Mclean boundary changes - can someone please update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all just ridiculously confusing and convoluted. Just end the split feeders.

You've gotta be awfully simple to find this straightforward change "confusing and convoluted".

+1 (or 1,000,000).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb that they didn't go with option B and move all the Colvin Run kids...would have eliminated both an attendance island and gotten rid of a split feeder...the focus on SFH versus adding expensive Tyson's apartments is stupid.

Langley won’t fall apart just because it finally has some mid-range condos like the Rotonda and some rental apartments. Most of the multi-family housing in Tysons would remain zoned to McLean and Marshall.

DP. No one cares about apartments/townhouses/SFHs. That’s not the issue, so you can stop pretending it is. The issue is drawing up convoluted boundaries, leaving split-feeders, and continuing to have small islands here and there - JUST so the SB (and other self-righteous scolds) can say, “Look! Equity!” Boundaries should be based on practical geography, not the social justice mission du jour.

If boundaries were based mostly on practical geography, Langley would have a smaller boundary area and enrollment than it has now. It’s in a corner of the county with many students who live closer to other schools.

The School Board could have gotten rid of Colvin Run being a split feeder but was more focused on moving apartments to Langley instead of doing what is best for the students there. The apartments are not going to make anything more equitable between schools in FCPS sona really dumb decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So dumb that they didn't go with option B and move all the Colvin Run kids...would have eliminated both an attendance island and gotten rid of a split feeder...the focus on SFH versus adding expensive Tyson's apartments is stupid.

Langley won’t fall apart just because it finally has some mid-range condos like the Rotonda and some rental apartments. Most of the multi-family housing in Tysons would remain zoned to McLean and Marshall.

DP. No one cares about apartments/townhouses/SFHs. That’s not the issue, so you can stop pretending it is. The issue is drawing up convoluted boundaries, leaving split-feeders, and continuing to have small islands here and there - JUST so the SB (and other self-righteous scolds) can say, “Look! Equity!” Boundaries should be based on practical geography, not the social justice mission du jour.

If boundaries were based mostly on practical geography, Langley would have a smaller boundary area and enrollment than it has now. It’s in a corner of the county with many students who live closer to other schools.

The School Board could have gotten rid of Colvin Run being a split feeder but was more focused on moving apartments to Langley instead of doing what is best for the students there. The apartments are not going to make anything more equitable between schools in FCPS sona really dumb decision.

There are many people at Colvin Run happy they are NOT going to be moved.

Eliminating split feeders isn't really more than a consideration for FCPS. It's not a consistent priority. They just turned Thoreau MS into a three-way split feeder to Madison, Marshall, and Oakton a couple of years ago.

[Anonymous]

Split feeders are "a" consideration, not "the" consideration.

There's a lot more uncertainty in the projections due to coronavirus... current school year enrollments have dropped and we don't yet know how much of the "old normal" enrollment will return over the next few years.

Another big one is that as much as the focus is on MHS/LHS, the feeder MS also need to be considered... and it sounds like they are taking a conservative approach here to move enough students to provide some relief MHS without overcrowding Cooper MS in the process. They are doing just enough to address the current situation while buying themselves time to make future moves, moves which could include expanding Cooper, expanding McLean (a true expansion, not the modular), and/or additional boundary shifts (say moving the rest of Spring Hill, for example). But to do so wholesale now would be premature and they want to minimize thrash by ensuring they don't overcompensate for "today" given the heightened uncertainty about "tomorrow".

The TJ change may lead to greater enrollment at MHS/LHS, but not as much as the initial proposal... the initial proposal would have capped TJ enrollment from Cooper/Longfellow at something like 10-20% of what the current enrollments are... we'll have to see how the new system plays out but seems like under the revised plan they actually adopted it could easily hit 50%, and even 60-80% of current enrollment would not be a shocker. Of the 20-40% that would therefore be enrolled back at LHS/MHS, some of those may chose private if not accepted into TJ... so yes, there WILL be some increased enrollment at MHS/LHS due to the TJ change, but nowhere near the increase that was initially being discussed... it's a much smaller issue now. Couple that with the uncertainty around what overall enrollment numbers will look like post-vaccine and it's not hard to see why they're taking a more conservative approach here. Also any increase in enrollment due to TH change is likely to be pretty much proportional at LHS/MHS, so while both might see their capacity utilization numbers increase as a result, it wouldn't really significantly affect the boundary change calculus to balance those utilization numbers out between the two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Split feeders are "a" consideration, not "the" consideration.

There's a lot more uncertainty in the projections due to coronavirus... current school year enrollments have dropped and we don't yet know how much of the "old normal" enrollment will return over the next few years.

Another big one is that as much as the focus is on MHS/LHS, the feeder MS also need to be considered... and it sounds like they are taking a conservative approach here to move enough students to provide some relief MHS without overcrowding Cooper MS in the process. They are doing just enough to address the current situation while buying themselves time to make future moves, moves which could include expanding Cooper, expanding McLean (a true expansion, not the modular), and/or additional boundary shifts (say moving the rest of Spring Hill, for example). But to do so wholesale now would be premature and they want to minimize thrash by ensuring they don't overcompensate for "today" given the heightened uncertainty about "tomorrow".

The TJ change may lead to greater enrollment at MHS/LHS, but not as much as the initial proposal... the initial proposal would have capped TJ enrollment from Cooper/Longfellow at something like 10-20% of what the current enrollments are... we'll have to see how the new system plays out but seems like under the revised plan they actually adopted it could easily hit 50%, and even 60-80% of current enrollment would not be a shocker. Of the 20-40% that would therefore be enrolled back at LHS/MHS, some of those may chose private if not accepted into TJ... so yes, there WILL be some increased enrollment at MHS/LHS due to the TJ change, but nowhere near the increase that was initially being discussed... it's a much smaller issue now. Couple that with the uncertainty around what overall enrollment numbers will look like post-vaccine and it's not hard to see why they're taking a more conservative approach here. Also any increase in enrollment due to TH change is likely to be pretty much proportional at LHS/MHS, so while both might see their capacity utilization numbers increase as a result, it wouldn't really significantly affect the boundary change calculus to balance those utilization numbers out between the two schools.

Excellent post.

[Anonymous]

So I am assuming this will be a done deal, they just need to officially vote in February?

[Anonymous]

Missed the first few speakers, but I think from what other speakers said at least 2 were students concerned about split feeders and not staying with peers as they move from ES->MS.

4 - OpenFCPS, wants a McLean addition and bond this year for McLean expansion
5 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
6 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
7 - Supports
8 - Wants to reassign Timber Lane ES instead
9 - New neighborhood assigned to Herndon, wants adjustment to go to Langley instead
10 - Concerned about split feeders, wants a bond this year for McLean expansion
11 - Add McLean renovation to the CIP this year, concerned about split feeders
12 - Doesn't think we have enough information yet to make a decision (no alternative solution suggested, just that we should wait and do more work before deciding on a plan)
13 - Supports, lives in the area that would switch to Langley in the revised proposal
14 - Objects, doesn't address the core problems of overcrowding, and doesn't address split feeder issue.
15 - Absent
16 - Says pause until there's more information post-pandemic, address split-feeder issue, add long-term capacity and McLean
17 - Objects, wants option A (where he lives) to go to Langley, reduce split feeders not make them worse, first 3 options were better
18 - Objects, wants B or A (to move his neighborhood, Colvin, to Langley). Falsely says C doesn't eliminate a split feeder (it does eliminate Spring Hill, just not HIS split feeder).

Looks like there's at least 12 more speakers, but I have to drop.

Also, several speakers expressed appreciation for the grandfathering even if they aren't 100% excited about the solution. One said in their case the proposed grandfathering actually is worse, another said maybe make it optional for kids if they want to grandfather or not depending on their circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Missed the first few speakers, but I think from what other speakers said at least 2 were students concerned about split feeders and not staying with peers as they move from ES->MS.

4 - OpenFCPS, wants a McLean addition and bond this year for McLean expansion
5 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
6 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
7 - Supports
8 - Wants to reassign Timber Lane ES instead
9 - New neighborhood assigned to Herndon, wants adjustment to go to Langley instead
10 - Concerned about split feeders, wants a bond this year for McLean expansion
11 - Add McLean renovation to the CIP this year, concerned about split feeders
12 - Doesn't think we have enough information yet to make a decision (no alternative solution suggested, just that we should wait and do more work before deciding on a plan)
13 - Supports, lives in the area that would switch to Langley in the revised proposal
14 - Objects, doesn't address the core problems of overcrowding, and doesn't address split feeder issue.
15 - Absent
16 - Says pause until there's more information post-pandemic, address split-feeder issue, add long-term capacity and McLean
17 - Objects, wants option A (where he lives) to go to Langley, reduce split feeders not make them worse, first 3 options were better
18 - Objects, wants B or A (to move his neighborhood, Colvin, to Langley). Falsely says C doesn't eliminate a split feeder (it does eliminate Spring Hill, just not HIS split feeder).

Looks like there's at least 12 more speakers, but I have to drop.

Also, several speakers expressed appreciation for the grandfathering even if they aren't 100% excited about the solution. One said in their case the proposed grandfathering actually is worse, another said maybe make it optional for kids if they want to grandfather or not depending on their circumstances.

Re #18 - the modified option C doesn't eliminate the split feeder at Spring Hill, as it would leave some Spring Hill kids at Longfellow/McLean.

But yeah people come up with all sorts of arguments to justify why they should be ones who move to the richer school. Who would have thought that might happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missed the first few speakers, but I think from what other speakers said at least 2 were students concerned about split feeders and not staying with peers as they move from ES->MS.

4 - OpenFCPS, wants a McLean addition and bond this year for McLean expansion
5 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
6 - Supports as short-term measure, but wants a full McLean addition/renovation
7 - Supports
8 - Wants to reassign Timber Lane ES instead
9 - New neighborhood assigned to Herndon, wants adjustment to go to Langley instead
10 - Concerned about split feeders, wants a bond this year for McLean expansion
11 - Add McLean renovation to the CIP this year, concerned about split feeders
12 - Doesn't think we have enough information yet to make a decision (no alternative solution suggested, just that we should wait and do more work before deciding on a plan)
13 - Supports, lives in the area that would switch to Langley in the revised proposal
14 - Objects, doesn't address the core problems of overcrowding, and doesn't address split feeder issue.
15 - Absent
16 - Says pause until there's more information post-pandemic, address split-feeder issue, add long-term capacity and McLean
17 - Objects, wants option A (where he lives) to go to Langley, reduce split feeders not make them worse, first 3 options were better
18 - Objects, wants B or A (to move his neighborhood, Colvin, to Langley). Falsely says C doesn't eliminate a split feeder (it does eliminate Spring Hill, just not HIS split feeder).

Looks like there's at least 12 more speakers, but I have to drop.

Also, several speakers expressed appreciation for the grandfathering even if they aren't 100% excited about the solution. One said in their case the proposed grandfathering actually is worse, another said maybe make it optional for kids if they want to grandfather or not depending on their circumstances.

Re #18 - the modified option C doesn't eliminate the split feeder at Spring Hill, as it would leave some Spring Hill kids at Longfellow/McLean.

But yeah people come up with all sorts of arguments to justify why they should be ones who move to the richer school. Who would have thought that might happen?

Right, the "Hybrid Option C" doesn't eliminate the split feeder, but "Option C" (the original) does, just like the Option A and B originals do as well. Maybe a semantic difference, but seems like they're kind of twisting it to make their point.

[Anonymous]

Someone said "The Titanic is sinking and you are throwing children overboard." Dramatic much? This is about the boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Is there a place we can see the list of speakers?

[Anonymous]

I agree with those who say get a bond and start talking renovations. I also agree we have no clue what the numbers are anymore. Also, they probably should focus all their energy on how to make school in person as safe as can be and how to fill gaps next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone said "The Titanic is sinking and you are throwing children overboard." Dramatic much? This is about the boundary change.

I listened to the first 18 speakers or so and didn't hear anything that dramatic. Most were very polite and I thought the School Board probably liked not hearing people complain about DL (they would have cut off anyone who tried to talk about DL learning except in the context of whether there should be a boundary change now).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone said "The Titanic is sinking and you are throwing children overboard." Dramatic much? This is about the boundary change.

I listened to the first 18 speakers or so and didn't hear anything that dramatic. Most were very polite and I thought the School Board probably liked not hearing people complain about DL (they would have cut off anyone who tried to talk about DL learning except in the context of whether there should be a boundary change now).

It was one of the last few speakers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone said "The Titanic is sinking and you are throwing children overboard." Dramatic much? This is about the boundary change.

I listened to the first 18 speakers or so and didn't hear anything that dramatic. Most were very polite and I thought the School Board probably liked not hearing people complain about DL (they would have cut off anyone who tried to talk about DL learning except in the context of whether there should be a boundary change now).

It was one of the last few speakers.

Well, to the extent that they bother to listen to what anyone says, they are especially inclined to tune out people who resort to hyperbole.