myschooldc kicking my son out of school

[Anonymous]

I suspect OP did everything without informing the school, checking with them, asking them questions. But now she wants to meet with the principal, as if the principal doesn't have a million other things to do beyond spending time explaining something to someone who should know better.

[Anonymous]

OP also said she has already put her child on the list for sibling preference at the new school. So she's effectively asking for preference at two apparently desirable schools.

Yes, there is scarcity and it makes people act badly, but DCPS is doing the right thing by enforcing this particular rule.

[Anonymous]

so, I know someone who was in this situation. Luckily, they enrolled their older child mid-summer and had time to sort it out. They were open with both schools about what they wanted and the younger kids school worked with them -- basically, they asked them to enroll their older kid at the original school for at least a day to prove the "sibling preference." after that, they were free to pull him out and take him elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so, I know someone who was in this situation. Luckily, they enrolled their older child mid-summer and had time to sort it out. They were open with both schools about what they wanted and the younger kids school worked with them -- basically, they asked them to enroll their older kid at the original school for at least a day to prove the "sibling preference." after that, they were free to pull him out and take him elsewhere.

This makes sense, and I'm glad the school was willing to work with this family. It sounds like in OP's case, the older child never attended the school at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Something like a key term?

https://www.myschooldc.org/faq/key-terms#preference

Lawd people. My School DC is clear as they can be. You need to do your own work.

Yes but this doesn’t cover the scenario when older kid is already an admitted/attending student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

Do you feel the same way about residency preference? If someone enrolls at a school as in boundary and then moves out of boundary before the school year begins, do you believe that they should be able to keep their in boundary status?

Do you believe that the OP should be allowed to claim the same preference at two different schools (sibling enrolled) when the sibling is only enrolled at one school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

So the reason for the three-year-old to go to School 1 is to be with sibling. Sibling is going to be at School 2 instead. So, to keep the siblings together -- since that is the reason -- the three-year-old should get preference at School 1, not School 2.

Why is this hard?

[Anonymous]

Correction ^^

"So, to keep the siblings together -- since that is the reason -- the three-year-old should get preference at School 2, not School 1."

Otherwise you aren't addressing the stated need, right? The one that wasn't a lie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

So the reason for the three-year-old to go to School 1 is to be with sibling. Sibling is going to be at School 2 instead. So, to keep the siblings together -- since that is the reason -- the three-year-old should get preference at School 1, not School 2.

Why is this hard?

Then the logical answer is to put sibling 2 on waitlist where they would have been given their master number.

Nonetheless, I’m not arguing with you, it’s simply pointing out what the application says during the prior school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

Do you feel the same way about residency preference? If someone enrolls at a school as in boundary and then moves out of boundary before the school year begins, do you believe that they should be able to keep their in boundary status?

Do you believe that the OP should be allowed to claim the same preference at two different schools (sibling enrolled) when the sibling is only enrolled at one school?

I am personally shocked by how many people I talk to who think they can move IB for a year and then move back OOB and stay in the DCPS school. Why do people think that’s allowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

Do you feel the same way about residency preference? If someone enrolls at a school as in boundary and then moves out of boundary before the school year begins, do you believe that they should be able to keep their in boundary status?

Do you believe that the OP should be allowed to claim the same preference at two different schools (sibling enrolled) when the sibling is only enrolled at one school?

I am personally shocked by how many people I talk to who think they can move IB for a year and then move back OOB and stay in the DCPS school. Why do people think that’s allowed?

Because at probably 95% of the DCPS schools it’s allowed. In fact, I only know of Oyster where principal doesn’t allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

Do you feel the same way about residency preference? If someone enrolls at a school as in boundary and then moves out of boundary before the school year begins, do you believe that they should be able to keep their in boundary status?

Do you believe that the OP should be allowed to claim the same preference at two different schools (sibling enrolled) when the sibling is only enrolled at one school?

I am personally shocked by how many people I talk to who think they can move IB for a year and then move back OOB and stay in the DCPS school. Why do people think that’s allowed?

Because at probably 95% of the DCPS schools it’s allowed. In fact, I only know of Oyster where principal doesn’t allow it.

Because a few years ago DCPS put it on the books that it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Something like a key term?

https://www.myschooldc.org/faq/key-terms#preference

Lawd people. My School DC is clear as they can be. You need to do your own work.

Yes but this doesn’t cover the scenario when older kid is already an admitted/attending student.

This!! It’s the sibling attending preference that needs clarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, when you’re applying to lottery for the PS kid, the preference says “sibling currently enrolled” which is what her kid was if he attended 2018-2019 school year. If the school in question is a new school for everyone then the younger kid should have received sibling admitted preference (yes I know this changes to enrolled once they turn in papers). The issue is if the older kid has already been attending the school there is no way to apply truthfully. They ask if the PS kid has a sibling currently at the school. They don’t say do you have every intent on keeping the older kid at the school.

I guess. But how exactly does "needing to keep siblings together" work as a reason if the siblings aren't, well, together?

Wouldn't addressing the need as claimed mean appropriately transferring the sibling preference to the place where the sibling actually is?

If that IS the reason, of course. I suppose you could put an explicit disclaimer that people shouldn't lie. Maybe it's counterintuitive that you shouldn't?

It’s not a lie if the older student was indeed an enrolled student the entire time during lottery season (Nov-March).

Do you feel the same way about residency preference? If someone enrolls at a school as in boundary and then moves out of boundary before the school year begins, do you believe that they should be able to keep their in boundary status?

Do you believe that the OP should be allowed to claim the same preference at two different schools (sibling enrolled) when the sibling is only enrolled at one school?

I am personally shocked by how many people I talk to who think they can move IB for a year and then move back OOB and stay in the DCPS school. Why do people think that’s allowed?

Because at probably 95% of the DCPS schools it’s allowed. In fact, I only know of Oyster where principal doesn’t allow it.

Because a few years ago DCPS put it on the books that it was.

DCPS put it on the books that it was up to the principal. PP that is shocked is probably shocked that she’s the one that’s wrong, or at least misled.