FFX vs Arlington County Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think that if you picked up your family from Langley and moved to the South Lakes district that your children's chances of current and future happiness and success would be materially affected? Are your children really so fragile? Do you have so little confidence in their innate abilities and the home life and environment you provide?

Not necessarily, although it is telling that, when part of Madison got moved to South Lakes a few years ago, home values in those neighborhoods declined sharply. Had students been moved from Langley to South Lakes, the reaction presumably would have been similar.
It tells you that, despite your rhetoric, parents do assign considerable value to sending their kids to schools such as Madison and Langley with larger cohorts of higher-achieving students.

But the more salient point here is that purported data on college admissions at a handful of schools in a particular year is not especially instructive as to school quality. If the other poster wants to argue that W-L is equal or superior to schools in FCPS, he or she ought to cone up with something more persuasive.

Peer effects are huge, especially in high school. Any parent who really thinks they have that much influence that school quality doesn't matter, that the expectations that their peers and peers's parents hold don't matter, are delusional.

On a similar 1% note, from someone probably in the 10%, and who grew up somewhere way down (just sold our 30 yr old family home for 50k, so DC and Northeast are a completely different word), having relationships and contacts into an entire 4+ cohort of people who will likely attend world class colleges, head companies, start companies, or be appointed to run think tanks or foundations, there are real limitations to the opportunities your child will have later in life. And with the growing inequality, and the necessity of 'knowing' someone to get that job or secure that funding, sadly 'friends from high school' could really reflect a divergence in their life's path.

Oh for goodness sake. I'm in the 10% too, but grew up solidly middle class (daughter of a teacher and a nurse) in a blue collar town. Only about half my high school class went on to higher education, and that included community and technical colleges. I went to a highly ranked state college and a middling state university for grad school. I graduated from college in the late 80s, terrible job market. Somehow I managed. Our children will not need to rub elbows with CEOs and hedge fund managers to have comfortable and satisfying lives. Get a grip.

Not to turn this into a generational feud, but you are a late baby boomer who lived through a golden age and was ramping up your career in the 90s. You probably bought your first house before any hint of the bubble and boom

For gen x and y, things are way different ; housing costs make for ridiculous compromises (middle class in most major cities translates into hour plus commutes or crappy schools; look at DC, San Francisco, NYC). You can say live in cheaper places, but there are no jobs in the cheaper places

The last fifteen years we've had massive escalation of cost of living but a decline in wages and employment; the economy is bifurcating, probably as bad as in the 20s.

Every edge counts, and the high school cohort you send your kid too sadly has way too much importance on where they land on this economic divide.

This was not the first bubble/boom that burst. People who bought in this area in the late 80's and early 90's did not see any gain in their house value for nearly a decade. THe boom was in the mid to late 80's and then it went down ~20% and stayed there until 1997/98. We sold our first house, that we owned for 8+ years, at a loss - in Arlington- Westover area. There will be another boom and bust in your working lifetime- at least one. Yes, our current house has triple in value since we purchased it, but we have also put quite a bit of money into it. Our money has doubled- but over a 25 year period- hardly a huge jump- especially considering what the stock market has done in that time.

There was also a boom bust in the later 70's into the early 80's. You have to think in terms of multiple decades with house purchases- and don't think of them as investments.

True, there have been regional bubbles before. Look at Florida and its endless cycle.

But for Gen X and Y, the cost of housing (buying and renting) vs income is unprecedentedly high in post war America.

Mate your house value went down, but I am sure you income went up, even after inflation. Our generation has suffered this squeeze, and it looks like it will be worse for our kids as the developing world basically provides and endless supply of labor for manufacturing, engineering, even law and doctors from India.

Welcome to the new gilded age, and make sure you arm your children with every possible advantage.

I have heard the same song and dance every 10-15 years. "This generation has it the worst, this generation has o deal with aging parents and children at the same time, this generation has to save more......." It is called life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think that if you picked up your family from Langley and moved to the South Lakes district that your children's chances of current and future happiness and success would be materially affected? Are your children really so fragile? Do you have so little confidence in their innate abilities and the home life and environment you provide?

Not necessarily, although it is telling that, when part of Madison got moved to South Lakes a few years ago, home values in those neighborhoods declined sharply. Had students been moved from Langley to South Lakes, the reaction presumably would have been similar.
It tells you that, despite your rhetoric, parents do assign considerable value to sending their kids to schools such as Madison and Langley with larger cohorts of higher-achieving students.

But the more salient point here is that purported data on college admissions at a handful of schools in a particular year is not especially instructive as to school quality. If the other poster wants to argue that W-L is equal or superior to schools in FCPS, he or she ought to cone up with something more persuasive.

Peer effects are huge, especially in high school. Any parent who really thinks they have that much influence that school quality doesn't matter, that the expectations that their peers and peers's parents hold don't matter, are delusional.

On a similar 1% note, from someone probably in the 10%, and who grew up somewhere way down (just sold our 30 yr old family home for 50k, so DC and Northeast are a completely different word), having relationships and contacts into an entire 4+ cohort of people who will likely attend world class colleges, head companies, start companies, or be appointed to run think tanks or foundations, there are real limitations to the opportunities your child will have later in life. And with the growing inequality, and the necessity of 'knowing' someone to get that job or secure that funding, sadly 'friends from high school' could really reflect a divergence in their life's path.

Oh for goodness sake. I'm in the 10% too, but grew up solidly middle class (daughter of a teacher and a nurse) in a blue collar town. Only about half my high school class went on to higher education, and that included community and technical colleges. I went to a highly ranked state college and a middling state university for grad school. I graduated from college in the late 80s, terrible job market. Somehow I managed. Our children will not need to rub elbows with CEOs and hedge fund managers to have comfortable and satisfying lives. Get a grip.

Not to turn this into a generational feud, but you are a late baby boomer who lived through a golden age and was ramping up your career in the 90s. You probably bought your first house before any hint of the bubble and boom

For gen x and y, things are way different ; housing costs make for ridiculous compromises (middle class in most major cities translates into hour plus commutes or crappy schools; look at DC, San Francisco, NYC). You can say live in cheaper places, but there are no jobs in the cheaper places

The last fifteen years we've had massive escalation of cost of living but a decline in wages and employment; the economy is bifurcating, probably as bad as in the 20s.

Every edge counts, and the high school cohort you send your kid too sadly has way too much importance on where they land on this economic divide.

This was not the first bubble/boom that burst. People who bought in this area in the late 80's and early 90's did not see any gain in their house value for nearly a decade. THe boom was in the mid to late 80's and then it went down ~20% and stayed there until 1997/98. We sold our first house, that we owned for 8+ years, at a loss - in Arlington- Westover area. There will be another boom and bust in your working lifetime- at least one. Yes, our current house has triple in value since we purchased it, but we have also put quite a bit of money into it. Our money has doubled- but over a 25 year period- hardly a huge jump- especially considering what the stock market has done in that time.

There was also a boom bust in the later 70's into the early 80's. You have to think in terms of multiple decades with house purchases- and don't think of them as investments.

I remember. That late 80s boom crashed hard in Northern Va. Home values went way down in the early 90s and took nearly ten years to crawl back up. That's back when 250k was considered a fairly expensive home for the area.

and $50k was a decent income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Welcome to the new gilded age, and make sure you arm your children with every possible advantage.

I have heard the same song and dance every 10-15 years. "This generation has it the worst, this generation has o deal with aging parents and children at the same time, this generation has to save more......." It is called life.

Yes, this exactly.

I do believe that our society is dangerously divided between the haves and have nots, but I don't for a moment pretend that I am one of the "have nots," nor are most of the people quibbling over whether Langley or South Lakes or Yorktown is a better high school.

I don't agree that it is necessary to arm my children with every possible advantage (as if that were even possible) for them to have successful and satisfying lives. In fact, I think it is a mistake to raise children this way. I think it can actually be counterproductive, resulting in an entitlement mentality. But then, my goal is to raise resourceful, resilient children, not to raise "high achievers." My definition of success does not equal "1%."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not to turn this into a generational feud, but you are a late baby boomer who lived through a golden age and was ramping up your career in the 90s. You probably bought your first house before any hint of the bubble and boom

For gen x and y, things are way different ; housing costs make for ridiculous compromises (middle class in most major cities translates into hour plus commutes or crappy schools; look at DC, San Francisco, NYC). You can say live in cheaper places, but there are no jobs in the cheaper places

The last fifteen years we've had massive escalation of cost of living but a decline in wages and employment; the economy is bifurcating, probably as bad as in the 20s.

Every edge counts, and the high school cohort you send your kid too sadly has way too much importance on where they land on this economic divide.

All this is true, as far as it goes. But the population who can muse over the relative merits of buying a $1.2 million house in the South Lakes district vs the Madison district has NOT seen a decline in wage and employment. So the anxiety and hand-wringing among this crowd is completely out of touch with reality.

[Anonymous]

Some of the people who'd bought in the Madison district and got rezoned to South Lakes had a lot of their net worths tied up in their homes, and then suddenlyblost $100-200K in equity with the redistricting. That's life in the suburbs, too, but it's something you try to avoid, if possible. People can pontificate about their own enlightened approach to raising children, but the market reflects the consensus view that children are more likely to succeed when surrounded by high-achieving peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the people who'd bought in the Madison district and got rezoned to South Lakes had a lot of their net worths tied up in their homes, and then suddenlyblost $100-200K in equity with the redistricting. That's life in the suburbs, too, but it's something you try to avoid, if possible. People can pontificate about their own enlightened approach to raising children, but the market reflects the consensus view that children are more likely to succeed when surrounded by high-achieving peers.

And god knows, your child will be far better off surrounded by 105 high-achieving peers at Madison vs. "only" 95 high-achieving peers at South Lakes. Her future hangs in the balance, as indicated by that drop in home value.

[Anonymous]

South lakes sucks get over it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the people who'd bought in the Madison district and got rezoned to South Lakes had a lot of their net worths tied up in their homes, and then suddenlyblost $100-200K in equity with the redistricting. That's life in the suburbs, too, but it's something you try to avoid, if possible. People can pontificate about their own enlightened approach to raising children, but the market reflects the consensus view that children are more likely to succeed when surrounded by high-achieving peers.

And god knows, your child will be far better off surrounded by 105 high-achieving peers at Madison vs. "only" 95 high-achieving peers at South Lakes. Her future hangs in the balance, as indicated by that drop in home value.

Well, it was exactly to counter a milder version of that perception that South Lakes parents were rather vocal when they learned one year that admissions rates of South Lakes students to U.Va. were higher than those at Langley. But it didn't eliminate the discount for homes in the South Lakes district relative to those in adjacent districts, because there were too many other metrics that South Lakes students under-performed relative to their peers at other schools. The W-L district in Arlington has some of the same attributes, although some people minimize them because the area offers a good commute to DC. Others do not, and anecdotes about W-L college admissions to a few schools in one year are unlikely to significantly change their views. They will want to see, for example, a GreatSchools rating higher than a 5.

[Anonymous]

Do people really use GreatSchools? I guess those are the same people who think a USNWR rating is meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people really use GreatSchools? I guess those are the same people who think a USNWR rating is meaningful.

using greatschools is no different than using the state standardized testing results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people really use GreatSchools? I guess those are the same people who think a USNWR rating is meaningful.

using greatschools is no different than using the state standardized testing results.

Correct, and GS is funded by the Gates Foundation. It is not definitive, but it's a useful tool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the people who'd bought in the Madison district and got rezoned to South Lakes had a lot of their net worths tied up in their homes, and then suddenlyblost $100-200K in equity with the redistricting. That's life in the suburbs, too, but it's something you try to avoid, if possible. People can pontificate about their own enlightened approach to raising children, but the market reflects the consensus view that children are more likely to succeed when surrounded by high-achieving peers.

And god knows, your child will be far better off surrounded by 105 high-achieving peers at Madison vs. "only" 95 high-achieving peers at South Lakes. Her future hangs in the balance, as indicated by that drop in home value.

Well, it was exactly to counter a milder version of that perception that South Lakes parents were rather vocal when they learned one year that admissions rates of South Lakes students to U.Va. were higher than those at Langley. But it didn't eliminate the discount for homes in the South Lakes district relative to those in adjacent districts, because there were too many other metrics that South Lakes students under-performed relative to their peers at other schools. The W-L district in Arlington has some of the same attributes, although some people minimize them because the area offers a good commute to DC. Others do not, and anecdotes about W-L college admissions to a few schools in one year are unlikely to significantly change their views. They will want to see, for example, a GreatSchools rating higher than a 5.

I don't know about South Lakes, but in Arlington W-L has always had a great reputation, and housing prices correlate with that. Could it be that Yorktown's relatively low Greatschools ratings for years kept housing prices at an even level with W-L, but now that Yorktown is a 9 will home values suddenly go up in its neighborhoods? I highly doubt it and I doubt that homes in the South Lakes district are much lower than those in the Madison district. In Arlington there really is no price difference between homes in the W-L district and those in the Yorktown district, even for homes far away from Metro. Yet it seems that Greatschools has become the de facto barometer for school and neighborhood quality over the past couple of years. I just hope it doesn't end up "redlining" certain neighborhoods that already have great schools. A color coded number rating doesn't explain much. How about posting the actual passing rates? In Arlington Greatschools doesn't seem to matter much anyway. Both Wakefield and W-L have the same Greatschools score, but the perception among many in Arlington is that Wakefield is the school to avoid while W-L gets the kudos.

[Anonymous]

Your info is wrong. Yorktown is an 8 on GS, W-L is a 5, and Wakefield is a 4. Schools with GS ratings of 5 rarely have a "great reputation" within or outside an entire jurisdiction. They may have a lot of boosters, which is good, but a different thing.

And housing prices are definitely lower in the South Lakes district than in adjacent parts of the Madison and Marshall districts. You could chalk some of that up to location, but homes in the Madison district literally declined tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in value when they were reassigned to South Lakes a few years ago. We'll see if the same thing happens in Arlington when APS starts moving kids around in a few years to deal with overcrowding at W-L and the under-enrollment at Wakefield. I know it would give me pause.

[Anonymous]

Schooldigger is more revealing than Greatschools concerning SOL scores. But how it determines the number of stars to give a school is about as mysterious as the Greatschools ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your info is wrong. Yorktown is an 8 on GS, W-L is a 5, and Wakefield is a 4. Schools with GS ratings of 5 rarely have a "great reputation" within or outside an entire jurisdiction. They may have a lot of boosters, which is good, but a different thing.

And housing prices are definitely lower in the South Lakes district than in adjacent parts of the Madison and Marshall districts. You could chalk some of that up to location, but homes in the Madison district literally declined tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars in value when they were reassigned to South Lakes a few years ago. We'll see if the same thing happens in Arlington when APS starts moving kids around in a few years to deal with overcrowding at W-L and the under-enrollment at Wakefield. I know it would give me pause.

I don't give much value to a Greatschools number, when the pass rates at W-L and Yorktown are similar and above average for Va, while Wakefield scores much lower. And trust me, no Yorktown house will lose value in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars if moved to W-L. The houses are all universally expensive.