Buying Condo for desirable school WOTP (DC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

Total BS. If you are trying to get into one of the high demand WOTP like Janney, Murch, Lafayette - we all know where people live. We know who cheats. I'm sure they have been reported because most of them are gone now. Do you want your kids to have to lie to their classmates/friends? Honestly?

And it is NOT true that you retain full feeder rights if you move. At all. In fact it is the opposite. Can you sometimes game the system -yes? I know people who have done it for elementary but the principal only allows it if they are in bounds for Deal already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

Total BS. If you are trying to get into one of the high demand WOTP like Janney, Murch, Lafayette - we all know where people live. We know who cheats. I'm sure they have been reported because most of them are gone now. Do you want your kids to have to lie to their classmates/friends? Honestly?

And it is NOT true that you retain full feeder rights if you move. At all. In fact it is the opposite. Can you sometimes game the system -yes? I know people who have done it for elementary but the principal only allows it if they are in bounds for Deal already.

NP and this is false. The new rules state if you attend your IB from K up to 12, you can move within the city and are grandfathered into that school. It doesn't even state how long you need to have lived there before moving.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf
Page 8
If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of the original school.3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school.

It's a recipe for overcrowding if you ask me but those are the rules.

[Anonymous]

Wow so OP shouldn't even bother buying a condo, she can just rent a room for a month, send her kid to Janet and be set. Gotta love DCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

Total BS. If you are trying to get into one of the high demand WOTP like Janney, Murch, Lafayette - we all know where people live. We know who cheats. I'm sure they have been reported because most of them are gone now. Do you want your kids to have to lie to their classmates/friends? Honestly?

And it is NOT true that you retain full feeder rights if you move. At all. In fact it is the opposite. Can you sometimes game the system -yes? I know people who have done it for elementary but the principal only allows it if they are in bounds for Deal already.

NP and this is false. The new rules state if you attend your IB from K up to 12, you can move within the city and are grandfathered into that school. It doesn't even state how long you need to have lived there before moving.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf
Page 8
If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of the original school.3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school.

It's a recipe for overcrowding if you ask me but those are the rules.

This is correct! If you live in bounds when you register, you are set to continue in that feeder pattern as long as you live in the District. Just buy and register and then rent it out for a great rental. Or Socialize it back EOTP to your closer friends and let them rent their for a price around registration time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow so OP shouldn't even bother buying a condo, she can just rent a room for a month, send her kid to Janet and be set. Gotta love DCPS

It's a totally batsh#t crazy policy, but those are in fact the newest rules post-Redistricting. If you're willing to make the drive everyday, you can live wherever you want so long as you're in-bounds for the first year. And you can remain with the feeder pattern through high school!

It's totally nuts. My guess is that this is what a few of the DC Big Wigs are doing, including the senior Obama administration people who were caught sending their kids to Janney OOB. Instead of DCPS cracking down and kicking out the kids, they decided to make this sly arrangement available to everyone. It pays to read the rules and know the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

The point is not cheating someone of tax dollars, but of gaming the system to the detriment of others just because you can. Even if the rules now are crazy enough to allow this, it is clearly not meant to be used in this calculating way. It's like finding a lawful but awful tax loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

Total BS. If you are trying to get into one of the high demand WOTP like Janney, Murch, Lafayette - we all know where people live. We know who cheats. I'm sure they have been reported because most of them are gone now. Do you want your kids to have to lie to their classmates/friends? Honestly?

And it is NOT true that you retain full feeder rights if you move. At all. In fact it is the opposite. Can you sometimes game the system -yes? I know people who have done it for elementary but the principal only allows it if they are in bounds for Deal already.

NP and this is false. The new rules state if you attend your IB from K up to 12, you can move within the city and are grandfathered into that school. It doesn't even state how long you need to have lived there before moving.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf
Page 8
If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of the original school.3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school.

It's a recipe for overcrowding if you ask me but those are the rules.

Does this also apply to Pre-K? As in if I sent my child to pre-k then I can move and my child can continue pre-k and then elementary school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

The point is not cheating someone of tax dollars, but of gaming the system to the detriment of others just because you can. Even if the rules now are crazy enough to allow this, it is clearly not meant to be used in this calculating way. It's like finding a lawful but awful tax loophole.

I don't see how this is any different than anyone buying in a good school district. Technically wealthy people buying in good school districts are gaming the system, right? It's not like OP is lying about the condo. She is actually going to own one and this apparently legally allows her child to attend the in hounds school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

The point is not cheating someone of tax dollars, but of gaming the system to the detriment of others just because you can. Even if the rules now are crazy enough to allow this, it is clearly not meant to be used in this calculating way. It's like finding a lawful but awful tax loophole.

I don't see how this is any different than anyone buying in a good school district. Technically wealthy people buying in good school districts are gaming the system, right? It's not like OP is lying about the condo. She is actually going to own one and this apparently legally allows her child to attend the in hounds school.

It speaks volumes that you don't see the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

Total BS. If you are trying to get into one of the high demand WOTP like Janney, Murch, Lafayette - we all know where people live. We know who cheats. I'm sure they have been reported because most of them are gone now. Do you want your kids to have to lie to their classmates/friends? Honestly?

And it is NOT true that you retain full feeder rights if you move. At all. In fact it is the opposite. Can you sometimes game the system -yes? I know people who have done it for elementary but the principal only allows it if they are in bounds for Deal already.

NP and this is false. The new rules state if you attend your IB from K up to 12, you can move within the city and are grandfathered into that school. It doesn't even state how long you need to have lived there before moving.
https://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/SY17-18%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook5317.pdf
Page 8
If a family moves out of boundary during the school year, the student maintains the right to attend their current school through the terminal grade, and can continue to attend schools in the feeder pattern of the original school.3 They also have a right to attend their in-boundary school.

It's a recipe for overcrowding if you ask me but those are the rules.

Does this also apply to Pre-K? As in if I sent my child to pre-k then I can move and my child can continue pre-k and then elementary school?

I think so. Why wouldn't it? Frankly, I'd live in-bounds for the pre-K years since I'd want to make the commute as short as possible and I'd want my child to make a solid set of friends. Then once they are a bit older and established, move to a bigger/nicer house in 16th St Heights or Brookland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

The point is not cheating someone of tax dollars, but of gaming the system to the detriment of others just because you can. Even if the rules now are crazy enough to allow this, it is clearly not meant to be used in this calculating way. It's like finding a lawful but awful tax loophole.

I don't see how this is any different than anyone buying in a good school district. Technically wealthy people buying in good school districts are gaming the system, right? It's not like OP is lying about the condo. She is actually going to own one and this apparently legally allows her child to attend the in hounds school.

It speaks volumes that you don't see the difference.

DP here: not really. The hypothetical parent is smartly playing in the system we have, not the one you fantasize about. And, frankly, DCPS doesn't seem to care about parents "gaming" the boundary so long as you live in the District.

I know Oyster Adams didn't allow families to remain in the school if they moved outside the catchment boundary. Were they overruled by the new regulations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you're going to coach your kids to lie?

This is the biggest problem I would have with it. You're basically teaching them that since you can afford to do it, you're somehow worthy of getting into those schools, or like lying is okay if you have enough money.

+100.

On a similar moral level as flying privately at taxpayer's expense just because you can.

No. A more accurate analogy would be flying one private jet instead of another. Both on the taxpayer's dime. Since OP already pays taxes to dc she's not cheating anyone of tax dollars.

The point is not cheating someone of tax dollars, but of gaming the system to the detriment of others just because you can. Even if the rules now are crazy enough to allow this, it is clearly not meant to be used in this calculating way. It's like finding a lawful but awful tax loophole.

I don't see how this is any different than anyone buying in a good school district. Technically wealthy people buying in good school districts are gaming the system, right? It's not like OP is lying about the condo. She is actually going to own one and this apparently legally allows her child to attend the in hounds school.

It speaks volumes that you don't see the difference.

DP here: not really. The hypothetical parent is smartly playing in the system we have, not the one you fantasize about. And, frankly, DCPS doesn't seem to care about parents "gaming" the boundary so long as you live in the District.

I know Oyster Adams didn't allow families to remain in the school if they moved outside the catchment boundary. Were they overruled by the new regulations?

I answered my own question.....Oyster Adams removed language from their website that stated families were not allowed to remain if they removed OOB. Pretty amazing, they were hardasses for enforcing that rule in the past.

The language disappeared from their enrollment page:
http://www.oysteradamsbilingual.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=294888&type=d

[Anonymous]

When did change happen? It is the opposite of what was in the original plan implemented which eliminated the principals discretion to do exactly this. This is in fact batshit crazy given the overcrowding at wil

[Anonymous]

Wilson and Deal