School Board Forum on "Boundary and Capacity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

DP, but your retorts seem almost desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

I absolutely support the lower performing schools, I just don’t want my kids to be the Guinea pigs in your social engineering experiment.

And I was also incredibly poor growing up too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

DP, but your retorts seem almost desperate.

Quite the contrary. I think it’s best to look at how other districts manage to have upsides for some despite failing in their main (supposedly) mission.

Another upside is that even poorly-performing districts sometimes have a handful of schools with high test scores, robust athletic departments and arts/activities extracurriculars for those who like the area and can afford a house in boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

DP, but your retorts seem almost desperate.

Quite the contrary. I think it’s best to look at how other districts manage to have upsides for some despite failing in their main (supposedly) mission.

Another upside is that even poorly-performing districts sometimes have a handful of schools with high test scores, robust athletic departments and arts/activities extracurriculars for those who like the area and can afford a house in boundary.

So we’re all in agreement against redistricting then. Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

I don't see how they lavish money on some schools, continue to ignore others, and then claim the fix is to redraw lines across the board. It's a recipe for political suicide.

Lavish? LOLOLOL

+1
PP thinks if a school waits its turn for decades to be renovated, that the county is "lavishing" money on it.

Renovate the schools, close some and redo the boundaries.
Sell the closed schools. Private education is growing so there will be buyers and FCPS can use those millions of dollars.

Um, sure. Whatever you say!

They closed Clifton with a silly pretext. They can certainly close schools for efficient use of facilities.
Of course, we all know responsible stewardship isn’t this board’s thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

And imagine if you are totally wrong, and all the schools end up awful. I, for one, am not interested in finding out whether your agenda would work in practice. And I don’t want my kids being your Guinea pigs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

I actually looked into the issue and found very clear evidence that redistricting hurts everyone, including the communities that people think will be helped. In effect, the radical social engineer paternalists looking to colonialize underperforming schools are full of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

I'm a DP, but yes that's my primary motive. I grew up very poor and went to an equally poor high school. But I'm one of the lucky ones that ended up in grad school despite having parents that didn't know anything.

Anyway, I've seen the significant negative effects of concentrating all the poor kids in a few places. I appreciate wealthy families and respect the effort they put into their communities. They have the luxury of time that poor parents simply don't. Teachers and principals at the poor schools really do try hard to create community but it always lacks in comparison to a healthy PTSA. FCPS has suggested they will make efforts to give funds to schools with weak community donations but we have yet to see that roll out. It's not just money but also clubs and activities. So yes, I think sending poor kids to wealthy high schools has plenty of benefits.

Yeah, to your Herndon property values.

I actually agree with PP to a large extent, having looked into this issue. The problem is that to maintain a high- performing school, you have to keep the percentage of children from poorer families pretty low.

FCPS might well be able to bring some benefit to a certain number of poorer children with a boundary change, but it could only do so with a limited number of schools. (Because of the high percentage of poorer students that it now has— see the tipping point study)

Picture the uproar if they changed boundaries in the top ten pyramids and those schools remained strong while the others statistically performed even worse than before.

It could prove untenable politically.
Imagine the bitterness of the parents whose children did not luck into one of the high performing schools.

On the other hand, it could well be counter balanced by the parents who were reboundaried to a higher-ranking school.

And imagine if you are totally wrong, and all the schools end up awful. I, for one, am not interested in finding out whether your agenda would work in practice. And I don’t want my kids being your Guinea pigs.

Chill out.
#1– I have no interest in advocating for such a thing
#2–neither does the board (of which I am quite happily not a member.)

Ironically, the kids would not be guinea pigs as this has been studied (by FCPS, among others) and FCPS has the proof. The percentage of poor children, if maintained below 20%, does not affect overall school performance.

The issue is that FCPS as a whole is WELL above this (34%) so the board would be in the position of actively and consciously choosing some schools to boost or leave unaffected in performance while leaving others to languish or get worse.
It would be a whole, entire sh*t storm that could sink every board member politically because they would get hit from all sides.
They cannot make all the schools have an equal or close to equal percentage of poorer children without dragging the entire system down academically. That WOULD kill every member’s political career.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the bigger issue is that the high needs populations at FCPS have grown dramatically in just several years. The system as a whole is at a tipping point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The SB should take the bandaid off and redraw the lines across the board. Call people’s bluff about leaving the system and/or county. Truth is people make a lot of money off jobs in this area and they’re addicted or have jobs here that don’t really exist elsewhere.

The bluff isn't people leaving the system, the bluff is political careers ending. Even if they could deal with the blow back, your county rep doesn't want to deal with irate calls from parents and pressure to vote against school budgets until the idea dies, but that's what would happen. For redistricting county wide to work, all of the county level politicians representing the areas that lose out would have to accept that their careers are over. Depending on how widespread the anger is, McKay might be done too. It's not worth it for any of them

And really, it’s not a bluff. Some people have no concept of how much a redistricting is playing with fire. Want a really bad school district? Have all the rich families that you so despise leave the system.

So what? A poorly performing district can still get lots of money per student and pay its school board and superintendent very well. They can use that money to send their own children to private school.

I’m sorry, I thought that the primary motive for your redistricting agenda was to couple the poors with the rich kids. If the rich all leave, then you’ll just have poors and deflated property values which will hurt the whole system.

It’s funny, I feel like I would have a sliver of sympathy for you if you truly cared about the downtrodden, but it’s pretty clear by now that you just really don’t like that some of your neighbors aren’t poor.

+ a million
Nailed it.