Can someone give me the number to call to report boundary fraud?

[Anonymous]

Report it to OSSE and they will
Probably forward to it to school of concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

This! Thank you!!

[Anonymous]

You could contact the DCPS Office of Integrity: https://dcps.dc.gov/integrity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kid lives in DC and the school has approved their residency paperwork in some capacity, there is basically no remedy.

If the kid lives OUTSIDE DC, https://dc-osse-oer.i-sight.com/portal

Thank you for answering and not being a dick like everyone else.

To the others, the only number I could find of Google was for residency fraud, not boundary fraud. I thought I’d seen a number posted on here in the past so when I couldn’t find an answer on my own I thought I’d ask. Sorry to disappoint and imply I’m some weirdo who gets off on asking a question for reasons other than getting an answer. I’ve been reading this board for 13+ years and always thought most people didn’t support boundary fraud. Guess morals on this have gone the same way as the rest of the morals on this country.

There’s a reason that people distinguish legality from morality. Maybe reflect on that.

OP, I question your morality for trying to upend a high school student's life who is presumably going to be a junior or Senior this year. You suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kid lives in DC and the school has approved their residency paperwork in some capacity, there is basically no remedy.

If the kid lives OUTSIDE DC, https://dc-osse-oer.i-sight.com/portal

Thank you for answering and not being a dick like everyone else.

To the others, the only number I could find of Google was for residency fraud, not boundary fraud. I thought I’d seen a number posted on here in the past so when I couldn’t find an answer on my own I thought I’d ask. Sorry to disappoint and imply I’m some weirdo who gets off on asking a question for reasons other than getting an answer. I’ve been reading this board for 13+ years and always thought most people didn’t support boundary fraud. Guess morals on this have gone the same way as the rest of the morals on this country.

There’s a reason that people distinguish legality from morality. Maybe reflect on that.

OP, I question your morality for trying to upend a high school student's life who is presumably going to be a junior or Senior this year. You suck.

dp: I think the student's parents' morality is the problem here. Not OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the kid lives in DC and the school has approved their residency paperwork in some capacity, there is basically no remedy.

If the kid lives OUTSIDE DC, https://dc-osse-oer.i-sight.com/portal

Not sure it needs to be one or the other. Two things can be correct at the same time.

Thank you for answering and not being a dick like everyone else.

To the others, the only number I could find of Google was for residency fraud, not boundary fraud. I thought I’d seen a number posted on here in the past so when I couldn’t find an answer on my own I thought I’d ask. Sorry to disappoint and imply I’m some weirdo who gets off on asking a question for reasons other than getting an answer. I’ve been reading this board for 13+ years and always thought most people didn’t support boundary fraud. Guess morals on this have gone the same way as the rest of the morals on this country.

There’s a reason that people distinguish legality from morality. Maybe reflect on that.

OP, I question your morality for trying to upend a high school student's life who is presumably going to be a junior or Senior this year. You suck.

dp: I think the student's parents' morality is the problem here. Not OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

You sign forms attesting to the truth of the information you've given, and you are required to provide supporting documentation.

I don't know if boundary fraud is technically "illegal", but I do know it's technically wrong, is morally wrong, is an abuse of the system, and hurts other students and families.

You think if you can't be jailed for it, it's a free-for-all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

You sign forms attesting to the truth of the information you've given, and you are required to provide supporting documentation.

I don't know if boundary fraud is technically "illegal", but I do know it's technically wrong, is morally wrong, is an abuse of the system, and hurts other students and families.

You think if you can't be jailed for it, it's a free-for-all?

The law spells out what you are attesting to on that form that's relevant: residency within the district. If you lie about that, it's illegal. And again, this is validated by the fact that no one has been prosecuted for this. Jailed or fined.

You are free of course to think that it's morally wrong and hurtful.

But when you call things "fraud" or say "you sign forms", you are implying not just that it's wrong but that it's illegal. If it were, that would be a much stronger argument against it. That's why you're doing it. But it's not.

Go lobby the city council if you want. I personally would not care if it were illegal. Maybe it should be. But it's not. Until that changes, the phrase "boundary fraud" is just an attempt to equate something that is clearly illegal, residency fraud, with something you object to morally but that is not illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

You sign forms attesting to the truth of the information you've given, and you are required to provide supporting documentation.

I don't know if boundary fraud is technically "illegal", but I do know it's technically wrong, is morally wrong, is an abuse of the system, and hurts other students and families.

You think if you can't be jailed for it, it's a free-for-all?

The law spells out what you are attesting to on that form that's relevant: residency within the district. If you lie about that, it's illegal. And again, this is validated by the fact that no one has been prosecuted for this. Jailed or fined.

You are free of course to think that it's morally wrong and hurtful.

But when you call things "fraud" or say "you sign forms", you are implying not just that it's wrong but that it's illegal. If it were, that would be a much stronger argument against it. That's why you're doing it. But it's not.

Go lobby the city council if you want. I personally would not care if it were illegal. Maybe it should be. But it's not. Until that changes, the phrase "boundary fraud" is just an attempt to equate something that is clearly illegal, residency fraud, with something you object to morally but that is not illegal.

The front page of the enrollment form asks for the parents' addresses and the student's address.

The bottom of the page says:
I confirm all the information provided above is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that DCPS will keep this information confidential and
will use it for DCPS business only. I understand that providing false information is punishable by law. I understand that I cannot maintain enrollment at
more than one school for SY25-26, and I am confirming my enrollment for SY25-26 at the school listed above. I understand that if I am enrolling
because of receiving a waitlist offer from this school, I will be removed from waitlists of all schools ranked below this school on my My School DC
application.
Print Name: _ Signature: _ Date:

The page thinks "providing false information is punishable by law."

[Anonymous]

+1000. Exactly. Object away. Not illegal though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

You sign forms attesting to the truth of the information you've given, and you are required to provide supporting documentation.

I don't know if boundary fraud is technically "illegal", but I do know it's technically wrong, is morally wrong, is an abuse of the system, and hurts other students and families.

You think if you can't be jailed for it, it's a free-for-all?

The law spells out what you are attesting to on that form that's relevant: residency within the district. If you lie about that, it's illegal. And again, this is validated by the fact that no one has been prosecuted for this. Jailed or fined.

You are free of course to think that it's morally wrong and hurtful.

But when you call things "fraud" or say "you sign forms", you are implying not just that it's wrong but that it's illegal. If it were, that would be a much stronger argument against it. That's why you're doing it. But it's not.

Go lobby the city council if you want. I personally would not care if it were illegal. Maybe it should be. But it's not. Until that changes, the phrase "boundary fraud" is just an attempt to equate something that is clearly illegal, residency fraud, with something you object to morally but that is not illegal.

The front page of the enrollment form asks for the parents' addresses and the student's address.

The bottom of the page says:
I confirm all the information provided above is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that DCPS will keep this information confidential and
will use it for DCPS business only. I understand that providing false information is punishable by law. I understand that I cannot maintain enrollment at
more than one school for SY25-26, and I am confirming my enrollment for SY25-26 at the school listed above. I understand that if I am enrolling
because of receiving a waitlist offer from this school, I will be removed from waitlists of all schools ranked below this school on my My School DC
application.
Print Name: _ Signature: _ Date:

The page thinks "providing false information is punishable by law."

Where's a definition of the "parents' address" or the "student's address" on the enrollment form? I couldn't find it. A quick check of the equivalent forms for our neighboring school systems--MoCo, Arlington, PG County--taught me that in the suburbs, enrollment forms spell out what qualifies as the parents' and student's address (e.g. the address where the child sleeps most nights in the year).

If DCPS and DCPSC aren't going to define a student's address on the enrollment form, what's the relevance of said address? Seriously. Tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Nice try. When you sign the form you attest to it’s truthfullness and acknowledge lying on the form is punishable by law. You also specifically attest that the domicile information is correct. And that you can be referred for prosecution if you lie. While this is not residency fraud per se, it is lying in connection to residency verification. Moreover you swear the forms are true under penalty of perjury.

Hopefully whatever sh*t law school you attended taught you that just because one law doesn’t apply to the conduct does not mean no laws apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the threshold was legality, not whether something is "normalized" or "excused"?

Please point out where it says "boundary fraud" in the DC code. There's a whole chapter on Residency Requirement and Nonresident Tuition and residency fraud is specifically discussed in § 38–312.03. Surely if there's a whole chapter on residency requirements, and boundary fraud is also illegal, that phrase must come up somewhere?

In the section where it talks about penalties for false information, there's this part: "establishing by information and other evidence that a student or the student’s parent or primary caregiver is not in fact a District of Columbia resident or an other primary caregiver." Maybe there's another part about false information penalties for if the student is a resident but lives somewhere in a different boundary and I just missed it. You can check and see for yourself. Or just find one single case where someone has been fined or imprisoned on the basis of this law since 2012, when it was last rewritten. That's typically what happens when something is illegal, right?

Best post of this long thread. Thanks, PP.

Boundary fraud is clearly very unpopular with the morally supercilious crowd on this thread, but illegal? This lawyer doesn't see that either. From what I gather, respecting school boundaries in DC is a practice, a policy and a hope of ed leaders and stakeholders, vs. a statutory requirement. Why not? Because DC public schools aren't popular or good enough across the board for DC politicians to make boundary fraud illegal. They'd have to concede that there are good and bad schools in the DC public system if they were to start fining or imprisoning parents for breaking the law to avoid certain schools. They aren't prepared to do that, for political reasons.

You sign forms attesting to the truth of the information you've given, and you are required to provide supporting documentation.

I don't know if boundary fraud is technically "illegal", but I do know it's technically wrong, is morally wrong, is an abuse of the system, and hurts other students and families.

You think if you can't be jailed for it, it's a free-for-all?

The law spells out what you are attesting to on that form that's relevant: residency within the district. If you lie about that, it's illegal. And again, this is validated by the fact that no one has been prosecuted for this. Jailed or fined.

You are free of course to think that it's morally wrong and hurtful.

But when you call things "fraud" or say "you sign forms", you are implying not just that it's wrong but that it's illegal. If it were, that would be a much stronger argument against it. That's why you're doing it. But it's not.

Go lobby the city council if you want. I personally would not care if it were illegal. Maybe it should be. But it's not. Until that changes, the phrase "boundary fraud" is just an attempt to equate something that is clearly illegal, residency fraud, with something you object to morally but that is not illegal.

No idiot - you attest under penalty of perjury that the forms are true. If you think the fact that the forms also discuss residency fraud (as in not a District resident) creates some kind of loophole allowing you to lie about your in-District address, I don’t know what to tell you.