Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Desperation causes people to break laws. Also, bad laws.

This couple earns $150k per year in base salary. MPD is known for its high amount of available overtime. Some of the children were high schoolers. They are not desperate. They are entitled. Sure, there are trade offs in work and housing and school. Everyone in this city makes them.

If this is about the original 2 cop couple with the three kids. It was not about them not having enough money, it was about their convenience. They were using the address of one of their many rental properties as their address. They lived in a giant house about 45 minutes away in MD. I really hope they paid up.

Anonymous wrote:Desperation causes people to break laws. Also, bad laws.

Oh cry me a river. Desperate, the principal of Leckie, who makes more than me and my husband combined? Desperate, the Chancellor making $240,000 per year? They're corrupt and entitled. Not desperate.

Anonymous wrote:Desperation causes people to break laws. Also, bad laws.

This couple earns $150k per year in base salary. MPD is known for its high amount of available overtime. Some of the children were high schoolers. They are not desperate. They are entitled. Sure, there are trade offs in work and housing and school. Everyone in this city makes them.

Desperation causes people to break laws. Also, bad laws.

It is happening because DC employees want to have a big house in the suburbs and to send their kids to schools near their city jobs. It is a reasonable thing to want. Many people do. But it is not legal and it is fraud, and these parents or guardians have signed documents every year for every child attesting that they are DC residents.

Anonymous wrote:NP here. Can't wade through 34 pages but here is my perspective, based solely on the details of the WTOP story.

I don't think the City is taking a reasonable response. They need to ask why this is happening. In the article I read, a couple owed over $200k in tuition for 3 kids plus over $300k in fines. They were both DC police officers. I feel the City should allow city employees to send their kids to DC schools for free, since we probably don't pay our city civil servants enough to cover tuition and the crazy traffic makes it hard to get home to an affordable neighborhood to pick kids up after school or hire someone. We should just provide this as a benefit so we can be assured of having a good workforce. Otherwise, we won't be able to fill lower-paying jobs. Hard to complain about package theft and worse when we can't provide sufficient benefits to our police. Also, the whole focus seems to be on punishing the students by hunting them out and kicking them out. It's not the kids' fault. This is a policy failure.

No, it's not. It's a failure of character. Those who are in positions of public trust but break the public trust do not deserve their jobs.

NP here. Can't wade through 34 pages but here is my perspective, based solely on the details of the WTOP story.

I don't think the City is taking a reasonable response. They need to ask why this is happening. In the article I read, a couple owed over $200k in tuition for 3 kids plus over $300k in fines. They were both DC police officers. I feel the City should allow city employees to send their kids to DC schools for free, since we probably don't pay our city civil servants enough to cover tuition and the crazy traffic makes it hard to get home to an affordable neighborhood to pick kids up after school or hire someone. We should just provide this as a benefit so we can be assured of having a good workforce. Otherwise, we won't be able to fill lower-paying jobs. Hard to complain about package theft and worse when we can't provide sufficient benefits to our police. Also, the whole focus seems to be on punishing the students by hunting them out and kicking them out. It's not the kids' fault. This is a policy failure.

Anonymous wrote:Front page above the fold today. So much for burying the story.

Nothing on the main page of the website though. Who reads the paper edition any more?

Front page above the fold today. So much for burying the story.

Anonymous wrote:I have to say I'm disappointed in the WaPo coverage of this latest development. This is a big deal and they're burying it.

You are joking, right? The Post isn't perfect but has been covering this for a while and been a key part of moving it forward.

I have to say I'm disappointed in the WaPo coverage of this latest development. This is a big deal and they're burying it.

I don’t think the top dogs at DCPS want the problem fixed. Otherwise enrolment numbers will look even worse than they are. DCPS (except for a few select schools) is losing students in a big way and that is not something the DC Mayor or DCPS Chancellor want to highlight. MD kids help pad the numbers. I know an administrator at Anacostia and she said they even have MD kids enrolled there. Not sure why MD parents would pick that school but whatever. Anacostia HS desperately needs kids to enroll so maybe it all works out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused how people falsify records. You need two forms to prove residency, unless you have a pay stub. It’s not that easy to do. Practically, how do people falsify these forms?

Depends on your job. I could go into my self-service ADP portal at work and change my address now, and leave it that way for the next 6-8 weeks for enrollment, and then change it back.

The article listed other scenarios -- renting an apartment or room in District; claiming your child lives at the address of a friend or relative (have your name on their utility bill).

Renting an apartment or room in the District should not be a problem here. If the child physically resides in a DC rental during the week but a parent also has a non-DC house, then that child should get DC in-state tuition. There are a lot of scenarios - for example, separated parents - where this makes sense for the child. That's why the actual metric DC uses to assess a student's residency status is the physical residence of the child, not what is legally designated to be the primary residence of the parent.

In my opinion, the kids needs to have the parent/guardian who is registering them for school be a DC taxpayer. This is the crux of the issue. And, ideally, OSSE can pull this verification directly from the District's tax systems.

Plus, the law around "primary caretaker" needs to change. All that is required from grandma or auntie is writing a letter attesting that they are the primary caretaker and that the child lives with them. It's so loosey-goosey and lax. Basically any District citizen can claim to be the child's caretaker for purposes of qualifying DC residency.

I think you're way out of touch with the home situations of a lot of DC students. If the student is physically in DC during the school year, that should be (and is) what qualifies the student as a DC resident. If a grandma claims caretaker status but the kid is residing outside of DC, that clearly should not be allowed. But there are a lot of grandmas and aunties actually taking care of kids in DC while their parents live somewhere else - and these are not the cases DC should focus its limited resources on. Let's stop the cases with kids physically residing out of DC first - that's the bulk of the problem and the most blatant violations.

Then the kid needs to be a dependent on Grandma or Aunty's DC tax return. It's a really easy threshold to meet and is a simple change in her withholding formula. I am totally sympathetic to that Mom and Dad may live elsewhere or totally be out of the picture, so the relative takes care of the child.

But my strong suspicion is that many middle class families are using the Grandma/Auntie attestation to say she is the main caregiver because the law on this is so loosey-goosey. And then the parents are claiming the child as a dependent on their MD taxes, while driving the kid into DC everyday.

the most obvious fix would be requiring non-parent guardianship to be validated as a dependent on tax form, but taxes are filed annually for most residents and might not overlap with enrollment period. Taxes aren't file for previous year until 3.5 months into following year, after 3/4 of a given school year has completed. Even so a legal mechanism should apply for declaring guardianship which can be validated as needed

Yeah but legal guardianship can take quite awhile to establish and meanwhile the kid is stuck in limbo. But really I don’t think DC cares about those cases. The problem is middle class people with kids living in MD or VA. My guess is mostly MD?

It's been made abundantly clear on this thread -- and reinforced by today's news -- that DCPS has no desire to address the problem. The current rules are not designed to solve the problem, but to create obstacles to it being solved. Yes, there will always be edge cases that require judgment. But that's not 40% of the kids at Ellington.

This is absolutely correct. This residency fraud is so entrenched that it has become an accepted norm. It is dc and federal government employees scratching each other’s backs. The system for getting your MD kids into DCPS schools is commonly accepted and probably even easier than getting a DC resident kid into the school

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused how people falsify records. You need two forms to prove residency, unless you have a pay stub. It’s not that easy to do. Practically, how do people falsify these forms?

Depends on your job. I could go into my self-service ADP portal at work and change my address now, and leave it that way for the next 6-8 weeks for enrollment, and then change it back.

The article listed other scenarios -- renting an apartment or room in District; claiming your child lives at the address of a friend or relative (have your name on their utility bill).

Renting an apartment or room in the District should not be a problem here. If the child physically resides in a DC rental during the week but a parent also has a non-DC house, then that child should get DC in-state tuition. There are a lot of scenarios - for example, separated parents - where this makes sense for the child. That's why the actual metric DC uses to assess a student's residency status is the physical residence of the child, not what is legally designated to be the primary residence of the parent.

The issue with rentals is that they rent an apartment to get the IB address, and then sublet it to someone else (who then also uses the school). They don't live there, they just use the address.

Yes, that is a problem because the child is not physically in DC. That should not be allowed. Same with designating a DC relative as caretaker while the kid is not physically in DC. Both are illegal. But the physical location of the parents is not, and should not be, the qualifier. This is about the child's welfare and education. A lot of these kids have very different family situations than the typical DCUM-er. But if the kid doesn't wake up in DC every weekday morning, that kid should not be going to a DC public school without tuition.

The issue is which state received your taxes.

Most are DC government or federal government workers who live considerably outside the beltway, and finagle a way or "borrowed address" of someone in DC.

Easy drop offs on commute in and easy pickups afterwards.

Terrible. MCPS has the same issue in its good schools, families commuting or working nearby set it up so they go to their non-districted school. Worst is the apartment units or rental houses housing 6-8 cousins who all just "show up" at the school in September.