Reply to Renting but not occupying for DCPS in-boundary residency purposes?

Forum Index » DC Public and Public Charter Schools

Reply to "Renting but not occupying for DCPS in-boundary residency purposes?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It’s fraud and if you get caught, you’ll be fined and forced to pay each years tuition for each child...[/quote]

You have no idea what you’re talking about. Go away. Tuition only applies to non-DC residents. DCPS changed it policy last year and now students can continue at their school (and feeder path too) even if they move OOB.[b] And it’s clear DCPS did this in response to IB Parents who incessantly complained that OOB got to keep their spot even if they move houses[/b] (so long as they stay in the District). I think the complaint was intended to argue why OOB practice need to be eliminated. But since that will never go away DC responded, “OK, nobody has to leave.” Big backfire. [/quote]

They changed it to protect children who are housing insecure -- bouncing from mom to dad to grandma's etc.

[/quote]

Exactly.  not to allow well off families to rent a studio in their preferred zone and pretend they live there. [/quote]

First of all can one of you produce the proof that DCPS made the change in order to specifically protect children who are housing insecure?  While it seems like a reasonable and compassionate connection (and timing wise it did occur around the time the Mayor announced her plan to open shelters for homeless families in each ward—what happened to that by the way?), I’d like to see where the mayor or Chancellor made this connection publicly. Because ever since the boundary review that took place several years ago at this point, I’ve heard lots of people living IB for upper NWDC complain loudly how unfair it is that OOB students get to stay once they lottery in (and can move wherever they want in the District) but IB families are unable to move OOB without losing their spot (they would have had to lottery in as an OOB student). I honestly thought is was a reasonable argument considering DCPS has always made continuity for the student and family a priority. And many of these same people living IB for upper NW schools were also making the argument that the OOB policy shouldn’t be done away with period. So it seems pretty reasonable to me that DCPS changed the policy in response to those complaints. Doing away with OOB is not an option. If you had attended those boundary meetings you would know that. So to get some of those complainers off their backs, change the policy and let kids stay at their school (and in their feeder path) even if they move out of the neighborhood. Of course saying it was driven by wanting to ensure housing insecure kids don’t have to bounce around from school to school is an entirely acceptable company line. But DCPS knew what they were doing. If housing insecure kids were the only focus the policy change could have been written more narrowly. It wasn’t.  The point is, so long as you live in boundary for a good portion of the school year you can absolutely stay at that school if you move OOB and be well within your rights to do so. . And of course, DCPS can say they’re changing policy year to year but when you’re talking about a policy that impacts a child’s entire educational path I think they know they can’t change it willy-nilly. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics