Mclean boundary changes - can someone please update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Facilities had more to do than Karen Corbett Sanders with reneging on the plans to expand McLean and expand Langley more than originally planned. I sat in a room where Janie Strauss said McLean would get an addition before any students were moved to Langley and the principal said that Kevin Sneed (who used to report to Platenberg) had already gone over the building plans with her.

For three years the CIPs, which Facilities is primarily responsible for assembling, said Langley's expansion would increase the capacity to 2100. Only in 2018 as the renovation was wrapping up did they disclose that they had actually increased the capacity to 2350. As far as I can tell, it was Platenberg who decided it would just be easier and cheaper to do that.

Corbett Sanders was Chair in 2018 when Janie Strauss tried to get a boundary change approved that would have moved part of McLean to Langley, including some Tysons apartments. Corbett Sanders was among those on the Board who killed that because she said they needed to slow down, do a much bigger review, and make sure any boundary changes were consistent with their "One Fairfax" focus.

So things dragged out for 2-3 more years. At the end of the day, they made a change that could have been made three years ago and would have been the obvious change if all you wanted was a "cleaner" boundary map. Elaine Tholen and Rachna Sizemore-Heizer were among those who said at one point it was critical to add diversity to Langley by moving some multi-family housing there, only to flip in the face of pressure from the Colvin Run parents in single-family homes who wanted to move to a school that, in most cases, is further from their homes but wealthier. And now they are the ones spouting the position of the Colvin Run parents that the staff's recommendation wouldn't have moved the needle much in terms of diversity because some rentals in Tysons (i.e., the most expensive ones) cost as much as a mortgage on a single-family house in Vienna (that may be true, but it's also largely irrelevant, since the area that the staff proposed to move also would have included condos that cost less than 50% of the least expensive housing anywhere in the Langley district and absolutely would have contributed to greater diversity there).

I get that this is a done deal, and that we need to move on. But it's also a case study in how inept and two-faced FCPS and the School Board has been and how the decisions they routinely make are 180 degrees the opposite of the values they pretend to hold. We should get new School Board members, and they should just toss "One Fairfax" in the trash can, because all it really does is slow things down.

Totally agree with your last sentence. “One Fairfax” is simply a virtue signaling exercise.

As for the rest of your post, you have repeated this saga ad nauseum. We are all aware of the timeline. It has already been established that the Colvin Run neighborhoods being moved to Langley are NO FURTHER away than they are from McLean. In fact, that entire area (Shouse, etc.) was originally zoned to Langley in the 80s, and the surrounding neighborhoods all currently go to Langley - busing is no issue. They’re simply moving them back because now McLean is overcrowded. It’s really very simple and this nonsense you keep spouting about those families choosing the “wealthier” school is just absurd. What they want is to end the split-feeder at Colvin Run so that all students move on to the same middle and high school together. And since this move alleviates crowding at McLean, it’s a win-win. Of course they should have done this years ago, as you pointed out. But now that they finally are, it’s a good move. So stop complaining about what amounts to nothing, and use that energy to make FCPS give McLean an addition.

Nope. The areas to the south go to Marshall, the areas to the east go to McLean, and only the area to the north (other side of Leesburg Pike) goes to Langley.

Nope. The entire stretch of Rt. 7 - both sides - west of Shouse, all the way down to Herndon, go to Langley. Why don’t you know this?

You are simply incorrect. Check the Marshall and South Lakes boundaries. You can then either go away or apologize - it doesn't really matter.

Why would I apologize? It is you who is incorrect.

https://virginia.hometownlocator.com/schools/profiles,n,marshall%20high,z,22043,t,pb,i,1118969.cfm - no neighborhoods directly off of Rt. 7.

https://virginia.hometownlocator.com/schools/profiles,n,south%20lakes%20high,z,20191,t,pb,i,1118979.cfm - one tiny neighborhood that isn’t directly off Rt. 7 and should be included in the Langley boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Facilities had more to do than Karen Corbett Sanders with reneging on the plans to expand McLean and expand Langley more than originally planned. I sat in a room where Janie Strauss said McLean would get an addition before any students were moved to Langley and the principal said that Kevin Sneed (who used to report to Platenberg) had already gone over the building plans with her.

For three years the CIPs, which Facilities is primarily responsible for assembling, said Langley's expansion would increase the capacity to 2100. Only in 2018 as the renovation was wrapping up did they disclose that they had actually increased the capacity to 2350. As far as I can tell, it was Platenberg who decided it would just be easier and cheaper to do that.

Corbett Sanders was Chair in 2018 when Janie Strauss tried to get a boundary change approved that would have moved part of McLean to Langley, including some Tysons apartments. Corbett Sanders was among those on the Board who killed that because she said they needed to slow down, do a much bigger review, and make sure any boundary changes were consistent with their "One Fairfax" focus.

So things dragged out for 2-3 more years. At the end of the day, they made a change that could have been made three years ago and would have been the obvious change if all you wanted was a "cleaner" boundary map. Elaine Tholen and Rachna Sizemore-Heizer were among those who said at one point it was critical to add diversity to Langley by moving some multi-family housing there, only to flip in the face of pressure from the Colvin Run parents in single-family homes who wanted to move to a school that, in most cases, is further from their homes but wealthier. And now they are the ones spouting the position of the Colvin Run parents that the staff's recommendation wouldn't have moved the needle much in terms of diversity because some rentals in Tysons (i.e., the most expensive ones) cost as much as a mortgage on a single-family house in Vienna (that may be true, but it's also largely irrelevant, since the area that the staff proposed to move also would have included condos that cost less than 50% of the least expensive housing anywhere in the Langley district and absolutely would have contributed to greater diversity there).

I get that this is a done deal, and that we need to move on. But it's also a case study in how inept and two-faced FCPS and the School Board has been and how the decisions they routinely make are 180 degrees the opposite of the values they pretend to hold. We should get new School Board members, and they should just toss "One Fairfax" in the trash can, because all it really does is slow things down.

Totally agree with your last sentence. “One Fairfax” is simply a virtue signaling exercise.

As for the rest of your post, you have repeated this saga ad nauseum. We are all aware of the timeline. It has already been established that the Colvin Run neighborhoods being moved to Langley are NO FURTHER away than they are from McLean. In fact, that entire area (Shouse, etc.) was originally zoned to Langley in the 80s, and the surrounding neighborhoods all currently go to Langley - busing is no issue. They’re simply moving them back because now McLean is overcrowded. It’s really very simple and this nonsense you keep spouting about those families choosing the “wealthier” school is just absurd. What they want is to end the split-feeder at Colvin Run so that all students move on to the same middle and high school together. And since this move alleviates crowding at McLean, it’s a win-win. Of course they should have done this years ago, as you pointed out. But now that they finally are, it’s a good move. So stop complaining about what amounts to nothing, and use that energy to make FCPS give McLean an addition.

I guess you didn't read PP who pointed out those neighborhoods are, in fact, further away from Langley than McLean. And the "surrounding neighborhoods" to which you refer are the pther side of a major road - Route 7 - and in Great Falls, not Vienna. Many of those neighborhoods in Great Falls complained bitterly when they were required to cross Route 7 to get to Colvin Run when it was built.

In any event, no one forces you to read every post; not everyone is aware of the history here; and your obsessive need to control every thread that touches on Langley, even when it's more about the impact on another school than Langley, is tiresome. Stuff it.

“Stuff it” is really so much more civil than “go to hell,” which I see got your last post deleted.

As for “further away” - you are talking ONE MILE. And that other PP acknowledged that with traffic, etc. it made no difference. With every post you’re looking more and more ridiculous. Also, you’re obviously unaware that the area in question is indeed, an island. All the other neighborhoods on the SAME SIDE of Rt. 7, with Vienna addresses, go to Langley already. Did you know that? That’s why Shouse is considered an island. They are simply going to include it with its surrounding neighborhoods, which absolutely makes sense.

It’s really pointless trying to have a rational discussion with someone who is bound and determined to see only negatives, regardless of facts.

It is pointless having a conversation with people who don't know what they are talking about, the category into which you fall.

There are other neighborhoods on the same side of Route 7 with Vienna addresses zoned to South Lakes and Marshall, as well as to Langley and McLean. And there will still be other neighborhoods on that side of Route 7 zoned to South Lakes and Marshall, even after the School Board reassigns every single-family home in Vienna now at McLean (where they'd been much longer than they'd ever been at Langley) to Langley, contrary to the staff's recommendation to move part of Tysons that is actually closer to Langley to that school.

FCPS specifically told parents in prior years that they envisioned Langley would take on some of the growth in central Tysons. The staff's recommendation was consistent with those prior assertions. Where they ended up is not. The dynamic that played out where the elimination of the "split feeder" was the pretext to move to the wealthier, renovated school played out at Colvin Run just like it played out earlier at Wakefield Forest, when kids at Annandale got moved to Woodson.

If PP decides not to relocate, they can find out first-hand whether the additional distance to Langley only takes five extra minutes on Georgetown Pike. They may find out it takes longer than that, depending on the time of day.

You know what? I grew up here. I’d wager I know far more about this than you. First of all, Shouse was zoned to Langley for decades. It was only in the late 80s/early 90s that it was moved to McLean.

Secondly, you really don’t seem to know the area well at all. There are several ways to get to Langley from Shouse/Rt. 7 - Lewinsville/123/Toll Road. Georgetown Pike is on the other side of GF.

And lastly, there are no neighborhoods on Rt. 7, west of Shouse, that are zoned to South Lakes or Marshall. Once you get off Rt. 7, say onto Hunter Mill or Baron Cameron, sure. But not directly off of Rt. 7. They are all zoned to Langley. And now Shouse will be included, instead of sticking out like the weird island it has been.

I’m sorry you are so very obsessed with single-family homes. Your fixation suggests a major chip on on your shoulder, especially because it’s abundantly clear you don’t even live in the affected area.

Obviously, we're just engaged in a factual tit-for-tat now, but if you want to play that game:

1. Shouse was zoned to Langley for less than 20 years at most (late 60s or early 70s, when most of Shouse was built, to mid 80s). It's been at McLean for over 35 years (mid 80s to today), so one might expect its allegiance to McLean to be strong but for how FCPS has now incentivized them to bail. And it's still closer to Marshall and McLean than it is to Langley.

2. Insofar as Langley is on Georgetown Pike, it's hard to get there without spending time on that road, which at various times can be congested. That's the case whether you take Lewinsville or 123 or the Toll Road. Eventually you're going to end up on Georgetown Pike. I tend to doubt that, coming from Shouse, you'd get on 123 and take 123 all the way down to the eastern end of Georgetown Pike. If you take the Toll Road, you're getting close to the heart of Tysons. Rather, I'd assume they might take Lewinsville to Balls Hill to Georgetown Pike, but that means you also have to deal with the traffic near Georgetown Pike and the Beltway, which was bad enough that residents in the area tried unsuccessfully to get VDOT to close down the Georgetown Pike exit to the Beltway.

As for Vienna neighborhoods just off Route 7 west of Shouse zoned to Marshall and South Lakes, two examples are Maymont, which is right off Beulah Road west of Shouse and zoned to Marshall, and the Estates of Great Falls development, which despite its name has a Vienna address and is closer to Reston. You can't get to Shouse right off Route 7, either (you have to turn off Trap Road), so the distinction you're now trying to make to justify your prior misstatement between homes that are directly off Route 7 and those in nearby areas doesn't really hold water.

In any thread that touches on Langley, you invariably accuse other people of "having a chip on their shoulder." Not surprisingly, you miss the point, which is that if FCPS drags out a boundary change for years because it's supposedly critical to treat demographic balance at a primary consideration, one might expect them to follow through, not suggest that was their plan and then at the last minute do the exact opposite. Accountability is not the same thing as resentment.

[Anonymous]

Why are people so obsessed with Langley demographics ? Yes, the area surrounding Langley is expensive. They ended up moving single family homes to Langley from McLean high. Are people that upset that Langley’s demographics won’t change with the boundary change?

I really wonder if any of these people actually live around here.

[Anonymous]

I have to laugh at the Langley poster who keeps telling McLean parents to "shut up and go get your addition" now. With the modular and the boundary change, they'll deny McLean an addition for a long time now.

As for the demographics, for McLean parents it's less about changing Langley's demographics than anticipating the impact of losing families and neighborhoods that had been very involved with the school for decades. Some School Board members had claimed in past years it was important to change Langley's demographics, and delayed the boundary change for that reason, but they ended up reinforcing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so obsessed with Langley demographics ? Yes, the area surrounding Langley is expensive. They ended up moving single family homes to Langley from McLean high. Are people that upset that Langley’s demographics won’t change with the boundary change?

I really wonder if any of these people actually live around here.

Bingo. They are bean-counters who are furious that there is no low-income in or near the Langley boundary, so they spend their time obsessing over ways to ensure token low-income students will be bused there. You know, to add “diversity.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to laugh at the Langley poster who keeps telling McLean parents to "shut up and go get your addition" now. With the modular and the boundary change, they'll deny McLean an addition for a long time now.

As for the demographics, for McLean parents it's less about changing Langley's demographics than anticipating the impact of losing families and neighborhoods that had been very involved with the school for decades. Some School Board members had claimed in past years it was important to change Langley's demographics, and delayed the boundary change for that reason, but they ended up reinforcing them.

I’m certain that there are many other families remaining at McLean who are just as “involved.” Weird that you keep repeating this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to laugh at the Langley poster who keeps telling McLean parents to "shut up and go get your addition" now. With the modular and the boundary change, they'll deny McLean an addition for a long time now.

As for the demographics, for McLean parents it's less about changing Langley's demographics than anticipating the impact of losing families and neighborhoods that had been very involved with the school for decades. Some School Board members had claimed in past years it was important to change Langley's demographics, and delayed the boundary change for that reason, but they ended up reinforcing them.

Other than an addition, which seems to still be years down the road for McLean, what is it exactly you would like done right now to alleviate the gross overcrowding there?

[Anonymous]

McLean is not overcrowded. It is under-enrolled by 50 students.

[Anonymous]

Post-boundary change, McLean will be under-enrolled by 250 students.

[Anonymous]

Before the boundary change, we had good programming resources, and poor facilities resources. Now we will have poor programming and poor facilities (and Athletics will decline too). I wish people who were advocating for massive boundary change would do their homework before spouting off to the school board rep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the boundary change, we had good programming resources, and poor facilities resources. Now we will have poor programming and poor facilities (and Athletics will decline too). I wish people who were advocating for massive boundary change would do their homework before spouting off to the school board rep.

People asked for overcrowding relief when there were 18 trailers, not a boundary change per se. At that time there was no commitment to relocate a modular or build an addition.

Quite a few of us also said more recently that, with the modular installed, the decline in enrollment this year, and the uncertainty around enrollment next year, they should put this on hold until they have a better handle on future enrollments. We were ignored. They just wanted this off their plate.

[Anonymous]

The school board rep insisted she kept receiving requests for a large boundary change even after the modular was installed. We begged her to update her information. So frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:McLean is not overcrowded. It is under-enrolled by 50 students.

Then why do we keep hearing about how they desperately need an addition and that kids are packed in like sardines?

[Anonymous]

There are serious questions raised about the accuracy of the student projections in the CIP. If that is true, then they will need an addition. If it is not true they will not. There is a task force that has been put together to study this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Langley poster doesn't see income like White people "don't see race." LOL.

And people like you would prefer to bus kids for miles out of their way, just to make Langley more “economically diverse.” Admit it - there are no low-income apartments anywhere near Langley that could be included in its boundary without having to bus those kids FAR FROM THEIR OWN HOMES. Have you asked those families how they’d feel about their kids sitting on buses much longer than necessary, all so they could be the token “poor people” at a new school? It’s disgusting that you’re so obsessed with income (and race, ethnicity, etc.) that you would happily force certain kids to be bused in.

This, too, is also incorrect. There are kids in lower-income apartments zoned to South Lakes, Marshall, and McLean who all live closer to Langley than some current Langley students. Perhaps because you have so little familiarity with lower-income areas at Langley, you aren't familiar with other neighborhoods assigned to other schools.

And whenever there is even the slightest hint that this might change, and FCPS might add greater housing diversity to Langley, someone eventually steps up (in the latest instance, Elaine Tholen) to make sure that doesn't happen.

Please list the low-income apartments currently zoned for the schools you listed, that are actually closer to Langley. We’ll wait.