I agree with the verdict. Stealing an education at a public school outside your district is . . . stealing. The district taxpayers support the schools, and the price of running a school goes up when more teachers are needed. There is no legal or moral difference between stealing the tuition of $800 per month per child for two children over the course of three years and stealing items of the same value from a store. If the kids were in fact living with the mother out of district and not with the grandfather, then the sentence was too lenient.
BTW, the correct answer is to fix the public schools nationwide; they need to focus on education and not on indoctrination. However that is in the long term. In the short term, if you want your kids to go to a particular school, you either move there or pay tuition - but do it legally.
>>Stealing an education at a public school outside your district is . . . stealing.<<
The Dad lived in the district. He was the district taxpayer. He paid for those schools. What does he get out of it?
Sorry, I believe that the grandchildren had a right to go where their Grandfather was paying property taxes. There is no difference between this and gifting college tuition. If there was NO one in the district, then yes it’s stealing. As long as someone is paying those property taxes, it’s not.
And moreover, why isn’t the Copley district going after the Akron district for the money the mother paid to them?
Get the “Free” money Akron received for educating those two girls FIRST.
They were using her Dad's address. Her dad is a taxpayer in the district. If she had dotted the i's more carefully, they would have no case against her.
If you want to play that game then you should not have to pay school taxes unless you have a child attending school.
The grandfather was a tax payer and being that his grandchildren are immediate family, they should have the ability to go to school under his residence.