Langley/McLean/Marshall Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

Incorrect. I'm a Langley parent and would welcome kids from any and all neighborhoods to Langley. As would every Langley parent I know. I think it's some sort of (sub)urban myth that these kids wouldn't be welcome at Langley - far from it. The point I'm trying to make is that in the effort to relieve overcrowding at McLean (or other schools), many posters such as yourself have repeatedly stressed the "need" for Langley to be more diverse, to check certain boxes. Certainly, Langley could help absorb some of the overcrowding, but you seem to want to cherry pick "certain" demographics in order to even out what you perceive to be a lack of diversity. I find that extremely unsettling. It's pretty much social engineering of school demographics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

Incorrect. I'm a Langley parent and would welcome kids from any and all neighborhoods to Langley. As would every Langley parent I know. I think it's some sort of (sub)urban myth that these kids wouldn't be welcome at Langley - far from it. The point I'm trying to make is that in the effort to relieve overcrowding at McLean (or other schools), many posters such as yourself have repeatedly stressed the "need" for Langley to be more diverse, to check certain boxes. Certainly, Langley could help absorb some of the overcrowding, but you seem to want to cherry pick "certain" demographics in order to even out what you perceive to be a lack of diversity. I find that extremely unsettling. It's pretty much social engineering of school demographics.

Fine, dial back your rhetoric if you want.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to allocate the multi-family housing in Tysons among three nearby high schools - Langley, McLean, and Marshall. That would not involve any more “cherry-picking” or “gerrymandering” than was involved in the crafting of Langley’s current boundaries, which cover a wide swath of the county, consist almost entirely of single-family homes, and include less than 2% low-income kids.

If you disagree, perhaps the best way forward is simply to urge FCPS to do a county-wide redistricting. I doubt very much the current Langley boundaries would be carried forward under that scenario. And it would need to be done soon, because the gaps between the schools projected to be overcrowded and under-enrolled are only expected to grow.

[Anonymous]

Langley poster is full of it. It's social engineering when you rig a school's boundaries to only include rich neighborhoods. One Fairfax means we aren't putting up with that nonsense any longer.

He'll say "anyone is welcome" but then argue it should just be the McLean or Marshall areas closest to Langley High. He knows that's all $1.5-2.0 million houses because of the zoning. No apartments there, problem solved, LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

Incorrect. I'm a Langley parent and would welcome kids from any and all neighborhoods to Langley. As would every Langley parent I know. I think it's some sort of (sub)urban myth that these kids wouldn't be welcome at Langley - far from it. The point I'm trying to make is that in the effort to relieve overcrowding at McLean (or other schools), many posters such as yourself have repeatedly stressed the "need" for Langley to be more diverse, to check certain boxes. Certainly, Langley could help absorb some of the overcrowding, but you seem to want to cherry pick "certain" demographics in order to even out what you perceive to be a lack of diversity. I find that extremely unsettling. It's pretty much social engineering of school demographics.

Different poster here. I think the main reason to have Langley add students in Tysons is that Tysons population is situated for an explosion and all the area HS are going to have to take up some of it. By looking at a map, it isn't even far fetched to include in Langley's footprint. I am not even sure it will add much to the economic diversity at Langley.

[Anonymous]

That bus commute from Tysons to Langley would be tough, no matter which route they take. It will only get worse in the future.

[Anonymous]

Any school with more than 5% farms sucks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That bus commute from Tysons to Langley would be tough, no matter which route they take. It will only get worse in the future.

The long-term solution might be to build a new secondary school in Tysons, but that is literally decades away from happening. Meanwhile, Langley has close to 400 empty seats. If the projections pan out, soon it will be closer to 500

If kids who live near the Loudoun border can handle the bus rides to Langley, kids can handle the shorter commute to Langley from the north side of Tysons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That bus commute from Tysons to Langley would be tough, no matter which route they take. It will only get worse in the future.

The long-term solution might be to build a new secondary school in Tysons, but that is literally decades away from happening. Meanwhile, Langley has close to 400 empty seats. If the projections pan out, soon it will be closer to 500

If kids who live near the Loudoun border can handle the bus rides to Langley, kids can handle the shorter commute to Langley from the north side of Tysons.

The area that Janie Strauss has proposed moving to Langley is literally just on the other side of the Dulles Toll Road from McLean Hamlet, which goes to Cooper/Langley.

A bus wouldn't travel through the heart of Tysons. It would go up Spring Hill, cross the Toll Road, get on Lewinsville, and follow the same route at the buses from the Hamlet.

[Anonymous]

...sorry but I'm still chuckling at the notion of McLean kids chanting something about a "silver spoon" to the Langley kids... that's like the kids with BMW's taunting the kids with Mercedes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...sorry but I'm still chuckling at the notion of McLean kids chanting something about a "silver spoon" to the Langley kids... that's like the kids with BMW's taunting the kids with Mercedes.

....and I'm still chuckling at the notion of Langley parents getting bent out of shape about it...not like most are driving an old Chevy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ If all of the above is accurate, then those of you insisting that Tysons, etc. move more kids to Langley really need to understand that it's the School Board who controls these decisions - not the parents. A lot of you *love* to blame Langley parents for boundary decisions, when the reality is, the SB has full control. Something to keep in mind.

That's kind of a straw-man argument. School Board members make the decisions, but they usually listen to active, connected and vocal parents. For example, in 2011, Janie Strauss went to Great Falls when she was seeking re-election and emphasized that she'd kept Langley out of the 2008 South Lakes HS boundary study that moved kids from Westfield, Oakton and Madison to South Lakes. Do you really think she would have done that if some Langley parents hadn't been urging her to get Langley excluded?

Sounds like your issue is with Janie Strauss then. Take it up with her.

Come up with a better argument next time. Portraying Langley parents as besieged victims doesn't quite cut it.

No one has portrayed Langley parents as "besieged victims" - sounds like you have quite the chip on your shoulder. The point is that if Janie Strauss is ultimately responsible for her own decisions, then you might want to try actually contacting Strauss, rather than cowardly lumping all Langley parents together as the root of all your woes. If anything, it's you and others like you who love portraying yourselves as some kind of victims because you feel all schools should have exactly the same amount of "diversity," regardless of geography.

Recognizing there's a temptation to conflate opinions expressed by different posters on DCUM, I've never characterized Langley parents as the "root of all [my] woes." I certainly don't think Langley parents are responsible for the overcrowding at McLean or other FCPS schools. Since you have 1922 kids in a building that can now accommodate roughly 2300, according to FCPS, you may need to be part of the solution.

But I do think the suggestion that School Board members are complete free agents, and aren't influenced by parents at schools like Langley, is bogus.

As to your last point, feel free to dig your own hole. Some Langley parents have said on these threads they'd welcome additional kids at Langley, whether from apartments or single-family homes. And then when a specific proposal is made that actually may involve moving some apartments to Langley, you claim that the supporters believe "all schools should have exactly the same amount" of diversity, which is an exaggeration that suggests you are, in fact, hostile to the idea of moving kids from more modest backgrounds to your 1.5% FARMS school.

Incorrect. I'm a Langley parent and would welcome kids from any and all neighborhoods to Langley. As would every Langley parent I know. I think it's some sort of (sub)urban myth that these kids wouldn't be welcome at Langley - far from it. The point I'm trying to make is that in the effort to relieve overcrowding at McLean (or other schools), many posters such as yourself have repeatedly stressed the "need" for Langley to be more diverse, to check certain boxes. Certainly, Langley could help absorb some of the overcrowding, but you seem to want to cherry pick "certain" demographics in order to even out what you perceive to be a lack of diversity. I find that extremely unsettling. It's pretty much social engineering of school demographics.

Hi, Langley parent. I had two kids at Marshall. You must not have been involved in any boundary studies. FCPS has been looking at demographics when doing boundary changes for years. It was absolutely considered when they reassigned part of Freedom Hill ES to Lemon Road ES. They had tables that showed how the different options under consideration would impact ESOL/FARMS at both schools.

This is nothing new. It just means they don't ignore the elephant in the room. If you welcome kids from any and all neighborhoods, you should not act like it's something out of Orwell or Communist China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...sorry but I'm still chuckling at the notion of McLean kids chanting something about a "silver spoon" to the Langley kids... that's like the kids with BMW's taunting the kids with Mercedes.

....and I'm still chuckling at the notion of Langley parents getting bent out of shape about it...not like most are driving an old Chevy.

I think you've missed the point entirely. In addition, McLean kids spray painted F**K in red on the front of Langley this past weekend after the bball game. It won't come off, so it had to be creatively "edited" and now says BOOK. Real nice to deface the front of a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...sorry but I'm still chuckling at the notion of McLean kids chanting something about a "silver spoon" to the Langley kids... that's like the kids with BMW's taunting the kids with Mercedes.

....and I'm still chuckling at the notion of Langley parents getting bent out of shape about it...not like most are driving an old Chevy.

I think you've missed the point entirely. In addition, McLean kids spray painted F**K in red on the front of Langley this past weekend after the bball game. It won't come off, so it had to be creatively "edited" and now says BOOK. Real nice to deface the front of a school.

Stupid, but not surprising, as they were responding to what Langley kids did the morning BEFORE the game. I couldn’t give a book.