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:

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.

There's no need to say this explicitly when you can get the same outcome by claiming Langley might be at capacity some day many years from now, kids should just be sent to the closest schools (unless, of course, they live far away but are already zoned to Langley), kids living in apartments should all go to school together, etc.

What would be amazing would be if a group of Langley parents ever went to the SB and affirmatively pointed out that the excess capacity at the school could be used to accept kids living in multi-family housing that would add some economic diversity to the school. That would be powerful, but it never happens because even the Langley parents who pretend to be woke - like some of the Dranesville Democrats from Great Falls - pretend to be completely ignorant when it comes to boundary and enrollment issues.

[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?

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

Why won’t you answer the question?
DP

Because you're just looking to gather information to try and discredit individual posters rather than engage on the issues.

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

Honestly, why won’t you answer the question?

[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:

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

Because you're just looking to gather information to try and discredit individual posters rather than engage on the issues.

No - we’re trying to see exactly how any of this affects you, in any way. It’s clear it doesn’t. You simply get a rush out of thinking you’re somehow “sticking it” to those Langley families you so irrationally despise. News flash: you’re not. No one cares. Your obsession is beyond unhealthy. Maybe get a hobby?

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

That’s actually not at all what I said. I said these threads you constantly start are inane - which they are. You take an issue that isn’t even an issue, start insisting that things WILL be done your way, and then when presented with obvious facts, call people names because they’re not falling in line. For the millionth time: no one at Langley has any problem whatsoever with kids from ANY neighborhood being zoned to the school. If the SB chooses to send this neighborhood (or any other) to Langley, that’s perfectly fine! Why wouldn’t it be? But all you want to do is pick fights for the sole purpose of sticking it to a community you openly detest.

You are not the SB - nor is anyone posting here. Go get your placard and stand outside their offices if you want attention so badly. The rest of us are simply responding to your incredibly hostile and aggressive posts - with facts.

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

Honestly, why won’t you answer the question?

+1
It’s very, very obvious why she refuses to answer.

[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:

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.

There's no need to say this explicitly when you can get the same outcome by claiming Langley might be at capacity some day many years from now, kids should just be sent to the closest schools (unless, of course, they live far away but are already zoned to Langley), kids living in apartments should all go to school together, etc.

What would be amazing would be if a group of Langley parents ever went to the SB and affirmatively pointed out that the excess capacity at the school could be used to accept kids living in multi-family housing that would add some economic diversity to the school. That would be powerful, but it never happens because even the Langley parents who pretend to be woke - like some of the Dranesville Democrats from Great Falls - pretend to be completely ignorant when it comes to boundary and enrollment issues.

This is hilarious. Tell us about ANY school community which went to the SB and pointed out that their school was below capacity (and Langley is barely below), so won’t you please send us some more kids?! Do you even hear yourself?

[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:

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

Because you're just looking to gather information to try and discredit individual posters rather than engage on the issues.

No - we’re trying to see exactly how any of this affects you, in any way. It’s clear it doesn’t. You simply get a rush out of thinking you’re somehow “sticking it” to those Langley families you so irrationally despise. News flash: you’re not. No one cares. Your obsession is beyond unhealthy. Maybe get a hobby?

If you're sure the topic doesn't affect individual posters, you obviously have no need for personal information about them. And clearly the suggestion that "no one cares" doesn't apply insofar as you're concerned.

Further, support for the idea that FCPS might want to explore assigning a new development to an under-enrolled school to avoid overcrowding another one that has already had to cut back substantially on pupil placements for IB doesn't suggest anyone "despises" Langley. The fact that you'd characterize it that way, however, may reveal a fair amount about how you perceive the potential assignment of some less-than-wealthy students to Langley.

I'm sure you'll ignore the suggestion, but you might want to step back before the pile of self-owns gets even higher.

[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:

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.

There's no need to say this explicitly when you can get the same outcome by claiming Langley might be at capacity some day many years from now, kids should just be sent to the closest schools (unless, of course, they live far away but are already zoned to Langley), kids living in apartments should all go to school together, etc.

What would be amazing would be if a group of Langley parents ever went to the SB and affirmatively pointed out that the excess capacity at the school could be used to accept kids living in multi-family housing that would add some economic diversity to the school. That would be powerful, but it never happens because even the Langley parents who pretend to be woke - like some of the Dranesville Democrats from Great Falls - pretend to be completely ignorant when it comes to boundary and enrollment issues.

This is hilarious. Tell us about ANY school community which went to the SB and pointed out that their school was below capacity (and Langley is barely below), so won’t you please send us some more kids?! Do you even hear yourself?

South Lakes did just that a while back, as some who were moved to SLHS from Westfield, Oakton and/or Madison may recall. Prior to that there were other examples.

Langley was expanded to 2370 kids and had an enrollment of just over 2000 this year. That is well below capacity, not "barely."

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

That’s actually not at all what I said. I said these threads you constantly start are inane - which they are. You take an issue that isn’t even an issue, start insisting that things WILL be done your way, and then when presented with obvious facts, call people names because they’re not falling in line. For the millionth time: no one at Langley has any problem whatsoever with kids from ANY neighborhood being zoned to the school. If the SB chooses to send this neighborhood (or any other) to Langley, that’s perfectly fine! Why wouldn’t it be? But all you want to do is pick fights for the sole purpose of sticking it to a community you openly detest.

You are not the SB - nor is anyone posting here. Go get your placard and stand outside their offices if you want attention so badly. The rest of us are simply responding to your incredibly hostile and aggressive posts - with facts.

This is a discussion forum. I'm far from the only poster who has commented in threads that you find unpalatable.

It would be wonderful if the SB was pro-active and took initiative when it should without waiting to be nudged, cajoled, or even shamed into doing so. If it had done that, FCPS would be in far better shape today. But in some cases this forum can serve as one vehicle - not the only one - to start to socialize ideas, including ones that you apparently find incendiary, such as the idea that FCPS should actually use the capacity that it added to Langley when it expanded the school to nearly 2400 seats and, in doing so, might consider assigning a new development that is scheduled to be built within the next few years, but does not already have residents with allegiances to a particular school.

Seriously, you need to disengage if these topics trigger you so much. You don't have to agree with the suggestions, but neither I nor others have said things "WILL be done our way" (and, to the contrary, some of us have acknowledged that history suggests the School Board will continue down the same path of lofty rhetoric belied by their self-serving actions). But you're the one who seems unduly obsessed about policing and having the final say on any topic that touches Langley HS. There's not a single poster on this forum who gets similarly worked up about threads involving other schools and, if you had kids at those schools rather than Langley and were paying attention, you'd know that far worse things are routinely said about some of those schools than that they have surplus capacity to which a new complex in Tysons might be assigned.

[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:

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

Because you're just looking to gather information to try and discredit individual posters rather than engage on the issues.

So... exactly what you're doing? Oh.

[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:

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

Because you're just looking to gather information to try and discredit individual posters rather than engage on the issues.

No - we’re trying to see exactly how any of this affects you, in any way. It’s clear it doesn’t. You simply get a rush out of thinking you’re somehow “sticking it” to those Langley families you so irrationally despise. News flash: you’re not. No one cares. Your obsession is beyond unhealthy. Maybe get a hobby?

If you're sure the topic doesn't affect individual posters, you obviously have no need for personal information about them. And clearly the suggestion that "no one cares" doesn't apply insofar as you're concerned.

Further, support for the idea that FCPS might want to explore assigning a new development to an under-enrolled school to avoid overcrowding another one that has already had to cut back substantially on pupil placements for IB doesn't suggest anyone "despises" Langley. The fact that you'd characterize it that way, however, may reveal a fair amount about how you perceive the potential assignment of some less-than-wealthy students to Langley.

I'm sure you'll ignore the suggestion, but you might want to step back before the pile of self-owns gets even higher.

Oh, my. Speaking of self-own, let me list yours. Once again, you move the goalposts to try and weasel out of taking any responsibility for your bullying behavior. First, you claim FCPS parents were complaining in that survey that they didn't want any low-income kids assigned to their school - when nothing of the sort was said. Lie. Then you claim that "no one despises Langley," when all you continue to do is insult the Langley community by insisting they "don't want low-income kids in their school" - another lie. Gee, I wonder how *anyone* could read your posts and not see the level of hatred you have for Langley. Several of your posts were deleted because you insisted on disparaging that community to suit your vendetta. So it's pretty entertaining for you to sit there and smugly state that your hostility towards Langley simply doesn't exist.

It's been stated multiple times, by multiple people: there is no issue with Langley receiving students from ANY neighborhood, at ANY income level - and to pretend otherwise just makes you look crazy. The fact is, however, that the neighborhood you keep harping about isn't even in front of the SB yet for any reason, much less assigning it to a school. When/if it ever is, then feel free to show up at their meetings and make your case. It's unclear why you continue to pick fights here about something that isn't even currently at issue. Here's my suggestion for you: quit making things up about people you don't even know and starting threads for the sole purpose of picking fights.

[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:

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.

There's no need to say this explicitly when you can get the same outcome by claiming Langley might be at capacity some day many years from now, kids should just be sent to the closest schools (unless, of course, they live far away but are already zoned to Langley), kids living in apartments should all go to school together, etc.

What would be amazing would be if a group of Langley parents ever went to the SB and affirmatively pointed out that the excess capacity at the school could be used to accept kids living in multi-family housing that would add some economic diversity to the school. That would be powerful, but it never happens because even the Langley parents who pretend to be woke - like some of the Dranesville Democrats from Great Falls - pretend to be completely ignorant when it comes to boundary and enrollment issues.

This is hilarious. Tell us about ANY school community which went to the SB and pointed out that their school was below capacity (and Langley is barely below), so won’t you please send us some more kids?! Do you even hear yourself?

South Lakes did just that a while back, as some who were moved to SLHS from Westfield, Oakton and/or Madison may recall. Prior to that there were other examples.

Langley was expanded to 2370 kids and had an enrollment of just over 2000 this year. That is well below capacity, not "barely."

Really. A group of SLHS parents lobbied the SB to send them more students? Link, please? As well as the "other examples."

[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:

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.

So, to be clear, you assert that no one from Langley would have any objection to a boundary change that would add multi-family housing to Langley, but when someone asks about the possibility of expanding Langley's boundaries slightly to do just that (in the case of a brand-new affordable housing development in Tysons) you say it's "inane."

You're an even bigger hypocrite than Elaine Tholen. Congratulations.

That’s actually not at all what I said. I said these threads you constantly start are inane - which they are. You take an issue that isn’t even an issue, start insisting that things WILL be done your way, and then when presented with obvious facts, call people names because they’re not falling in line. For the millionth time: no one at Langley has any problem whatsoever with kids from ANY neighborhood being zoned to the school. If the SB chooses to send this neighborhood (or any other) to Langley, that’s perfectly fine! Why wouldn’t it be? But all you want to do is pick fights for the sole purpose of sticking it to a community you openly detest.

You are not the SB - nor is anyone posting here. Go get your placard and stand outside their offices if you want attention so badly. The rest of us are simply responding to your incredibly hostile and aggressive posts - with facts.

This is a discussion forum. I'm far from the only poster who has commented in threads that you find unpalatable.

It would be wonderful if the SB was pro-active and took initiative when it should without waiting to be nudged, cajoled, or even shamed into doing so. If it had done that, FCPS would be in far better shape today. But in some cases this forum can serve as one vehicle - not the only one - to start to socialize ideas, including ones that you apparently find incendiary, such as the idea that FCPS should actually use the capacity that it added to Langley when it expanded the school to nearly 2400 seats and, in doing so, might consider assigning a new development that is scheduled to be built within the next few years, but does not already have residents with allegiances to a particular school.

Seriously, you need to disengage if these topics trigger you so much. You don't have to agree with the suggestions, but neither I nor others have said things "WILL be done our way" (and, to the contrary, some of us have acknowledged that history suggests the School Board will continue down the same path of lofty rhetoric belied by their self-serving actions). But you're the one who seems unduly obsessed about policing and having the final say on any topic that touches Langley HS. There's not a single poster on this forum who gets similarly worked up about threads involving other schools and, if you had kids at those schools rather than Langley and were paying attention, you'd know that far worse things are routinely said about some of those schools than that they have surplus capacity to which a new complex in Tysons might be assigned.

Oh, the irony.