Renting an apartment to be inbounds

[Anonymous]

What's rational about DC public schools, with almost half the students in charters, feeder school rights on a par with in-boundary rights since Michelle Rhee, no formal GT programs, criminally weak special ed, Taj Mahal renovations of mostly empty MS and HS buildings, Deal built for 1,000 with 1,800 students etc. etc.

No wonder so many parents still bail for the burbs and interest in DC public schools has tapered off since the pandemic began.

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the policy is not stupid. it for example lets kids who move 2 boundaries over in the 4th grade stay at their same school.

The way it works everywhere else in the country is, you move, you switch schools. This is much more rational than you move during K, you stay at the school through 5th.

You should go somewhere else in the country and follow their rules then. My kids are enjoying their Ward 3 school that they attend under the rules here.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

[Anonymous]

Any school system allowing real estate to be linked to particular schools advantages people with more money. Boston still doesn't.

[Anonymous]

So you are going to add another layer on top so OOB kids have an even smaller chance to lotterying into “desirable” schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

Obvious to anyone (intelligent) who’s given this two seconds of thought. A group that does not include transplants who rolled into town two weeks ago to Karen-voice us with how things are done everywhere else in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

You could easily link the policy to at-risk eligibility to account for these situations. But thinking things through is beyond the abilities of DCPS central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the policy is not stupid. it for example lets kids who move 2 boundaries over in the 4th grade stay at their same school.

The way it works everywhere else in the country is, you move, you switch schools. This is much more rational than you move during K, you stay at the school through 5th.

You should go somewhere else in the country and follow their rules then. My kids are enjoying their Ward 3 school that they attend under the rules here.

I don’t have a problem with what you’re doing because it’s DCPS policy. I do have a problem with the policy because it’s stupid. But no issue with you, because you’re following the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

You could easily link the policy to at-risk eligibility to account for these situations. But thinking things through is beyond the abilities of DCPS central office.

What about domestic violence situations, etc? What message are you sending when other families know Larlo must be poor because HE got to stay when the family moved? It is more equitable policy to establish universal policies that don’t draw lines between different groups. DC implemented the policy knowing it would be utilized by some higher SES families, but made a cost-benefit analysis in favor of protecting at-risk families. You can criticize if you want, but I like living in a city that puts social welfare first. It’s a good policy and can make a meaningful difference in the lives of kids who really need it. And frankly, also helps level the playing field a little when your child’s education comes down to the luck of a lottery draw.

[Anonymous]

a lot of dc families live in rental housing (genuinely live there not just to game the system). a lot of families get divorced etc. a lot of families move from a smaller home to a larger home or down the street to lower cost rental building etc. the policy provides a measure of flexibility/school choice (you can go to the new in-boundary school or stay at the old one). its not an overall bad policy simply because a (small) minority might “game” the system as proposed by op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

You could easily link the policy to at-risk eligibility to account for these situations. But thinking things through is beyond the abilities of DCPS central office.

What about domestic violence situations, etc? What message are you sending when other families know Larlo must be poor because HE got to stay when the family moved? It is more equitable policy to establish universal policies that don’t draw lines between different groups. DC implemented the policy knowing it would be utilized by some higher SES families, but made a cost-benefit analysis in favor of protecting at-risk families. You can criticize if you want, but I like living in a city that puts social welfare first. It’s a good policy and can make a meaningful difference in the lives of kids who really need it. And frankly, also helps level the playing field a little when your child’s education comes down to the luck of a lottery draw.

Level the playing field how? By gaming the system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a lot of dc families live in rental housing (genuinely live there not just to game the system). a lot of families get divorced etc. a lot of families move from a smaller home to a larger home or down the street to lower cost rental building etc. the policy provides a measure of flexibility/school choice (you can go to the new in-boundary school or stay at the old one). its not an overall bad policy simply because a (small) minority might “game” the system as proposed by op.

You cannot justify the policy based on a myriad of circumstances that make life harder for people while simultaneously accusing people of “gaming” the system. They’re doing the same thing. For whatever reason, it’s not possible or it’s inconvenient to live in-boundary for the entire duration of school, so they rent IB for a short period of time. That’s no more or less morally right than the person who decides to move for cheaper rent or because they’re decide to divorce they’re crappy husband. If it’s ok for those folks, it’s ok for everyone.

And this is why the policy is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it’s the policy and it is stupid. But that’s CO for you.

Bonus that it advantages people with more money.

It actually advantages housing unstable children that may be moving multiple times a year, every year. If those kids can have one less disruption acts destabilizing event in their lives, then the policy is accomplishing it’s goal. It’s a right instead of principal discretion so that administrators can’t push out the higher needs kids in schools very far away from Ward 3.

You could easily link the policy to at-risk eligibility to account for these situations. But thinking things through is beyond the abilities of DCPS central office.

What about domestic violence situations, etc? What message are you sending when other families know Larlo must be poor because HE got to stay when the family moved? It is more equitable policy to establish universal policies that don’t draw lines between different groups. DC implemented the policy knowing it would be utilized by some higher SES families, but made a cost-benefit analysis in favor of protecting at-risk families. You can criticize if you want, but I like living in a city that puts social welfare first. It’s a good policy and can make a meaningful difference in the lives of kids who really need it. And frankly, also helps level the playing field a little when your child’s education comes down to the luck of a lottery draw.

Level the playing field how? By gaming the system?

It’s a written policy. It’s not gaming anything even if you say it over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's rational about DC public schools, with almost half the students in charters, feeder school rights on a par with in-boundary rights since Michelle Rhee, no formal GT programs, criminally weak special ed, Taj Mahal renovations of mostly empty MS and HS buildings, Deal built for 1,000 with 1,800 students etc. etc.

No wonder so many parents still bail for the burbs and interest in DC public schools has tapered off since the pandemic began.

https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc

The renovations of the half empty MS and HS are to support a new population of residents as DC continues to flip/gentrify.