FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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

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.

How many cheap apartments do you think there are in good pyramids?

[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:

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.

How many cheap apartments do you think there are in good pyramids?

Now or when they try to move high farms areas into certain schools?

[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.

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.

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

[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.

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

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

[Anonymous]

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

[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.

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

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

[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:

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.

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

A perfect market assumes everyone has the relevant information, which is a joke here given the NDAs that parents had to sign to join the advisory committee, the school board candidates hiding their true intentions when running for school board, and having ill-defined criteria for the justifications for any moves.

It’s pretty clear that they are trying to drag down the high performing schools to the lowest level. That’s communism at work (they call it equity), not free markets.

[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:

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.

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

A perfect market assumes everyone has the relevant information, which is a joke here given the NDAs that parents had to sign to join the advisory committee, the school board candidates hiding their true intentions when running for school board, and having ill-defined criteria for the justifications for any moves.

It’s pretty clear that they are trying to drag down the high performing schools to the lowest level. That’s communism at work (they call it equity), not free markets.

Not preserving wealthy PUBLIC schools is the peasants owning the means of production?

[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:

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.

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

A perfect market assumes everyone has the relevant information, which is a joke here given the NDAs that parents had to sign to join the advisory committee, the school board candidates hiding their true intentions when running for school board, and having ill-defined criteria for the justifications for any moves.

It’s pretty clear that they are trying to drag down the high performing schools to the lowest level. That’s communism at work (they call it equity), not free markets.

Not preserving wealthy PUBLIC schools is the peasants owning the means of production?

Da, comrade. Further toward the red revolution.

[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.

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

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

My children have attended both high-FARMs schools and low-FARMs schools. They're both in high-FARMs school now and excelling.

And we're an Ivy-league educated, UMC family, and yes, we know what we're talking about. How about you? Please provide your personal experience.

The worst teachers we ever experienced came from a school with a super high SES enrollment, and yes, there was more than one. When the parents know more than the teachers on the subject matter, that's not a good sign.

The worst school environment we ever experienced came from a school with a super high SES enrollment. When the students enjoy spending their time after school hurling rocks at passing cars, that's not a good sign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Absolutely. +100. Even now, unsuspecting families are buying homes in the school board’s crosshairs in part because they are advertising the sought after school districts in the mls listings.

All these caveat emptor posters really are something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

When the school board changes the rules of the game? it’s cute that you think that constitutes a perfect or mature market.

-DP

[Anonymous]

Over the past 16 years neighborhoods zoned to Annandale, Chantilly, Fairfax, Lewis, Madison, McLean, Oakton, Westfield, and Woodson have all been redistricted into different schools.

I’m not sure why some people at Langley and West Springfield think a different set of rules applies to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Over the past 16 years neighborhoods zoned to Annandale, Chantilly, Fairfax, Lewis, Madison, McLean, Oakton, Westfield, and Woodson have all been redistricted into different schools.

I’m not sure why some people at Langley and West Springfield think a different set of rules applies to them.

Actually, it’s that different rules are being applied to them that are so offensive.