School Fraud- Cap Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I'm sure all of the Montgomery County families are clamoring to be let into DC schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maryland tags do not equal FRAUD!!! How many times do we have to state this. If ONE person is DC resident, it’s not fraud!

One person the child lives with at least 50% of the time and has legal custody of the child. So, grandma's or uncle's address when they don't live their and grandma is not a legal primary caregiver nope! The parent that only has the kid every other weekend or less, nope. Or the family that lived on the hill one month or one year a couple years ago, but maybe still works there, nope.
A LOT of people think just because they once lived there, work in DC or have extended family they have a right to attend.. they don't. DC give and the schools could do a much better job of this they just spent care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

+1

There is a difference between boundary fraud and residency fraud. One makes you a jerk, the other is against the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

+1

There is a difference between boundary fraud and residency fraud. One makes you a jerk, the other is against the law.

Both are violations, actually, but to different scales. Interestingly the one more commonly used by UMC white people is the acceptable one.

[Anonymous]

I don't feel like reading through this thread so I'm sorry if this is a repeat I just wanted to say...

Many MANY students use a grandparent's address or other family member's in order to attend a DC public school. This is common. Some families are DC natives and have been priced out of their own city and neighborhood. They feel it is their right to attend a DCPS. Others just want their child to attend school close to their jobs and commute from MD.

As others mentioned there is no incentive to call out fraud and teachers, admin, schools have other things to worry about. Yes it can be "unfair", but a lot of things in life are.

Also as far as MD tags go, a lot of DC residents don't have DC tags. I lived here for several years before updating my registration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

FWIW, I think it's pretty terrible in either situation, probably worse in the situation where a wealthy white family is purposefully manipulating the system to get into a school in UNW because they are abusing their privilege in addition to breaking the rules and also just generally being terrible.

I don't think you can assume that the same posters who are bothered by residency fraud are also unbothered by the scenario you outline above. I think a lot of us are bothered by both. The difference is that my kid does not attend one of the "highly regarded" DCPS schools in UNW. So I'm more likely to be vocal about the residency fraud at my IB DCPS, which I like but is not considered a desirable school by many on these boards. I think the residency fraud at our school inhibits our ability to invest in the school because it IS an elephant in the room and it makes it harder for us to come together as a community. I actually wish there was just a legal way for people who want to do this to attend these schools, ideally by paying some form of tuition. I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school. I have an issue with people lying to attend our school and potentially taking spots away from IB kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

FWIW, I think it's pretty terrible in either situation, probably worse in the situation where a wealthy white family is purposefully manipulating the system to get into a school in UNW because they are abusing their privilege in addition to breaking the rules and also just generally being terrible.

I don't think you can assume that the same posters who are bothered by residency fraud are also unbothered by the scenario you outline above. I think a lot of us are bothered by both. The difference is that my kid does not attend one of the "highly regarded" DCPS schools in UNW. So I'm more likely to be vocal about the residency fraud at my IB DCPS, which I like but is not considered a desirable school by many on these boards. I think the residency fraud at our school inhibits our ability to invest in the school because it IS an elephant in the room and it makes it harder for us to come together as a community. I actually wish there was just a legal way for people who want to do this to attend these schools, ideally by paying some form of tuition. I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school. I have an issue with people lying to attend our school and potentially taking spots away from IB kids.

Wait, so you are arguing that your school can't "come together as a community," which is apparently v. v. important. What does that look like?

Also you are arguing that the problem would be solved if these families paid tuition, because you don't have a problem with people from other areas. So if they have money, then they don't have to "come together as a community" or do they now become a part of the community?

Is the problem that you have that they are lying to do it? If so, can they simply say "I live in MD and go to this school." Wouldn't that solve the problem?

[Anonymous]

No matter how they rationalize it, people who commit fraud are criminals. They are wrong and should be prosecuted. However, this is DC and DC government rewards criminal behavior. It's frustrating, but it is going to take a very, very long time to change that culture, if it ever can be changed.

Report it and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

FWIW, I think it's pretty terrible in either situation, probably worse in the situation where a wealthy white family is purposefully manipulating the system to get into a school in UNW because they are abusing their privilege in addition to breaking the rules and also just generally being terrible.

I don't think you can assume that the same posters who are bothered by residency fraud are also unbothered by the scenario you outline above. I think a lot of us are bothered by both. The difference is that my kid does not attend one of the "highly regarded" DCPS schools in UNW. So I'm more likely to be vocal about the residency fraud at my IB DCPS, which I like but is not considered a desirable school by many on these boards. I think the residency fraud at our school inhibits our ability to invest in the school because it IS an elephant in the room and it makes it harder for us to come together as a community. I actually wish there was just a legal way for people who want to do this to attend these schools, ideally by paying some form of tuition. I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school. I have an issue with people lying to attend our school and potentially taking spots away from IB kids.

Wait, so you are arguing that your school can't "come together as a community," which is apparently v. v. important. What does that look like?

Also you are arguing that the problem would be solved if these families paid tuition, because you don't have a problem with people from other areas. So if they have money, then they don't have to "come together as a community" or do they now become a part of the community?

Is the problem that you have that they are lying to do it? If so, can they simply say "I live in MD and go to this school." Wouldn't that solve the problem?

No because if they admitted they lived in MD, the city would no longer be able to offer their kids free public education. I’m just being realistic here. That would not be a feasible political situation because they don’t pay taxes in DC.

Look, I would personally love it if all public schools were high quality and racism and gentrification didn’t exist. That would be ideal but it’s not going to happen. So what are our alternatives? I don’t think “a bunch of people lie about their residence to send their kids to schools they don’t have a legal right to attend” is a great solution. If these families are very committed to attending these schools, maybe they would be willing to pay some amount of tuition, or maybe the respective governments could exchange funds, or something.

A big part of this is that it’s confusing for the kids too. It’s crazy that people act like this situation is fine. It’s obviously not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At our school I have noticed a large sense of entitlement by people that have roots in our neighborhood but no longer live there. They believe their kids have a right to go to the neighborhood school because they went there or their mother/sibling/aunt/cousin lives in the neighborhood. They could care less that they don't even live in DC anymore. They're not even that shy about it. The school knows who they are but as long as they submit some kind of paperwork that checks the residency box they don't care.

This. You don't get to go to a public school because your parent went there if you no longer live in boundary. I think part of this is because people who used to live there can't afford to live there now so there's a socio-economic and race lens to all this too.

100%. Though one thing to keep in mind is that some of the long time DC residents who were pushed out by gentrifiers may actually still be home owners in DC. They inherited and rent out a family home and live in a much bigger home in Maryland. I work for the DC government and hear this not infrequently. So short of doing actual home inspections, it's hard for school staff to question an actual deed or mortgage document.

This is frequently suggested on these very boards as a smart way for high SES (presumably white) families to get into upper NW schools - buy a condo and live there for one year, then move, rent it out, and keep the address for in-bounds schooling. Or, buy the condo for your parents/in-laws, and use the address for both residency and free after school care for your kids. Rationale when confronted: the landlord is paying the property taxes, they deserve the in-boundary preference. But somehow it bothers the same board of posters when the demographics are different.

FWIW, I think it's pretty terrible in either situation, probably worse in the situation where a wealthy white family is purposefully manipulating the system to get into a school in UNW because they are abusing their privilege in addition to breaking the rules and also just generally being terrible.

I don't think you can assume that the same posters who are bothered by residency fraud are also unbothered by the scenario you outline above. I think a lot of us are bothered by both. The difference is that my kid does not attend one of the "highly regarded" DCPS schools in UNW. So I'm more likely to be vocal about the residency fraud at my IB DCPS, which I like but is not considered a desirable school by many on these boards. I think the residency fraud at our school inhibits our ability to invest in the school because it IS an elephant in the room and it makes it harder for us to come together as a community. I actually wish there was just a legal way for people who want to do this to attend these schools, ideally by paying some form of tuition. I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school. I have an issue with people lying to attend our school and potentially taking spots away from IB kids.

Wait, so you are arguing that your school can't "come together as a community," which is apparently v. v. important. What does that look like?

Also you are arguing that the problem would be solved if these families paid tuition, because you don't have a problem with people from other areas. So if they have money, then they don't have to "come together as a community" or do they now become a part of the community?

Is the problem that you have that they are lying to do it? If so, can they simply say "I live in MD and go to this school." Wouldn't that solve the problem?

No because if they admitted they lived in MD, the city would no longer be able to offer their kids free public education. I’m just being realistic here. That would not be a feasible political situation because they don’t pay taxes in DC.

Look, I would personally love it if all public schools were high quality and racism and gentrification didn’t exist. That would be ideal but it’s not going to happen. So what are our alternatives? I don’t think “a bunch of people lie about their residence to send their kids to schools they don’t have a legal right to attend” is a great solution. If these families are very committed to attending these schools, maybe they would be willing to pay some amount of tuition, or maybe the respective governments could exchange funds, or something.

A big part of this is that it’s confusing for the kids too. It’s crazy that people act like this situation is fine. It’s obviously not.

Okay, but are you not the person who made the comments above? You literally said you didn't have a problem with it and that you propose they paid tuition. You also complained that the school could not come together as a community. What do you mean by that?

I am not buying that the kids are confused.

[Anonymous]

Like, these are your words exactly: "I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school."

[Anonymous]

How many people here are actually IB to Maury and failed to get into Maury PK4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like, these are your words exactly: "I don't have an issue with there being kids from other areas at the school."

I meant that I don’t have an issue with any kid attending our school, I just think we need solutions that don’t involve people lying and breaking the law. It’s not a personal issue with any family. It’s that there are actually rules in place and they exist for a reason (largely: funding) and we need a solution that is legal and functional.

Having some parents commit residency fraud while the rest of the school community pretends it isn’t happening is not a good solution. And yes, it is absolutely confusing for the kids. If you don’t think it is, then you’ve never had your kid say “hey how come larla and her parents live so far away?” and not being able to answer fully or truthfully.