Mclean boundary changes - can someone please update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused because it seems many are suggesting this is a negative for McLean. How is this a negative for those in McLean district long term if it will relieve some overcrowding and McLean will likely get in the line for expansion?

This is not a negative for McLean. It is good.

I wish it were, but I've seen this movie before and it's not. No school comes out ahead when the School Board both under-invests in its facilities and moves a significant proportion of its higher-achieving kids to other schools.

The only school this is good for is Langley.

McLean still has all those families from Haycock, Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman. McLean High will be just fine.

I do wonder how the demographics will change, especially with the changes with TJ.

Exactly. The Debbie Downer on this thread is absurd. Moving a few families to Langley is not going to change McLean. Other than to alleviate some overcrowding, which you’d think would be welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious - is there any other elementary schools in FCPS like Spring Hill where they send every single kid who lives in an apartment or condo to one high school and every single kid who lives in a single-family house to a wealthier high school?

I thought they were supposed to care about equity and diversity. This is anything but - it's Elaine Tholen "cleaning up" boundaries so her own school gets richer and another school gets poorer. Kathy Smith would be proud.

I disagree that equity should overrule practicality. Especially since it is equity for the sake of the appearance of equity and not any actual benefit to anyone. Both schools are excellent and will continue to be excellent. People with children specifically move to those apartments so their kids can attend Longfellow and McLean.

+1,000
So sick of talking about “equity,” as if a few (expensive!) apartments here and there makes any difference at all. Such a stupid, trivial thing to obsess over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the boundary change that will relieve some of MHS overcrowding, in combination with the modulars, mean that MHS is really unlikely to get a major renovation? Or is that still on the table in the CIP?

MHS is a terrific school and will continue to have lots of involved parents, but this is kind of a kick in the teeth.

There are many schools in FCPS that are on the list for renovations before McLean.

This is true. McLean was already renovated sometime in the early 2000s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this will be moot when The City of McLean rises like a Phoenix and secedes from Fairfax County and brings its schools in-house to be run properly.

That won't happen, but FCPS won't get any better either, so there's that.

+1
So glad my youngest is almost done with high school. Adios, FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a done deal? All of Colvin run now will go to copper/Langley and also parts of west brier and Spring Hill?

Looking at a map, this looks like it makes sense.

I have a current 6th grader who will be attending cooper next year. I welcome diversity and so do most other people I know.

Why didn’t the apartments get moved to Langley?

Very doubtful parents try to keep multi family housing out.

The apartments didn't get moved to Langley, as the staff had proposed, because Elaine Tholen was browbeaten by parents who said eliminating the split feeder at Colvin Run and having a "cleaner" boundary map was more important. You don't have to keep people out when you let the ones begging the hardest to be let in have their way.

This is what FCPS has done over and over again for more than a decade, and then they act shocked when the disparities in nearby schools (Annandale/Woodson, Lewis/West Springfield, McLean/Langley) keep increasing. It's their doing, and they know how to look sad about it but not fix it or avoid it.

You have been repeating yourself over and over. It makes zero sense to draw weird boundaries all in the name of “equity” - as if an apartment here or there would make any difference at all. It’s an asinine argument. Boundaries *should* be drawn cleanly and simply, with no ulterior motives. It’s people like you, ranting about apartments, who have gummed up this whole process. Most parents just want a boundary that makes sense. Split-feeders are ridiculous. I’m glad they fixed that.

If you want to traffic in what's good planning, building out a school with a declining enrollment in a remote corner of the county to over 2350 students, as FCPS did with Langley, probably isn't going to win any awards.

Every student they decided to move to make the boundaries "cleaner" will travel further to Langley than it would take them to travel to McLean.

Listen, bitter McLean mom. It’s been correctly pointed out, time and again, that it makes sense to enlarge a school if a renovation is going on anyhow, and there is room to do so - which there was. With the added space at Langley, there was/is room to bring over some McLean kids to alleviate the overcrowding at your school - which we all know the SB has no intention of doing anything about (beyond adding a modular). If you don’t want some McLean kids to go to Langley, that’s your problem. It’s a common sense solution. Sadly, neither you nor the SB seem to have any common sense at all, or this would’ve been implemented by now.

We all knew the know-it-all Langley mom would show up eventually to do her own special victory dance. What took you so long?

I’m sorry, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s common sense to go ahead and do it, and now FCPS will end up spending more money over a longer period of time to transport more kids longer distances to a school that has a single entrance and exit off a busy two-lane road. And FCPS didn’t tell the public how many seats it had actually added to Langley until the year the renovation was completed - before that it had said for years in multiple CIPs it was adding 250 seats fewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've been following this for years, as I'm in that island zoned for Colvin Run, Longfellow and McLean. I bought this house because it was Longfellow McLean. I just have personal reasons to want McLean over Langley, not bashing Langley.

So I was happy to see Option B was recommended. I'm having whiplash and in shock that C passed. I've just been rezoned to Cooper Langley. This school board is unbelievable as to the sudden changes and reversals.

Apart from "pressure on Tholen" what happened to cause this sudden change? At least I want to understand it!!!!

I understand... but if it makes you feel any better, we are a Colvin/Cooper/Langley family and have been very happy with all three schools. My youngest is excited about the redistributing because he will move with his friends on to middle school. I remember when my daughter moved up, she lost half her friends to Longfellow.

DP. I completely agree. We were also a Colvin Run/Cooper/Langley family and it was so sad for our kids to lose so many friends at the start of middle school. So glad it won’t be a split feeder anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused because it seems many are suggesting this is a negative for McLean. How is this a negative for those in McLean district long term if it will relieve some overcrowding and McLean will likely get in the line for expansion?

From reading this thread, it appears that some of the wealthier families from McLean High are getting moved to Langley. There was a pp who said that some of the most involved families are in the neighborhoods that have been assigned to Langley.

Yes, those Vienna kids and families were always among the most actively involved at the school. Now they are shifting McLean to a school with a higher concentration of transient families living in apartments in Tysons and Merrifield, while keeping Langley almost entirely single-family neighborhoods (it has no apartments and only a handful of expensive townhouses). And because they are moving more kids than staff had recommended, it will delay, not expedite, any permanent addition to McLean and keep kids there in a cheap modular and moldy trailers.

Why were they among the most active? For every grade they were that active?

That PP just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over. She’s exhausting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused because it seems many are suggesting this is a negative for McLean. How is this a negative for those in McLean district long term if it will relieve some overcrowding and McLean will likely get in the line for expansion?

This is not a negative for McLean. It is good.

I wish it were, but I've seen this movie before and it's not. No school comes out ahead when the School Board both under-invests in its facilities and moves a significant proportion of its higher-achieving kids to other schools.

The only school this is good for is Langley.

McLean still has all those families from Haycock, Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman. McLean High will be just fine.

I do wonder how the demographics will change, especially with the changes with TJ.

Exactly. The Debbie Downer on this thread is absurd. Moving a few families to Langley is not going to change McLean. Other than to alleviate some overcrowding, which you’d think would be welcome.

When the dust settles it will end up being close to 10% of the student body so it is literally “decimating” the school. That wouldn’t have been necessary if they’d added seats where they were actually needed or persuaded more families in Langley’s already massive catchment area to send their kids to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the boundary change that will relieve some of MHS overcrowding, in combination with the modulars, mean that MHS is really unlikely to get a major renovation? Or is that still on the table in the CIP?

MHS is a terrific school and will continue to have lots of involved parents, but this is kind of a kick in the teeth.

There are many schools in FCPS that are on the list for renovations before McLean.

This is true. McLean was already renovated sometime in the early 2000s.

Not really, not in the same sense as we talk about other schools getting renovated. It was a comparatively minor project and did not bring it on par with other facilities of the same age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a done deal? All of Colvin run now will go to copper/Langley and also parts of west brier and Spring Hill?

Looking at a map, this looks like it makes sense.

I have a current 6th grader who will be attending cooper next year. I welcome diversity and so do most other people I know.

Why didn’t the apartments get moved to Langley?

Very doubtful parents try to keep multi family housing out.

The apartments didn't get moved to Langley, as the staff had proposed, because Elaine Tholen was browbeaten by parents who said eliminating the split feeder at Colvin Run and having a "cleaner" boundary map was more important. You don't have to keep people out when you let the ones begging the hardest to be let in have their way.

This is what FCPS has done over and over again for more than a decade, and then they act shocked when the disparities in nearby schools (Annandale/Woodson, Lewis/West Springfield, McLean/Langley) keep increasing. It's their doing, and they know how to look sad about it but not fix it or avoid it.

You have been repeating yourself over and over. It makes zero sense to draw weird boundaries all in the name of “equity” - as if an apartment here or there would make any difference at all. It’s an asinine argument. Boundaries *should* be drawn cleanly and simply, with no ulterior motives. It’s people like you, ranting about apartments, who have gummed up this whole process. Most parents just want a boundary that makes sense. Split-feeders are ridiculous. I’m glad they fixed that.

If you want to traffic in what's good planning, building out a school with a declining enrollment in a remote corner of the county to over 2350 students, as FCPS did with Langley, probably isn't going to win any awards.

Every student they decided to move to make the boundaries "cleaner" will travel further to Langley than it would take them to travel to McLean.

Listen, bitter McLean mom. It’s been correctly pointed out, time and again, that it makes sense to enlarge a school if a renovation is going on anyhow, and there is room to do so - which there was. With the added space at Langley, there was/is room to bring over some McLean kids to alleviate the overcrowding at your school - which we all know the SB has no intention of doing anything about (beyond adding a modular). If you don’t want some McLean kids to go to Langley, that’s your problem. It’s a common sense solution. Sadly, neither you nor the SB seem to have any common sense at all, or this would’ve been implemented by now.

We all knew the know-it-all Langley mom would show up eventually to do her own special victory dance. What took you so long?

I’m sorry, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s common sense to go ahead and do it, and now FCPS will end up spending more money over a longer period of time to transport more kids longer distances to a school that has a single entrance and exit off a busy two-lane road. And FCPS didn’t tell the public how many seats it had actually added to Langley until the year the renovation was completed - before that it had said for years in multiple CIPs it was adding 250 seats fewer.

They are moving kids who live practically equidistant to the two schools, not busing them miles away! Their neighbors across the road have been zoned to Langley for years, you twit. To repeat: these kids aren’t being bused any farther. For crying out loud, Langley and McLean are only three miles apart! And what on earth do the (two) Langley entrances have to do with anything? They’ve worked fine for decades.

You are just so resentful you can’t even see straight - nor can you admit that this is a good solution for McLean to help alleviate overcrowding in the short term. The way you’ve been carrying on, one would think half of McLean was being moved! Calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the boundary change that will relieve some of MHS overcrowding, in combination with the modulars, mean that MHS is really unlikely to get a major renovation? Or is that still on the table in the CIP?

MHS is a terrific school and will continue to have lots of involved parents, but this is kind of a kick in the teeth.

There are many schools in FCPS that are on the list for renovations before McLean.

This is true. McLean was already renovated sometime in the early 2000s.

Not really, not in the same sense as we talk about other schools getting renovated. It was a comparatively minor project and did not bring it on par with other facilities of the same age.

Really? I remember bringing my kids to McLean for a competition after its renovation, and my jaw dropping at how nice it was. We were coming from Langley, btw - prior to its renovation. McLean was so much nicer than Langley ever had been. You got your renovation. Now you need an addition. Focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the boundary change that will relieve some of MHS overcrowding, in combination with the modulars, mean that MHS is really unlikely to get a major renovation? Or is that still on the table in the CIP?

MHS is a terrific school and will continue to have lots of involved parents, but this is kind of a kick in the teeth.

There are many schools in FCPS that are on the list for renovations before McLean.

This is true. McLean was already renovated sometime in the early 2000s.

Not really, not in the same sense as we talk about other schools getting renovated. It was a comparatively minor project and did not bring it on par with other facilities of the same age.

Even with adjustments for inflation what FCPS spent to renovate schools built in the 1950s like Annandale and McLean in the early 2000s was a fraction of what they’ve spend on more recent renovations. If the Langley renovation was a Tesla, the McLean renovation was a Civic.

They will be surprised by how many families end up bailing on McLean after this most recent decision to reassign only single-family areas to Langley. There’s only so long FCPS can keep crapping on a school in different ways before families pick up on it and look elsewhere. People thought Tholen might champion the school since she got a lot more support from McLean neighborhoods than Langley neighborhoods during her campaign, but she’s revealed herself to be one more Great Falls politician putting Langley first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a done deal? All of Colvin run now will go to copper/Langley and also parts of west brier and Spring Hill?

Looking at a map, this looks like it makes sense.

I have a current 6th grader who will be attending cooper next year. I welcome diversity and so do most other people I know.

Why didn’t the apartments get moved to Langley?

Very doubtful parents try to keep multi family housing out.

The apartments didn't get moved to Langley, as the staff had proposed, because Elaine Tholen was browbeaten by parents who said eliminating the split feeder at Colvin Run and having a "cleaner" boundary map was more important. You don't have to keep people out when you let the ones begging the hardest to be let in have their way.

This is what FCPS has done over and over again for more than a decade, and then they act shocked when the disparities in nearby schools (Annandale/Woodson, Lewis/West Springfield, McLean/Langley) keep increasing. It's their doing, and they know how to look sad about it but not fix it or avoid it.

You have been repeating yourself over and over. It makes zero sense to draw weird boundaries all in the name of “equity” - as if an apartment here or there would make any difference at all. It’s an asinine argument. Boundaries *should* be drawn cleanly and simply, with no ulterior motives. It’s people like you, ranting about apartments, who have gummed up this whole process. Most parents just want a boundary that makes sense. Split-feeders are ridiculous. I’m glad they fixed that.

If you want to traffic in what's good planning, building out a school with a declining enrollment in a remote corner of the county to over 2350 students, as FCPS did with Langley, probably isn't going to win any awards.

Every student they decided to move to make the boundaries "cleaner" will travel further to Langley than it would take them to travel to McLean.

Listen, bitter McLean mom. It’s been correctly pointed out, time and again, that it makes sense to enlarge a school if a renovation is going on anyhow, and there is room to do so - which there was. With the added space at Langley, there was/is room to bring over some McLean kids to alleviate the overcrowding at your school - which we all know the SB has no intention of doing anything about (beyond adding a modular). If you don’t want some McLean kids to go to Langley, that’s your problem. It’s a common sense solution. Sadly, neither you nor the SB seem to have any common sense at all, or this would’ve been implemented by now.

We all knew the know-it-all Langley mom would show up eventually to do her own special victory dance. What took you so long?

I’m sorry, but just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s common sense to go ahead and do it, and now FCPS will end up spending more money over a longer period of time to transport more kids longer distances to a school that has a single entrance and exit off a busy two-lane road. And FCPS didn’t tell the public how many seats it had actually added to Langley until the year the renovation was completed - before that it had said for years in multiple CIPs it was adding 250 seats fewer.

How is telling you the facts any kind of “victory dance”? What is Langley getting out of this? It’s not a competition, though you seem desperate to make it one. Langley has some space for some McLean kids. You’d think you would be appreciative, but I guess not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the boundary change that will relieve some of MHS overcrowding, in combination with the modulars, mean that MHS is really unlikely to get a major renovation? Or is that still on the table in the CIP?

MHS is a terrific school and will continue to have lots of involved parents, but this is kind of a kick in the teeth.

There are many schools in FCPS that are on the list for renovations before McLean.

This is true. McLean was already renovated sometime in the early 2000s.

Not really, not in the same sense as we talk about other schools getting renovated. It was a comparatively minor project and did not bring it on par with other facilities of the same age.

Even with adjustments for inflation what FCPS spent to renovate schools built in the 1950s like Annandale and McLean in the early 2000s was a fraction of what they’ve spend on more recent renovations. If the Langley renovation was a Tesla, the McLean renovation was a Civic.

They will be surprised by how many families end up bailing on McLean after this most recent decision to reassign only single-family areas to Langley. There’s only so long FCPS can keep crapping on a school in different ways before families pick up on it and look elsewhere. People thought Tholen might champion the school since she got a lot more support from McLean neighborhoods than Langley neighborhoods during her campaign, but she’s revealed herself to be one more Great Falls politician putting Langley first.

What is it - exactly - that you want? Barring an immediate, brand new, huge school, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused because it seems many are suggesting this is a negative for McLean. How is this a negative for those in McLean district long term if it will relieve some overcrowding and McLean will likely get in the line for expansion?

This is not a negative for McLean. It is good.

I wish it were, but I've seen this movie before and it's not. No school comes out ahead when the School Board both under-invests in its facilities and moves a significant proportion of its higher-achieving kids to other schools.

The only school this is good for is Langley.

McLean still has all those families from Haycock, Kent Gardens and Franklin Sherman. McLean High will be just fine.

I do wonder how the demographics will change, especially with the changes with TJ.

Exactly. The Debbie Downer on this thread is absurd. Moving a few families to Langley is not going to change McLean. Other than to alleviate some overcrowding, which you’d think would be welcome.

When the dust settles it will end up being close to 10% of the student body so it is literally “decimating” the school. That wouldn’t have been necessary if they’d added seats where they were actually needed or persuaded more families in Langley’s already massive catchment area to send their kids to public school.

You sound truly unhinged. “Decimated”?? And your school is grossly overcrowded - as we keep hearing. So if indeed they send 10% of the student body (cite for that figure?), that’s a GOOD THING. Otherwise, you’d just continue to complain about how crowded it is. You don’t seem willing to work with anything at all. I agree that the current SB is useless, but you can’t demand and receive every single thing you want, when you want it. The immediate problem is the overcrowding, which changing the boundary will alleviate. First things first.