Whistleblower - Ethics Question

No. Not my business...

Stay out of it. Leave it alone. Dont get anywhere near it. Run as fast as you can. Dont even talk about it to anyone. Dont even hang around a conversation that mentions it. You will be sorry if you are anyway associated with anything remotely envolving this situation.

It will blow up eventually. And it will not be pretty when it does. And the funny thing is it will be all your fault even though its not.

No I would not, especially if I had nothing to do with that school. The really difficult thing though is that if it does become identified and it will... we all know how small the world is in HS ball, that school could have to forfeit games that he played in. At least that's how it works here. You can't have an ineligible player if I'm not mistaken. It would be really tough for a group of innocent kids to have to pay for the dishonesty of one family, not to mention the lesson they're teaching their own son.

Tough one.

Style ...

I agree with the other posters and would not get involved in advising any authority in this situation.

I do wonder, though, how well you know the family and if you know them well enough to be comfortable speaking with them about the matter. There would not be a need to 'moralize' but you could take the approach that the boy and his 'new' school could/would be jeopardized if he were to play and be found out ... Perhaps it would negatively impact the boy's baseball future were the wrong people to find out. Just wondering.

Footnote & afterthought ... It appears that by my first statement, I would let something like this slip when in actuality it was my intention to address the problem but at a personal level with the parents. That way, I am dealing with the people involved and not taking a (substantiated?) rumor to the school authorities without confirmation that the parents are indeed acting incorrectly. I do sinerely believe that the issue should be addressed but I would prefer to handle it directly at first.

Don't they have to have multiple proof of residency? Perhaps some school districts are more lenient than others.

quote:

would you turn them in to the school board?

No. It is not what you know. It's what you can prove. Don't put your and the kids teammates families through the hurricane that inevitably follows that situation. Kids do the paperwork and transfer legally and others don't, for the same reason of athletic participation. Everybody choses where they play as soon as they graduate high school, but they can't in high school. That's wack anyway.

I absolutely have more important things to think about than some other family's child's high school athletics.

No.

The truth comes out in the wash, and most times ya dont have to dig too deep either.

Hard to argue with the responses here so far- and I might get torched for this but... it really begs the ethical question of where responsibilities lie these days. If it's not acceptable to snitch, that's a 'crime' of course, how does that serve the common good? If rule breakers (not to mention criminals) know that their peers aren't a threat to their misdeeds, then are they not granted a sense of impunity? Where's the deterrence? The school board? The coaches? The state athletic association????? Maybe we're better off policing ourselves?

Just my .02, I'll shut up now and mind my own business.

In our area if a student was illegally enrolled in a high school out of his attendance district then all the varsity games he participated in would be forfited due to using an ineligible player. The entire team would suffer from this. I would hope the parents would take this into consideration before enrolling him in a school that he's not legally entitled to attend without permission from the distict. When this happened in our area the school's teams were not allowed to participate in post season play for 1 year. Very stiff penalties if caught.

Surprising opinions.

First I would have to know if enrolling or registering in a school of choice was allowed by my district. If the proper paperwork was in place and for instance the school that the student wanted to register with offered a line of education such as "Foreign Studies" that his home school did not offer, one could not really prove that he was registering to that school for academic or atheletic purposes.

I really don't think it is that big of an ethics question. If you believe something fishy is going on, bring it up - You can do so without identifying yourself - send a simple note to the reistrar, VP or P to look into. If it is legit, they will do what they have to do. Another thought is to ask a parent you know whos kids have already graduated to put forth the question, thus having no effect on a student still enrolled at the school.

I agree with all who say NO.

But I will take if further: Why do we allow bureaucracies to tell us where we can and where we cannot send our kids to school? Why do we assign kids to schools based on where they live?

Could you possibly structure a system to be more inequitable than doing it this way? Forget sports - we are trapping millions of children in failing schools because allowing them to leave would be inconvenient for the bureaucrats.

Talk about unethical!

A couple of questions that we on the outside may not know the answer to:
1. Did they establish 'residency' in the district they want him to play in? ie - some people have rented apartments so that they do have a residence in the district.
2. In some cases they have turned over guardianship to someone that does reside in the district.
3. I don't know how this would affect playing sports, but kids outside of a district can enter there if they pay a tuition to go to the district that they want.

Just a couple of ideas of how they could get around it. I can't see people being stupid enough to risk so much without making sure that the residency issue was covered somehow.

If you do indeed know the family, I would simply employ my ultra-curious nature and ask how it is that they are able to do that? You may find out that there's more to the story than you know.

If in fact they are doing something illegal, perhaps just knowing that at least one person has already figured it out may give them pause. If they do respond with "ssshhhhhh - don't tell anyone", I would bring up the eligibility issue and how it would affect the rest of the team.

I can't believe you don't have residency checks in your schools. This would never happen here - you have to live in the district... and we've had parents try to say they own property in the district or rent an apartment in the district so their child should be allowed to attend our schools. No go - residency is the place where you live, period.

I would hope the coach knew about the situation because this could ruin his season. It would be his job to inquire into the players eligiblity

.
Points not brought up yet...

First, How can this happen?...Based on our experience, and some logical deduction....I'd say I'd say it is very likley that someone in a position of authority is complicit...meaning how involved DO you want to get. Chances are that that it is already known, if that this the case then these is a very good chance you are going to have to take on coaches, athletic departments, schools, or perhaps school districts in a very visible way....ready for that?

Is it wrong?...yes. BUt it ain't a yes/no question. It is wrong but in any situation you have to decide if the cure is worse than the disease. Is the disruption of lives,(yours and others) the chaos worth it? Is there a real and clear upside for all other than the self satisfaction of catching someone

Regardless of what you do there are many questions here that make for a great "teachable moment" for your son. "What would you do, son?" "You are going to see these kind of dilemma's for the rest of your life, what would YOU do?" And more importantly such a move is likley to have huge repurcussions back to your son...is HE ready for the fallout? I would consult him.

44
.

quote:

You may find out that there's more to the story than you know.

True.
I wouldnt be afraid to ask questions to both the party involved and to the school district.
As I said before,... you dont usually have to dig too deep to find the answers.
And if you don't do it, someone else probably will.
Just a matter of time.

i think it is a question of ethics, and our level of tolerance for wrong doing. it does make you think ,doesn't it.

what would the right thing to do be? at what cost do we do the right thing?

The question that I have not seen asked is...
... How does this affect your son?

If it does not directly affect him, then why bother. If it DOES directly affect him...then you have a choice to make...while keeping in mind that sons are often punished as a result of the sins of their parents.

quote:

Originally posted by spizzlepop:
If rule breakers ....

This would assume that all rules are fair and just and put in place for all the right reasons. As we know, that's pretty far from the truth. Enforcing rules just because they are rules is mindless.

I have always gone by the "do no harm" rule. Everyone can make up their own minds as to which rules to follow, as long as it does no harm to anyone besides themselves.

quote:

have always gone by the "do no harm" rule. Everyone can make up their own minds as to which rules to follow, as long as it does no harm to anyone besides themselves.

Wow ... that's interesting. But I won't hijack the thread by getting into a debate on it ... just wanted to express my surprize.

quote:

If you found out that parents are enrolling their student in a different school than he's supposed to attend ....

The school will figure it out. If not the AD will at some point.

Another thing, did the parents tell you this first hand and has the deed taken place? Or is it second hand information?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
I agree with all who say NO.

But I will take if further: Why do we allow bureaucracies to tell us where we can and where we cannot send our kids to school? Why do we assign kids to schools based on where they live?

Could you possibly structure a system to be more inequitable than doing it this way? Forget sports - we are trapping millions of children in failing schools because allowing them to leave would be inconvenient for the bureaucrats.

Talk about unethical!

Wrong...If everyone decided to put their kids in schools they felt like, a top public shool system would get overcrowded by neighboring cities rif-raf or neighboring towns that prefer the better school system. If they don't pay property taxes in that municipality which are most likely much higher, they got no business sending their kids to that town's school. They can go to whatever public school they want if they move to that municipality or have legitimate residence in that town and pay those property taxes.

Besides, there are choices. There are private and prep schools you can send your kid to and anyone can go. Private school sports teams could recruit the kid and entice him to play ball at the private schools.

quote:

Originally posted by 20dad:
i think it is a question of ethics, and our level of tolerance for wrong doing. it does make you think ,doesn't it.

what would the right thing to do be? at what cost do we do the right thing?

I would go downtown and look for expired parking meters to tell the meter maid about, before I told a public school official about a school kid out of zone.

There was a case locally that ended with an entire season being nullified. If the kid is a top athlete, the AD and Coach should make sure all the rules are followed. If not, then they face huge penalties.

However, is there a possibility that the child is enrolling in a specific program only offered at that school? This is one way kids here get in other schools without moving. They retain eligibility, but the parents are responsible for transportation.

Wow, CP... really? (I don't think this is a hijack... just an extension of "if you wouldn't report it, why not?)

How can you possibly see the ripple effect that is caused by ignoring the rules that you decide are not for you? Take the rule in question - it may seem harmless for a kid to go to the wrong school, but if enough people do it, the implications are huge... loss of tax dollars to the "right" school, overcrowding, additional financial burden on the "wrong" school... and in the case of an athlete, perhaps edging out another player who would have played had he or she not been there illegally. And who can possibly predict the long term implications of that to THAT person?

I've always been more of the opinion that, there are indeed some rules which are pointless, but rather than giving one permission to ignore them, that's a call to action to get the rule changed. If a rule isn't worth enforcing - in enough people's opinion - then it should be changed or eliminated, not ignored. And if you can't convince enough people that a rule should be changed, then you follow it because that's what we do in a civilized society. And I certainly do not see residency rules as being in the pointless category.

Again, in this case, there must be more to the story than meets the eye. It would be hard to imagine someone publicly breaking a rule and not expecting to get caught.

Let’s say a family moves in from out of state, kid enrolls in school, but parents have already bought and moved in to a house in another school zone. The parents decided that they would rather have the kid go to this school instead of the area that they bought the house in. The plans are for the parents to sell the home in the other area and look for a house in the area where the kid is presently attending school. The kid is not eligible, there are no special programs that would allow kids to go to other schools in this area, so what do you do? Ignore it and take the chance that your own kid’s team is at risk for forfeiting their whole season or do you at least tell the coach and leave that decision up to him? I am curious to see what other parents would do when your own kid’s season is at risk.

The permission to ignore a rule is the penalty paid. If there is a willingness to pay the penalty on the individuals part then that is a personal decision.

There is a rule in my town that you need a permit if you want to cut down a tree. If my neighbor cuts down a tree, why should I care that he broke some rule that has zero effect on me? The answer is, I don't. It's not relevant to play the "what if" game and project mass tree cutting. It's never happened in the past, why is there a rule preventing something that has no precedent?

My point, is it's not my job to police my neighbors, nor theirs to police me. In a world where special interest and self preservation rule the lawmaker, the motivation for rule making is at best, highly suspect. I'm all for working towards change, but lawmakers are not responsive to constituencies for the most part, only campaign contributors. Write your US Senators and Congressmen and ask them their position on exorbanent oil company profits. What you'll get back is a dodge to the question and an explanation on the reason gas prices are high. That's what's happened each of the three times I've written mine.

So rather than be blindly obedient, I choose to ask why. I don't report people that are doing no harm, because it's none of my business. We are much quicker as a society to point a finger and claim, "he broke the rule", before we ever consider what the rule is and why it's there and how it impacts us societally and personally (not hypothetically).

At the beginning of the day, I choose to set my priority to civil liberty and freedom. In the litmus test of those, people are free to do what they choose as long as they don't tread on those and do no harm. I have, and will continue to stand up and defend those primary principles, through military service and civilian action. The rest of it, tree cutting laws, seat belt laws, sunscreen laws, school transfer laws,...they are all excercises in someone else foisting their belief of how society should be run at the expense of the freedoms this country was founded on. It's not my job and shouldn't be my neighbors job to enforce such arbitrary societal boundaries...if they do no harm.

P.S. For those that wish to rebut this stance, let me ask; Did you knowingly exceed the speed limit this week, or not come to a complete stop at a stop sign? When yes is the answer, isn't rebuttal hypocricy?

quote:

There is a rule in my town that you need a permit if you want to cut down a tree. If my neighbor cuts down a tree, why should I care that he broke some rule that has zero effect on me?

I have, and will continue to stand up and defend those primary principles, through military service and civilian action. The rest of it, tree cutting laws, seat belt laws, sunscreen laws, school transfer laws,...they are all excercises in someone else foisting their belief of how society should be run at the expense of the freedoms this country was founded on. It's not my job and shouldn't be my neighbors job to enforce such arbitrary societal boundaries...if they do no harm.

The problem is, many of these "arbitrary societal boundaries" do inflict harm. Take tree-cutting, for example. You say your neighbor's actions have "zero effect" on you. Not true, if that tree had been providing shade for your comfort in the backyard or shielding the west side of your house, thus lowering your utility bills. Also, cutting down the tree could mar the aesthetics of that property and harm property values of nearby homes.

Seat belt laws? Now you've got me going. My failure to wear a seatbelt in college led to my ejection from my vehicle and a 2-month stay in the hospital. You're saying that my breaking the rules did no harm? How about the harm it did to my family members, who had to set aside their schedules and priorities and visit me daily in the hospital? How about the harm it did to policy holders with our health insurance plan, whose rates were affected by my decision to flaunt the law?

I humbly submit that breaking rules and laws almost always affects others.

StyleMismatch said: If you found out that parents are enrolling their student in a different school than he's supposed to attend (for the purpose of playing sports) would you turn them in to the school board? Assume that you know the parents in question and know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is going on.
_______________________________________________________

I agree with most posters who advise to do no harm even though you may be aware of this unethical condition.

However as an aside, public education district residency restrictions in itself is an unethical situation because it perpetuates "separate but equal" education circumstances for those children who come from "the other side of the tracks".

The solution for public education to eliminate this misuse of public funds is for the school districts to compete for children as does our higher education model where parents and students vie for schools based upon a students abilities to meet competency and performance qualifiers.

Public education is paid for by all taxpayers, why should affluent kids get anymore consideration for a "better" school than a parent who lives across town who pays taxes for that affluent district as part of their tax contribution to public education?

Districting was set up long ago to edemnify school districts from scrutiny against possible segregation litigation "as part of the "property deeds, owner exclusionary codicils" against Jews, and other minorities.

It is time for the state legislatures to undo this travesty perpetuated by the education bureaucracy and allow students to compete for schools based upon performance and character.
JMO

zompywoof said: If everyone decided to put their kids in schools they felt like, a top public shool system would get overcrowded by neighboring cities rif-raf or neighboring towns that prefer the better school system. If they don't pay property taxes in that municipality which are most likely much higher, they got no business sending their kids to that town's school. They can go to whatever public school they want if they move to that municipality or have legitimate residence in that town and pay those property taxes.
_______________________________________________________

Property taxes use to be the sole method for financing schools, but this is no longer the case. All property owners and non-property owners pay taxes that are dispursed to support education requirements in each state. A portion of your federal and state taxes are taking and used to for your state education programs eg., to support the "No Child Left Behind" program. As socialism (which I'm against) has become more of the education model, municipality exclusionary districting has become more a misuse of public funds.

IMO education should be based upon student competition. Vouchers should be applied for and granted based upon student competency to meet minimum performance criteria, just as we do with our higher education.

IMHO a child is not rif-raf.
JMO

quote:

I humbly submit that breaking rules and laws almost always affects others.

I humbley second, this line of thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by spizzlepop:
Hard to argue with the responses here so far- and I might get torched for this but... it really begs the ethical question of where responsibilities lie these days. If it's not acceptable to snitch, that's a 'crime' of course, how does that serve the common good? If rule breakers (not to mention criminals) know that their peers aren't a threat to their misdeeds, then are they not granted a sense of impunity? Where's the deterrence? The school board? The coaches? The state athletic association????? Maybe we're better off policing ourselves?

spizzle - You won't get torched by me. I agree with you.

However, I think most of the advice here is given from a practical point of view. The family that reports the infraction will likely suffer a fair amount of anger back at them. They just need to recognize that before proceeding and decide if its worth it to them.

Its very frustrating to me that the "whistleblower" in these situations is often seen as the bad guy. Maybe thats why I have young employees who get angry at me when I ask why they're only working 6-hour days??

One thing to keep in mind is that it is difficult for anyone outside of the family and the administration to know the whole story - there are circumstances where kids are permitted to attend schools other than in their home district. For example, if a child has been subject to repeated bullying, districts are permitted to make arrangements with nearby districts to allow the transfer.

quote:

Maybe thats why I have young employees who get angry at me when I ask why they're only working 6-hour days??

With access to email, web-surfing, cell phones, and text messaging, not to mention chit-chat in the halls and break room, I'm amazed they work that much!

When my son was entering high school he chose to attend a different high school than any of the ones in our district. We lived right across the street from where he would have attended. The high school he wished to attend was not accepting out of district students so basically we had to move for him to attend the school of his choice (which we did). We had wanted to move for years but could never quite get motivated. If we had enrolled in the school and used a false address he would have been kicked out of the school and the team would have forfieted their wins in baseball. We personally would never have jepordized his teammates success.

Unfortunately situaions like this can impact many people but it is tough to be a whistle blower. Hopefully there is more to the story.

Not sure I understand?

Doesn’t the school he has left have coaches and athletic administration that knows what is going on?

Seems like they should be the ones who deal with this issue, rather than the parents.

They would be the “official” whistle blowers!

Of course, a parent could always feel free to give information to the athletic officials at the school the player has left. Then let them decide what to do about it. That way the parents are not directly involved.

If your school doesn’t care… you could still push it, but you might make a lot of enemies on all fronts if it gets out that you were the only one to contact the new school.

Anyway, it seems more appropriate to report what you know to your own school rather than taking charge completely.

Furthermore, rules differ from one state to another. Some states have more liberal transfer and enrollment rules. Some have loop holes that make transferring easy. Sometimes what seems illegal is actually legal.

In the district where we live it’s open enrollment. There’s one family that has a baseball player at one public high school while his younger brother is a baseball player at a different public high school. Doesn’t seem to bother anyone! The younger brother wanted to stay with the kids he played with in youth ball.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:

Its very frustrating to me that the "whistleblower" in these situations is often seen as the bad guy.

Whom among us is so pure that their finger belongs pointed at another and not at ones self? Certainly not I.

quote:

Originally posted by PGStaff:
Furthermore, rules differ from one state to another.

An excellent point that goes to the heart of the arbitrariness of rules. An imaginary boundary between states differentiates right and wrong? Hardly! We are possessed with judgement, why not use it?