Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Children that are let into pre-K because of a need identified by early stages do not lie about their address. Yes, Janney like all schools takes special cases. This is not one of them.

Do you know this for sure? You know the people who live in the house? You know there was no typeo in the address? You know that the Principal doesn't know about this? You know that the Principal hasn't already spoken to the family and had them proven their residency?

Just checking because you actually don't know.

What's your deal, lady. A person doesn't have to know the answer to all of these questions. The OP recognized that one of the published "facts" about the family is incorrect. The responsible thing to do is to alert the city of a potential problem. It is then up to the city to check the errant fact and figure out if it is fraud or if it is a mistake or if there is a special circumstance. It is absolutely unreasonable to say that you should do nothing unless you can prove fraud. That is not the job of the individual. Individuals are supposed to report when they know that a certain fact is wrong. That is how the system is designed to work.

Very Strange quibble. Anyone that afford to rent an apartment and not live there is definitely wealthy in mind mind. And either way, they could afford to go to private if that's what they were doing.

Anonymous wrote:Children that are let into pre-K because of a need identified by early stages do not lie about their address. Yes, Janney like all schools takes special cases. This is not one of them.

Do you know this for sure? You know the people who live in the house? You know there was no typeo in the address? You know that the Principal doesn't know about this? You know that the Principal hasn't already spoken to the family and had them proven their residency?

Just checking because you actually don't know.

Yes, Really.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck, it happens. Wealthy people are getting their kids in to school by renting an apt in-bounds and then prove residency at that apt but never live there. DCPS has no way to prove otherwise nor the time.

hmm....upper middle class perhaps? Most of the truly wealthy are not bothering with this...

a strange quibble given whatever your definition of upper middle class in DC is, very likely is wealthy by most measures.

Anonymous wrote:Trust me, when the boundary discussion started two years ago, it was partially at Janney's insistence pushing Mary Cheh to start the discussion. Then it turned into a city wide discussion and Janney's boundaries never got redrawn. You are preaching to the choir.

Really? It seems like the choir's message got lost in this last round if there is any truth to this. They could make the school over 1000 children and then decide the boundaries need adjustment, but it seems pretty clear now.

Anonymous wrote:Good luck, it happens. Wealthy people are getting their kids in to school by renting an apt in-bounds and then prove residency at that apt but never live there. DCPS has no way to prove otherwise nor the time.

hmm....upper middle class perhaps? Most of the truly wealthy are not bothering with this...

Trust me, when the boundary discussion started two years ago, it was partially at Janney's insistence pushing Mary Cheh to start the discussion. Then it turned into a city wide discussion and Janney's boundaries never got redrawn. You are preaching to the choir.

Anonymous wrote:But "they" didn't propose a larger section of the Janney boundary, so there was no point. I don't think there would have been push back if it had been larger, but when you're talking about five families...

As for the set asides, the school is over capacity, if every year they let in ten percent for set asides.... what do we do, a third renovation? NO other elementary is growing at this rate.

Perhaps they should change the boundaries if it is so overcrowded?

Children that are let into pre-K because of a need identified by early stages do not lie about their address. Yes, Janney like all schools takes special cases. This is not one of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary restrictions don't apply for pre-k. However, they must live somewhere in the District. If they live in Maryland they should be reported.

Are you crazy? Trust me, with 40 kids in-bound for Janney on the wait list, boundary restrictions absolutely counted for PreK.

Nope they don't. Up to Principal discretion and/or downtown. They can be placed easily. Are you going to complain about a needy child getting in?

you should re-read OP's post. it's not about a needy child, is about a child listed as living at an address IB for Janney while, according to OP, the child does not live at that address.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary restrictions don't apply for pre-k. However, they must live somewhere in the District. If they live in Maryland they should be reported.

Are you crazy? Trust me, with 40 kids in-bound for Janney on the wait list, boundary restrictions absolutely counted for PreK.

Nope they don't. Up to Principal discretion and/or downtown. They can be placed easily. Are you going to complain about a needy child getting in?

I know that there is discretion but that doesn't equate to 'boundaries don't count'.

But "they" didn't propose a larger section of the Janney boundary, so there was no point. I don't think there would have been push back if it had been larger, but when you're talking about five families...

As for the set asides, the school is over capacity, if every year they let in ten percent for set asides.... what do we do, a third renovation? NO other elementary is growing at this rate.

Anonymous wrote:Fannie Mae folks either like the international aspect, so they would go for Stoddert, or they have enough money to do Sidwell. Probably not interested in Janney.

there are all kinds of jobs in that area, maybe they work at Best Buy or the Container Store, who knows. I person I knew a while ago had her kids at Eaton and Deal, and was working in a small business less than three blocks from Eaton, while living in PG county (close to the border, but in MD and not DC). she would drop her kids on her way to work and pick them up on her way home.

I have no idea if OP is legit or just a troll looking for trouble, certainly with 40+ IB kids waiting for a pre-k spot saying that one of the kids admitted does not have the right to be there (this sounds like what OP is saying, if the directory says that little John Smith lives with James and Jane Smith at 1234 XY st, NW and OP lives next door from that address and knows that the people who live next door are four students at AU renting, or George and Maggie Brown and their lovely daughter Cindy who goes to Deal, there is either a mistake in the directory - always possible - or is very likely that somebody is cheating, using a friend's address, or the address of a rental or similar stuff) is likely to generate some buzz. as others have said, OP should simply report the info she has to the principal, who I assume does not want to have somebody with no right to be there while over 40+ IB families are left out. simply complaining on DCUM is pointless

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundary restrictions don't apply for pre-k. However, they must live somewhere in the District. If they live in Maryland they should be reported.

Are you crazy? Trust me, with 40 kids in-bound for Janney on the wait list, boundary restrictions absolutely counted for PreK.

Nope they don't. Up to Principal discretion and/or downtown. They can be placed easily. Are you going to complain about a needy child getting in?