2011 NoVa SAT Scores (Arlington, McLean, Fairfax: best neighborhoods, apartments, condo)

[CAVA1990]

So then wouldn't it be inadvisable for homebuyers without children (empty nesters, gays, etc.) to live in those places because they would be paying an unnecessary premium? Would it also mean that those places will eventually have a much higher percentage of families with school age childrenthan other parts of the county where scores are lower? Wouldn't this then result in the higher scoring schools' zones being remapped to ever smaller and smaller sizes as the area around them becomes increasingly concentrated with families with school age children willing to pay the premium?

[JD984]

Terms like "premium" and "discount" tend to suggest that it would be quite easy for control for all the factors that make homes in different areas different and simply isolate the impact of school assignments. I think that it would be fairly tough to come up with a really solid study to identify and isolate the amount of such "premiums," when you're talking about homes in different neighborhoods in NoVa.

So, for example, people in the Town of Vienna might assert - in the context of a thread on SAT scores - that people pay a "premium" to be in the Madison HS district. But, if we had a separate thread on transit-oriented development or "walkable" neighborhoods, we'd be told that people pay a "premium" to be near the Metro, or to be within walking distance of Maple Avenue. And perhaps they do, but you can't double-count the same "premium," and the task is made even more difficult by the fact that there really aren't many homes as small as the 1950s ramblers in Vienna Woods in the nearby areas assigned to other schools.

Or, Claremarie provided an example involving the City of Falls Church schools (George Mason) and Stuart over in unincorporated Falls Church. What she didn't mention is that the City of Falls Church has a long border with North Arlington (Yorktown) and that the homes in the City of Falls Church are more similar to homes in North Arlington than they are to most of the homes in the Stuart district. She made a comparison that she thought would be obvious, but didn't indicate whether she thinks people pay a "premium" to live in the City of Falls Church because test scores at George Mason are higher than they are at nearby Yorktown.

Anecdotally, it's fairly clear that people are prepared to pay some amount of extra money to live in some school districts. I don't think realtors know much, if anything, about school quality, but they know what sells homes, and they highlight when schools are in certain school districts when they think that will command a higher price. In Fairfax, realtors typically will mention by name only the four high school districts (Langley, McLean, Woodson and Madison) that have tended to have the highest test scores over an extended period of time, and it's typically to invite an implicit comparison with nearby areas assigned to different schools. Sometimes they will even mention specific elementary schools. In Arlington, realtors will frequently mention a Yorktown assignment by name, but not an assignment to W-L or Wakefield.

Claremarie also mentioned Stuart. Anecdotally, I know the school assignments are an issue for some people in the Sleepy Hollow/Lake Barcroft area. For example, one couple I know lives in a very nice house in the Sleepy Hollow area. Their neighbors moved to McLean as soon as their children reached school-age, and sold the house to a retired academic whose children were grown. The neighborhood is as nice as it ever was, but it's trending older and with more of the younger families sending their kids to private schools. On the other hand, the daughter of another family who lives in the same neighborhood went to Stuart, did great, and is now at U. Va. If there are enough situations like that, it's pretty clear that they will have impact home prices, but not to the degree where kids can't get a good education at the assigned schools.

And, to be clear, because I think Claremarie's post could be misinterpreted on this point, there are plenty of homes in the areas she mentioned (such as Reston and parts of unincorporated Falls Church) that sell for more than some houses in Vienna or McLean. In other words, there's no evidence to suggest that people elevate school assignments so far above every other consideration that they'll agree to pay more for the worst house in the Langley or Madison district than they'll pay for the nicest house in the Stuart or West Potomac district.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by claremarie

And you don't think that prices would jump if Old Town kids could go to a public school with the same high test scores as Langley or McLean? Any realtor will tell you that homes in certain neighborhoods will command a premium because they feed into desirable school pyramids, and that most prospective homebuyers prefer schools with higher test scores. Conversely, very nice homes in communities like Mount Vernon, Lake Barcroft, Sleepy Hollow, Reston, or the Fairfax County portions of Falls Church will be more attractively priced than smaller/older homes in McLean or Vienna.

Perhaps that was part of the concern of some with folding Fort Hunt High School along with Groveton into West Potomac.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

So then wouldn't it be inadvisable for homebuyers without children (empty nesters, gays, etc.) to live in those places because they would be paying an unnecessary premium? Would it also mean that those places will eventually have a much higher percentage of families with school age childrenthan other parts of the county where scores are lower? Wouldn't this then result in the higher scoring schools' zones being remapped to ever smaller and smaller sizes as the area around them becomes increasingly concentrated with families with school age children willing to pay the premium?

Re. question 1: Theoretically, yes, it would make sense not to pay extra for good schools you're never gonna use. But there are other factors. If the schools are bad because they're 75% ESL kids, then the whole culture fo the neighborhood is diffferent and might not be to the liking of people not from that culture. Also, the better school districts are a better investment when you sell.

Question 2: That would be true if all the school-age-kid families were moving to the better districts. There are still plenty of kids in the Wakefield HS district, because they can't all afford the other two districts--and some may even prefer Wakefield, because their friends are there, etc.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by JEB77

What she didn't mention is that the City of Falls Church has a long border with North Arlington (Yorktown) and that the homes in the City of Falls Church are more similar to homes in North Arlington than they are to most of the homes in the Stuart district. She made a comparison that she thought would be obvious, but didn't indicate whether she thinks people pay a "premium" to live in the City of Falls Church because test scores at George Mason are higher than they are at nearby Yorktown.

My unscientific gut sense is that people will pay more to be in a "good" district, but fewer are willing to pay more to live in a "super" district, based on SAT scores. Sure, there are some people who will pay another $200K just so their kid can go to Langley, but most of us can't afford to, and even if we could--it's not like Yorktown or W-L HS are bad schools. (I personally would not want our kid to go to Langley, because I think there are a lot of spoiled, entitled a-hole kids there. Their race-baiting chants at the game against McLean really disturbs me--and the non-reaction by their administration even moreso.)

(I know little about the Fairfax schools, but I'm sure there are analogous examples.)

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Re. question 1: Theoretically, yes, it would make sense not to pay extra for good schools you're never gonna use. But there are other factors. If the schools are bad because they're 75% ESL kids, then the whole culture fo the neighborhood is diffferent and might not be to the liking of people not from that culture. Also, the better school districts are a better investment when you sell.

So in your example school test scores would be used as a proxy to facilitate ethnic segregation?

I wouldn't put much stock (pardon the pun) in the "better investment" theory since the premium you pay up front should wipe out any additional money you'd get when you sell less the extra property taxes you're paying.

[VRE332]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

I personally would not want our kid to go to Langley, because I think there are a lot of spoiled, entitled a-hole kids there.

What's the difference if you expose your kid now, or later when he finds a place to work full of them a-hole adults

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

So in your example school test scores would be used as a proxy to facilitate ethnic segregation?

Whoa! Not what I said. I said I wouldn't want a school with tons of ESL kids or kids who struggle with academics, because teaching lots of ESL kids or low-level students takes away resources away from everything else. But W-L HS has plenty of kids of all ethnicities (as does Yorktown, actually)--but they're from educated, professional families. Just like my street has people of Asian, Hispanic, and African American background--but they're all well educated, and their kids are super smart and well behaved. (Actually, the *only* semi-obnoxious kids on our street happen to be white kids.)

As someone whose kids will themselves be of mixed race, the ideal school I envision for our kids would be one that's truly diverse, with smart, motivated kids from all backgrounds--like basicaly any of the top schools on the SAT list, other than Langley.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Whoa! Not what I said. I said I wouldn't want a school with tons of ESL kids or kids who struggle with academics, because teaching lots of ESL kids or low-level students takes away resources away from everything else. But W-L HS has plenty of kids of all ethnicities (as does Yorktown, actually)--but they're from educated, professional families. Just like my street has people of Asian, Hispanic, and African American background--but they're all well educated, and their kids are super smart and well behaved. (Actually, the *only* semi-obnoxious kids on our street happen to be white kids.)

As someone whose kids will themselves be of mixed race, the ideal school I envision for our kids would be one that's truly diverse, with smart, motivated kids from all backgrounds--like basicaly any of the top schools on the SAT list, other than Langley.

So instead, socio-economic segregation is important to you? Would it be better in your opinion to put all the poor kids from less educated families in their own schools?

[JD984]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

So instead, socio-economic segregation is important to you? Would it be better in your opinion to put all the poor kids from less educated families in their own schools?

Just to be clear, the school Carlingtonian has expressed comfort with (W-L) is quite diverse, with over 30% of its students receiving subsidized lunches (that's just a percentage point or two lower than West Potomac).

I'm not sure which way that cuts - perhaps he's not as familiar with the W-L student body as he thinks he is, or he's more open-minded about socio-economically diverse schools than you just implied, but the two of you should probably work off the right facts. There's a great deal of diversity in most schools in NoVa when compared to a lot of suburban schools in other parts of the country.