Anonymous wrote:I just need to vent on this topic for a minute. This morning I dropped my daughter off at a very popular, well regarded charter school. She was 30 minutes late for school because we had to run in to the doctor's office first thing this morning. While I was dropping her off, an SUV with Maryland plates dropped off three children at school and then proceeded to throw her car's trash out the door into the curb as she drove off. How do I about reporting her? My daughter didn't recognize any of the kids because they were older. do i describe the car and the kids to the principal? BTW, my daughter was appalled at the trash throwing and ended up picking up the stuff she had dropped and throwing it away.

This is the same school where last year, with the principal in the room, a child making a class presentation on the Chesapeake Bay watershed asked the rhetorical question "How many of you live in MD, VA or DC?" And a few kids said "me!" when the child asked about Maryland.

Irritates the heck out of me.

Anonymous wrote:Again, I have to ask, why would ANYONE want to go to DCPS in the first place?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps you are not willfully misreading the law, but it has consistently been interpreted that the child + primary caregiver must live in DC. A primary caregiver can be a parent, custodian or another person like a grandmother, but they MUST live in DC, as must the child.

Really, it's not that hard. If the kid goes home and goes to bed in Maryland, he's not eligible to go to school in DC. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one is redefining anything, and everyone needs to be on notice that if the "changes" you go through in the next 12 years mean you move out of the district/your kid isn't living in the district, you can be kicked out of public school any time unless you had let them know and are paying tuition.

Would Campbell have been allowed to enroll the child in Maryland? She would have been required to be the child's legal guardian to enroll the child in Maryland. So if the mom has custody and is therefor the legal guardian, but Campbell is the primary caregiver, the child is SOL in both jurisdictions in his ability to receive an education.

Sounds like his parents a eff-ups! That's no excuse to steal a seat from a DC kid with an equally compelling need. They should have sent him private. With that McMansion in Fort Wash, they could afford it. Poor AA kids that are legal residents don't have that option. Shame on that thief. I want her fine to go towards reimbursing kids that were stolen from.

Really, that's your answer. Fuck the kid as his parents must be effed up. Apparently the child's mom is a resident of the District of Columbia. Is she a tax payer. Who knows. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. What is really screwy about the way the law is written is that two attorneys can interpret it differently, so indeed it will be litigated at DC taxpayer expense. It is not as clearly written as some of you profess. It will be interesting to see how it is argued.

For people in similar situations as this child, the alternative is to place the child in the system under kinder ship care. DC taxpayers pay the non-resident relative a fee for the care of a DC citizen. The child is then eligible to continue his education in DC.

I am not condoning the practice of stealing seats from DC students, but not one of you would have sent your little darlings to Langdon Elementary. Campbell pissed somebody off and that is why she is in this conundrum.

Anonymous wrote:She must have pissed off someone. Who at Langdon turned her in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awesome:

Barbara Campbell, former D.C. principal, sued for tuition fraud

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzveXjxB

A former D.C. principal and her family are being sued by the city for allowing her great-grandson, who lived outside the district, to attend her school for free.

The tuition fraud suit against Barbara Campbell, her daughter and granddaughter was filed Friday. The suit alleges Campbell and her family enrolled the child at Langdon Education Campus in D.C. for more than two years and lied about where the child lived.

At an administrative hearing, the family testified that the boy lived in D.C. with his mother when, in fact, he lived with Campbell in Maryland.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, the city is seeking more than $75,000 in unpaid tuition and civil penalties.


The daughter did not and never has lived in the District of Columbia. Only the great grandmother who orchestrated this plan stated she lived in DC. The only relative residing in DC was the grandmother who lived in SE, DC. Ironically, this same grandmother was barred from DCPS properties yet was employed by the great grandmother to operate the school's after care program. This sounds like a very corrupt situation. Prince George's County court records indicate the mother resided in MD in her custody filings. Was this why she was fired by DCPS ? There is an awful stench hovering over this whole scheme.
Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzvUEqiT

I'm confused. If the boy's mother lived in DC, that should have been enough to entitle him to a DC education, even if he was living with his grandmother in MD.

The law in DC is a follows:

(a) In the case of: (1) each adult who attends a public school of the District of Columbia and does not reside in the District of Columbia; and (2) each child who attends such a public school and does not have a parent, guardian, custodian, or other primary caregiver who resides in the District of Columbia, or is not an orphan; there shall be paid to the State Education Office the amount fixed by the State Education Office pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

DC ST § 38-302

So, the law requires adults to reside in DC, but children only to have a parent, custodian, or primary caregiver who resides in DC.

For example, in a divorce situation where the mother has custody and resides in MD and the father resides in DC, the child could attend a DCPS.

I don't see how having a mother who resides in DC while living with your grandmother in MD is fundamentally different. Why did the family bother lying about where the child lived?

Would someone who really understands the law please explain.

I can understand how you are mis-reading that, but you ARE mis-reading it. What that means is, the PRIMARY CAREGIVER (be it a parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver) has to live in DC. Primary caregiver by definition means the person the child mainly lives with. The only place where there's a question about this is where the child equally splits time between 2 homes, in which case the DC home should still be able to make a case for residency.

But where mom lives in DC but the child is living (meaning, going home every night, eating, sleeping, and mainly living) with Great Grandma in MD, that does NOT meet the above definition because the primary caregiver is great grandma, not mom.

I'm not misreading the law. The word "or" has an accepted meaning that cannot be changed by the statute. The child must have a "parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver" who lives in DC.

The rationale for adding "or other primary caregiver" to the law is to legitimize cases in which neither parent lives in DC, but the child's primary caregiver does, as would the child in that case.

In this case, however, the child's mother does live in DC. It does not matter where the child's primary caregiver lives.