How to Report Out of State DCPS student?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

So what do you suggest she do if she can't enroll the child in PG county?

I would suggest that she follows the law, like everybody else. I would suggest that you read the law about enrolling a child in PG county see this link http://www1.pgcps.org/pasb/index.aspx?id=20182

under the law in PG county, she clearly could have enrolled the child in PG, and even request a tuition waiver, see this paragraph:

"Pupils whose parent(s) or court-appointed guardian(s) is/are not bona fide residents of Prince George's county are considered non-resident pupils. Non-resident pupils may be enrolled in Prince George’s County Public Schools if they are residing with a bona fide resident of the county, and request a waiver of tuition on behalf of the pupil. Waivers may be granted on the basis of extenuating circumstances of either financial hardship or home conditions. If the student, and the responsible adult with the student, identify themselves as being homeless, a waiver will be necessary only if living outside of Prince George’s County. Please note that it is not necessary to apply for court-appointed guardianship to apply for a tuition waiver"

I do not understand why you keep defending her. the case about her has just beein brought and she can be cleared at the end. but if what the article says is true, her behavior was outrageous. she is a principal, she knows the rules and she should be the first to comply with them, not the first to brake them. she lied at the administrative hearing, so she was in bad faith, she knew what she was doing. she could have enrolled the child in DC saying the truth and paying tuition. she could have enrolled the child in MD (public or private) and she did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

They would never have gotten to the point of suing her if it wasn't an ongoing situation. If it was for a week they wouldn't have bothered having a whole hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

So what do you suggest she do if she can't enroll the child in PG county?

I would suggest that she follows the law, like everybody else. I would suggest that you read the law about enrolling a child in PG county see this link http://www1.pgcps.org/pasb/index.aspx?id=20182

under the law in PG county, she clearly could have enrolled the child in PG, and even request a tuition waiver, see this paragraph:

"Pupils whose parent(s) or court-appointed guardian(s) is/are not bona fide residents of Prince George's county are considered non-resident pupils. Non-resident pupils may be enrolled in Prince George’s County Public Schools if they are residing with a bona fide resident of the county, and request a waiver of tuition on behalf of the pupil. Waivers may be granted on the basis of extenuating circumstances of either financial hardship or home conditions. If the student, and the responsible adult with the student, identify themselves as being homeless, a waiver will be necessary only if living outside of Prince George’s County. Please note that it is not necessary to apply for court-appointed guardianship to apply for a tuition waiver"

I do not understand why you keep defending her. the case about her has just beein brought and she can be cleared at the end. but if what the article says is true, her behavior was outrageous. she is a principal, she knows the rules and she should be the first to comply with them, not the first to brake them. she lied at the administrative hearing, so she was in bad faith, she knew what she was doing. she could have enrolled the child in DC saying the truth and paying tuition. she could have enrolled the child in MD (public or private) and she did not.

But there's a good chance she wouldn't meet the requirement of having a "financial hardship, or home conditions". In that case, would she have no free school option? That doesn't seem fair. Both mom and Grandma are under the same tax laws as every other citizen. Shouldn't they have the same right to send their child to school tuition free somewhere?

Let's imagine a young single mother (not saying that's the case here), who is working full time making minimum wage, and decides to go to school at night to make a better opportunity for herself and her child. But night classes at UDC end late, so she asks Grandma to keep her kids the 4 nights she has classes. Should mom really be penalized with tuition she can't afford for going to school? Should Grandma really have to pay tuition on top of what she's already doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

So what do you suggest she do if she can't enroll the child in PG county?

I would suggest that she follows the law, like everybody else. I would suggest that you read the law about enrolling a child in PG county see this link http://www1.pgcps.org/pasb/index.aspx?id=20182

under the law in PG county, she clearly could have enrolled the child in PG, and even request a tuition waiver, see this paragraph:

"Pupils whose parent(s) or court-appointed guardian(s) is/are not bona fide residents of Prince George's county are considered non-resident pupils. Non-resident pupils may be enrolled in Prince George’s County Public Schools if they are residing with a bona fide resident of the county, and request a waiver of tuition on behalf of the pupil. Waivers may be granted on the basis of extenuating circumstances of either financial hardship or home conditions. If the student, and the responsible adult with the student, identify themselves as being homeless, a waiver will be necessary only if living outside of Prince George’s County. Please note that it is not necessary to apply for court-appointed guardianship to apply for a tuition waiver"

I do not understand why you keep defending her. the case about her has just beein brought and she can be cleared at the end. but if what the article says is true, her behavior was outrageous. she is a principal, she knows the rules and she should be the first to comply with them, not the first to brake them. she lied at the administrative hearing, so she was in bad faith, she knew what she was doing. she could have enrolled the child in DC saying the truth and paying tuition. she could have enrolled the child in MD (public or private) and she did not.

But there's a good chance she wouldn't meet the requirement of having a "financial hardship, or home conditions". In that case, would she have no free school option? That doesn't seem fair. Both mom and Grandma are under the same tax laws as every other citizen. Shouldn't they have the same right to send their child to school tuition free somewhere?

Let's imagine a young single mother (not saying that's the case here), who is working full time making minimum wage, and decides to go to school at night to make a better opportunity for herself and her child. But night classes at UDC end late, so she asks Grandma to keep her kids the 4 nights she has classes. Should mom really be penalized with tuition she can't afford for going to school? Should Grandma really have to pay tuition on top of what she's already doing?

the situation you describe would most likely fall into the waiver exception (single mom working minimum wage and going to school at night, poor old grandma hosting the child a few nights a week). plus, if the mother takes care of the child except for the nights she is in class, and she is still the primary caregiver of the child, the child could attend DCPS. you are really working hard to justfify cheaters. if there is really a situation where a child cannot lawfully go to school in MD and DC, then the parents of guardian or whoever takes care of the child should raise the issue with the authorities, call the Washington Post or other news outlet, certainly not forge residency documents, lie and cheat. unfortinately, the most likely case is the one where the child of the single mother working minimum wage and studing at night lives in DC in a poor neighborhood and gets his chance at good education stolen by people living outside of DC and find convenient for them to steal free education for their kids in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

folks, please ready this from the Washington Post. if after reading you still defend her, well, I just give up, you must be her. as a summary if you do not want to read: according to her, the child had been living with his DC resident mother but since 2009 " they visited daily" and spent all nights in her home in Fort Washignton. to me that sounds they were both, mother and child, residing in her home in MD.the child went to school in DC for 2 full school years. he started this year again,l after the grandmother retired, and was kicked out after two weeks. after the journalist asked how the mother could be a DC resident if the visited every day in MD and spent all night there, the principal said that the mother was spending the nights at her house because she had been homeless since 2009 because she had been evicted from her DC apartment. so she was not a DC resident after all, since she did not have a place to stay in DC since 2009 and lived day and night at the principal's home in MD. ah, and the child is now happily going to free, public school on Fort Washington, no problem in enrolling there.

this is the link to the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/former-dc-principal-is-accused-of-helping-relative-avoid-a-hefty-tuition-bill/2013/02/15/7551d568-779a-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=rss_dc-news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

They would never have gotten to the point of suing her if it wasn't an ongoing situation. If it was for a week they wouldn't have bothered having a whole hearing.

I read that it was the entire school year 2010-2011, entire school year 2011-2012, and 13 days of this school year 2012-2013. She drove him back and forth to school and her home that entire time. (WaPo)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

folks, please ready this from the Washington Post. if after reading you still defend her, well, I just give up, you must be her. as a summary if you do not want to read: according to her, the child had been living with his DC resident mother but since 2009 " they visited daily" and spent all nights in her home in Fort Washignton. to me that sounds they were both, mother and child, residing in her home in MD.the child went to school in DC for 2 full school years. he started this year again,l after the grandmother retired, and was kicked out after two weeks. after the journalist asked how the mother could be a DC resident if the visited every day in MD and spent all night there, the principal said that the mother was spending the nights at her house because she had been homeless since 2009 because she had been evicted from her DC apartment. so she was not a DC resident after all, since she did not have a place to stay in DC since 2009 and lived day and night at the principal's home in MD. ah, and the child is now happily going to free, public school on Fort Washington, no problem in enrolling there.

this is the link to the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/former-dc-principal-is-accused-of-helping-relative-avoid-a-hefty-tuition-bill/2013/02/15/7551d568-779a-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=rss_dc-news

If the family was in fact kicked out of their home and ended up "doubled up", then under the law they are homeless. Homeless children have the right to attend both the school district they came from, and the district they are currently living in, under Federal Law.

However, I don't know if that applies to homeless kids who weren't in school yet when they became homeless (e.g. is DC still obligated?). In addition, it seems that the family did not fill out paperwork related to the homeless law.

Nonetheless, it's not a cut and dried situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ That really does set a tone. In that case the mom even lived in DC - that is really making a statement about how serious this is about to get if they're so publicly going after her, because how did they even prove her great grandson didn't live with his mom?

But if a public school Prinicipal is going to be selfish/dumb/crazy enough to buck their own system, they should be publicly taken down.

Very glad this made the news right now around lottery and enrollment time!

Actually , the granddaughter never honestly lived in the District of Columbia. The daughter lived in SE, DC and her address was used. Upon her removal from DCPS, the Principal's ruse was fully exposed. There are numerous staff at Langdon EC who have children attending the school even though they reside in Maryland. Bet there will be a mass of withdrawals after this. Campbell used the aftercare program at Langdon to funnel money to her daughter and granddaughter. The school was wrought with corruption involving test scores, bank accounts, credit cards, employees living in the building, and alcohol on the premises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ That really does set a tone. In that case the mom even lived in DC - that is really making a statement about how serious this is about to get if they're so publicly going after her, because how did they even prove her great grandson didn't live with his mom?

But if a public school Prinicipal is going to be selfish/dumb/crazy enough to buck their own system, they should be publicly taken down.

Very glad this made the news right now around lottery and enrollment time!

Actually , the granddaughter never honestly lived in the District of Columbia. The daughter lived in SE, DC and her address was used. Upon her removal from DCPS, the Principal's ruse was fully exposed. There are numerous staff at Langdon EC who have children attending the school even though they reside in Maryland. Bet there will be a mass of withdrawals after this. Campbell used the aftercare program at Langdon to funnel money to her daughter and granddaughter. The school was wrought with corruption involving test scores, bank accounts, credit cards, employees living in the building, and alcohol on the premises.

[Anonymous]

Payback for the DC kids who mysteriously showed up in PGC schools in the 80s and 90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can I report a student that I suspect does not live in the district?

Wow. I'm usually in the independent school forum. You just sank to a new DCUM low, and believe me that's pretty damn hard to do. Are you serious, you evil Bit$&???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where can I report a student that I suspect does not live in the district?



Wow. I'm usually in the independent school forum. You just sank to a new DCUM low, and believe me that's pretty damn hard to do. Are you serious, you evil Bit$&???

Your priorities are pretty screwed up, PP. There's nothing lower than stealing an education. The poster who wishes to do the right thing and report the frauds so that the children who do live in DC are given their rightful chance to attend their schools is a hero.

Maybe you should take your foul mouth back to the independent school forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where can I report a student that I suspect does not live in the district?

Wow. I'm usually in the independent school forum. You just sank to a new DCUM low, and believe me that's pretty damn hard to do. Are you serious, you evil Bit$&???

go back to the independent school forum, you and your morally challenged foul mouth. the real low is from comments like yours, reporting people who steal from kids and our community is a duty, the people who should be ashamed are the people who lie and steal and the people like you who cheer them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

but was that a permanent or a temporary situation?
did the kid live with the granny for 1 week or several months in a row?
does he like with his mom every weekend, some weekdays etc etc

folks, please ready this from the Washington Post. if after reading you still defend her, well, I just give up, you must be her. as a summary if you do not want to read: according to her, the child had been living with his DC resident mother but since 2009 " they visited daily" and spent all nights in her home in Fort Washignton. to me that sounds they were both, mother and child, residing in her home in MD.the child went to school in DC for 2 full school years. he started this year again,l after the grandmother retired, and was kicked out after two weeks. after the journalist asked how the mother could be a DC resident if the visited every day in MD and spent all night there, the principal said that the mother was spending the nights at her house because she had been homeless since 2009 because she had been evicted from her DC apartment. so she was not a DC resident after all, since she did not have a place to stay in DC since 2009 and lived day and night at the principal's home in MD. ah, and the child is now happily going to free, public school on Fort Washington, no problem in enrolling there.

this is the link to the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/former-dc-principal-is-accused-of-helping-relative-avoid-a-hefty-tuition-bill/2013/02/15/7551d568-779a-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html?wprss=rss_dc-news

The Grandmother , the principal, was escorted out of the building with police present. She did not just "retire". They let her go.