2011 NoVa SAT Scores (Arlington, Alexandria, Reston: homes, homebuyer, luxury)

[CAVA1990]

[quote=hilsmom;20935947]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

For being such a liberal minded place it's interesting how the Founders' concept of public education being a great equalizer has gone out the window here. A quaint idea people think we can no longer afford. I get more gratification seeing kids from humble backgrounds go to a mid-tier state college than I do from the kids of professionals getting into Ivy League schools. Segregating schoolkids socio-economically is just as harmful to society as in earlier times when it was done by gender or race.[/quote]

I am with you on this. I have been arguing for a while that what we have currently is Brown v. Board-type segregation based on socio-economic status, and this just continues to increase the distance between the haves and the have nots. When you have a school with 70% poverty in the same community as a school with practically no poverty, something is wrong. I don't know how to fix it, but the lover of the great equalizer concept in me is disturbed.

I would argue that it should be illegal, if it isn't already, for a school within a district to accept any money from individuals unless it's shared equally amongst all schools in that district, or it's collected by all schools in an even manner. Public schools should not have "endowments".

[JD984]

CAVA1990 - Is there an inconsistency between saying, on the one hand, that "segregating schoolkids socio-economically is just as harmful to society as in earlier times when it was done by gender or race," and then asserting, on the other hand, that parents who pay a premium to get into an area assigned to a particular school "are paying a premium for something that will have little to no impact on their child's academic outcome"?

It seems to me that you're arguing that the decisions that many parents make don't benefit their own children, but end up penalizing others, and that parents in the first category either (1) would make different decisions if only they had better information or (2) shouldn't be allowed to make the decisions that they've made. I expect that Claremarie and others would take issue with this, but it's the only way I can reconcile your comments.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

I would argue that it should be illegal, if it isn't already, for a school within a district to accept any money from individuals unless it's shared equally amongst all schools in that district, or it's collected by all schools in an even manner. Public schools should not have "endowments".

The funds raised by the TJ Partnership Fund go to TJ, and the money that some PTAs raise to buy extra sets of course books for students and laptops for teachers (beyond what the teachers get from FCPS) doesn't get pooled with funds raised by other PTAs in the county.

If students in one school's band or softball team raise $25,000 one weekend by canvassing area neighborhoods, they don't have to turn it over to FCPS to be redistributed among other bands and teams.

That's not illegal today. If you require such voluntary contributions to be pooled among all county schools, do you think the same amount of funds will get raised in the first place? A lot of people already feel like FCPS is too large for their own comfort.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by JEB77

The funds raised by the TJ Partnership Fund go to TJ, and the money that some PTAs raise to buy extra sets of course books for students and laptops for teachers (beyond what the teachers get from FCPS) doesn't get pooled with funds raised by other PTAs in the county.

If students in one school's band or softball team raise $25,000 one weekend by canvassing area neighborhoods, they don't have to turn it over to FCPS to be redistributed among other bands and teams.

That's not illegal today. If you require such voluntary contributions to be pooled among all county schools, do you think the same amount of funds will get raised in the first place? A lot of people already feel like FCPS is too large for their own comfort.

Sorry, it may not be popular but that's what I believe. All public resources should be provided by the government. That's how it used to be and it worked just fine. Again, I'll go back to my police and fire analogy. Would it be right for me to be able to donate money locally so the cops and firefighters will respond to my calls faster than other areas where poorer folks live? This is a wealthy county and there's no reason the schools can't be provided with all they need.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Sorry, it may not be popular but that's what I believe. All public resources should be provided by the government. That's how it used to be and it worked just fine. Again, I'll go back to my police and fire analogy. Would it be right for me to be able to donate money locally so the cops and firefighters will respond to my calls faster than other areas where poorer folks live? This is a wealthy county and there's no reason the schools can't be provided with all they need.

Didn't PTAs have bake sales back in the day?

But I think you've argued previously that all the schools in this county do have what they need, so you must be arguing that no one should be allowed to have more than what you've concluded they need. I'm not sure it's any different from arguing that the marginal tax rate should be 100% at some point or that no one should be allowed to build a single-family house that has more than 1,500 or 2,000 square feet.

If what you're arguing is that some schools in the county are going without the essentials, while others are basking in luxury, that raises an entirely different set of issues, but they aren't consistent with the argument that all the county's schools are more or less the same.

I'll leave it at that; just think you've argued against yourself at times over the course of the thread.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by JEB77

CAVA1990 - Is there an inconsistency between saying, on the one hand, that "segregating schoolkids socio-economically is just as harmful to society as in earlier times when it was done by gender or race," and then asserting, on the other hand, that parents who pay a premium to get into an area assigned to a particular school "are paying a premium for something that will have little to no impact on their child's academic outcome"?.

Not at all. Segregating kids by gender, race, or class is harmful to society in ways it may not be to the individual (basically the argument for Brown versus separate even if perfectly equal), Again, perhaps not a popular argument anymore.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Didn't PTAs have bake sales back in the day?

But I think you've argued previously that all the schools in this county do have what they need, so you're really arguing that no one should be allowed to have more than what you've concluded they need. I'm not sure it's any different from arguing that no one should be allowed to build a single-family house that has more than 2,000 square feet.

The government's not providing my house so I should be able to build it to whatever size meets my needs, given zoning restrictions. I doubt prospective homebuyers are making decisions based on which schools hold more bake sales.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Didn't PTAs have bake sales back in the day? Didn't the athletic boosters have fundraisers to pay for new uniforms?

At my school they did not, as at the time it was likely considered inconsistent with the sprit of the Serrano v. Priest decision that applied the 14th amendment to equalize school funding in California. Everything we had even down to pencils and paper as I recall were provided by the school, at least where I went to school. I think the one exception was we were allowed to raise funds in high school for things like overnight field trips.

[claremarie]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Oh I got your point but you apparently missed mine, which is that a lot of those parents are paying a premium for something that will have little to no impact on their child's academic outcome, same as the homebuyer who worries about a crime rate that means nothing to his own safety. It would be like me deciding not to buy a house next door to Martha Stewart because I'm worried about living by someone who's been to prison.

No, it's more like deciding not to buy a house in a nice neighborhood but next to a public housing project because there is a greater likelihood of crime. Unless he is in a position to install an expensive alarm system, get some dogs, and learn to be comfortable with firearms, he will have to accept the fact that he is more likely to become a crime victim than the buyer who chose to pay the premium for the safer neighborhood. All other things being equal, many parents would prefer to pay a premium to surround their children with high-achieving peers from supportive families. Other parents, who are either unable or unwilling to pay that premium, decide to take their chances with a more academically/socioeconomically diverse student body. Either choice is acceptable.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by claremarie

No, it's more like deciding not to buy a house in a nice neighborhood but next to a public housing project because there is a greater likelihood of crime. Unless he is in a position to install an expensive alarm system, get some dogs, and learn to be comfortable with firearms, he will have to accept the fact that he is more likely to become a crime victim than the buyer who chose to pay the premium for the safer neighborhood. All other things being equal, many parents would prefer to pay a premium to surround their children with high-achieving peers from supportive families. Other parents, who are either unable or unwilling to pay that premium, decide to take their chances with a more academically/socioeconomically diverse student body. Either choice is acceptable.

Your comparison of choosing between Fairfax County schools to choosing between living next to a housing project or not is more than a little over the top.