Do people get creative (e.g. lie) in order to get sibling preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a crime to lie on your DCPS forms. It is misdeamor perjury. If you are fine with a misdemeanor conviction or want to put yourself and your family through that rather than go to your local school, then you've got bigger problems in life than "school choice".

I'm not sure that's quite true. It's clearly a crime to lie for the purpose of avoiding payment of out-of-state tuition. It's less clear whether any false statement on the DCPS form is a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a crime to lie on your DCPS forms. It is misdeamor [b]perjury[/b]. If you are fine with a misdemeanor conviction or want to put yourself and your family through that rather than go to your local school, then you've got bigger problems in life than "school choice".

Big deal. There are a lot of misdemeanors that nobody - including law enforcement - gives a damn about.

You're out of your mind if you think a DC resident is going to be prosecuted for lying - much less exaggerating the truth - on a DC public school form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half children are a problem in these lotteries. Many, many parents in DC have several children with different mothers and fathers. DC kids will say "she's my sister on my father's side," meaning she has a different mother. I think if siblings do not live together, they should not be able to use sibling preference.

I disagree. In the case of a complex family arrangement, I think it's in the best interest of the child for the state to do everything it can to foster and nurture positive family relationships. Public schools are an extension of the state, and therefore half-siblings should be entitled to the same privileges as full sibs.

I agree 100%.

I don't. The purpose of the sibling preference isn't "for the state to do everything it can to foster and nurture positive family relationships." Frankly, and I'm a lefty, lefty liberal, I want the state to keep it's nose out of my family relationship. The purpose of the sibling preference is so that parents put into a position so they don't have to truck similar-aged kids cross-town to different schools. That purpose is not served - at all - by giving step or half siblings who don't live together a sibling preference.

Plus, if the kids aren't the same grade (and half-siblings rarely are), there's goign to be little or no benefit on the "family relationship."

Put another way, work on your family relationships on your own time, don't expect a school preference to help you out.

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

A lot of things would promote family convenience. Bus service, for example, free lunches for all - the list is endless. But schools don't do all those things. Absent half-siblings living in the same household (hell, even living together half the time), the "convenience" doesn't seem to rise to the level to warrant the preference, at least to me. You obviously disagree, but do try and maintain a civil tongue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half children are a problem in these lotteries. Many, many parents in DC have several children with different mothers and fathers. DC kids will say "she's my sister on my father's side," meaning she has a different mother. I think if siblings do not live together, they should not be able to use sibling preference.

I disagree. In the case of a complex family arrangement, I think it's in the best interest of the child for the state to do everything it can to foster and nurture positive family relationships. Public schools are an extension of the state, and therefore half-siblings should be entitled to the same privileges as full sibs.

No way. The test should be whether the children live in the same household. Otherwise, there's too much room for residency fraud, which is rampant in DCPS. Remember the Post column a few months ago, where a teacher recounted the classroom question during a lesson on DC history?: "What ward is Landover in"?!

[Anonymous]

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

You say that it's convenient for half-siblings who don't live together to attend the same school. Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know, even when you say it with such certainty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone at our DCPS recently mentioned that she wanted her DS to go to Deal (their home is out of bounds) rather than continue in the current K-8 program. I told her the lottery will be tough. She said she plans to use the address of an efficiency apartment she owns in boundary. I wouldn't have expected this from her. Seems the school will have a difficult time knowing she lied, unlike with the birth certificate of a sibling. Point being that lying seems to be an unethical hurdle that some easily cross over.

Since she owns it and pays taxes on it (in addition to the taxes wherever her 2nd residence is) she may feel like it's fair enough. Frankly, this is a small deal.

If it would take up a space that otherwise might go to someone in the lottery then maybe it isn't such a small deal. Not sure a small lie vs. a big lie should be how people look at situations of right and wrong. What about using a relative's address, a little bigger lie. I think where a dc attends school is supposed to be based on "residence" or position in the lottery.

[Anonymous]

I believe the sibling preference persists even after the original OOB child has left the school. Meaning, when I filled out the sibling part of the online lottery it asked if there was a sibling that was currently in the school or had been in the past two years or something like that.

Thus, there is something more underlying the policy than solely family convenience. It it may be justified by having a path for families that have been part of a school community to continue that established relationship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

You say that it's convenient for half-siblings who don't live together to attend the same school. Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know, even when you say it with such certainty.

Because I know a family with dual custody. Child A sleeps in one household half the week and the other one the other half. There is a younger half-sib in one of those houses. Ergo, younger half-sib gets sibling preference. Nobody cares if you don't like it, it's what's going to happen because everyone involved knows with certainty that it's the right thing to do.

[Anonymous]

The sibling preference policy might actually be more advantageous to the school than the family.

Without the sibling preference policy, parents have little incentive to volunteer to improve the school in ways that have no immediate benefit to their enrolled child but instead have a lasting impact on the school.

Why serve on the LSRT? Why lobby to have DCPS modernize the building or improve the grounds? These projects will likely not be completed before the child graduates. Even if completed sooner, the child will only benefit from them for a year or two.

On the other hand, if the sibling preference policy ensures that younger siblings will benefit from these projects, parents are more likely to undertake them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can your kid be as close as half brothers w/o actually being so. I HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU STAY OUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

Somebody forgot her meds today.

I think I peed myself... just a little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

You say that it's convenient for half-siblings who don't live together to attend the same school. Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know, even when you say it with such certainty.

Exactly, God knows I don't want my Sidwell bound DD getting yanked into some Mansssas schoolin' because poppa liked the double wide for the new wife.
AND I am sure he would agree for the reverse? Why? Because he is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

You say that it's convenient for half-siblings who don't live together to attend the same school. Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know, even when you say it with such certainty.

Because I know a family with dual custody. Child A sleeps in one household half the week and the other one the other half. There is a younger half-sib in one of those houses. Ergo, younger half-sib gets sibling preference. Nobody cares if you don't like it, it's what's going to happen because everyone involved knows with certainty that it's the right thing to do.

Good grief, lady, could you be more dense? First, no one is disputing that the preference should apply when the kids live together, even half the time - that would be ridiculous. Try and keep up. Second, you said that it's convenient for siblings who don't live together to attend the same school; when asked why it's convenient, you respond "because I know someone in that situation, and it is convenient." Quite a compelling argument. I feel like I'm talking to my six-year old, "Why is this better? Because it is." And ironically, the family to whom you refer ISN'T in that situation, because the half-sibs live together half the time.

I'm amazed that someone with your level of comprehension and reasoning is on DCUM - I'd think you'd have a difficult time turning on your computer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wrong. The purpose of sibling preference is family convenience. It's convenient for half-sibs to attend the same school. All one side would have to do is pick up the other one every now and then, have them both stay over at Grandma's together, have one person writing checks for both kids... This absolutely passes the smell test. We've got a child like this in our class in school. Everybody knows about it and nobody cares. As long as the parents from the other side are involved in the half-sib's life, it's legal and it's the right thing to do.

Good luck trying to get your snowflake an extra spot by short-changing the child from the fractured family. Most people at our school - liberal and conservative - would call you pathetic.

You say that it's convenient for half-siblings who don't live together to attend the same school. Why? Just saying it doesn't make it so, you know, even when you say it with such certainty.

Because I know a family with dual custody. Child A sleeps in one household half the week and the other one the other half. There is a younger half-sib in one of those houses. Ergo, younger half-sib gets sibling preference. Nobody cares if you don't like it, it's what's going to happen because everyone involved knows with certainty that it's the right thing to do.

Good grief, lady, could you be more dense? First, no one is disputing that the preference should apply when the kids live together, even half the time - that would be ridiculous. Try and keep up. Second, you said that it's convenient for siblings who don't live together to attend the same school; when asked why it's convenient, you respond "because I know someone in that situation, and it is convenient." Quite a compelling argument. I feel like I'm talking to my six-year old, "Why is this better? Because it is." And ironically, the family to whom you refer ISN'T in that situation, because the half-sibs live together half the time.

I'm amazed that someone with your level of comprehension and reasoning is on DCUM - I'd think you'd have a difficult time turning on your computer.

Keep up yourself, sweetie pie. By that logic, all someone needs to do is "live together" occasionally. Once a week? Once a month? Sleepover at Grandma's?

Keep a civil tongue yourself, hypocrite. Don't worry, you can look it up online - just google the word. I'd think you'd have a difficult time using a dictionary, much less owning one.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone here reported someone abusing the system? What happened?