Rulemaking on residency fraud: Comment now!

[Anonymous]

Maybe the Daily Caller article finally jolted the DC Council into action. There is a proposed rule out to address residency fraud. For all of you who keep complaining about residency cheaters, now is the time to weigh in: http://osse.dc.gov/publication/advanced-notice-proposed-rulemaking-chapter-50-residency-verification-public-schools-and

[Anonymous]

Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

Hope you are submitting your comments to OSSE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

Hope you are submitting your comments to OSSE.

I will. I know they are now going to do audits on 20% of Pkers, but still. The bar should be higher.

[Anonymous]

So, does this close the loopholes:

5001.5 The District of Columbia is the bona fide residence of the student’s parents, guardian, custodian, primary caregiver, or adult student for the purposes of this Chapter, if the person seeking to enroll the student has established both a:
(a) Physical presence in the District of Columbia; and
(b) Legal presence in the District of Columbia.

The next section clarifies the joint custody type situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

Okay, can agree with the utility bill and even other requirements. You are not getting an address on a pay stub from a federal government worker and many private companies. I drive and have a license, but do you have any idea how many people in this city refuse or do not know how to drive, and thus do not own a DL? And with Uber and the red bicycles everywhere, yuck, that number is only growing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, does this close the loopholes:

5001.5 The District of Columbia is the bona fide residence of the student’s parents, guardian, custodian, primary caregiver, or adult student for the purposes of this Chapter, if the person seeking to enroll the student has established both a:
(a) Physical presence in the District of Columbia; and
(b) Legal presence in the District of Columbia.

The next section clarifies the joint custody type situations.

I think this helps clarify a lot of questions as to what defines residency for a child. But it doesn't make cheating any harder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, does this close the loopholes:

5001.5 The District of Columbia is the bona fide residence of the student’s parents, guardian, custodian, primary caregiver, or adult student for the purposes of this Chapter, if the person seeking to enroll the student has established both a:
(a) Physical presence in the District of Columbia; and
(b) Legal presence in the District of Columbia.

The next section clarifies the joint custody type situations.

It establishes a definition of residency. They want to make it clear that physical and legal presence in the city is needed to enroll in schools.

So that addresses people who sleep outside the city but own an apartment in town.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure how the proof of residency can be reasonably tweaked. Pay stubs and utility bills + a DC license are on the list of acceptable documentation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

Okay, can agree with the utility bill and even other requirements. You are not getting an address on a pay stub from a federal government worker and many private companies. I drive and have a license, but do you have any idea how many people in this city refuse or do not know how to drive, and thus do not own a DL? And with Uber and the red bicycles everywhere, yuck, that number is only growing.

The idea behind this is that they want to see DC taxes being taken out, which a federal stub would still show. But regardless at most companies it's FAR to easy to go online to the HR portal, change the address to DC, wait for a pay period, print it out, then change it back. They need to couple that with a utility bill or similar.

[Anonymous]

The definitions are much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I read through their attachment and it doesn't seem to improve anything.

1) There doesn't seem to be any added incentive for schools to catch cheaters - and no punitive measures taken if they don't.

In the event a District public school has already received Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (“UPSFF”)funding for a student found as a non-resident, the District may withhold a portion of the school’s subsequent funding, equal to the amount of UPSFF funding previously distributed to the LEA for the student found as a non-resident.

2) The proof of residency verification is still WAY too light. There should be a requirement of a utility bill and a pay stub and, frankly, a DC license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how the proof of residency can be reasonably tweaked. Pay stubs and utility bills + a DC license are on the list of acceptable documentation.

But you can do it with only a utility bill alone. That's the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how the proof of residency can be reasonably tweaked. Pay stubs and utility bills + a DC license are on the list of acceptable documentation.

But you can do it with only a utility bill alone. That's the issue.

Sorry...I meant pay stub!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, does this close the loopholes:

5001.5 The District of Columbia is the bona fide residence of the student’s parents, guardian, custodian, primary caregiver, or adult student for the purposes of this Chapter, if the person seeking to enroll the student has established both a:
(a) Physical presence in the District of Columbia; and
(b) Legal presence in the District of Columbia.

The next section clarifies the joint custody type situations.

isn't this the same reasons people have been saying for years about the joint custody arrangements.