In our town we've had more than one family rent a house to enroll their kid in our school system. They rented out their house and will go back to where they came from when their son graduates HS. Sad.
Why is it sad for a family to move to a (what I assume you to mean "better") school district while their kids are in school? Do you believe that you are fundamentally entitled to have your kids go to a different public school than someone that legally resides in your district? If so, what is the criteria for your discrimination? Again, you are saying it is sad for a legal resident to go to the "public" school in your district, which became their district when they began legally residing in the house that they rent. If you think you are better than another citizen, for whatever reason, than you may be the saddest example of an American that I have ever seen on this forum. Despite some of the contentious debate that goes on among us lacrosse people, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone actually randomly promote discrimination on this site. You, sir or madam, are sad.
Its sad that parents would uproot an entire family so that their son can play lacrosse at a "powerhouse" school for 3 years. The two daughters had to leave their friends behind. How am I discriminating?
Still angry the Crook lost? OBVIOUSLY, this is a lacrosse forum and the post was set in that context. Parents uproot family to attend a "powerhouse" HS........FOR LACROSSE. You really couldn't make that leap?
Seeing as how most "powerhouse" lacrosse schools are also very good high schools (Manhasset, Garden City, Cold Spring Harbor, Ward Melville, etc.), seems like a pretty good way to game the system -- paying a few years worth of rent is far, far cheaper than the ~$1 million or so entry fee for many of these towns.
