Staying in a cluster due to home-ownership but not living in that cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

We pay your salary. Get off DCUM during the work day and get back to work.

Lol,nah. Thanks for my salary though. I'll continue to do whatever I please during my workday.

And therein lies the problem with MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard of people caught doing this where I grew up in PA. Kid immediately gets sent back to their home school regardless of grade & which school it is, plus parents get fined. This was in area where each town is its own school district, dramatic differences between school districts & people playing $20k/year in property taxes aren’t going to put up with someone sending their kid there without paying that.

OP here. This is hilarious so I need to chime in again. I AM paying property taxes. And will continue to do so, in both clusters.

You guys are so funny, saying the system will break if everyone does what I plan on doing. The reality is that 99.99% of people cannot do that, and the other 0.01% would send their kid to the higher-ranked school. So your screeds are not anchored in reality.


Central Office Poster, thank you for chiming in. I will ask.

We need harsher better incentives, penalties and strict enforcement. Anytime spent at an illegal school is excluded from a students record and they are required to repeat the grade. Also, bounties for turning in cheaters! Maybe even give SSL hours if they're spent trying to catch cheaters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

I don't have a problem with a COSA. I have a problem with using "homeowner" to describe people who own a house they don't live in.

Yeah, most people call the parties in a rental home either "tenants" or "landlords" rather than "homeowners".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heard of people caught doing this where I grew up in PA. Kid immediately gets sent back to their home school regardless of grade & which school it is, plus parents get fined. This was in area where each town is its own school district, dramatic differences between school districts & people playing $20k/year in property taxes aren’t going to put up with someone sending their kid there without paying that.

OP here. This is hilarious so I need to chime in again. I AM paying property taxes. And will continue to do so, in both clusters.

You guys are so funny, saying the system will break if everyone does what I plan on doing. The reality is that 99.99% of people cannot do that, and the other 0.01% would send their kid to the higher-ranked school. So your screeds are not anchored in reality.


Central Office Poster, thank you for chiming in. I will ask.

School attendance isn’t based on property taxes. Children of renters attend school where they rent.

You’re free to attempt this, and someone is free to proceed to report you. Tread carefully.

[Anonymous]

MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a renter tried to do this they’d be ripped to shreds.

How would that even be the same situation? A renter... wouldn't still own a place in the same cluster. They never owned it to begin with. This person still would own their home. Huge difference.

Yes, but their home will be in a different cluster.

Residence is what matters here. Property ownership is irrelevant.

You care way too much about this. Never knew MoCo residents of alllll people, were so morally conscious.

When others disregard these rules, it puts an unfair burden on everyone else.

They still own their house. Yes, I get it. You think the whole residency thing matters when it doesn't. If anything, it makes their case stronger. I'd understand if the people in question weren't still paying MoCo taxes...but they are. They soon will be in TWO places. Their kid is already a student in the high school. Why uproot this kid's life? It is unnecessary and most people I know (living in this area) would agree. DCUM is unique...and not in a good way.

"Their house" is now (or will be) in a different cluster. The uprooting is being done by the OP, who is moving from Home A, assigned to High School A, to Home B, assigned to High School B. If I were their neighbor, I wouldn't turn them in for fraud and lying. Nonetheless, it actually is fraud and lying.

New poster- Posting just to add WHO CARES? No one. I wouldn't look at this person and think "what a liar and fraud!" I'd think they are doing what is best for their kid (which is what we are all supposed to be doing) I have other things to think and worry about it. This for sure isn't it.

No, we're not all supposed to be doing what is best for our kid without any consideration of the effect on others. Not to get all Kantian about it, but what if everyone decided to enroll their children in whichever school, regardless of residency requirements? At minimum, it would lead to a lot of mess and chaos in a system that is based on residency requirements.

Their kid is already in school and they still have their home. It's not chaos. Not everyone would be doing this. Not everyone could do this. They have a unique situation. And as an MCPS central office employee, I can safely say we'd sign off on this. So please just ask OP.

No, they don't. They still own the house. But their home is in a different house.

Can you not read? I work in central office. I'm telling you this is a non-issue. In fact, it's one of the easiest COSAs we'd have to sign off on. The people commenting on this thread care more about this than the actual district office. Log-off for a minute.

We pay your salary. Get off DCUM during the work day and get back to work.

Lol,nah. Thanks for my salary though. I'll continue to do whatever I please during my workday.

And therein lies the problem with MCPS.

That someone replied during their lunch break? Oh the horror! You're not entitled to my time just because you pay property tax. Such a juvenile mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

Yes, but once you're enrolled at a school you don't have to show documentation again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

Thank you, PP.

To the others: you can’t shame me. This is my last kid in MCPS, we’ve paid taxes here for years, and I’m perfectly fine morally, even if subterfuge is necessary. BCC is even ranked lower than the schools we’d be moving into! I just wish to avoid a change of schools for my youngest.

I hope you go ahead with this plan and you get caught.

OP here. In that case, my child would switch schools. But I won't endure the shame and guilt you seem to desire for me. Sorry! And obviously we wouldn't be so stupid as to rent to someone who wants to put their kids at BCC. Maybe we wouldn't actually rent it out, but give it to my older child to live in (house still in our name).

That's an idea, actually. If my oldest lives in the house, and we're in and out all the time, it would simplify things. The neighbors would still see all of us (we've all been here since our kids were little - I highly doubt they'd tell on us anyway).

So now you are openly planning to violate Equal Housing laws as well! It is very illegal to deny housing to a family just because they have a school aged child. You’re a real nice person, huh?! Not very bright though.

[Anonymous]

Central office (and teachers), use your free time as you wish, but when posting about school policy citing your employment position, please maintain professional composure. Or don't cite your position, since it's impossible to prevent people lying about their job here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

Yes, but once you're enrolled at a school you don't have to show documentation again.

If I saw a neighbor move, I would definitely find out whether their kids are still at the local school and rat them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

Yes, but once you're enrolled at a school you don't have to show documentation again.

If I saw a neighbor move, I would definitely find out whether their kids are still at the local school and rat them out.

How would you know they hadn't received a COSA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

Yes, but once you're enrolled at a school you don't have to show documentation again.

If I saw a neighbor move, I would definitely find out whether their kids are still at the local school and rat them out.

Most (sane) people would mind their own business. All OP has to do is say their kid was granted COSA and again, most (sane) people wouldn't dig further because most (sane) people have actual lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS does list a property tax bill as an acceptable document to show proof of residency.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/info/enroll/proofs.aspx

The property tax bill includes information about whether or not that is your primary residence. And you can only have one primary residence, for tax purposes, so OP is going to have to choose which house is their primary residence.

Yes, but once you're enrolled at a school you don't have to show documentation again.

If I saw a neighbor move, I would definitely find out whether their kids are still at the local school and rat them out.

Most (sane) people would mind their own business. All OP has to do is say their kid was granted COSA and again, most (sane) people wouldn't dig further because most (sane) people have actual lives.

WRONG! A good neighbor looks out for their community by reporting these cheaters who are hurting everyone else by being selfish. Good job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Central office (and teachers), use your free time as you wish, but when posting about school policy citing your employment position, please maintain professional composure. Or don't cite your position, since it's impossible to prevent people lying about their job here.

What was unprofessional about their post? They provided OP with advice and then some entitled poster felt the need to be rude and "get back to work. I pay your salary!" Maybe we as parents could be be doing better when we react to these posts too. I'm usually ashamed or embarrassed by post of my fellow parents' posts on here. That was definitely one of them.