I have to pay more for the district I am in while another district gets their taxes lowered.


#6

The idea behind all members of a community bearing the burden of the cost to provide an education is based on the idea that all members of a community reap the benefit of an educated youth.

If only the parents of school age children paid the education cost then only the wealthiest citizens would be able to educate their children. Obviously home school would remain an option but these days many if not most would not bother.

I like the more Libertarian approach but it would be quite destructive if implemented, at least in the short run. I don’t know how many retired people would prefer to live in a community of uneducated youth basically running free all day with no prospect for much more. I would think the public safety issue and collapsed property values would amount to a harder hit than the broad based school taxation currently is.

I think the first step should be abolishing the Federal Department Of Education and turning full control of education back to the States. The smart States could abolish the Teachers Union and establish legitimate curriculum’s that improve the performance of the education system while saving money. Reestablishing the practice of removing those kids whose behavior costs other kids their right to be educated would probably soon follow in most districts that were controlled by parents instead of Washington D.C.

Over time, this system would bear the kind of fruit in future adults that would make the more Libertarian model plausible if the local citizens chose to try it.

For me, I would be satisfied with getting the Feds out of education to start with. We did not break this all at once and we cannot expect to fix it all at once unless we can convince a majority of citizens to accept some very horrific (and unnecessary) times for a couple of decades at least.


#7

There are 10 elementary, 3 middle, and one high school in our school corp. Parents commonly move kids amonst them with little trouble for a variety of reasons.


#8

The further from the local community the running of the school system gets, the worse it gets. It would be less aggravating to pay school taxes if the local community had more say in the running of the school.


#9

RET, it seems to me if there was a switch to the libertarian concept of education (not going to happen), at least if the school taxes were cut with it (boy is that not going to happen…), then there would be a lot more lattitude for charity (through the churches) to pick up the slack. They’d have to be very frugal and education would no longer be seen as a right, but that would cut out a lot of deadwood; both out of the student body (if a student isn’t willing to make the effort to make good, then they’re out) and out of the curriculum.


#10

I see 4 parties in this - the parent, the grandparents, the government and the children (who are under the care of the parents, of course). The parent’s “hands” aren’t “clean”; she lied about where she resides. The grandparents’ “hands” aren’t “clean”; they supported the parent’s lie (OTOH, they do pay taxes to the school district whose school the children would have attended). The government’s “hands” - neither school district! - aren’t “clean”: the school district where she lives operates and maintains crappy unsafe schools; the district where the children attended collects taxes from the residence where the children were registered as living, but wanted that tax $$ without having those children in attendance. The only ones whose “hands” are “clean” are the children, and theirs, IMO, is the highest interest. They want a safe, good education so they can live to be contributing members of society. And, IMO, of the parties with “unclean hands” the party whose hands are most foul is the government - the district with the unsafe crappy schools and the district who pretended not to be receiving local tax $$ “for” educating those children (and of all the $$ the district receives, how much is from other city, county, state and Federal taxes which the children’s mother does pay?!). So while this woman did violate the law and will pay the consequences, the ones committing the injustice are the school districts, who are placing the children’s education and lives in peril.