FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone ever considered making it a trade academy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever considered making it a trade academy?

Like every other day on this forum.

And of course that would require major boundary changes as well. It’s not like you can just tell kids that if they live in central Springfield they are going to a trade school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

[Anonymous]

I would probably look at schools in surrounding counties. Howard, loudon, one of the 3 Ws in Montgomery if kids were younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would probably look at schools in surrounding counties. Howard, loudon, one of the 3 Ws in Montgomery if kids were younger.

Commute times matter. If you live in the WSHS boundary and have a decent commute, you aren't moving to Howard County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

Everything you describe in the first paragraph is expensive. The “implicit arrangement” you describe in the last paragraph is a description of FCPS practices over the past 15 years that have magnified disparities among schools when they could have been mitigated.

I understand they contributed to the very problems they are now trying to address but at some point the blatant favoritism towards some pyramids was destined to come to an end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

I’m pretty certain landlords can legally rent out a unit based on credit scores and income, so i don’t think you’re really thinking this through. It might displace some of the LC/LMC families, but that’s the free market at work, I guess.

Most would rather not displace someone in need from relatively affordable housing, but FCPS could force theirs hand. The blame would lie squarely with Fcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

It would definitely suck to shell out a lot of money just for an address and then get booted if there were more residency checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

Everything you describe in the first paragraph is expensive. The “implicit arrangement” you describe in the last paragraph is a description of FCPS practices over the past 15 years that have magnified disparities among schools when they could have been mitigated.

I understand they contributed to the very problems they are now trying to address but at some point the blatant favoritism towards some pyramids was destined to come to an end.

Nobody wants to pay $24k per year, but most MC/UMC can afford it. And what you are talking about is messing with the general free market in housing - it’ll have significant unintended consequences across the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

It would definitely suck to shell out a lot of money just for an address and then get booted if there were more residency checks.

It would also suck to get pulled into a blackhole that spontaneously opens up in the middle of our solar system.

That and residency checks are theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. Also Reid endorses playing fast and loose with residency. Go back and read her Hayfield communications.