Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

you are describing communism, America is capitalism and freedom. You are free to move to any community you want.

Yes and no. There's enough wealth in this country that we do, in some areas, use our wealth to subsidize the less well-off. But there is a tension that the rich don't like it and there is the underlying knowledge that if you ask for too much, they'll get tired of it and stop altogether, as is being proposed. Capitalism is always regulated, never unfettered. But sometimes it is more unfettered than others.

SMH, you realize that teachers and facilities make little difference in the children's outcomes. It is the parent's availability and attitude towards education that create the differences, and the home life of the student is not something "equity" can address. I see a potential problem for McLean is that if they break away from FCPS, then all the Karen's will then push for high-density affordable housing in McLean, and that will destroy much of the character of McLean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

you are describing communism, America is capitalism and freedom. You are free to move to any community you want.

Yes and no. There's enough wealth in this country that we do, in some areas, use our wealth to subsidize the less well-off. But there is a tension that the rich don't like it and there is the underlying knowledge that if you ask for too much, they'll get tired of it and stop altogether, as is being proposed. Capitalism is always regulated, never unfettered. But sometimes it is more unfettered than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all are thinking in partial equilibrium. If more affluent areas pursue this and leave less affluent areas on their own you could wind up with a situation like St Louis (where the city is independent of county), with massive inequality and crime, and that will affect you regardless of city borders. In St Louis many people are trying to re-merge the city and county.

This exactly. Having a poor and uneducated underclass creates more poverty and crime. This ultimately affects everyone regardless of how affluent they are or their zip code.

Then FCPS should rethink their strategy on allocating funds everywhere but to McLean. Again, McLean doesn't want EXTRA funds. Just the same consideration as other schools.

FCPS strategy in general is not to bring kids from the bottom up. They like to push kids from the top down.

As some have said on this thread, McLean wants exactly the same consideration as the other Title I schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all are thinking in partial equilibrium. If more affluent areas pursue this and leave less affluent areas on their own you could wind up with a situation like St Louis (where the city is independent of county), with massive inequality and crime, and that will affect you regardless of city borders. In St Louis many people are trying to re-merge the city and county.

This exactly. Having a poor and uneducated underclass creates more poverty and crime. This ultimately affects everyone regardless of how affluent they are or their zip code.

Then FCPS should rethink their strategy on allocating funds everywhere but to McLean. Again, McLean doesn't want EXTRA funds. Just the same consideration as other schools.

FCPS strategy in general is not to bring kids from the bottom up. They like to push kids from the top down.

As some have said on this thread, McLean wants exactly the same consideration as the other Title I schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all are thinking in partial equilibrium. If more affluent areas pursue this and leave less affluent areas on their own you could wind up with a situation like St Louis (where the city is independent of county), with massive inequality and crime, and that will affect you regardless of city borders. In St Louis many people are trying to re-merge the city and county.

This exactly. Having a poor and uneducated underclass creates more poverty and crime. This ultimately affects everyone regardless of how affluent they are or their zip code.

Then FCPS should rethink their strategy on allocating funds everywhere but to McLean. Again, McLean doesn't want EXTRA funds. Just the same consideration as other schools.

FCPS strategy in general is not to bring kids from the bottom up. They like to push kids from the top down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the Langley parents think?

They are the ones at the MCA raising it in the first instance. They are worried about the county up-zoning their neighborhoods and adding density with no commitment to make further investments in the schools, and think Langley could either end up as overcrowded as McLean in a few years. Obviously they get a receptive audience with some of the McLean folks.

Ah, interesting - thank you. Am I correct that Langley parents (who probably actually pay more than McLean in real estate taxes) have more clout? It really always comes back to zoning it seems - schools add a good face argument - but zoning is where the $ is.

I don't know who has more "clout." The current Dranesville supervisor and School Board member both live in the Langley district, and the MCA seems dominated by people who live in the Langley area. But they are obviously finding a lot of receptivity to exploring a "McLean City" from people who live in the McLean HS areas, as you can see on this thread.

Thanks again - and, agreed that this thread generated a lot of emotion - I will wait and see what change actually comes. I chuckle because my in-laws live in the Langley district (long past having school age kids of course) and they will fight any proposal that raises their taxes with the time and energy that only old, rich retired people can muster!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y’all are thinking in partial equilibrium. If more affluent areas pursue this and leave less affluent areas on their own you could wind up with a situation like St Louis (where the city is independent of county), with massive inequality and crime, and that will affect you regardless of city borders. In St Louis many people are trying to re-merge the city and county.

This exactly. Having a poor and uneducated underclass creates more poverty and crime. This ultimately affects everyone regardless of how affluent they are or their zip code.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

I am an immigrant as well and I live in McLean. Nobody here opposes other schools benefiting from a healthy tax base, what we have accepted is that “others” will be benefited at our expense while our kids sit in trailers. No, thanks!

I am PP and I also live in the McLean HS district. I know my kids will likely have to be in trailers but I know it is a temporary situation. Look at Langley HS and its beautiful renovation...McLean HS will get its turn.

McLean won't be renovated again for decades and, in the interim, isn't going to get a permanent addition like other less crowded schools that were built AFTER McLean are now getting.

I'm not going to rehash the history of how we got to this point again, but suffice it to say having witnessed the poor planning in FCPS year after year we would welcome splitting off from the county and FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

I am an immigrant as well and I live in McLean. Nobody here opposes other schools benefiting from a healthy tax base, what we have accepted is that “others” will be benefited at our expense while our kids sit in trailers. No, thanks!

I am PP and I also live in the McLean HS district. I know my kids will likely have to be in trailers but I know it is a temporary situation. Look at Langley HS and its beautiful renovation...McLean HS will get its turn.

.McLean HS will get its turn, not until all the poor schools get their first cause of EQUITY

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

I am an immigrant as well and I live in McLean. Nobody here opposes other schools benefiting from a healthy tax base, what we have accepted is that “others” will be benefited at our expense while our kids sit in trailers. No, thanks!

I am PP and I also live in the McLean HS district. I know my kids will likely have to be in trailers but I know it is a temporary situation. Look at Langley HS and its beautiful renovation...McLean HS will get its turn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

you are describing communism, America is capitalism and freedom. You are free to move to any community you want.

Yes and no. There's enough wealth in this country that we do, in some areas, use our wealth to subsidize the less well-off. But there is a tension that the rich don't like it and there is the underlying knowledge that if you ask for too much, they'll get tired of it and stop altogether, as is being proposed. Capitalism is always regulated, never unfettered. But sometimes it is more unfettered than others.

Nowhere does the Constitution mention that taxes should be used for food, housing, health care, education, or any other personal benefit of the PEOPLE of the United States

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

I am an immigrant as well and I live in McLean. Nobody here opposes other schools benefiting from a healthy tax base, what we have accepted is that “others” will be benefited at our expense while our kids sit in trailers. No, thanks!

I am PP and I also live in the McLean HS district. I know my kids will likely have to be in trailers but I know it is a temporary situation. Look at Langley HS and its beautiful renovation...McLean HS will get its turn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

you are describing communism, America is capitalism and freedom. You are free to move to any community you want.

Yes and no. There's enough wealth in this country that we do, in some areas, use our wealth to subsidize the less well-off. But there is a tension that the rich don't like it and there is the underlying knowledge that if you ask for too much, they'll get tired of it and stop altogether, as is being proposed. Capitalism is always regulated, never unfettered. But sometimes it is more unfettered than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the Langley parents think?

They are the ones at the MCA raising it in the first instance. They are worried about the county up-zoning their neighborhoods and adding density with no commitment to make further investments in the schools, and think Langley could either end up as overcrowded as McLean in a few years. Obviously they get a receptive audience with some of the McLean folks.

Ah, interesting - thank you. Am I correct that Langley parents (who probably actually pay more than McLean in real estate taxes) have more clout? It really always comes back to zoning it seems - schools add a good face argument - but zoning is where the $ is.

I don't know who has more "clout." The current Dranesville supervisor and School Board member both live in the Langley district, and the MCA seems dominated by people who live in the Langley area. But they are obviously finding a lot of receptivity to exploring a "McLean City" from people who live in the McLean HS areas, as you can see on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an immigrant, I could never understand why there was such a disparity in education quality across the U.S. I couldn't understand why poor black areas had such worse schools compared to more affluent (and usually white) areas. But this thread has been an eye-opener. I understand this much better now. It seems the more affluent folks want their money to benefit only them and their families. They don't see the benefit to society of elevating everyone and giving a good education to all children, regardless of their socioeconomic status. Don't people want the US to succeed long-term? How does keeping poor people less educated benefit a country in the long-run?

I am an immigrant as well and I live in McLean. Nobody here opposes other schools benefiting from a healthy tax base, what we have accepted is that “others” will be benefited at our expense while our kids sit in trailers. No, thanks!