Should FCPS Reassign New Affordable Housing from Marshall to Langley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What elementary and middle school would this feed into?

At present, Westbriar ES and Kilmer MS. It would make sense to reassign the new buildings on Spring Hill Road and to the immediate north to Spring Hill ES and Cooper MS. Spring Hill has capacity and Cooper has about 150 fewer kids now than Kilmer. Kilmer has had temporary classrooms (trailers/modular) for years. Cooper is being renovated and expanded now.

I know that Spring Hill is a split feeder and already one of the largest elementary schools in McLean. I thought the SB was going to get rid of the split feeder to Langley/McLean High but then they didn’t.

Do they make these tiny boundary adjustments for equity? We moved here 4 years ago. I have been trying to follow these boundary changes. I know there was a huge push for equity changes via One Fairfax to change boundaries across all of Fairfax county and I believe it was axed due to unpopularity. I wouldn’t want my kids reshuffled for the sake of equity.

They have in the past. Ft Hunt elementary has a little island that encompasses one low income housing development

I believe that island was moved to Fort Hunt in the 1970s to address overcrowding at Hybla Valley. I don't think it had anything to do with equity.

That sounds right. But it's a convenient straw-man to imply that adjustments that would mitigate capacity imbalances are "social engineering" when parents at the receiving schools don't like the demographics of the students being reassigned.

DP. Please do provide evidence that this is the case. The rest of us know that is absurd, but I look forward to you presenting actual proof that anyone has said that, much less thinks it.

I'll entertain you with this document which contains the actual comments submitted by FCPS parents on the survey regarding boundary adjustments presented in December 2021. Some parents quite candidly assert that FCPS should not consider boundary changes because their personal real estate investments could go negative if demographics at their neighborhood school changes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KN074150/$file/MGT%20Supplement%20Materials.pdf

Your description of the comments is misleading. Reading through the linked document, the concerns appear primarily directed at property values going down if a house is re-zoned to a lower-rated school pyramid. The concerns are not (as you imply) with "demographics at their neighborhood school" changing . . . the commenters are expressing that they want their houses to stay in the same pyramid, not that they don't want others added to their pyramid.

I think most people would concur in the sentiment expressed by the commenters -- all else being equal, houses in a good pyramid command a premium to similar houses in a lower-rated pyramid and that is one of the reasons that few people would favor a boundary change that results in their house being moved to a lower-rated pyramid. That's just as true in the Langley pyramid as it is in other higher-rated pyramids.

That sentiment has little or nothing to do with "the demographics of the students being reassigned" -- a highly-rated pyramid will not be less highly-rated just because a certain number of lower-income students (or whatever other group) is reassigned there. A number of the people commenting on both sides of the primary argument in this thread have made that same point.

Precisely this. Plenty of those comments expressed concern with their home values decreasing should they be reassigned to a different school - NOT if other kids were reassigned to their current school. You are absolutely correct that the PP misrepresented what was being stated in those comments. Here are a few examples of just that:

"We paid extra to buy a house that is zoned for Robinson. If boundaries change, our house value decreases. FCPS should be required to reimburse the difference in house value when we sell this house if it gets zoned to a different school pyramid."

"We moved into our home specifically for LBSS. Both of our children have IEPs and not only would our child be negatively effected by a boundary change but also our property values. My husband is retired military and we chose this location as a place to provide stability for our two children."

"We don't want the boundary to change as it will disrupt our child's education. We purchased our home because our child will attend a better school. Any changes to the current school that my child currently attends and/or will attend will negatively impact my child's education and my home value."

"We chose the Oakton pyramid after talking with numerous family & friends. The choice came at a considerable personal financial expense/investment. To be moved out of that pyramid would have a negative impact on our children (ages 4-12) a negative impact on home's long term value."

"We bought the current house because of the school pyramid, just like most people in our neighborhood. Our home value was/is largely based on that too."

"We bought house paying premium price because of Woodson HS. If school gets changed then our house value will go down which we do not want."

The greater issue here is that these people honestly believe the success of their personal real estate investments should play a role in decisions made by a taxpayer-funded, K-12 public education institution. Had they left off everything about real estate and only mentioned the "better" school they were after, then sure, we could let that go. But the fact that they bring up real estate as if FCPS owes them a guaranteed positive return is mind-blowingly ridiculous.

Why should our taxes support FCPS budget decisions with an additional requirement of maintaining high property values of a subset of citizens? I'm not saying change boundaries for the sake of changing, but no decision about anything should be off the table for the sake of protecting real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What elementary and middle school would this feed into?

At present, Westbriar ES and Kilmer MS. It would make sense to reassign the new buildings on Spring Hill Road and to the immediate north to Spring Hill ES and Cooper MS. Spring Hill has capacity and Cooper has about 150 fewer kids now than Kilmer. Kilmer has had temporary classrooms (trailers/modular) for years. Cooper is being renovated and expanded now.

I know that Spring Hill is a split feeder and already one of the largest elementary schools in McLean. I thought the SB was going to get rid of the split feeder to Langley/McLean High but then they didn’t.

Do they make these tiny boundary adjustments for equity? We moved here 4 years ago. I have been trying to follow these boundary changes. I know there was a huge push for equity changes via One Fairfax to change boundaries across all of Fairfax county and I believe it was axed due to unpopularity. I wouldn’t want my kids reshuffled for the sake of equity.

They have in the past. Ft Hunt elementary has a little island that encompasses one low income housing development

I believe that island was moved to Fort Hunt in the 1970s to address overcrowding at Hybla Valley. I don't think it had anything to do with equity.

That sounds right. But it's a convenient straw-man to imply that adjustments that would mitigate capacity imbalances are "social engineering" when parents at the receiving schools don't like the demographics of the students being reassigned.

DP. Please do provide evidence that this is the case. The rest of us know that is absurd, but I look forward to you presenting actual proof that anyone has said that, much less thinks it.

I'll entertain you with this document which contains the actual comments submitted by FCPS parents on the survey regarding boundary adjustments presented in December 2021. Some parents quite candidly assert that FCPS should not consider boundary changes because their personal real estate investments could go negative if demographics at their neighborhood school changes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KN074150/$file/MGT%20Supplement%20Materials.pdf

Your description of the comments is misleading. Reading through the linked document, the concerns appear primarily directed at property values going down if a house is re-zoned to a lower-rated school pyramid. The concerns are not (as you imply) with "demographics at their neighborhood school" changing . . . the commenters are expressing that they want their houses to stay in the same pyramid, not that they don't want others added to their pyramid.

I think most people would concur in the sentiment expressed by the commenters -- all else being equal, houses in a good pyramid command a premium to similar houses in a lower-rated pyramid and that is one of the reasons that few people would favor a boundary change that results in their house being moved to a lower-rated pyramid. That's just as true in the Langley pyramid as it is in other higher-rated pyramids.

That sentiment has little or nothing to do with "the demographics of the students being reassigned" -- a highly-rated pyramid will not be less highly-rated just because a certain number of lower-income students (or whatever other group) is reassigned there. A number of the people commenting on both sides of the primary argument in this thread have made that same point.

Precisely this. Plenty of those comments expressed concern with their home values decreasing should they be reassigned to a different school - NOT if other kids were reassigned to their current school. You are absolutely correct that the PP misrepresented what was being stated in those comments. Here are a few examples of just that:

"We paid extra to buy a house that is zoned for Robinson. If boundaries change, our house value decreases. FCPS should be required to reimburse the difference in house value when we sell this house if it gets zoned to a different school pyramid."

"We moved into our home specifically for LBSS. Both of our children have IEPs and not only would our child be negatively effected by a boundary change but also our property values. My husband is retired military and we chose this location as a place to provide stability for our two children."

"We don't want the boundary to change as it will disrupt our child's education. We purchased our home because our child will attend a better school. Any changes to the current school that my child currently attends and/or will attend will negatively impact my child's education and my home value."

"We chose the Oakton pyramid after talking with numerous family & friends. The choice came at a considerable personal financial expense/investment. To be moved out of that pyramid would have a negative impact on our children (ages 4-12) a negative impact on home's long term value."

"We bought the current house because of the school pyramid, just like most people in our neighborhood. Our home value was/is largely based on that too."

"We bought house paying premium price because of Woodson HS. If school gets changed then our house value will go down which we do not want."

The greater issue here is that these people honestly believe the success of their personal real estate investments should play a role in decisions made by a taxpayer-funded, K-12 public education institution. Had they left off everything about real estate and only mentioned the "better" school they were after, then sure, we could let that go. But the fact that they bring up real estate as if FCPS owes them a guaranteed positive return is mind-blowingly ridiculous.

Why should our taxes support FCPS budget decisions with an additional requirement of maintaining high property values of a subset of citizens? I'm not saying change boundaries for the sake of changing, but no decision about anything should be off the table for the sake of protecting real estate.

All of what you wrote is true, but the school board members and county council members know that reducing a neighborhood's value by redistricting is a good way to get a swath of voters who will never vote for you again with no appreciable gain in voters from anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

Whose views are you trying to elevate and/or discount?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What elementary and middle school would this feed into?

At present, Westbriar ES and Kilmer MS. It would make sense to reassign the new buildings on Spring Hill Road and to the immediate north to Spring Hill ES and Cooper MS. Spring Hill has capacity and Cooper has about 150 fewer kids now than Kilmer. Kilmer has had temporary classrooms (trailers/modular) for years. Cooper is being renovated and expanded now.

I know that Spring Hill is a split feeder and already one of the largest elementary schools in McLean. I thought the SB was going to get rid of the split feeder to Langley/McLean High but then they didn’t.

Do they make these tiny boundary adjustments for equity? We moved here 4 years ago. I have been trying to follow these boundary changes. I know there was a huge push for equity changes via One Fairfax to change boundaries across all of Fairfax county and I believe it was axed due to unpopularity. I wouldn’t want my kids reshuffled for the sake of equity.

They have in the past. Ft Hunt elementary has a little island that encompasses one low income housing development

I believe that island was moved to Fort Hunt in the 1970s to address overcrowding at Hybla Valley. I don't think it had anything to do with equity.

That sounds right. But it's a convenient straw-man to imply that adjustments that would mitigate capacity imbalances are "social engineering" when parents at the receiving schools don't like the demographics of the students being reassigned.

DP. Please do provide evidence that this is the case. The rest of us know that is absurd, but I look forward to you presenting actual proof that anyone has said that, much less thinks it.

I'll entertain you with this document which contains the actual comments submitted by FCPS parents on the survey regarding boundary adjustments presented in December 2021. Some parents quite candidly assert that FCPS should not consider boundary changes because their personal real estate investments could go negative if demographics at their neighborhood school changes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KN074150/$file/MGT%20Supplement%20Materials.pdf

Your description of the comments is misleading. Reading through the linked document, the concerns appear primarily directed at property values going down if a house is re-zoned to a lower-rated school pyramid. The concerns are not (as you imply) with "demographics at their neighborhood school" changing . . . the commenters are expressing that they want their houses to stay in the same pyramid, not that they don't want others added to their pyramid.

I think most people would concur in the sentiment expressed by the commenters -- all else being equal, houses in a good pyramid command a premium to similar houses in a lower-rated pyramid and that is one of the reasons that few people would favor a boundary change that results in their house being moved to a lower-rated pyramid. That's just as true in the Langley pyramid as it is in other higher-rated pyramids.

That sentiment has little or nothing to do with "the demographics of the students being reassigned" -- a highly-rated pyramid will not be less highly-rated just because a certain number of lower-income students (or whatever other group) is reassigned there. A number of the people commenting on both sides of the primary argument in this thread have made that same point.

Precisely this. Plenty of those comments expressed concern with their home values decreasing should they be reassigned to a different school - NOT if other kids were reassigned to their current school. You are absolutely correct that the PP misrepresented what was being stated in those comments. Here are a few examples of just that:

"We paid extra to buy a house that is zoned for Robinson. If boundaries change, our house value decreases. FCPS should be required to reimburse the difference in house value when we sell this house if it gets zoned to a different school pyramid."

"We moved into our home specifically for LBSS. Both of our children have IEPs and not only would our child be negatively effected by a boundary change but also our property values. My husband is retired military and we chose this location as a place to provide stability for our two children."

"We don't want the boundary to change as it will disrupt our child's education. We purchased our home because our child will attend a better school. Any changes to the current school that my child currently attends and/or will attend will negatively impact my child's education and my home value."

"We chose the Oakton pyramid after talking with numerous family & friends. The choice came at a considerable personal financial expense/investment. To be moved out of that pyramid would have a negative impact on our children (ages 4-12) a negative impact on home's long term value."

"We bought the current house because of the school pyramid, just like most people in our neighborhood. Our home value was/is largely based on that too."

"We bought house paying premium price because of Woodson HS. If school gets changed then our house value will go down which we do not want."

The greater issue here is that these people honestly believe the success of their personal real estate investments should play a role in decisions made by a taxpayer-funded, K-12 public education institution. Had they left off everything about real estate and only mentioned the "better" school they were after, then sure, we could let that go. But the fact that they bring up real estate as if FCPS owes them a guaranteed positive return is mind-blowingly ridiculous.

Why should our taxes support FCPS budget decisions with an additional requirement of maintaining high property values of a subset of citizens? I'm not saying change boundaries for the sake of changing, but no decision about anything should be off the table for the sake of protecting real estate.

Moving goalposts, yet again, I see. Those comments were in response to the PP (you?) who lied and said people were complaining about *adding* low-income kids to their school. That’s clearly not happening. They are upset that their home values will go down if their neighborhoods are zoned to lower-performing schools. Whether or not you agree with that stance is irrelevant. The point stands - no one is upset about low-income kids being added to their current school, which was the claim.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

DP. My guess is the PP who continues to grouse about this non-situation is a parent at either McLean or Marshall who simply cannot get over her resentment of Langley, for whatever irrational reason. Same poster, different day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

Whose views are you trying to elevate and/or discount?

Why won’t you answer the question?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

DP. My guess is the PP who continues to grouse about this non-situation is a parent at either McLean or Marshall who simply cannot get over her resentment of Langley, for whatever irrational reason. Same poster, different day.

I don’t really think it’s a parent at any school. Definitely not one of the ones that could be affected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

DP. My guess is the PP who continues to grouse about this non-situation is a parent at either McLean or Marshall who simply cannot get over her resentment of Langley, for whatever irrational reason. Same poster, different day.

We are zoned for Langley. I have never heard of any parent object to any boundary changes including multi family housing. I only read about these supposed objections on DCUM from parents who aren’t zoned for Langley saying Langley parents don’t want any diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

This is simple. FCPS can decide whether the Langley pyramid, which has more capacity than others near Tysons, should take on these additional students, or not. If not, they should budgeting now to add capacity to schools in other pyramids. The fact that you're so overwrought about it doesn't make it any more complicated.

If you are talking about future capacity (which is the only thing relevant to a discussion of future development), Madison is projected to have much more capacity than Langley post-renovation.

The area in question is contiguous to Langley's boundaries, not Madison's.

The area in question is actually contiguous to McLean's boundaries, not Langley's, thanks to Tholen's boundary shift switcheroo last year.

It's actually now contiguous to both Langley's boundaries (to the northwest) and McLean's boundaries (to the east), thanks to Tholen's boundary change.

And McLean has no capacity but like Marshall (and unlike Langley) has plenty of apartments in Tysons and Merrifield.

No, it's not contiguous to Langley's boundaries due to Tholen's boundary change. As another poster said, it's about 1/4 mile from any part of Langley zone. And that alone will be used as an argument that it couldn't possibly be assigned to Langley because then it would be a small attendance island which is not fair to the future residents/students to be isolated. This is an oh-so-convenient artifact of Tholen's change last year, is that it essentially isolates Langley from even abutting potential lower-income housing options, further entrenching its demographic status quo.

The additional 1/4 mile to which you refer is largely commercial and can easily be reassigned to Langley as well, so there would be no island.

The thread demonstrates just how hostile Langley and some others are to adding any housing diversity to their school, even when Langley remains under-capacity and otherwise stands to be unaffected by the growth affecting nearby schools with less capacity.

I do not see any of the commenters in this thread being hostile to adding diversity to Langley generally. The discussion is focused on whether it makes sense to move this specific development to Langley, or whether another approach makes more sense. Your view appears to be that equity/diversity considerations should be paramount and, for that reason, the development should go to Langley. Others have focused on practical considerations that support keeping the development in Marshall (keepong the status quo) or moving it (and adjoining areas) to Madison because it will have the most space. None of the arguments -- on either side -- is at root unreasonable or irrational. It's just different perspectives.

As I have written above, I think it's unlikely this development gets moved to Langley. It seems far more likely that any further Langley boundary changes in the near future remain targeted at relieving overcrowding at McLean. As with the last boundary change, Langley is the best positioned school (geographically) to relieve McLean. That's a more pressing issue from a capacity standpoint than any potential future concern with Marshall's capacity. Madison and Falls Church are both projected to have plenty of future capacity to relieve Marshall, if needed (indeed, they are projected to be two of the three high schools with the lowest future utilization rates -- Mount Vernon being the other).

I honestly think you'd have to be myopic to an extreme not to acknowledge the hostility that many Langley parents and community residents have to either adding diversity to their school or, even worse from their perspective, ever being redistricted to another school. In some instances, it overlaps with the concern that the areas that might add diversity also might end up adding more students than other areas, but it's there.

It's how we've gotten to where we are today, where one school has surplus capacity and almost no diversity, and other schools with more diversity are near or above capacity and poised to confront further overcrowding. The proposed solution will always be to kick the can down the road and reassign students living in less wealthy areas to other pyramids, if and when that opportunity presents itself.

Are you even a parent at any of these schools?

DP. My guess is the PP who continues to grouse about this non-situation is a parent at either McLean or Marshall who simply cannot get over her resentment of Langley, for whatever irrational reason. Same poster, different day.

We are zoned for Langley. I have never heard of any parent object to any boundary changes including multi family housing. I only read about these supposed objections on DCUM from parents who aren’t zoned for Langley saying Langley parents don’t want any diversity.

Same here. It’s always the same one or two people who start these inane threads, for the sole out of trashing Langley. Very transparent.

[Anonymous]

*sole purpose