Mclean boundary changes - can someone please update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some kids travel 12 miles to Langley. Do you really think there are no lower and moderate-income apartments closer to Langley than that, whether in McLean, Falls Church, and Reston? The areas at McLean HS are in central Tysons, and off Anderson Road and Lee Highway; the lower-income areas at Marshall are behind the school, off Lee Highway, and off Magarity, and there are even more in Reston zoned to South Lakes. How else do you think the FARMS rate at Langley ends up 1/3 that of McLean, 1/6 that of Marshall, and 1/10th that of South Lakes?

So then what you’re advocating is for these pockets of low-income students to be carved out of their boundaries - which currently make geographic sense - and then bused miles out of their way to Langley, even though they’re much closer to Marshall and South Lakes? Because you think carving out awkward little islands of low-income families and sending them to Langley would make them feel better about themselves - being the token “poor” kids - and would make such a huge impact on “economic diversity” at Langley? Have you ever asked those students and parents what they would think about your busing proposal? Why don’t you do that and then get back to us.

You obviously have no problem with busing kids longer distances to Langley than any other students travel to a neighborhood high school in FCPS.

You also seem to be making the argument that lower-income families wouldn't feel comfortable at Langley because there are so few poor kids there. That argument seems a bit familiar, at least if you've watched documentaries on the 1950s.

Also, if attendance islands offend you so much, whether to promote diversity or to achieve other goals, we probably need to do something about the one the School Board is still leaving in place in Tysons even after this boundary change. For example, we could add the area south of Lewinsville Road between Route 7 and Route 123 to McLean's catchment area. That would make for a "clean" contiguous area and make Spring Hill a more balanced split feeder. Also, like so many other neighborhoods, that area is closer to McLean than to Langley. Maybe when we get that addition FCPS would obviously build if we just lobbied FCPS a bit harder and didn't spend time posting here, we'll take it up with the School Board.

Again, please ask some of these lower-income families how they would feel if their kids were the “token poor kids,” bused away from their neighborhood school, for the sheer purpose of “diversity.” Really curious what kind of answers you’d get, if you were only brave enough to ask.

As for the rest of your post, I actually am in agreement. The current Langley neighborhoods that are so close to Herndon High should go there - but there is currently no room at Herndon. If their renovation opens up more seats, then that would absolutely make sense. Not a popular opinion, but geographically sound.

I’m not sure what island you’re referring to, but why would you want to add more students to McLean when it’s already overcrowded? And I think the idea is to get rid Spring Hill’s split-feeders, as at Colvin Run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some kids travel 12 miles to Langley. Do you really think there are no lower and moderate-income apartments closer to Langley than that, whether in McLean, Falls Church, and Reston? The areas at McLean HS are in central Tysons, and off Anderson Road and Lee Highway; the lower-income areas at Marshall are behind the school, off Lee Highway, and off Magarity, and there are even more in Reston zoned to South Lakes. How else do you think the FARMS rate at Langley ends up 1/3 that of McLean, 1/6 that of Marshall, and 1/10th that of South Lakes?

So then what you’re advocating is for these pockets of low-income students to be carved out of their boundaries - which currently make geographic sense - and then bused miles out of their way to Langley, even though they’re much closer to Marshall and South Lakes? Because you think carving out awkward little islands of low-income families and sending them to Langley would make them feel better about themselves - being the token “poor” kids - and would make such a huge impact on “economic diversity” at Langley? Have you ever asked those students and parents what they would think about your busing proposal? Why don’t you do that and then get back to us.

You obviously have no problem with busing kids longer distances to Langley than any other students travel to a neighborhood high school in FCPS.

You also seem to be making the argument that lower-income families wouldn't feel comfortable at Langley because there are so few poor kids there. That argument seems a bit familiar, at least if you've watched documentaries on the 1950s.

Also, if attendance islands offend you so much, whether to promote diversity or to achieve other goals, we probably need to do something about the one the School Board is still leaving in place in Tysons even after this boundary change. For example, we could add the area south of Lewinsville Road between Route 7 and Route 123 to McLean's catchment area. That would make for a "clean" contiguous area and make Spring Hill a more balanced split feeder. Also, like so many other neighborhoods, that area is closer to McLean than to Langley. Maybe when we get that addition FCPS would obviously build if we just lobbied FCPS a bit harder and didn't spend time posting here, we'll take it up with the School Board.

Again, please ask some of these lower-income families how they would feel if their kids were the “token poor kids,” bused away from their neighborhood school, for the sheer purpose of “diversity.” Really curious what kind of answers you’d get, if you were only brave enough to ask.

As for the rest of your post, I actually am in agreement. The current Langley neighborhoods that are so close to Herndon High should go there - but there is currently no room at Herndon. If their renovation opens up more seats, then that would absolutely make sense. Not a popular opinion, but geographically sound.

I’m not sure what island you’re referring to, but why would you want to add more students to McLean when it’s already overcrowded? And I think the idea is to get rid Spring Hill’s split-feeders, as at Colvin Run.

I think you tend to resort to a grab bag of cliches.

One doesn't have to speculate as to how lower-income families fare at a relatively high-income school. McLean has an attendance island from the Timber Lane area. It's actually closer to Falls Church and Marshall than McLean, but was assigned to McLean at the same time as the Vienna neighborhoods were moved to McLean in the mid-80s. It works out fine. I have to assume the same would be the case at Langley, unless it is a less welcoming community. You would know better on that score. In any event, it's just part of the district, not "token poor kids" who are being "bused" against their will.

The Spring Hill area that will be left at Longfellow/McLean (now all apartments and condos) is still an attendance island. My point was that, if eliminating attendance islands is so important, as some have suggested, FCPS still left two at McLean. If you want to connect the Spring Hill attendance island to the rest of the McLean boundary, one way to do it is add a small area currently zoned to Langley (but closer to McLean). Maybe some other area of McLean closer to Langley would need to move there to compensate, but you could still eliminate an island. FCPS didn't really explore that many options; they only came up with a few that all just moved kids from McLean to Langley and then they waited until the last minute to announce they were going with the one that Elaine Tholen and some (but not all) Colvin Run parents wanted.

There was a PTSA meeting tonight with Tholen, Sizemore Heizer, and Zuluaga. A lot of people were confused as to why they were changing boundaries now when they just added the modular and don't know what the enrollment numbers will look like. Others were angry that they announced they were going with Option B at the last minute. Some are bummed that only 8th graders, but not current 7th graders, at Longfellow will have the option to attend McLean. And we got the same old line about monitoring Tysons growth to decide whether we'd ever get a permanent addition, which seems like a lot more hoops for McLean to jump through than other schools that are getting additions like West Potomac.

You may disagree but I would not be surprise if the McLean pyramid shrinks in the next five years or so. A lot of folks are losing patience with FCPS on so many fronts. The last-minute announcement that they were going with a different option that they'd never presented as their preferred option really didn't sit well with a lot of people. If there were people who are thrilled with what they decided, they are keeping low now. Of course, if the pyramid shrinks, we surely won't get an addition, so it may turn out to be a vicious cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some kids travel 12 miles to Langley. Do you really think there are no lower and moderate-income apartments closer to Langley than that, whether in McLean, Falls Church, and Reston? The areas at McLean HS are in central Tysons, and off Anderson Road and Lee Highway; the lower-income areas at Marshall are behind the school, off Lee Highway, and off Magarity, and there are even more in Reston zoned to South Lakes. How else do you think the FARMS rate at Langley ends up 1/3 that of McLean, 1/6 that of Marshall, and 1/10th that of South Lakes?

So then what you’re advocating is for these pockets of low-income students to be carved out of their boundaries - which currently make geographic sense - and then bused miles out of their way to Langley, even though they’re much closer to Marshall and South Lakes? Because you think carving out awkward little islands of low-income families and sending them to Langley would make them feel better about themselves - being the token “poor” kids - and would make such a huge impact on “economic diversity” at Langley? Have you ever asked those students and parents what they would think about your busing proposal? Why don’t you do that and then get back to us.

You obviously have no problem with busing kids longer distances to Langley than any other students travel to a neighborhood high school in FCPS.

You also seem to be making the argument that lower-income families wouldn't feel comfortable at Langley because there are so few poor kids there. That argument seems a bit familiar, at least if you've watched documentaries on the 1950s.

Also, if attendance islands offend you so much, whether to promote diversity or to achieve other goals, we probably need to do something about the one the School Board is still leaving in place in Tysons even after this boundary change. For example, we could add the area south of Lewinsville Road between Route 7 and Route 123 to McLean's catchment area. That would make for a "clean" contiguous area and make Spring Hill a more balanced split feeder. Also, like so many other neighborhoods, that area is closer to McLean than to Langley. Maybe when we get that addition FCPS would obviously build if we just lobbied FCPS a bit harder and didn't spend time posting here, we'll take it up with the School Board.

Again, please ask some of these lower-income families how they would feel if their kids were the “token poor kids,” bused away from their neighborhood school, for the sheer purpose of “diversity.” Really curious what kind of answers you’d get, if you were only brave enough to ask.

As for the rest of your post, I actually am in agreement. The current Langley neighborhoods that are so close to Herndon High should go there - but there is currently no room at Herndon. If their renovation opens up more seats, then that would absolutely make sense. Not a popular opinion, but geographically sound.

I’m not sure what island you’re referring to, but why would you want to add more students to McLean when it’s already overcrowded? And I think the idea is to get rid Spring Hill’s split-feeders, as at Colvin Run.

I think you tend to resort to a grab bag of cliches.

One doesn't have to speculate as to how lower-income families fare at a relatively high-income school. McLean has an attendance island from the Timber Lane area. It's actually closer to Falls Church and Marshall than McLean, but was assigned to McLean at the same time as the Vienna neighborhoods were moved to McLean in the mid-80s. It works out fine. I have to assume the same would be the case at Langley, unless it is a less welcoming community. You would know better on that score. In any event, it's just part of the district, not "token poor kids" who are being "bused" against their will.

The Spring Hill area that will be left at Longfellow/McLean (now all apartments and condos) is still an attendance island. My point was that, if eliminating attendance islands is so important, as some have suggested, FCPS still left two at McLean. If you want to connect the Spring Hill attendance island to the rest of the McLean boundary, one way to do it is add a small area currently zoned to Langley (but closer to McLean). Maybe some other area of McLean closer to Langley would need to move there to compensate, but you could still eliminate an island. FCPS didn't really explore that many options; they only came up with a few that all just moved kids from McLean to Langley and then they waited until the last minute to announce they were going with the one that Elaine Tholen and some (but not all) Colvin Run parents wanted.

There was a PTSA meeting tonight with Tholen, Sizemore Heizer, and Zuluaga. A lot of people were confused as to why they were changing boundaries now when they just added the modular and don't know what the enrollment numbers will look like. Others were angry that they announced they were going with Option B at the last minute. Some are bummed that only 8th graders, but not current 7th graders, at Longfellow will have the option to attend McLean. And we got the same old line about monitoring Tysons growth to decide whether we'd ever get a permanent addition, which seems like a lot more hoops for McLean to jump through than other schools that are getting additions like West Potomac.

You may disagree but I would not be surprise if the McLean pyramid shrinks in the next five years or so. A lot of folks are losing patience with FCPS on so many fronts. The last-minute announcement that they were going with a different option that they'd never presented as their preferred option really didn't sit well with a lot of people. If there were people who are thrilled with what they decided, they are keeping low now. Of course, if the pyramid shrinks, we surely won't get an addition, so it may turn out to be a vicious cycle.

DP here. Do you know why they switched at the last minute?

I thought moving the apartments from Spring Hill would have been a great idea. I thought they should have eliminated the split feeder altogether at Spring Hill.

We live close to Spring Hill and zoned for Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some kids travel 12 miles to Langley. Do you really think there are no lower and moderate-income apartments closer to Langley than that, whether in McLean, Falls Church, and Reston? The areas at McLean HS are in central Tysons, and off Anderson Road and Lee Highway; the lower-income areas at Marshall are behind the school, off Lee Highway, and off Magarity, and there are even more in Reston zoned to South Lakes. How else do you think the FARMS rate at Langley ends up 1/3 that of McLean, 1/6 that of Marshall, and 1/10th that of South Lakes?

So then what you’re advocating is for these pockets of low-income students to be carved out of their boundaries - which currently make geographic sense - and then bused miles out of their way to Langley, even though they’re much closer to Marshall and South Lakes? Because you think carving out awkward little islands of low-income families and sending them to Langley would make them feel better about themselves - being the token “poor” kids - and would make such a huge impact on “economic diversity” at Langley? Have you ever asked those students and parents what they would think about your busing proposal? Why don’t you do that and then get back to us.

You obviously have no problem with busing kids longer distances to Langley than any other students travel to a neighborhood high school in FCPS.

You also seem to be making the argument that lower-income families wouldn't feel comfortable at Langley because there are so few poor kids there. That argument seems a bit familiar, at least if you've watched documentaries on the 1950s.

Also, if attendance islands offend you so much, whether to promote diversity or to achieve other goals, we probably need to do something about the one the School Board is still leaving in place in Tysons even after this boundary change. For example, we could add the area south of Lewinsville Road between Route 7 and Route 123 to McLean's catchment area. That would make for a "clean" contiguous area and make Spring Hill a more balanced split feeder. Also, like so many other neighborhoods, that area is closer to McLean than to Langley. Maybe when we get that addition FCPS would obviously build if we just lobbied FCPS a bit harder and didn't spend time posting here, we'll take it up with the School Board.

Again, please ask some of these lower-income families how they would feel if their kids were the “token poor kids,” bused away from their neighborhood school, for the sheer purpose of “diversity.” Really curious what kind of answers you’d get, if you were only brave enough to ask.

As for the rest of your post, I actually am in agreement. The current Langley neighborhoods that are so close to Herndon High should go there - but there is currently no room at Herndon. If their renovation opens up more seats, then that would absolutely make sense. Not a popular opinion, but geographically sound.

I’m not sure what island you’re referring to, but why would you want to add more students to McLean when it’s already overcrowded? And I think the idea is to get rid Spring Hill’s split-feeders, as at Colvin Run.

I think you tend to resort to a grab bag of cliches.

One doesn't have to speculate as to how lower-income families fare at a relatively high-income school. McLean has an attendance island from the Timber Lane area. It's actually closer to Falls Church and Marshall than McLean, but was assigned to McLean at the same time as the Vienna neighborhoods were moved to McLean in the mid-80s. It works out fine. I have to assume the same would be the case at Langley, unless it is a less welcoming community. You would know better on that score. In any event, it's just part of the district, not "token poor kids" who are being "bused" against their will.

The Spring Hill area that will be left at Longfellow/McLean (now all apartments and condos) is still an attendance island. My point was that, if eliminating attendance islands is so important, as some have suggested, FCPS still left two at McLean. If you want to connect the Spring Hill attendance island to the rest of the McLean boundary, one way to do it is add a small area currently zoned to Langley (but closer to McLean). Maybe some other area of McLean closer to Langley would need to move there to compensate, but you could still eliminate an island. FCPS didn't really explore that many options; they only came up with a few that all just moved kids from McLean to Langley and then they waited until the last minute to announce they were going with the one that Elaine Tholen and some (but not all) Colvin Run parents wanted.

There was a PTSA meeting tonight with Tholen, Sizemore Heizer, and Zuluaga. A lot of people were confused as to why they were changing boundaries now when they just added the modular and don't know what the enrollment numbers will look like. Others were angry that they announced they were going with Option B at the last minute. Some are bummed that only 8th graders, but not current 7th graders, at Longfellow will have the option to attend McLean. And we got the same old line about monitoring Tysons growth to decide whether we'd ever get a permanent addition, which seems like a lot more hoops for McLean to jump through than other schools that are getting additions like West Potomac.

You may disagree but I would not be surprise if the McLean pyramid shrinks in the next five years or so. A lot of folks are losing patience with FCPS on so many fronts. The last-minute announcement that they were going with a different option that they'd never presented as their preferred option really didn't sit well with a lot of people. If there were people who are thrilled with what they decided, they are keeping low now. Of course, if the pyramid shrinks, we surely won't get an addition, so it may turn out to be a vicious cycle.

DP here. Do you know why they switched at the last minute?

I thought moving the apartments from Spring Hill would have been a great idea. I thought they should have eliminated the split feeder altogether at Spring Hill.

We live close to Spring Hill and zoned for Langley.

I only know what they say, which is that it was based primarily on additional feedback they received after they released the staff's recommendation last month. You can choose to believe that or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some kids travel 12 miles to Langley. Do you really think there are no lower and moderate-income apartments closer to Langley than that, whether in McLean, Falls Church, and Reston? The areas at McLean HS are in central Tysons, and off Anderson Road and Lee Highway; the lower-income areas at Marshall are behind the school, off Lee Highway, and off Magarity, and there are even more in Reston zoned to South Lakes. How else do you think the FARMS rate at Langley ends up 1/3 that of McLean, 1/6 that of Marshall, and 1/10th that of South Lakes?

Ugh. Here comes the move Great Falls to Herndon posters...

As of Feb 1. Herndon HS has 2190 Students. Down from 2340 at the end of the 2020 school year. The classroom renovation will be done by the fall and the Overall facilities project by the spring of 22. The New Enrollment Capacity at Herndon HS will be 2500. Herndon Middle - the HHS feeder has 1130 students X2- looking at 2200/2250. It looks like HHS will have room,
I believe you are right on the Great Falls to Herndon Posts.

[Anonymous]

But if Langley is still under-enrolled, not sure a boundary study would be triggered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if Langley is still under-enrolled, not sure a boundary study would be triggered?

I guess the theory would be that, by moving Forestville kids to Herndon if HHS has space, Langley could take the rest of the Spring Hill split feeder with McLean (the part they didn't decide to move last week). But I don't think they should change any more boundaries until they have a better handle on post-Covid enrollment numbers. Also, in Herndon's case, while the numbers may be down this year (like at many schools), I thought they anticipated some significant growth near the new Silver Line stations in Herndon when they open.

[Anonymous]

It will interesting to see how many of the rising 9th graders elect to move to Langley or if the majority decide to stay with going to Mclean....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will interesting to see how many of the rising 9th graders elect to move to Langley or if the majority decide to stay with going to Mclean....

It could end up having to do more with whether a student has older or younger siblings slated to attend McLean or Langley than any other consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But if Langley is still under-enrolled, not sure a boundary study would be triggered?

Langley will not be under-enrolled for long, with the new development on Rt. 7 and the change in boundary with McLean. It’s a good thing extra seats were added when they had the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will interesting to see how many of the rising 9th graders elect to move to Langley or if the majority decide to stay with going to Mclean....

It could end up having to do more with whether a student has older or younger siblings slated to attend McLean or Langley than any other consideration.

+1
Also, the choice between an overcrowded school and a newly renovated one will play into decisions.

[Anonymous]

Our rising 9th grader already knows more Longfellow kids and we care more about the school environment than the building, so we will go with McLean. Glad to have the option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if Langley is still under-enrolled, not sure a boundary study would be triggered?

Langley will not be under-enrolled for long, with the new development on Rt. 7 and the change in boundary with McLean. It’s a good thing extra seats were added when they had the chance.

Would have been even better if the extra seats were built where they were most needed. Then we would be adding seats for kids, not moving kids for seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But if Langley is still under-enrolled, not sure a boundary study would be triggered?

Langley will not be under-enrolled for long, with the new development on Rt. 7 and the change in boundary with McLean. It’s a good thing extra seats were added when they had the chance.

Would have been even better if the extra seats were built where they were most needed. Then we would be adding seats for kids, not moving kids for seats.

I think we all agree the best case scenario would have been an addition at McLean. That has not happened yet. In lieu of the addition, moving some kids is really the only solution right now.

[Anonymous]

Current year enrollment numbers are pretty meaningless given the circumstances, last year’s enrollment is the best estimate we have for what enrollment will look like 1-2 years from now (and adjusting for any longer term trend in the pyramid)... but I wouldn’t base any analysis of schools being over/under-capacity using current year enrollment.

Also classroom seat capacity and common resources capacity (gym, cafeteria, library, etc.) should be considered separately.