Buying Condo for desirable school WOTP (DC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The policy specifies it is for K-12 so pp would need to find another loophole or cheat to continue in a school after moving in PK4 (not that either appears challenging at this point)

[Anonymous]

Anybody want to rent my small mother in law suite in AU park? Doing month to month for 5k. Will forward mail appropriately afterwards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. My understanding is that it was done to provide stability for homeless and housing insecure children, not Big Wigs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. My understanding is that it was done to provide stability for homeless and housing insecure children, not Big Wigs.

They they are naive to how to right policy. Wait forgot we were talking about ward 9 DC employees and didn’t mean to state the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. My understanding is that it was done to provide stability for homeless and housing insecure children, not Big Wigs.

I believe so, too. This needs to get fixed if it gets abused in the way PPs are advocating it should. Start contacting your council members.

[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?

The neighborhood school system, you know, where neighborhood kids go to school together, is not a fantasy.

[Anonymous]

The system is crazy. I moved to DC 3 years ago right at the start of the school year. We lived in a hotel/short term rental in the NE for the first few weeks. Registered my son at Janney as we were technically homeless according to DCPS and that was where we thought we would eventually end up. Needless to say, we didn't end up where we expected and we have been OB since.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to ruffle even more feathers by offering this too....

Even if you never actually lived in the condo, it's not cheating to use the inbound school.

If you read the regs and the forms, they all only talk about "residence". The term isn't defined. There's no reference to "primary residence" or similar -- which is the term you see in most laws where the government wants to clarify you can have only one residence. When you see the term "residence" in the law, it almost certainly will be read to permit someone to have two residences. People say it was loosely used so that a kid could go to the IB school of their less than majority custodial parent in a divorce, etc. And there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that a kid who sleeps twice a week at dad's house is allowed to go to the IB school at dad's house. Following that logic, and with no definition to suggest otherwise, there's a decent argument to be made that your residence includes any houses you own and that are available to you, even if you don't actually sleep there. Have a room set up for your son with some toys? That sounds like a residence. Not a primary residence -- but again, that's not the requirement. Have the condo set up so grandma and granddad can use it when they visit for 2 weeks every quarter, and your son spends a few nights with them for each visit? Same.

It's probably not what DC intended by the use of the word, but if you found yourself in litigation with the city over the issue, the term is vague enough and city litigation is Podunk enough, that the city will lose. the fact that, as another poster noted, they don't even fight these out of bound condo owners suggests they know it's a losing battle.

All that said, we debated this and it didn't sit well with us because we knew there'd be enough parents who didn't like the idea, that we'd have to keep quiet about it and be encouraging our 5 year old to keep quiet too. As said, we'd win the litigation -- but I didn't want to send our kid to school where people were calling the cheaters hotline every day.

PS the person above who says it's the same as flying a private jet on taxpayers dime appears to not understand logic.

[Anonymous]

Wait did DC basically take a sneaky step towards an open school system? Why the hell is my 6 year old languishing in the meh petworth elementary when my parents live in CCDC?

[Anonymous]

You won't get away with it for long. It's embarrassing for you and traumatic for the child to get kicked out mid-year. Don't do it. I've seen it happen many times.

-teacher at a desirable school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You won't get away with it for long. It's embarrassing for you and traumatic for the child to get kicked out mid-year. Don't do it. I've seen it happen many times.

-teacher at a desirable school

What part of it is now allowed don’t you understand?

-someone who can read

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't get away with it for long. It's embarrassing for you and traumatic for the child to get kicked out mid-year. Don't do it. I've seen it happen many times.

-teacher at a desirable school

What part of it is now allowed don’t you understand?

-someone who can read

woof you might be able to read but your grammar leaves something to be desired

--dp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ruffle even more feathers by offering this too....

Even if you never actually lived in the condo, it's not cheating to use the inbound school.

If you read the regs and the forms, they all only talk about "residence". The term isn't defined. There's no reference to "primary residence" or similar -- which is the term you see in most laws where the government wants to clarify you can have only one residence. When you see the term "residence" in the law, it almost certainly will be read to permit someone to have two residences. People say it was loosely used so that a kid could go to the IB school of their less than majority custodial parent in a divorce, etc. And there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that a kid who sleeps twice a week at dad's house is allowed to go to the IB school at dad's house. Following that logic, and with no definition to suggest otherwise, there's a decent argument to be made that your residence includes any houses you own and that are available to you, even if you don't actually sleep there. Have a room set up for your son with some toys? That sounds like a residence. Not a primary residence -- but again, that's not the requirement. Have the condo set up so grandma and granddad can use it when they visit for 2 weeks every quarter, and your son spends a few nights with them for each visit? Same.

It's probably not what DC intended by the use of the word, but if you found yourself in litigation with the city over the issue, the term is vague enough and city litigation is Podunk enough, that the city will lose. the fact that, as another poster noted, they don't even fight these out of bound condo owners suggests they know it's a losing battle.

All that said, we debated this and it didn't sit well with us because we knew there'd be enough parents who didn't like the idea, that we'd have to keep quiet about it and be encouraging our 5 year old to keep quiet too. As said, we'd win the litigation -- but I didn't want to send our kid to school where people were calling the cheaters hotline every day.

PS the person above who says it's the same as flying a private jet on taxpayers dime appears to not understand logic.

As I've explained above, the point of comparison here is only that you are doing something that is against community interest (costing the taxpayer money in the one case, contributing to neighborhood school overcrowding without being a member of the neighborhood community in the other) just because your position of power (being a cabinet member, or in the case at hand someone's financial ability to move IB for a short period of time or obtain a secondary residence while maintaining their primary home elsewhere) allows them to do it. If a cabinet member flies to Philadelphia for a work meeting instead of taking the train, he's also probably not doing anything illegal, but abusing his rights to choose the most expedient way of transportation. In the same vein, the parent who abuses a rule that has been created to give homeless kids who have to move OOB more stability is also abusing the rules. That's why I find this behavior *morally* comparable, without saying it is the same type of offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to ruffle even more feathers by offering this too....

Even if you never actually lived in the condo, it's not cheating to use the inbound school.

If you read the regs and the forms, they all only talk about "residence". The term isn't defined. There's no reference to "primary residence" or similar -- which is the term you see in most laws where the government wants to clarify you can have only one residence. When you see the term "residence" in the law, it almost certainly will be read to permit someone to have two residences. People say it was loosely used so that a kid could go to the IB school of their less than majority custodial parent in a divorce, etc. And there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that a kid who sleeps twice a week at dad's house is allowed to go to the IB school at dad's house. Following that logic, and with no definition to suggest otherwise, there's a decent argument to be made that your residence includes any houses you own and that are available to you, even if you don't actually sleep there. Have a room set up for your son with some toys? That sounds like a residence. Not a primary residence -- but again, that's not the requirement. Have the condo set up so grandma and granddad can use it when they visit for 2 weeks every quarter, and your son spends a few nights with them for each visit? Same.

It's probably not what DC intended by the use of the word, but if you found yourself in litigation with the city over the issue, the term is vague enough and city litigation is Podunk enough, that the city will lose. the fact that, as another poster noted, they don't even fight these out of bound condo owners suggests they know it's a losing battle.

All that said, we debated this and it didn't sit well with us because we knew there'd be enough parents who didn't like the idea, that we'd have to keep quiet about it and be encouraging our 5 year old to keep quiet too. As said, we'd win the litigation -- but I didn't want to send our kid to school where people were calling the cheaters hotline every day.

PS the person above who says it's the same as flying a private jet on taxpayers dime appears to not understand logic.

As I've explained above, the point of comparison here is only that you are doing something that is against community interest (costing the taxpayer money in the one case, contributing to neighborhood school overcrowding without being a member of the neighborhood community in the other) just because your position of power (being a cabinet member, or in the case at hand someone's financial ability to move IB for a short period of time or obtain a secondary residence while maintaining their primary home elsewhere) allows them to do it. If a cabinet member flies to Philadelphia for a work meeting instead of taking the train, he's also probably not doing anything illegal, but abusing his rights to choose the most expedient way of transportation. In the same vein, the parent who abuses a rule that has been created to give homeless kids who have to move OOB more stability is also abusing the rules. That's why I find this behavior *morally* comparable, without saying it is the same type of offense.

Not really a valid example. Technically anyone purchasing a home in a good school district is doing so because of their "position of power." And because of their money, they may be contributing to school crowding.

Keep in mind that someone purchasing a condo to be in bounds for a school will be paying property taxes for two properties. They have every right to legally send their child to the school zoned for the condo. You seem hung up on the fact this person has "power" and money to purchase a condo solely for school. Why aren't you angry at the other property owners who had the power and money to purchase their primary residence in a top school district?

[Anonymous]

Even if DCPS didn't have a "once you're in, you're in" policy, it would still make sense for those with means to buy a condo and leave it empty, maybe use it as an office and/or for visiting family and friends, than pay private school tuition. Monthly payments on a $300k condo with 20% down would be less than tuition at most private schools and the principal payments could be recouped.