School Fraud- Cap Hill

[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.

Actually, DC non-residents are legally permitted to attend DC schools if they are willing to pay tuition (~$14K/yr), provided a school has space. There are several schools close to Maury with excess space, especially in the upper grades (e.g. JO Wilson, Miner, Payne). So if these families would like a DC public education for their kids, it's easily available. And, for that matter, even if they're unwilling to pay tuition, why not have the decency to enroll in a school with lots of excess space so as not to steal a slot from others (who may, in fact, be more hard up than residency cheats)?

Parents can pay tuition but the money doesn’t go to the actual school. It stays at OSSE. So the school is educating a non-resident student at the expense of other students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait so is it a big number of students who are in for residency fraud or a small percentage? The arguments here are in no way consistent.

yeah which is it

[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.

Actually, DC non-residents are legally permitted to attend DC schools if they are willing to pay tuition (~$14K/yr), provided a school has space. There are several schools close to Maury with excess space, especially in the upper grades (e.g. JO Wilson, Miner, Payne). So if these families would like a DC public education for their kids, it's easily available. And, for that matter, even if they're unwilling to pay tuition, why not have the decency to enroll in a school with lots of excess space so as not to steal a slot from others (who may, in fact, be more hard up than residency cheats)?

Parents can pay tuition but the money doesn’t go to the actual school. It stays at OSSE. So the school is educating a non-resident student at the expense of other students.

Source showing they don't get funds for the MD students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, DC non-residents are legally permitted to attend DC schools if they are willing to pay tuition (~$14K/yr), provided a school has space. There are several schools close to Maury with excess space, especially in the upper grades (e.g. JO Wilson, Miner, Payne). So if these families would like a DC public education for their kids, it's easily available. And, for that matter, even if they're unwilling to pay tuition, why not have the decency to enroll in a school with lots of excess space so as not to steal a slot from others (who may, in fact, be more hard up than residency cheats)?

Parents can pay tuition but the money doesn’t go to the actual school. It stays at OSSE. So the school is educating a non-resident student at the expense of other students.

Source showing they don't get funds for the MD students?

Source showing they don’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually, DC non-residents are legally permitted to attend DC schools if they are willing to pay tuition (~$14K/yr), provided a school has space. There are several schools close to Maury with excess space, especially in the upper grades (e.g. JO Wilson, Miner, Payne). So if these families would like a DC public education for their kids, it's easily available. And, for that matter, even if they're unwilling to pay tuition, why not have the decency to enroll in a school with lots of excess space so as not to steal a slot from others (who may, in fact, be more hard up than residency cheats)?

Parents can pay tuition but the money doesn’t go to the actual school. It stays at OSSE. So the school is educating a non-resident student at the expense of other students.

Source showing they don't get funds for the MD students?

Source showing they don’t?

Schools normally get funds for each child attending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some Brent families started our in a small IB house. Later on, as the kids got bigger, they bought a larger house outside the boundary, not necessarily far outside. But they continued to send their children to Brent without express permission of admins or DCPS. They kept house #1 to rent it out, use it as an office, a granny pad or whatever. I don't think anybody much save few busybodies cares about this, at least in the upper grades. But parents do tend to get upset with "boundary fraud cheaters" grab scarce PreS3 and PreK4 spots from those who actually live IB. Very different problem from MD residency cheaters in a school, but an interesting one that DCPS seems happy to turn a blind eye toward.

These people at least pay tax to the district

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't you have bigger problems to address in your life and community than your small child's "confusion" about where another kid lives? Come on.

I love this one. It's what people say when they don't have a real argument to make and know they are wrong. "Who even has time to worry about this?"

This is an actual crime with real victims. It's a form of theft (from tax payers) and in the cases of schools with limited seats, it absolutely hurts kids who may not be able to attend their IB school, or who wind up in crowded classrooms. This is not a victimless crime, and most people don't do it -- plenty of people in PG county just send their kids to school there! There is absolutely no reason why some small number of families who are willing to break the law should get to send their kids to schools that are more convenient for their commute just because.

You have no argument against this and you know it.

It says a lot more about you that you waste your mental energy on this “crime” compared to other things.

This general attitude is why DC has been going down the tubes. "Don't waste your time" on residency fraud, "don't waste your time" on skyrocketing crime, "don't waste your time" on all the homeless tents, "don't waste your time" on crazy people pooping on the sidewalk. Just keep paying your taxes and MYOB, right?

This exactly!

[Anonymous]

For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an uber driver a couple years ago who freely told me over the course of our half-hour ride that she had enrolled her kid at Stuart Hobson because they live in Ft Washington and the schools are terrible. I forget which DC school the younger one was enrolled at. She also said she enrolls her kids in DPR summer camps for the same reason. She was DC born and raised and not shy at all about telling me that DC programs were just better than MD. I think this happens a lot.

I guess I don't have to feel guilty about choosing to lottery out of my IB school then. I might bookmark this thread the next time someone on here tells me how terrible I am for failing to invest in my neighborhood schools.

No you should not feel guilty. Generations of black and Latino DC residents have used OOB schools and parochial schools to avoid their neighborhood school. You have no more responsibility than anyone else to sacrifice your individual child’s well-being for the broader community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

+1000. Give it a rest already, the policy is clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so is it a big number of students who are in for residency fraud or a small percentage? The arguments here are in no way consistent.

yeah which is it

It’s fraud, no one knows. It’s not like people are registering as law breakers. Frankly the Ellington example is probably what happens. Crappy administration, lots of complicated situations, and fraud. But at first glance, it looked like a ton of students were not residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

Yeah you’re not actually allowed to move to Maryland, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

+1000. Give it a rest already, the policy is clear.

For the millionth time, we are talking about residency fraud here, not people who move out of their school boundary within the district.

You are not allowed to MOVE TO MARYLAND and keep your spot in a DC public school (without telling the school and paying tuition, assuming a spot is still available to you, which it might not be at a school that can fill classes with IB students). I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, but you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

+1000. Give it a rest already, the policy is clear.

For the millionth time, we are talking about residency fraud here, not people who move out of their school boundary within the district.

You are not allowed to MOVE TO MARYLAND and keep your spot in a DC public school (without telling the school and paying tuition, assuming a spot is still available to you, which it might not be at a school that can fill classes with IB students). I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, but you should work on your reading comprehension skills.

Re-read page 8, friend. Both were discussed as being violations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the one millionth time, it’s explicitly allowed under DC policy to move out of bounds and keep your school enrollment until the terminal grade. It’s not a violation of anything and it’s not up to the principal’s discretion anymore. For a city full of lawyers, DCUM is pretty intentionally obtuse on this policy.

+1000. Give it a rest already, the policy is clear.

Yes, thank you! And if a child is homeless (or housing insecure) they do not have to live in the District to qualify to stay at their school.