http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/10/dc-government-chooses-maryland-kids-over-tax-paying-residents-for-school-slots/

And the next part is up, according a fairly serious accusation that the DME chief of staff directly intervened to have a MD resident in DC schools. Also that while there are MD residents that say they are MD residents and are supposed to pay tuition, little of that tuition is actually collected.

Sue the city to actually get them to enforce residency --> high five.

Anonymous wrote:The problem will be fixed when we have a Mayor interested in making sure the Chancellor pushes to fix the problem. Because there has been little to no action on this subject, we can infer the Mayor does not believe her constituents would be happy if she enforced the law.

This x 1000
The Mayor and the Council could crack down on the issue and save a bundle of money for DCPS. But they don't; why not?
There obviously must be a political benefit to allowing these fraudulent families to siphon DC tax dollars. MD residents don't vote in DC elections, so it's not their votes.

Perhaps pols are worried about a public sector union strike? My best guess is that it's tied into DC's churches and the power of pastors to GOTV. The pastors' "flock" now comes from all over the region.

A wait listed family who didn't get in to their preferred school would have standing to sue, if they can definitively identify a fraudulent student.

Anonymous wrote:Mandamus the school district:

http://stillwatergazette.com/2016/03/02/parent-takes-legal-action-over-possible-school-closures/

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1010644.html

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=845b41b1-e903-4776-bb28-f299cd5a6e42

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/09/17/palo-alto-school-district-named-in-lawsuit-over-phys-ed

"The suit asks for a writ of mandamus (which asks a judge to order elected officials to follow the law and perform their duties in a legal manner) "

Mandamus the school district:

http://stillwatergazette.com/2016/03/02/parent-takes-legal-action-over-possible-school-closures/

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1010644.html

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=845b41b1-e903-4776-bb28-f299cd5a6e42

DC has the highest # of lawyers per capita:
http://www.averyindex.com/lawyers_per_capita.php

I am sure someone could cobble together a few unemployed lawyers who want some "experience" for a test case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are class action law suits based on state constitutional language requiring "adequate" education and the number of charter schools....but such language does not exist in D.C.

http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/2016-Constitutional-obligations-for-public-education-1.pdf

"Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."

The OSSE Web site says "DC law requires OSSE to investigate allegations of residency fraud. Once an allegation of residency fraud is received, a full investigation is conducted, which can include an examination of submitted residency verification documents and surveillance by a private investigator."

I'm not a lawyer, but if OSSE is demonstrably not following existing law (requiring residency verification), is that not grounds for a lawsuit?

My guess is that there would not be standing to sue. There is no mechanism to require the prosecutors to enforce any particular criminal laws and against whom, and my guess it that there would be no standing to force a school district to enforce the civil residency rules. No "private right of action", but maybe 3rd party beneficiary theory....using this "No child left behind" enforcement article:

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/45_3/04_TXT.htm

"plaintiffs must establish that they have standing to enforce its terms.182 Traditionally, only the parties to a contract had the right to enforce it, but contract law has evolved to provide a cause of action for third-party beneficiaries.183 Because they are not parties to the agreement, those benefited by conditions on federal funding agreements must establish that they are third-party beneficiaries in order to enforce the conditions.184 Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, to establish standing as a third-party beneficiary, a party must be an intended beneficiary."

"Attempts to Enforce NCLB Under Implied Private Right of Action Theory Will Not Succeed"


" Plaintiffs Should Seek to Enforce NCLB Under Third-Party Beneficiary Theory

The most promising theory of enforcement for NCLB is third-party beneficiary theory.258 To recover under this theory, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a contract exists between the parties and that the promisee intended that the contract benefit the plaintiff.259 Where, as here, one party to the contract is a government, the plaintiff also must establish that allowing recovery would not contravene the policy of the law authorizing the contract.260"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are class action law suits based on state constitutional language requiring "adequate" education and the number of charter schools....but such language does not exist in D.C.

http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/2016-Constitutional-obligations-for-public-education-1.pdf

"Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."

The OSSE Web site says "DC law requires OSSE to investigate allegations of residency fraud. Once an allegation of residency fraud is received, a full investigation is conducted, which can include an examination of submitted residency verification documents and surveillance by a private investigator."

I'm not a lawyer, but if OSSE is demonstrably not following existing law (requiring residency verification), is that not grounds for a lawsuit?

OSSE doesn't care.
DCPS doesn't care.
The DC Council doesn't care.
The Mayor doesn't care.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/07/maryland-parent-uses-dc-apartment-to-prove-residency-so-kids-attend-district-schools/ The latest installment.

Why would she agree to speak with the reporters and be so candid/flippant?

Because she thinks what she is doing is common, clever, respectable, and 'legitimate.'

Exactly. I have coworkers who talk freely about fraudulently attending DC schools, receiving WIC/Food Stamps, etc. There is no stigma whatsoever about fraud.

Where do you work and what is your profession where people speak so boldly about their personal lives- multiple people especially.

I work in SE DC in a social services profession.

And your social service workers are talking to you about frauds fly receiving social services. I don't believe it, knowing the risk of losing their jobs. Your story stinks of falsehoods.

Not really. We be in DC.

Well you PP is every bit ignant

Anonymous wrote:There are class action law suits based on state constitutional language requiring "adequate" education and the number of charter schools....but such language does not exist in D.C.

http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/2016-Constitutional-obligations-for-public-education-1.pdf

"Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."

The OSSE Web site says "DC law requires OSSE to investigate allegations of residency fraud. Once an allegation of residency fraud is received, a full investigation is conducted, which can include an examination of submitted residency verification documents and surveillance by a private investigator."

I'm not a lawyer, but if OSSE is demonstrably not following existing law (requiring residency verification), is that not grounds for a lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there really evidence that it's poor people from MD stealing? Because that hasn't been my experience.

It doesn't look like any of the people featured in the Daily Caller articles are "poor." They have jobs, some in the public sector, have homes, and cars. Heck the KIPP PTA mom has a home and a rental property.

I checked the tax records and there's no property owned by someone with her name in DC. I guess it could be under her maiden name?

Must one be an owner to live in DC? Oh, I forgot majority of DCUM readers assume everybody can afford 500k plus to purchase a residence. I guess all those rentals units are vacant.

Anonymous wrote:For people who post that fraud is not a big problem -- what schools do you use? Maybe it's a question of some schools have more than others. Or, are there commenters at schools with lots of MD tags that think it usually has a benign explaination (parents in different places, grandparent/nanny pickup, etc.)?

We're at a hill school with lots of MD plates, and it seems hard to avoid finding out that some of those kids do live in MD. b-day parties, random discussion, etc. no, I don't report, no clue full names of parents and addresses

All of my kids birthday parties were in MD or VA. There aren't any nice venues to host birthday parties in the city. For my kid's first birthday party I held it at his aumt's house. Her house is much larger and nicer than my cramps DC house. I don't think your BD example means anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/07/maryland-parent-uses-dc-apartment-to-prove-residency-so-kids-attend-district-schools/ The latest installment.

Why would she agree to speak with the reporters and be so candid/flippant?

Because she thinks what she is doing is common, clever, respectable, and 'legitimate.'

Exactly. I have coworkers who talk freely about fraudulently attending DC schools, receiving WIC/Food Stamps, etc. There is no stigma whatsoever about fraud.

Where do you work and what is your profession where people speak so boldly about their personal lives- multiple people especially.

I work in SE DC in a social services profession.

And your social service workers are talking to you about frauds fly receiving social services. I don't believe it, knowing the risk of losing their jobs. Your story stinks of falsehoods.

Not really. We be in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/07/maryland-parent-uses-dc-apartment-to-prove-residency-so-kids-attend-district-schools/ The latest installment.

Why would she agree to speak with the reporters and be so candid/flippant?

Because she thinks what she is doing is common, clever, respectable, and 'legitimate.'

Exactly. I have coworkers who talk freely about fraudulently attending DC schools, receiving WIC/Food Stamps, etc. There is no stigma whatsoever about fraud.

Where do you work and what is your profession where people speak so boldly about their personal lives- multiple people especially.

I work in SE DC in a social services profession.

And your social service workers are talking to you about frauds fly receiving social services. I don't believe it, knowing the risk of losing their jobs. Your story stinks of falsehoods.