Buying Condo for desirable school WOTP (DC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they are not abusing a poorly written policy intended for a different purpose, but are acting according to the idea of DC's neighborhood school model, the intention of which is to have kids who live near each other go to school together. It's not that hard to understand, and the reaction of the IB parents shows many people feel that way. It's good to see that your anticipation of this sort of community pressure deterred you from going that route.

[Anonymous]

One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

[Anonymous]

NP. To all the IB parents raising alarm: how do you know someone is a cheat vs lotteried in from OOB? I know of one OOB family at our WOTP school who has a kid here and another at a "rising" EOTP school; lotteried into both. You just don't know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. To all the IB parents raising alarm: how do you know someone is a cheat vs lotteried in from OOB? I know of one OOB family at our WOTP school who has a kid here and another at a "rising" EOTP school; lotteried into both. You just don't know.

Because these people become your friends. I have OOB friends and it comes up in passing. Parents are also good friends with teachers and administrators. Same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

[Anonymous]

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.

I have know people who have done this for Janney. No one had a problem with them because they're white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. To all the IB parents raising alarm: how do you know someone is a cheat vs lotteried in from OOB? I know of one OOB family at our WOTP school who has a kid here and another at a "rising" EOTP school; lotteried into both. You just don't know.

Because these people become your friends. I have OOB friends and it comes up in passing. Parents are also good friends with teachers and administrators. Same thing.

What do you mean by "it comes up in passing"? I just don't buy it. Let's say you make friends with someone. Turns out they live OOB, and you ask them how they got into your WOTP school. They reply, "we got lucky" and end of story. Do you keep digging? Why?

As for the teachers and administrators... does this really come up? "Hey, have you met so-and-so's parents? Do you know where they live? I don't see them at our playground too often." Really?

[Anonymous]

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.

I have know people who have done this for Janney. No one had a problem with them because they're white.

THIS. x1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. To all the IB parents raising alarm: how do you know someone is a cheat vs lotteried in from OOB? I know of one OOB family at our WOTP school who has a kid here and another at a "rising" EOTP school; lotteried into both. You just don't know.

Because these people become your friends. I have OOB friends and it comes up in passing. Parents are also good friends with teachers and administrators. Same thing.

What do you mean by "it comes up in passing"? I just don't buy it. Let's say you make friends with someone. Turns out they live OOB, and you ask them how they got into your WOTP school. They reply, "we got lucky" and end of story. Do you keep digging? Why?

As for the teachers and administrators... does this really come up? "Hey, have you met so-and-so's parents? Do you know where they live? I don't see them at our playground too often." Really?

EXACTLY. You say we got lucky, people assume lottery and how will anyone else know? Unless the admin in the office is being nosy and gossipy about addresses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

+1, and it probably will if parents and schools realize it gets abused and school overcrowding continues. People will start making a huge fuss about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

+1, and it probably will if parents and schools realize it gets abused and school overcrowding continues. People will start making a huge fuss about it.

But the folks who are already there will be grandfathered. So, OP is safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

+1, and it probably will if parents and schools realize it gets abused and school overcrowding continues. People will start making a huge fuss about it.

But the folks who are already there will be grandfathered. So, OP is safe.

I wouldn't bet real estate on that, especially for the entire feeder chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because they are not abusing a poorly written policy intended for a different purpose, but are acting according to the idea of DC's neighborhood school model, the intention of which is to have kids who live near each other go to school together. It's not that hard to understand, and the reaction of the IB parents shows many people feel that way. It's good to see that your anticipation of this sort of community pressure deterred you from going that route.

Who decides what is the idea of DC neighborhood school is, or whether it is important, or whether that is the only possible model? Way to pretend your vision is the only correct one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. To all the IB parents raising alarm: how do you know someone is a cheat vs lotteried in from OOB? I know of one OOB family at our WOTP school who has a kid here and another at a "rising" EOTP school; lotteried into both. You just don't know.

Because there were still IB kids on the waitlist - happened twice for both my kids' classes for PK4. The families are still there too, one doesn't even live in DC anymore.