myschooldc kicking my son out of school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DCPS put it on the books, then changed the rule literally every year. I know, I'm OOB having moved from IB and have been checking. Don't worry, my school is not in demand, anybody could lottery in if they wanted. I just wanted to figure out if I needed to bother.

[Anonymous]

The thing is that OP didn’t move IB for a year. Her older child seemed to be “admitted” rather than “attending” and the school year had only just begun. Hadn’t even begun for the younger child. This is the equivalent of signing a lease in-boundary and then breaking it a couple days in but still expecting to receive the benefit of in-boundary despite not actually being in-boundary.

[Anonymous]

We got our spot on a Friday evening, two days before the first day. We reached out Sunday morning and accepted. Had to bring in a lot of paperwork come Monday morning. One of our better parenting decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know people who have enrolled their younger one at a charter and then moved teh older one to a different charter with no issues. The school was on board. Perchaps it is different in a non-charter school or perhaps teh school is not on baord. Talk to your principal.

That too is consistent with what MSDC says in the FAQs. It is clearly up to the school. In this case, the school asked MSDC to be the bad guy in communicating the school’s decision to disenroll the younger child.

[Anonymous]

Make a donation to the school and see what happens

[skearns]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is that OP didn’t move IB for a year. Her older child seemed to be “admitted” rather than “attending” and the school year had only just begun. Hadn’t even begun for the younger child. This is the equivalent of signing a lease in-boundary and then breaking it a couple days in but still expecting to receive the benefit of in-boundary despite not actually being in-boundary.

Agreed - it goes against the spirit of the sibling preference policy, which is intended to make life easier for parents with multiple kids. If OP likes this school, I completely understand why she would delay withdrawing the older kid to give her younger kid a better chance, but she also can't be mad when rules are enforced.

[Anonymous]

I'm not taking sides on this particular issue but just wondering.... if you have an "enrolled" child #2 due to child #1 sibling preference, but then un-enroll child #1, where SHOULD child #2 go in the enrollment process? Is the child just completely un-enrolled and moved to the end of the waitlist? What if his lottery number without preference would've been enough to get him off the waitlist without it by the start of school? Is MySchoolDC tracking that? In that case, it seems like the sibling preference would actually screw over the child, which doesn't seem like the right way for the system to work either.

[Anonymous]

I believe the way it works now is that if the sibling preference is un-applied, that child's master number then becomes the foundation of a match. So, just like you'd want it to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not taking sides on this particular issue but just wondering.... if you have an "enrolled" child #2 due to child #1 sibling preference, but then un-enroll child #1, where SHOULD child #2 go in the enrollment process? Is the child just completely un-enrolled and moved to the end of the waitlist? What if his lottery number without preference would've been enough to get him off the waitlist without it by the start of school? Is MySchoolDC tracking that? In that case, it seems like the sibling preference would actually screw over the child, which doesn't seem like the right way for the system to work either.

We had this happen and they figure out where #2 would have been with their own lottery number and without the sibling preference. Sometimes the lottery number for #2 would have been good enough to get into the school anyway without sibling preference. That's what happened with us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To start I think everyone is over analyzing this as we did not know this policy from the start. I would be surprised that anyone did. To call me entitled is far fetched, you have no idea. Those throwing those comments are the ones that are more likely entitled. I never tried to beat a system I didnt know of. My oldest son got accepted two days before school started into a higher seeded lottery school. We were emailed by myschooldc for the lottery spot. We didnt plan for this. We had 1 day to decide and went forward with moving him to the other school. Can everyone honestly say they knew about this policy?

Translation: "I'm not corrupt, I'm an idiot!"

And OP, to answer your question, Yes, I think most people would have known that to take advantage of the sibling preference, the older sibling would have to be actually enrolled at the school when the younger one started. Isn't that definitionally part of the *sibling* preference?

[Anonymous]

You kicked your own kid out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To start I think everyone is over analyzing this as we did not know this policy from the start. I would be surprised that anyone did. To call me entitled is far fetched, you have no idea. Those throwing those comments are the ones that are more likely entitled. I never tried to beat a system I didnt know of. My oldest son got accepted two days before school started into a higher seeded lottery school. We were emailed by myschooldc for the lottery spot. We didnt plan for this. We had 1 day to decide and went forward with moving him to the other school. Can everyone honestly say they knew about this policy?

Translation: "I'm not corrupt, I'm an idiot!"

And OP, to answer your question, Yes, I think most people would have known that to take advantage of the sibling preference, the older sibling would have to be actually enrolled at the school when the younger one started. Isn't that definitionally part of the *sibling* preference?

OP knew that. OP is just upset that her loophole didn't work like she expected.

[Anonymous]

and she thinks she can blame a website for DCPS policies for some reason.