In-bounds verification

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would your kid need to lie about where they live? My kid has friends who don’t live in bounds (they don’t lie about where they live or change the subject so I know where they live) and I assume they lotteried in or used to live in bounds. Are people really out there trying to figure these things out about other people? If so, mind your business.

No shortage of busybody parents of little kids on CH, where my spouse and I have lived for 30 years, particularly in the school communities for the most desirable in-boundary elementary schools (read Brent, Maury, maybe Ludlow).

Just look at the responses to posts that do no more than explain where the boundary "fudging" phenomenon/mentality originates. PPs are called "trash" for their explanations on the assumption that they're boundary cheaters (good chance that they aren't).

We're OOB for Brent, living a couple blocks outside the boundary in NE. We lotteried in late in the game. I find it useful not to talk about where we live w/IB Brent parents.

The harsh reality is that many of the Ward 6 DCPS elementary schools are still fine for ECE and maybe 1st and 2nd grade. But by around 3rd grade high performing kids tend to get bored, there are too many disruptive kids in class, teachers and admins don't always treat white and Asian parents well. Raise issues of concern with teachers and admins, however politely and legitimately, and you may well be treated like an entitled pest.

We know parents who've bailed from JO Wilson, Payne, Watkins and Miner in the lower grades, thrilled to land at thoroughly gentrified Brent, Maury, Ludlow. Who know, maybe some of them are...egad, boundary cheaters owning two Hill houses.

I agree with you about people bailing from JOW, Payne, Watkins and Miner after ECE, and the reasons why. But I know MANY people who have done this and know them well enough to know they are not boundary cheaters. It is much easier to get lottery spots at Ludlow and Brent starting in 2nd or 3rd (and actually I've know quite a few people who have gotten spots at Ludlow in K due to the class size expansion). I know very few people who are wealthy enough to own multiple houses on the Hill and those that do are more likely to go private or can afford to live in their preferred house IB for the school they want (the housing stock IB for Brent/Maury/Ludlow is, on average, nicer than for those other schools except Watkins, it just costs more).

I am extremely sympathetic to people who struggle with finding a good school for their kids and understand all sorts of solutions people come up with. But if I knew someone was boundary cheating in this way, I would distance from them and think less of them. If you have the wealth to afford multiple homes, you have the wealth to come up with an above-board solution to this problem. Choosing to instead cheat the system is scummy, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would your kid need to lie about where they live? My kid has friends who don’t live in bounds (they don’t lie about where they live or change the subject so I know where they live) and I assume they lotteried in or used to live in bounds. Are people really out there trying to figure these things out about other people? If so, mind your business.

No shortage of busybody parents of little kids on CH, where my spouse and I have lived for 30 years, particularly in the school communities for the most desirable in-boundary elementary schools (read Brent, Maury, maybe Ludlow).

Just look at the responses to posts that do no more than explain where the boundary "fudging" phenomenon/mentality originates. PPs are called "trash" for their explanations on the assumption that they're boundary cheaters (good chance that they aren't).

We're OOB for Brent, living a couple blocks outside the boundary in NE. We lotteried in late in the game. I find it useful not to talk about where we live w/IB Brent parents.

The harsh reality is that many of the Ward 6 DCPS elementary schools are still fine for ECE and maybe 1st and 2nd grade. But by around 3rd grade high performing kids tend to get bored, there are too many disruptive kids in class, teachers and admins don't always treat white and Asian parents well. Raise issues of concern with teachers and admins, however politely and legitimately, and you may well be treated like an entitled pest.

We know parents who've bailed from JO Wilson, Payne, Watkins and Miner in the lower grades, thrilled to land at thoroughly gentrified Brent, Maury, Ludlow. Who know, maybe some of them are...egad, boundary cheaters owning two Hill houses.

I agree with you about people bailing from JOW, Payne, Watkins and Miner after ECE, and the reasons why. But I know MANY people who have done this and know them well enough to know they are not boundary cheaters. It is much easier to get lottery spots at Ludlow and Brent starting in 2nd or 3rd (and actually I've know quite a few people who have gotten spots at Ludlow in K due to the class size expansion). I know very few people who are wealthy enough to own multiple houses on the Hill and those that do are more likely to go private or can afford to live in their preferred house IB for the school they want (the housing stock IB for Brent/Maury/Ludlow is, on average, nicer than for those other schools except Watkins, it just costs more).

I am extremely sympathetic to people who struggle with finding a good school for their kids and understand all sorts of solutions people come up with. But if I knew someone was boundary cheating in this way, I would distance from them and think less of them. If you have the wealth to afford multiple homes, you have the wealth to come up with an above-board solution to this problem. Choosing to instead cheat the system is scummy, sorry.

No dog in this fight but as somebody who lived on the Hill for 25 years with kids in DCPS, I don't agree. If Hill parents pay their DC taxes, and are here on CH to stay, in my books they're v. welcome to use whatever properties they own as addresses for in-boundary schools. I'm glad that DCPS doesn't go at these people, driving them to go private or move. I'm tired of old friends running to the burbs when they strike out in the original Latin and BASIS lotteries. If a "cheating" family stays for Stuart Hobson, great, do it. You say scummy, some of us say resourceful and determined to stay, great.

[Anonymous]

Since there are very few school meetings actually scheduled is it fair to assume this boundary study is only impacting these few Elementary Schools?

https://dme.dc.gov/schoolmeetings2023

I thought there were significant issues w/overcrowding at Deal and Ross. Why aren't any of the schools in NW on this list?

[Anonymous]

whoops posted to the wrong thread! disregard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would your kid need to lie about where they live? My kid has friends who don’t live in bounds (they don’t lie about where they live or change the subject so I know where they live) and I assume they lotteried in or used to live in bounds. Are people really out there trying to figure these things out about other people? If so, mind your business.

No shortage of busybody parents of little kids on CH, where my spouse and I have lived for 30 years, particularly in the school communities for the most desirable in-boundary elementary schools (read Brent, Maury, maybe Ludlow).

Just look at the responses to posts that do no more than explain where the boundary "fudging" phenomenon/mentality originates. PPs are called "trash" for their explanations on the assumption that they're boundary cheaters (good chance that they aren't).

We're OOB for Brent, living a couple blocks outside the boundary in NE. We lotteried in late in the game. I find it useful not to talk about where we live w/IB Brent parents.

The harsh reality is that many of the Ward 6 DCPS elementary schools are still fine for ECE and maybe 1st and 2nd grade. But by around 3rd grade high performing kids tend to get bored, there are too many disruptive kids in class, teachers and admins don't always treat white and Asian parents well. Raise issues of concern with teachers and admins, however politely and legitimately, and you may well be treated like an entitled pest.

We know parents who've bailed from JO Wilson, Payne, Watkins and Miner in the lower grades, thrilled to land at thoroughly gentrified Brent, Maury, Ludlow. Who know, maybe some of them are...egad, boundary cheaters owning two Hill houses.

I agree with you about people bailing from JOW, Payne, Watkins and Miner after ECE, and the reasons why. But I know MANY people who have done this and know them well enough to know they are not boundary cheaters. It is much easier to get lottery spots at Ludlow and Brent starting in 2nd or 3rd (and actually I've know quite a few people who have gotten spots at Ludlow in K due to the class size expansion). I know very few people who are wealthy enough to own multiple houses on the Hill and those that do are more likely to go private or can afford to live in their preferred house IB for the school they want (the housing stock IB for Brent/Maury/Ludlow is, on average, nicer than for those other schools except Watkins, it just costs more).

I am extremely sympathetic to people who struggle with finding a good school for their kids and understand all sorts of solutions people come up with. But if I knew someone was boundary cheating in this way, I would distance from them and think less of them. If you have the wealth to afford multiple homes, you have the wealth to come up with an above-board solution to this problem. Choosing to instead cheat the system is scummy, sorry.

No dog in this fight but as somebody who lived on the Hill for 25 years with kids in DCPS, I don't agree. If Hill parents pay their DC taxes, and are here on CH to stay, in my books they're v. welcome to use whatever properties they own as addresses for in-boundary schools. I'm glad that DCPS doesn't go at these people, driving them to go private or move. I'm tired of old friends running to the burbs when they strike out in the original Latin and BASIS lotteries. If a "cheating" family stays for Stuart Hobson, great, do it. You say scummy, some of us say resourceful and determined to stay, great.

If a person owns multiple homes on the Hill (which I do know from my 15 years on the Hill is actually quite common) then I wouldn't mind if they used one of the addresses they own for the school address.

[Anonymous]

+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

DP. And of course the fact that they think people are just “jealous” does not change that it is lying on the form and fraud …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

Disagree, the multiple houses is what works on the Hill. No, you can't really "cheat" that way without owning multiple properties, not in our small CH communities. In Upper NW, maybe, not down here. See the earlier post by the person who was investigated for residency fraud and required to produce several certified DC tax returns at short notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

Disagree, the multiple houses is what works on the Hill. No, you can't really "cheat" that way without owning multiple properties, not in our small CH communities. In Upper NW, maybe, not down here. See the earlier post by the person who was investigated for residency fraud and required to produce several certified DC tax returns at short notice.

If you own $2+ of real estate yet are engaged in fraud in order to send your kid to Brent instead of Tyler you’re kind of a loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

Disagree, the multiple houses is what works on the Hill. No, you can't really "cheat" that way without owning multiple properties, not in our small CH communities. In Upper NW, maybe, not down here. See the earlier post by the person who was investigated for residency fraud and required to produce several certified DC tax returns at short notice.

They were investigated because their ex was living out-of-state. Someone probably saw MD plates. Not an issue if you are living somewhere else in DC. You can cheat via your pay stub, and the multiple properties issue has nothing to do with it unless you're actually pretending to live there by hosting parties there or whatever. People actually just choose not to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

Disagree, the multiple houses is what works on the Hill. No, you can't really "cheat" that way without owning multiple properties, not in our small CH communities. In Upper NW, maybe, not down here. See the earlier post by the person who was investigated for residency fraud and required to produce several certified DC tax returns at short notice.

They were investigated because their ex was living out-of-state. Someone probably saw MD plates. Not an issue if you are living somewhere else in DC. You can cheat via your pay stub, and the multiple properties issue has nothing to do with it unless you're actually pretending to live there by hosting parties there or whatever. People actually just choose not to do this.

Right. When you get investigated you’ll have to prove where you actually live in DC. The consequence of using a fake address even within DC is that once they figure out you don’t live there, this could trigger the out of state residency review. Because you have not actually shown where you do reside. In your own entitled mind you believe “Well I live on the Hill so NBD” but the system *does not know* where you live because you listed a false residence.

Then at that point you face the decision about whether you are going to continue to lie about where you live to the investigators, or fess up and report your actual DC address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1. Non issue. Those objecting either haven't lived on CH for a long time, don't own multiple houses, don't have friends who do, or have an axe to grind with individual boundary cheaters.

The multiple houses issue is a red herring. You can cheat this way without owning multiple properties. I wouldn't do this, even though my in-boundary schools are lousy and we've no good solution if we don't get into Latin or BASIS, because I think it's unethical. I'm not asking you to think it's unethical, and I agree with a PP that it's not helping DC for parents to move to the suburbs because of the inadequacy of their neighborhood schools. But this isn't solely something where people who don't have this option are jealous of you.

Disagree, the multiple houses is what works on the Hill. No, you can't really "cheat" that way without owning multiple properties, not in our small CH communities. In Upper NW, maybe, not down here. See the earlier post by the person who was investigated for residency fraud and required to produce several certified DC tax returns at short notice.

They were investigated because their ex was living out-of-state. Someone probably saw MD plates. Not an issue if you are living somewhere else in DC. You can cheat via your pay stub, and the multiple properties issue has nothing to do with it unless you're actually pretending to live there by hosting parties there or whatever. People actually just choose not to do this.

Right. When you get investigated you’ll have to prove where you actually live in DC. The consequence of using a fake address even within DC is that once they figure out you don’t live there, this could trigger the out of state residency review. Because you have not actually shown where you do reside. In your own entitled mind you believe “Well I live on the Hill so NBD” but the system *does not know* where you live because you listed a false residence.

Then at that point you face the decision about whether you are going to continue to lie about where you live to the investigators, or fess up and report your actual DC address.

But a) you probably won't get investigated because you don't have MD plates, and b) owning a property an-boundary is not going to help you if you do get investigated, unless you have actually lied on your tax forms about where you live (and even then, they can do a home visit and you won't pass that.) You are taking the same set of risks if you live in DC but OOB, regardless of whether you own property IB and rent it out or not.

[Anonymous]

The mom who was investigated for fraud when divorcing again here. That's just not how it works, at least not in my experience. No need to fess up to a thing or say anything at all for that matter. If investigated, you bring in several years of certified tax returns linked to an IB address and are cleared on the spot. I wasn't under the impression that DCPS gave a hoot if I lived at the address on the tax returns or not. They cared that my returns bore an IB address and that I'd paid my taxes. There was no mention of a home visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mom who was investigated for fraud when divorcing again here. That's just not how it works, at least not in my experience. No need to fess up to a thing or say anything at all for that matter. If investigated, you bring in several years of certified tax returns linked to an IB address and are cleared on the spot. I wasn't under the impression that DCPS gave a hoot if I lived at the address on the tax returns or not. They cared that my returns bore an IB address and that I'd paid my taxes. There was no mention of a home visit.

NP on this. I don’t know if I was “investigated,” but following divorce and one parent dropping with MD plates I was asked to show my residence and texted a photo of my DL to the school. This was in 2021 and nothing happened after that.