Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

oh stfu about Trump. OP is taking a spot away from a poor kid - she's literally buying a spot in a better school likely in part due to her own racism about the Shaw schools.

also it was OP who asked is it fraud. we're just answering the question.

OP here. Don't throw the R word out please. I am not white.

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

Are you kidding?

People who bend the rules for their own convenience and gain at the expense of those less fortunate merely because they can afford it and don’t think they will get caught.

That is Trump’s America.

Is that you?

Anonymous wrote:Try no probability of being caught because parents have the right to claim a DC residence they own and do not rent out as their legal domicile in the District.

Not if a parent does not live there. If the parents were divorced and shared custody, then yes you can use either address without counting the number of days in each place. But that isn't OP's situation. Grandma, not a legal guardian, lives in that apartment. To use your terms, she is "renting" that apartment, even if the rent paid is $0. The important thing is that neither the child nor any legal guardian of the child lives in that apartment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

oh stfu about Trump. OP is taking a spot away from a poor kid - she's literally buying a spot in a better school likely in part due to her own racism about the Shaw schools.

also it was OP who asked is it fraud. we're just answering the question.

+1. I also don’t like residency fraud (including arrangements like OP’s) for this reason—it means poor/middle class kids are less likely to lottery into good schools—but also for admittedly selfish reasons.

Our IB is has a growing percentage of IB families, although much lower IB overall than the JKLMs. When people like OP pull these sorts of shenanigans, it means that other IB families that actually live in the neighborhood are more likely to get waitlisted for PK3/4. When this happens, they go to other schools, like HRCS. Once they start down a different path, some stay on it. That means fewer actual IB families at the school. OP and others like her undermine the sense of community that comes with families in the same neighborhood at the school. Families doing what OP is doing are less likely to make the trek across town for evening school activities, no play dates since they don’t want to give away their arrangement, no bumping into each other at the playground, etc.

This is why I find what OP is doing annoying—both for the “buying” her way into a school, and the undermined sense of community at our neighborhood school. I’m not annoyed enough to follow them home or report them, but TBH I wouldn’t mind if someone else did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

oh stfu about Trump. OP is taking a spot away from a poor kid - she's literally buying a spot in a better school likely in part due to her own racism about the Shaw schools.

also it was OP who asked is it fraud. we're just answering the question.

I also don’t like residency fraud (including arrangements like OP’s) for this reason—it means poor/middle class kids are less likely to lottery into good schools—but also for admittedly selfish reasons.

+1. Our IB is has a growing percentage of IB families, although much lower IB overall than the JKLMs. When people like OP pull these sorts of shenanigans, it means that other IB families that actually live in the neighborhood are more likely to get waitlisted for PK3/4. When this happens, they go to other schools, like HRCS. Once they start down a different path, some stay on it. That means fewer actual IB families at the school. OP and others like her undermine the sense of community that comes with families in the same neighborhood at the school. Families doing what OP is doing are less likely to make the trek across town for evening school activities, no play dates since they don’t want to give away their arrangement, no bumping into each other at the playground, etc.

This is why I find what OP is doing annoying—both for the “buying” her way into a school, and the undermined sense of community at our neighborhood school. I’m not annoyed enough to follow them home or report them, but TBH I wouldn’t mind if someone else did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

Only the brown ones will be followed.

The last refuge of scoundrels in DC, especially when called out for their criminal conduct, is to play the race card.

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

oh stfu about Trump. OP is taking a spot away from a poor kid - she's literally buying a spot in a better school likely in part due to her own racism about the Shaw schools.

also it was OP who asked is it fraud. we're just answering the question.

Anonymous wrote:Try no probability of being caught because parents have the right to claim a DC residence they own and do not rent out as their legal domicile in the District.

No, they don't. You can't have two domiciles, and the form asks where you "reside."

Anonymous wrote:I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

Only the brown ones will be followed.

I really hope some of you don’t start following random grannies just to out the OP...

...wouldn’t surprise me in Trumps America.

The parent wants the grandmother in DC in a family-owned condo, and and the kid in a WOTP school. She explaind that she wants to kill two birds with one stone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not, but you're a sanctimonious asshole.

If OOP wants to buy and maintain two homes in the District to help her multi-generational family, paying taxes, I'm OK with that.

Well, luckily for us, you don’t make the laws in DC.

Irrelevant what I do or don't do here. OP can take advantage of loophole in the law as written. You're furious because you can't stop her. Get a life.

There is no loophole. If OP is reported her children will be removed from the WOTP school.

Yes there is and no the child won't. Give us one example of when this has ever happened. You can't because there is none.

If another parent calls the DCPS residency fraud tips line or complains to admins WOTP, they will likely be ignored. But if OP is ever investigated by DCPS, she will be given a chance to provide extra residency verification documents, including certified tax returns, all of which she will have. If a school registrar or investigators do a home visit, they will see the kid's stuff in the condo and the mom will be cleared. Having been through this process myself, when I was divorcing and living in a small condo, I know the drill. You're just plain wrong.

NP. You are conflating a legal loophole and the realities of it being difficult to prove this type of fraud and DC's general disinterest in trying to build non-slam dunk cases.

You are right that someone probably faces little practical risk. DC is not going to have an investigator meticulously track where the student actually resides. But you are absolutely wrong that it is a LEGAL loophole. Low probability of being caught does not equal legal.

But why, like really why...what school in DCPS is worth this. The OP is a fool, a cheating one at that, but more importantly a fool. You're going to maintain 2 residences in DC and forgo rent in order to get your kid in where was it again Parent needs their head examined

Try no probability of being caught because parents have the right to claim a DC residence they own and do not rent out as their legal domicile in the District.

It's true that DCPS doesn't have a track record of going at families who use nuclear family addresses/residences for in-boundary registration where everybody involved is a bona fide DC resident. The great majority of these families are low SES, generally with matriarch grandmothers assuming a lot of responsibility for raising grand kids (sometimes total responsibility).

But the family does need to have the right paperwork and to be pass a home visit if one is done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not, but you're a sanctimonious asshole.

If OOP wants to buy and maintain two homes in the District to help her multi-generational family, paying taxes, I'm OK with that.

Well, luckily for us, you don’t make the laws in DC.

Irrelevant what I do or don't do here. OP can take advantage of loophole in the law as written. You're furious because you can't stop her. Get a life.

There is no loophole. If OP is reported her children will be removed from the WOTP school.

Yes there is and no the child won't. Give us one example of when this has ever happened. You can't because there is none.

If another parent calls the DCPS residency fraud tips line or complains to admins WOTP, they will likely be ignored. But if OP is ever investigated by DCPS, she will be given a chance to provide extra residency verification documents, including certified tax returns, all of which she will have. If a school registrar or investigators do a home visit, they will see the kid's stuff in the condo and the mom will be cleared. Having been through this process myself, when I was divorcing and living in a small condo, I know the drill. You're just plain wrong.

NP. You are conflating a legal loophole and the realities of it being difficult to prove this type of fraud and DC's general disinterest in trying to build non-slam dunk cases.

You are right that someone probably faces little practical risk. DC is not going to have an investigator meticulously track where the student actually resides. But you are absolutely wrong that it is a LEGAL loophole. Low probability of being caught does not equal legal.