4 ms·

It might be 20+ miles away, or your kids might go to different schools: http://abc7news.com/education/developer-suing-fremont-unified-over-placement/1041285/ ht

It might be 20+ miles away, or your kids might go to different schools: http://abc7news.com/education/developer-suing-fremont-unified-over-placement/1041285/ http://abc7news.com/education/developer-suing-fremont-unifie... The school district has designated this new area as unassigned, meaning the children will have a seat somewhere, but no guarantee of a close neighborhood school.

jessaustin 11y ago
So there is a school district, and what you wrote first was mere hyperbole?
- mjevans 11y ago
  It's more like an area that was previously unzoned between cities. There are different options for how to hook up water, power, data, etc; however due to the way that school districts work the kids will only be covered by one such domain. Within that domain, this new source of housing has not been factored in to the balance of how to divide resources. (Think of classroom seats as hyperthreads and teachers as processor cores). The kids going to different schools (lack of CPU affinity) is the issue as differently aged kids might go to different schools, have to travel needlessly far to get to a school with free resources, and potentially even two kids of the same age from the same family might not go to the same school.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    That's what I thought. It is in fact a major flaw of the entire USA public school concept that "kids will only be covered by one such domain", but you can't blame developers for that. School districts partition the state, and they do so in every state. Therefore this objection amounts to "the school district in which this development is located didn't prepare for new students while it was being built", and that objection may be lodged against any new development. Do public school boosters really want to reject all new development? Or is this more of what was mentioned upthread, that they only like development for certain types of people?
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      > but you can't blame developers for that. You can, when the developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees that would have been used to add capacity to schools.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Because "developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees" (stipulating, for the sake of discussion, a premise not in evidence), they can be blamed for the asinine concept of public school districts? That is not logical.

jessaustin 11y ago

So there is a school district, and what you wrote first was mere hyperbole?

mjevans 11y ago
It's more like an area that was previously unzoned between cities. There are different options for how to hook up water, power, data, etc; however due to the way that school districts work the kids will only be covered by one such domain. Within that domain, this new source of housing has not been factored in to the balance of how to divide resources. (Think of classroom seats as hyperthreads and teachers as processor cores). The kids going to different schools (lack of CPU affinity) is the issue as differently aged kids might go to different schools, have to travel needlessly far to get to a school with free resources, and potentially even two kids of the same age from the same family might not go to the same school.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  That's what I thought. It is in fact a major flaw of the entire USA public school concept that "kids will only be covered by one such domain", but you can't blame developers for that. School districts partition the state, and they do so in every state. Therefore this objection amounts to "the school district in which this development is located didn't prepare for new students while it was being built", and that objection may be lodged against any new development. Do public school boosters really want to reject all new development? Or is this more of what was mentioned upthread, that they only like development for certain types of people?
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    > but you can't blame developers for that. You can, when the developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees that would have been used to add capacity to schools.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Because "developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees" (stipulating, for the sake of discussion, a premise not in evidence), they can be blamed for the asinine concept of public school districts? That is not logical.