Continue at current school after moving out of boundary?

[Anonymous]

Are schools that already have a decent OOB presence tracking this year to year to know who lotteried in vs. who moved?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this year, it is up to the principal's discretion. Some schools will let you do this, some won't. But the boundary changes had a provision that has not yet been implemented (which could be as early as next year) that once you move out of bounds, you can only stay if you secure a spot through the OOB lottery.

Yikes, that would suck. Would that only apply to new families or would they implement it for families already enrolled in a school?

All families. If they implement it, you could enter the lottery for 2016-7 and only move if you get an OOB spot in your school. If you don't, just keep living in your house (or change schools).

I think it's a very reasonable policy. You get to finish out the school year but after that you go to your new IB school or one you get into through the lottery. This is designed to avoid the situation where someone rents a place IB for an in-demand school for a few months when their kid is 3 or 4 and then has a right to go there and to all feeder schools for the next 14 years (plus preference for younger sibs). If they only applied it to new families there would still be decades of overcrowding at WOTP and a few other schools.

+1. I really, really hope this gets implemented asap.

Well it would actually suck for families like mine just trying to live our lives without having our child bouncing to a new school for no reason. We'll probably be a 6-minute car ride away instead of 3 minutes. And it's not a fancy WOTP school, just a good EOTP school that we're sort of invested in now and that I wouldn't want to leave. But yes, we are renting (have been for two years) and we would like to buy a house in the area. In boundary for the current school would be great, but that's actually a pretty limited area. It seems silly to create a blanket rule like that when there are legitimate reasons people might want to stay in a school other than that they're "gaming the system."

OP you aren't making any sense. Your school has boundaries for a reason - to disperse students across many schools to make sure schools don't get overcrowded. You move out of those boundaries and yes, you do need to move schools. And for the record is has been a major issues at some schools that parents would rent for a year and then move OB to a cheaper location while still wanting to keep their kid at the original school. Many people want to game the system. Many schools are over crowded. It's not "silly" - it is actually perfectly fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this year, it is up to the principal's discretion. Some schools will let you do this, some won't. But the boundary changes had a provision that has not yet been implemented (which could be as early as next year) that once you move out of bounds, you can only stay if you secure a spot through the OOB lottery.

Yikes, that would suck. Would that only apply to new families or would they implement it for families already enrolled in a school?

All families. If they implement it, you could enter the lottery for 2016-7 and only move if you get an OOB spot in your school. If you don't, just keep living in your house (or change schools).

I think it's a very reasonable policy. You get to finish out the school year but after that you go to your new IB school or one you get into through the lottery. This is designed to avoid the situation where someone rents a place IB for an in-demand school for a few months when their kid is 3 or 4 and then has a right to go there and to all feeder schools for the next 14 years (plus preference for younger sibs). If they only applied it to new families there would still be decades of overcrowding at WOTP and a few other schools.

+1. I really, really hope this gets implemented asap.

Well it would actually suck for families like mine just trying to live our lives without having our child bouncing to a new school for no reason. We'll probably be a 6-minute car ride away instead of 3 minutes. And it's not a fancy WOTP school, just a good EOTP school that we're sort of invested in now and that I wouldn't want to leave. But yes, we are renting (have been for two years) and we would like to buy a house in the area. In boundary for the current school would be great, but that's actually a pretty limited area. It seems silly to create a blanket rule like that when there are legitimate reasons people might want to stay in a school other than that they're "gaming the system."

OP you aren't making any sense. Your school has boundaries for a reason - to disperse students across many schools to make sure schools don't get overcrowded. You move out of those boundaries and yes, you do need to move schools. And for the record is has been a major issues at some schools that parents would rent for a year and then move OB to a cheaper location while still wanting to keep their kid at the original school. Many people want to game the system. Many schools are over crowded. It's not "silly" - it is actually perfectly fair.

I'm also EOTP OP and while very, very, very few people are getting hurt by this (and maybe your child is one). In the end - many more are helped. Schools are over crowded and this is one of the issues when you attend DCPS. You need to go to your IB school. You can try to apply OOB - but most likely won't get it.

[Anonymous]

Well it would actually suck for families like mine just trying to live our lives without having our child bouncing to a new school for no reason. We'll probably be a 6-minute car ride away instead of 3 minutes. And it's not a fancy WOTP school, just a good EOTP school that we're sort of invested in now and that I wouldn't want to leave. But yes, we are renting (have been for two years) and we would like to buy a house in the area. In boundary for the current school would be great, but that's actually a pretty limited area. It seems silly to create a blanket rule like that when there are legitimate reasons people might want to stay in a school other than that they're "gaming the system."

We got zoned out of our EOTP school and can hardly afford anything within the new boundaries. When we moved this year to an address that's nearby but still outside of the boundaries, we just went ahead and enrolled at the new school. I didn't like the idea of getting more attached to the school with the possibility that we'd be leaving next year.

I think it sucks that any kid would be forced out of a school if they've been there a full year or longer. And it really doesn't make sense: cohorts that have been together longer score better on tests. If someone gets into a school from OOB, they're not asked to lottery every year.

[Anonymous]

It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this year, it is up to the principal's discretion. Some schools will let you do this, some won't. But the boundary changes had a provision that has not yet been implemented (which could be as early as next year) that once you move out of bounds, you can only stay if you secure a spot through the OOB lottery.

Yikes, that would suck. Would that only apply to new families or would they implement it for families already enrolled in a school?

All families. If they implement it, you could enter the lottery for 2016-7 and only move if you get an OOB spot in your school. If you don't, just keep living in your house (or change schools).

I think it's a very reasonable policy. You get to finish out the school year but after that you go to your new IB school or one you get into through the lottery. This is designed to avoid the situation where someone rents a place IB for an in-demand school for a few months when their kid is 3 or 4 and then has a right to go there and to all feeder schools for the next 14 years (plus preference for younger sibs). If they only applied it to new families there would still be decades of overcrowding at WOTP and a few other schools.

+1. I really, really hope this gets implemented asap.

Well it would actually suck for families like mine just trying to live our lives without having our child bouncing to a new school for no reason. We'll probably be a 6-minute car ride away instead of 3 minutes. And it's not a fancy WOTP school, just a good EOTP school that we're sort of invested in now and that I wouldn't want to leave. But yes, we are renting (have been for two years) and we would like to buy a house in the area. In boundary for the current school would be great, but that's actually a pretty limited area. It seems silly to create a blanket rule like that when there are legitimate reasons people might want to stay in a school other than that they're "gaming the system."

OP you aren't making any sense. Your school has boundaries for a reason - to disperse students across many schools to make sure schools don't get overcrowded. You move out of those boundaries and yes, you do need to move schools. And for the record is has been a major issues at some schools that parents would rent for a year and then move OB to a cheaper location while still wanting to keep their kid at the original school. Many people want to game the system. Many schools are over crowded. It's not "silly" - it is actually perfectly fair.

I'm also EOTP OP and while very, very, very few people are getting hurt by this (and maybe your child is one). In the end - many more are helped. Schools are over crowded and this is one of the issues when you attend DCPS. You need to go to your IB school. You can try to apply OOB - but most likely won't get it.

Well, then let me just play your own argument back on you: If so FEW kids are "harmed" (i.e. affected) by this supposedly new policy that asks one to re-enter via the lottery, then how can it possibly solve over-crowding?!

Rather, I think, deep down there may be some feeling of entitlement or even jealousy vis-a-vis the "lucky one" who gets it both ways, a big/cheaper house as well as a good school. That's all understandable and completely legit but let's not turn that into a "good policy" claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

I cannot fathom how you can say this isn't fair. You think that the few kids who move over the years are going to significantly affect test scores? Please. You, as parents, are in control over where you live. If staying in a particular school is important to you-- don't move! And yes, adding more kids to the school certainly does effect the entire school in a negative way.

Please see Oyster Adam's website which addresses this issue and indicates that this is contributing to overcrowding:

*NOTE* Beginning in 2010-2011: All students who enter Oyster-Adams for the first time under the “in-boundary” process in 2010-2011, will risk losing their space if they move out of boundary after the beginning of the school year or in the future years. Students who move mid year will be allowed to finish the school year at Oyster-Adams but may then be asked to re-apply via the lottery for subsequent years. This is necessary to ensure manageable class sizes and to counter a documented pattern of families moving to the boundary for one year only to gain access to the school’s in-boundary status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For this year, it is up to the principal's discretion. Some schools will let you do this, some won't. But the boundary changes had a provision that has not yet been implemented (which could be as early as next year) that once you move out of bounds, you can only stay if you secure a spot through the OOB lottery.

Yikes, that would suck. Would that only apply to new families or would they implement it for families already enrolled in a school?

All families. If they implement it, you could enter the lottery for 2016-7 and only move if you get an OOB spot in your school. If you don't, just keep living in your house (or change schools).

I think it's a very reasonable policy. You get to finish out the school year but after that you go to your new IB school or one you get into through the lottery. This is designed to avoid the situation where someone rents a place IB for an in-demand school for a few months when their kid is 3 or 4 and then has a right to go there and to all feeder schools for the next 14 years (plus preference for younger sibs). If they only applied it to new families there would still be decades of overcrowding at WOTP and a few other schools.

+1. I really, really hope this gets implemented asap.

Well it would actually suck for families like mine just trying to live our lives without having our child bouncing to a new school for no reason. We'll probably be a 6-minute car ride away instead of 3 minutes. And it's not a fancy WOTP school, just a good EOTP school that we're sort of invested in now and that I wouldn't want to leave. But yes, we are renting (have been for two years) and we would like to buy a house in the area. In boundary for the current school would be great, but that's actually a pretty limited area. It seems silly to create a blanket rule like that when there are legitimate reasons people might want to stay in a school other than that they're "gaming the system."

OP you aren't making any sense. Your school has boundaries for a reason - to disperse students across many schools to make sure schools don't get overcrowded. You move out of those boundaries and yes, you do need to move schools. And for the record is has been a major issues at some schools that parents would rent for a year and then move OB to a cheaper location while still wanting to keep their kid at the original school. Many people want to game the system. Many schools are over crowded. It's not "silly" - it is actually perfectly fair.

I'm also EOTP OP and while very, very, very few people are getting hurt by this (and maybe your child is one). In the end - many more are helped. Schools are over crowded and this is one of the issues when you attend DCPS. You need to go to your IB school. You can try to apply OOB - but most likely won't get it.

Well, then let me just play your own argument back on you: If so FEW kids are "harmed" (i.e. affected) by this supposedly new policy that asks one to re-enter via the lottery, then how can it possibly solve over-crowding?!

Rather, I think, deep down there may be some feeling of entitlement or even jealousy vis-a-vis the "lucky one" who gets it both ways, a big/cheaper house as well as a good school. That's all understandable and completely legit but let's not turn that into a "good policy" claim.

Because there are far fewer kids that do move than kids that do not and must deal with the over crowding. ALL students in the school are negatively affected by the addition of only a few extra students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

I cannot fathom how you can say this isn't fair. You think that the few kids who move over the years are going to significantly affect test scores? Please. You, as parents, are in control over where you live. If staying in a particular school is important to you-- don't move! And yes, adding more kids to the school certainly does effect the entire school in a negative way.

Please see Oyster Adam's website which addresses this issue and indicates that this is contributing to overcrowding:

*NOTE* Beginning in 2010-2011: All students who enter Oyster-Adams for the first time under the “in-boundary” process in 2010-2011, will risk losing their space if they move out of boundary after the beginning of the school year or in the future years. Students who move mid year will be allowed to finish the school year at Oyster-Adams but may then be asked to re-apply via the lottery for subsequent years. This is necessary to ensure manageable class sizes and to counter a documented pattern of families moving to the boundary for one year only to gain access to the school’s in-boundary status.

So if someone gets in OOB, do they have to enter the lottery every year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

I cannot fathom how you can say this isn't fair. You think that the few kids who move over the years are going to significantly affect test scores? Please. You, as parents, are in control over where you live. If staying in a particular school is important to you-- don't move! And yes, adding more kids to the school certainly does effect the entire school in a negative way.

Please see Oyster Adam's website which addresses this issue and indicates that this is contributing to overcrowding:

*NOTE* Beginning in 2010-2011: All students who enter Oyster-Adams for the first time under the “in-boundary” process in 2010-2011, will risk losing their space if they move out of boundary after the beginning of the school year or in the future years. Students who move mid year will be allowed to finish the school year at Oyster-Adams but may then be asked to re-apply via the lottery for subsequent years. This is necessary to ensure manageable class sizes and to counter a documented pattern of families moving to the boundary for one year only to gain access to the school’s in-boundary status.

So if someone gets in OOB, do they have to enter the lottery every year?

Nope. Once you are in OOB, you are in. You can move at will. So that is also an option if you know you will be moving OOB but think you might have a better chance in the lottery in PK than in K.

[Anonymous]

I guess I just don't get this thought process. If you live in the suburbs and live in bounds for school A and move to an area zoned for school B- you go to school B. If you still want school A then you buy a house in that area. There are boundaries for a reason. I do understand if you lottery as OOB and get in then absolutely you have the right to stay no matter what. Makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't get this thought process. If you live in the suburbs and live in bounds for school A and move to an area zoned for school B- you go to school B. If you still want school A then you buy a house in that area. There are boundaries for a reason. I do understand if you lottery as OOB and get in then absolutely you have the right to stay no matter what. Makes sense.

OP just seems to think very myopically. As if no one else has every thought of this or that it doesn't have implications for the entire system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

I cannot fathom how you can say this isn't fair. You think that the few kids who move over the years are going to significantly affect test scores? Please. You, as parents, are in control over where you live. If staying in a particular school is important to you-- don't move! And yes, adding more kids to the school certainly does effect the entire school in a negative way.

Please see Oyster Adam's website which addresses this issue and indicates that this is contributing to overcrowding:

*NOTE* Beginning in 2010-2011: All students who enter Oyster-Adams for the first time under the “in-boundary” process in 2010-2011, will risk losing their space if they move out of boundary after the beginning of the school year or in the future years. Students who move mid year will be allowed to finish the school year at Oyster-Adams but may then be asked to re-apply via the lottery for subsequent years. This is necessary to ensure manageable class sizes and to counter a documented pattern of families moving to the boundary for one year only to gain access to the school’s in-boundary status.

interesting use of the word "may." So are they requiring it or not? And if so, is it consistently applied to all people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I just don't get this thought process. If you live in the suburbs and live in bounds for school A and move to an area zoned for school B- you go to school B. If you still want school A then you buy a house in that area. There are boundaries for a reason. I do understand if you lottery as OOB and get in then absolutely you have the right to stay no matter what. Makes sense.

By the same token, if you have a seat at a school because you live in its boundaries, you should have the right to stay no matter what. What's the difference? Both students got a seat, but one is allowed to move wherever they want and still keep it? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's one of these policies that seems like a reasonable policy but when you look at the actual cases and situations it's not. It seems fair (because, well, I too had to lottery) and it seems a deterrent to fraud (oh, let met just rent here for a year and be in). However, the price we'd pay for those principled gains are not worth it, not at the elementary school level. They will set back exactly those who're staying put in the city and neighborhood, just looking for a bigger house, like we did, to make it all work with maybe another child or a better paying job. You've then got kids, like ours, who'd attend an elementary school for years and just about when it matters to them and the school (i.e. tests), they'd be forced to change schools because, what, they moved three blocks over? This cannot possibly be in the interest of anyone, least of them the child's.

Putting that call into the hands of the principal seems like the lesser of two evils. Short of that, you'd needs some rules to attenuate the absurdest of outcomes.

I cannot fathom how you can say this isn't fair. You think that the few kids who move over the years are going to significantly affect test scores? Please. You, as parents, are in control over where you live. If staying in a particular school is important to you-- don't move! And yes, adding more kids to the school certainly does effect the entire school in a negative way.

Please see Oyster Adam's website which addresses this issue and indicates that this is contributing to overcrowding:

*NOTE* Beginning in 2010-2011: All students who enter Oyster-Adams for the first time under the “in-boundary” process in 2010-2011, will risk losing their space if they move out of boundary after the beginning of the school year or in the future years. Students who move mid year will be allowed to finish the school year at Oyster-Adams but may then be asked to re-apply via the lottery for subsequent years. This is necessary to ensure manageable class sizes and to counter a documented pattern of families moving to the boundary for one year only to gain access to the school’s in-boundary status.

interesting use of the word "may." So are they requiring it or not? And if so, is it consistently applied to all people?

That I don't know as I don't have a kid there.