Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Why would you want to have your kids in school with these types of parents? Move out to Burke. Good schools and fewer asshole parents.

LOL

You think Fairfax parents would be more open to people using loopholes to circumvent school boundaries?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, Why would you want to have your kids in school with these types of parents? Move out to Burke. Good schools and fewer asshole parents.

LOL

Anonymous wrote:OP, Why would you want to have your kids in school with these types of parents? Move out to Burke. Good schools and fewer asshole parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

The difference is that some office worker cannot change a regulation passed by the Council, which is a law, by writing a different policy in a non-binding handbook -- which is what happened.

It would be like a supervisor at the DMV deciding the office policy at the DMV now does not require proof of residence or a vision test to get a DC driver's license. That supervisor had no legal authority to change the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

The difference is that some office worker cannot change a regulation passed by the Council, which is a law, by writing a different policy in a non-binding handbook -- which is what happened.

It would be like a supervisor at the DMV deciding the office policy at the DMV now does not require proof of residence or a vision test to get a DC driver's license. That supervisor had no legal authority to change the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

And we will sue to be grandfathered

Um, or you could just buy a place in a good school district in Maryland or Virginia and not waste your time (and the spot in a school of someone who actually deserves it).

All DC kids deserve good schools, it is the ward 3 parents who think they get to control them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

And we will sue to be grandfathered

Um, or you could just buy a place in a good school district in Maryland or Virginia and not waste your time (and the spot in a school of someone who actually deserves it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

And we will sue to be grandfathered

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

And we will sue to be grandfathered

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing to keep in mind: The POLICY changed, but the actual regulations have not changed. If this policy change does result in (even more) overcrowding issues WOTP, there's nothing to stop DCPS from changing the policy back to the way it was before. I wouldn't want to make a long-term property purchase based on a very recent policy change that may or may not be there in a couple years.

Not sure I get the difference...

Regardless of understanding the difference, PP's point remains: this is a change that went into effect within the last year, so be careful planning your kids' academic future based on this change. It could just as easily change back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People do this but unless you are going to actually reside in the condo, you are gaming the system, i.e., cheating.

Yes, it's called residency fraud. WOTP schools are already overcrowded, we don't need cheaters.

And when the WOTP classmate's families figure this out, you will be turned in for sure.

Indeed, I would absolutely report this. We either have a neighborhood school model or we don't. It's not fair to anyone.

Honestly, there's zero way for you to know. They will just tell you they previously lived in the boundary and were grandfathered into it, which DCPS has clarified is totally allowable. They can tell you one thing and be registered with DCPS in another manner.

OP: your best bet is to live in the boundary for the first year or two and then move elsewhere. DCPS has clarified that you retain full feeder rights to the original school. It's a crazy policy, but that's how the rules are enforced.

And by "move elsewhere," I mean move elsewhere within the District.

I have know people who have done this for Janney. No one had a problem with them because they're white.

Anonymous wrote:Even if DCPS didn't have a "once you're in, you're in" policy, it would still make sense for those with means to buy a condo and leave it empty, maybe use it as an office and/or for visiting family and friends, than pay private school tuition. Monthly payments on a $300k condo with 20% down would be less than tuition at most private schools and the principal payments could be recouped.