Renting but not occupying for DCPS in-boundary residency purposes?

[Anonymous]

300th post with a +1.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how the schools are even issue for your family. I'm poor. I'm glad I get all my bills paid every month, while you, OP, can afford a house and and an empty rental. You have way more options than I because of your finances, but somehow it's you who is shut out of the schools you want.
I moved between 2 Wotp schools with no problem. The 2nd school has 2 Prek4 classes while the 1st one has only 1 Prek4. We didn't move because of that, but now we are glad we did.
How can poor people like us move easily, but you can't?
I actually have a studio for rent one block from one of the schools just in time for new school year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same thing happened to us. We live in the neighborhood but were shut out for PreK4 at our DCPS.

You know what? We didn't complain and didn't try to bust a couple families we suspect got in with dodgy residency addresses. We accepted that IB PreK isn't a right in the District. We headed to a wonderful charter and had a good experience there before landing at our IB for K. We don't hold grudges and aren't complaining about the new rule letting everybody stay at their "current school" from K, no matter where they really live in DC.

(A) There is no new regulation in DC, just different wording in the Handbook. Will it last?

(B) Renting but not living in an apartment and the "new rule" are two different issues. Why are you mixing them together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi. I'm a DC resident, but I'm paying for private school because my in-boundary school is no good and I struck out in the DCPS lottery. I'm considering renting an apartment in-boundary of a good DCPS school, which would be less expensive than what I'm paying for private school, just so we have an in-boundary address. I wouldn't move in. Maybe I would sublet, or AirBNB, if allowed, to recoup some of the rent money, or just leave it empty. Is that sort of thing kosher? It's not like would be lying about my DC residency, I pay plenty of taxes to DC, my conscience is clean.

No. Residency means you live there. DCPS can even do a home check to make sure you and your kids actually live there -- ie, eat and sleep there.

Why have you decided your "conscience is clean" before knowing the rules?

Is there a source for this? Just curious, since I've never heard this before. I know of at least one family at my kid's school who is doing this (i.e., using the address of a property they own, but which only relatives occupy currently).

We live in GA, and our school system checks residences frequently. I thought that was a standard procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ +1. If people legit bought a family home for their IB school but can’t get their kids in for PK3/4—and the cheaters are able to get get theirs in for PK by using the address of some studio they rent out—is it still okay?

According to the DC government it’s ok.

where does DC say this is ok? what's been cited here is that kids can stay in their school where they **actually resided** and then moved; not where their parents rented a studio solely to game the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No dog in this fight but enjoying the irony of IB parents for high-performing DCPS demanding a crackdown on unauthorized OOB use, and getting....the opposite!

The schmucks must have called the fraud hotline so often that the residency fraud team begged higher-ups for relief. Ha.

you win stupidest post of the thread. congrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Same thing happened to us. We live in the neighborhood but were shut out for PreK4 at our DCPS.

You know what? We didn't complain and didn't try to bust a couple families we suspect got in with dodgy residency addresses. We accepted that IB PreK isn't a right in the District. We headed to a wonderful charter and had a good experience there before landing at our IB for K. We don't hold grudges and aren't complaining about the new rule letting everybody stay at their "current school" from K, no matter where they really live in DC.

(A) There is no new regulation in DC, just different wording in the Handbook. Will it last?

(B) Renting but not living in an apartment and the "new rule" are two different issues. Why are you mixing them together?

Will it last? I predict, YES, at least through a 2nd term for Bowser. Much easier for a school system/mayor to grant a privilege than to take it away. Changing the policy, coupled w/enforcement action to kick OOB families out of schools they started at as IB residents, would open a legal can of worms for DCPS.

Not the PP who misguidedly conflated the issues but like the spirit of the sentiment expressed.

[Anonymous]

NP. I didn't know about the wording the handbook in Aug, when we were renting a bas apartment IB for a better DCPS ES than the one linked to our house (which we were renovating extensively). We spent several months in the apt, got mail there, and paid utilities in our names.

Apparently, we could have enrolled at the better school, stayed there until 5th grade, and even planned to go on to the MS it feeds into (better option than the one our IB school feeds into). Gosh.

[Anonymous]

I'm not convinced that principals and school registrars alwys know or care about the language in the handbook. Never heard of the change in policy before this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I guess DC liberals who obsess about where their children's classmates sleep at night should no longer make fun of VA conservatives who obsess about what immigration papers their neighbors may or may not carry in their wallets

I don't obsess about where my children's classmates sleep at night. I suspect there are some kids at my EOTP, Title I charter whose parents are probably Maryland residents; that doesn't really bother me.

I do, however, think upper-middle-class professionals who devise complicated schemes to spend thousands of dollars getting their kids into schools they could otherwise afford to buy houses in-bounds for are bad people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I guess DC liberals who obsess about where their children's classmates sleep at night should no longer make fun of VA conservatives who obsess about what immigration papers their neighbors may or may not carry in their wallets

I don't obsess about where my children's classmates sleep at night. I suspect there are some kids at my EOTP, Title I charter whose parents are probably Maryland residents; that doesn't really bother me.

I do, however, think upper-middle-class professionals who devise complicated schemes to spend thousands of dollars getting their kids into schools they could otherwise afford to buy houses in-bounds for are bad people.

Funny, most of the Maryland cheaters at my DC's old school lived in nicer homes and drove nicer cars than my DC neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fraud and if you get caught, you’ll be fined and forced to pay each years tuition for each child...

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go away. Tuition only applies to non-DC residents. DCPS changed it policy last year and now students can continue at their school (and feeder path too) even if they move OOB. And it’s clear DCPS did this in response to IB Parents who incessantly complained that OOB got to keep their spot even if they move houses (so long as they stay in the District). I think the complaint was intended to argue why OOB practice need to be eliminated. But since that will never go away DC responded, “OK, nobody has to leave.” Big backfire.

They changed it to protect children who are housing insecure -- bouncing from mom to dad to grandma's etc.

Exactly. not to allow well off families to rent a studio in their preferred zone and pretend they live there.

First of all can one of you produce the proof that DCPS made the change in order to specifically protect children who are housing insecure? While it seems like a reasonable and compassionate connection (and timing wise it did occur around the time the Mayor announced her plan to open shelters for homeless families in each ward—what happened to that by the way?), I’d like to see where the mayor or Chancellor made this connection publicly. Because ever since the boundary review that took place several years ago at this point, I’ve heard lots of people living IB for upper NWDC complain loudly how unfair it is that OOB students get to stay once they lottery in (and can move wherever they want in the District) but IB families are unable to move OOB without losing their spot (they would have had to lottery in as an OOB student). I honestly thought is was a reasonable argument considering DCPS has always made continuity for the student and family a priority. And many of these same people living IB for upper NW schools were also making the argument that the OOB policy shouldn’t be done away with period. So it seems pretty reasonable to me that DCPS changed the policy in response to those complaints. Doing away with OOB is not an option. If you had attended those boundary meetings you would know that. So to get some of those complainers off their backs, change the policy and let kids stay at their school (and in their feeder path) even if they move out of the neighborhood. Of course saying it was driven by wanting to ensure housing insecure kids don’t have to bounce around from school to school is an entirely acceptable company line. But DCPS knew what they were doing. If housing insecure kids were the only focus the policy change could have been written more narrowly. It wasn’t. The point is, so long as you live in boundary for a good portion of the school year you can absolutely stay at that school if you move OOB and be well within your rights to do so. . And of course, DCPS can say they’re changing policy year to year but when you’re talking about a policy that impacts a child’s entire educational path I think they know they can’t change it willy-nilly.

[Anonymous]

*should not shouldn’t (re doing away with OOB policy)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fraud and if you get caught, you’ll be fined and forced to pay each years tuition for each child...

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go away. Tuition only applies to non-DC residents. DCPS changed it policy last year and now students can continue at their school (and feeder path too) even if they move OOB. And it’s clear DCPS did this in response to IB Parents who incessantly complained that OOB got to keep their spot even if they move houses (so long as they stay in the District). I think the complaint was intended to argue why OOB practice need to be eliminated. But since that will never go away DC responded, “OK, nobody has to leave.” Big backfire.

They changed it to protect children who are housing insecure -- bouncing from mom to dad to grandma's etc.

Exactly. not to allow well off families to rent a studio in their preferred zone and pretend they live there.

First of all can one of you produce the proof that DCPS made the change in order to specifically protect children who are housing insecure? While it seems like a reasonable and compassionate connection (and timing wise it did occur around the time the Mayor announced her plan to open shelters for homeless families in each ward—what happened to that by the way?), I’d like to see where the mayor or Chancellor made this connection publicly. Because ever since the boundary review that took place several years ago at this point, I’ve heard lots of people living IB for upper NWDC complain loudly how unfair it is that OOB students get to stay once they lottery in (and can move wherever they want in the District) but IB families are unable to move OOB without losing their spot (they would have had to lottery in as an OOB student). I honestly thought is was a reasonable argument considering DCPS has always made continuity for the student and family a priority. And many of these same people living IB for upper NW schools were also making the argument that the OOB policy shouldn’t be done away with period. So it seems pretty reasonable to me that DCPS changed the policy in response to those complaints. Doing away with OOB is not an option. If you had attended those boundary meetings you would know that. So to get some of those complainers off their backs, change the policy and let kids stay at their school (and in their feeder path) even if they move out of the neighborhood. Of course saying it was driven by wanting to ensure housing insecure kids don’t have to bounce around from school to school is an entirely acceptable company line. But DCPS knew what they were doing. If housing insecure kids were the only focus the policy change could have been written more narrowly. It wasn’t. The point is, so long as you live in boundary for a good portion of the school year you can absolutely stay at that school if you move OOB and be well within your rights to do so. . And of course, DCPS can say they’re changing policy year to year but when you’re talking about a policy that impacts a child’s entire educational path I think they know they can’t change it willy-nilly.

Agree but don't understand why the handbook lines in question don't specify that the family must in fact live IB for a good portion of the school year, say at least half, in order to have the right to stay in the school and feeder pattern. DCPS could have written the rule that way. The current vague phrasing opens the door to abuse.

Hope they tighten up/clarify the rule in next school year's handbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s fraud and if you get caught, you’ll be fined and forced to pay each years tuition for each child...

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go away. Tuition only applies to non-DC residents. DCPS changed it policy last year and now students can continue at their school (and feeder path too) even if they move OOB. And it’s clear DCPS did this in response to IB Parents who incessantly complained that OOB got to keep their spot even if they move houses (so long as they stay in the District). I think the complaint was intended to argue why OOB practice need to be eliminated. But since that will never go away DC responded, “OK, nobody has to leave.” Big backfire.

They changed it to protect children who are housing insecure -- bouncing from mom to dad to grandma's etc.

Exactly. not to allow well off families to rent a studio in their preferred zone and pretend they live there.

First of all can one of you produce the proof that DCPS made the change in order to specifically protect children who are housing insecure? While it seems like a reasonable and compassionate connection (and timing wise it did occur around the time the Mayor announced her plan to open shelters for homeless families in each ward—what happened to that by the way?), I’d like to see where the mayor or Chancellor made this connection publicly. Because ever since the boundary review that took place several years ago at this point, I’ve heard lots of people living IB for upper NWDC complain loudly how unfair it is that OOB students get to stay once they lottery in (and can move wherever they want in the District) but IB families are unable to move OOB without losing their spot (they would have had to lottery in as an OOB student). I honestly thought is was a reasonable argument considering DCPS has always made continuity for the student and family a priority. And many of these same people living IB for upper NW schools were also making the argument that the OOB policy shouldn’t be done away with period. So it seems pretty reasonable to me that DCPS changed the policy in response to those complaints. Doing away with OOB is not an option. If you had attended those boundary meetings you would know that. So to get some of those complainers off their backs, change the policy and let kids stay at their school (and in their feeder path) even if they move out of the neighborhood. Of course saying it was driven by wanting to ensure housing insecure kids don’t have to bounce around from school to school is an entirely acceptable company line. But DCPS knew what they were doing. If housing insecure kids were the only focus the policy change could have been written more narrowly. It wasn’t. The point is, so long as you live in boundary for a good portion of the school year you can absolutely stay at that school if you move OOB and be well within your rights to do so. . And of course, DCPS can say they’re changing policy year to year but when you’re talking about a policy that impacts a child’s entire educational path I think they know they can’t change it willy-nilly.

Maybe they're responding to the point about IB moving OOB. But that's very different from what the OP proposes: to rent a studio IB to the school you prefer and use that address, but never actually live there.