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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, the two schools they may move into are better than BCC and they want to keep their kid in BCC. Stop clutching your pearls. No one cares.

Most of us feel BCC is a better choice. Those schools you seem to like so much have a terrible record with hate crimes.

No. Good Lord. You have no sense at all. For years now there has been a small handful of kids who like to rile up the Bethesda community by drawing offensive symbols. They are not antisemites (there are many people of Jewish descent here - my street is three quarters Jewish). They discovered that this symbol triggered the strongest reaction, which is what they're looking for. And since the wealthy schools are constantly under the microscope and any incident in a wealthy public gets amplified on DCUM, because a portion of the community loves to dump on wealthy suburbs... that's how people like you get the wrong end of the stick.

BCC has lately had a problem with drugs that has been much discussed on DCUM. There are drugs everywhere, that's understood, but this year it's been worse at BCC. Since dealers and users are all students and graduate at some point, such clusters are fluid and can pop up and disappear at all schools.

You need a little context and perspective on area high schools, PP. There is absolutely no question at all that academically, BCC is the poor cousin of W schools. It's a solid school. But Whitman and Churchill are better for academics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, the two schools they may move into are better than BCC and they want to keep their kid in BCC. Stop clutching your pearls. No one cares.

Most of us feel BCC is a better choice. Those schools you seem to like so much have a terrible record with hate crimes.

Anonymous wrote:Lol, the two schools they may move into are better than BCC and they want to keep their kid in BCC. Stop clutching your pearls. No one cares.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Where I live in Richmond, I've heard of people being caught doing this.

One family had enrolled in the wrong elementary school because a dishonest realtor put a more desirable elementary school on the listing, and for some reason the school secretary accepted this when they enrolled their child 5+ years ago. When they showed up to enroll the sibling, things had changed and they were informed both children would need to go to their zoned school. (They actually didn't know they were committing fraud because they were new to the area and not plugged into school politics.)

Another family moved out of a more desirable zone and tried to use their old address to enroll one child in middle school and their new address to enroll a younger child in elementary. The system flagged them for having two kids in supposedly different addresses and the middle schooler was unenrolled.

But they only represent a fraction of the people I've known who have used old addresses they now rent out or even a friend's address to enroll their kids in the wrong school. It seems people only get caught when freshly enrolling. I've never heard of anyone informing the school.

I do think it's morally wrong to use a false address to enroll your child, but I understand the fear that you'll ask permission and be denied. If you are enrolling your child in a less desirable school or opening up space at a more crowded school, I suppose it mitigates it a bit (but also increases the likelihood you could do it on the up and up), but I still wouldn't be comfortable doing it myself. I don't want to teach my kid to consider herself above the rules.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's alarming how many people in this thread want a high school student to completely uproot their life when their parents still own a home in the area they go to school just to "follow rules." There are bigger problems to worry about. Get some perspective.

That high school student's parents are the ones who are choosing to "completely uproot" the life of the student.

If you own a house you don't live in, you're not a homeowner, you're a houseowner.