I have told people about this policy and it is counter intuitive and people don't believe me. So, yes, I do think there is a way to go in educating people. Take it or leave it, but it's true.

Anonymous wrote:Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

Holy cannolis, exactly how much hand-holding do you need?

If they make more details about how yes, they really do mean the rules as they are listed, you'd complain that there is too much to read, and you can't be expected to make sense of all the text.

It's clear. If it isn't -- because you can't make sense of simple things for some reason -- it will be explained to you when you communicate with the school about changes.

If you can't read and don't talk, then yes, you are going to be surprised by things other people find obvious. That's a hard life.

Here's what may help: In MySchoolDC, there should be a warning or definition about "Sibling Offered." It really wouldn't be that hard and would put people on notice. It's much better than trying to defend the fine print in a FAQ that no one is reading when they have less than 24 hours to make a decision whether to enroll their child into their top choice school the day before school starts. A little notice could go a long way.

It is actually pretty simple -- if you got in with sibling preference and now don't have sibling preference then good chances you are out especially before school even starts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.

That's actually not the case. There's nothing about the school year starting...it can happen after the school year begins too. Many of us understand that our children are actually enrolled and wouldn't know that they can lose their spot once enrolled. I'm not criticizing the policy; it makes sense. I'm criticizing the lack of communication/education/consistent enforcement. People on here seem to know all about it, but I guarantee most parents do not. It's not entitlement at all in most cases. It's just shock.

Logic fail, then failure to communicate with the school, then shock. And in OP's case, outrage and entitlement.

There's actually nothing logical about the lottery--it's luck and automated rules--so I would strike the first part. And for the second part, the failure to communicate is going two ways.

You're not very bright, PP. Do you think you're clever taking what PP said about the logic of not communicating with the school but then being shocked by the outcome and trying to apply it to the lottery system? You're a silly bird.

Its hard to believe that myschoolsdc is this rigid but everyone looks the other way on residency fraud.

Anonymous wrote:
There's actually nothing logical about the lottery--it's luck and automated rules--so I would strike the first part. And for the second part, the failure to communicate is going two ways.

Maybe there should be a relatively short and informative FAQ, or something. Oh, wait.

Or maybe the school should have reiterated the policy when the mom informed them (as soon as she knew) that the older sibling wouldn't be attending. Oh, wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.

That's actually not the case. There's nothing about the school year starting...it can happen after the school year begins too. Many of us understand that our children are actually enrolled and wouldn't know that they can lose their spot once enrolled. I'm not criticizing the policy; it makes sense. I'm criticizing the lack of communication/education/consistent enforcement. People on here seem to know all about it, but I guarantee most parents do not. It's not entitlement at all in most cases. It's just shock.

Logic fail, then failure to communicate with the school, then shock. And in OP's case, outrage and entitlement.

There's actually nothing logical about the lottery--it's luck and automated rules--so I would strike the first part. And for the second part, the failure to communicate is going two ways.

There probably is gray area. However, putting the sibling you hang sibling preference onto into another school at the very last minute isn't in that gray area.

I find it really hard to believe that people are shocked, shocked I tell you, that they cannot make a claim if the reason for that claim no longer applies. That's really pretty special.

people on here are twisting themselves into pretzels to try and create some loop hole for what is a very clear and reasonable policy. OP's child PS3 child hadn't even begun the school year when this all went down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.

That's actually not the case. There's nothing about the school year starting...it can happen after the school year begins too. Many of us understand that our children are actually enrolled and wouldn't know that they can lose their spot once enrolled. I'm not criticizing the policy; it makes sense. I'm criticizing the lack of communication/education/consistent enforcement. People on here seem to know all about it, but I guarantee most parents do not. It's not entitlement at all in most cases. It's just shock.

Logic fail, then failure to communicate with the school, then shock. And in OP's case, outrage and entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although OP sounds entitled, I'm actually with her here. School acceptances should not be revoked for the year based on things like loss of a sibling preference. That's just too disruptive in cases like this one. The only reason to revoke an enrollment once it has been done should be for the child moving out of DC. Yes, this means there might be people who appear to game the system on the margins, but if we're going to have a "choice" system, it can't be totally disruptive and arbitrary.

Let me guess -- and in a situation like this, the younger child should get to keep the spot next year, because it would be too disruptive to move after he already knew everyone?

Right.

Rules are there because people push further and further without boundaries.

Yes, I think that's fine. Children shouldn't be disenrolled once they are enrolled, unless they move out of DC or their paperwork was fraudulent (boundary fraud). I mean, what if the older child had to move schools due to a disability? Then the younger sibs get kicked out? Doesn't make any sense.

My thoughts too - what if the older kid gets expelled or the parents withdraw to homeschool? What if the older child simply transfers after count day? Is there a timeframe in which one sibling can move and the other can stay? Seems like there’s still a lot of gray area here

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.

That's actually not the case. There's nothing about the school year starting...it can happen after the school year begins too. Many of us understand that our children are actually enrolled and wouldn't know that they can lose their spot once enrolled. I'm not criticizing the policy; it makes sense. I'm criticizing the lack of communication/education/consistent enforcement. People on here seem to know all about it, but I guarantee most parents do not. It's not entitlement at all in most cases. It's just shock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.

agreed. it only becomes "kicked out" when you continue to show up with your PS3 kid and force the school to escort you out. Don't do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe a parent believes they can use sibling preference to get a kid in, and then pull the sibling out of school without consequences. But there seem to be a bunch of you who feel you should be able to do so.

I know, right?

No, it's the lack of warning and opportunity to find a replacement when you are kicked out right when school is starting. I think communication and education about this policy, along with consistent enforcement, would go a long way toward helping. I am not the OP, but I learned about this policy and had a back-up plan in case our younger child got kicked out when we moved our older child. Our situation worked out, but, child care on no notice, if you haven't heard about this policy, can be very hard to come by.

"Kicked out" is pretty strong language. You applied for sibling preference in order to keep your children together. When you pull the enrolled child out before the school year starts, they are no longer together and you've lost your preference.