Mclean boundary changes - can someone please update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

dumb boundary maps are an FCPS speciality- look at the island attached to Ft Hunt elementary

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

I know there were builders over the past decade or so who lobbied to try and get FCPS staff to make administrative boundary changes to reassign new developments from Marshall to Langley and then Herndon to Langley and failed in both instances. The carve-outs on the other side of Route 7 zoned to Langley in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna go back many years.

Alot of it goes back to the Aldrin opening and before that what to do with Shouse. Most of it makes zero sense. Colvin Run opening and boundary meetings were dismal. Before that opened Spring Hill had a residency clean out audit- 70 to 100 students were removed. Some from out of state some from all over the county etc. There were posts on DCUM where people used other addresses for their kids to enroll at Mclean. If it happened once it still happens. FCPS is too PC.

Here's another and current FCPS just too weird. https://www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-sale/Virginia/Arden
That is across Route 7 from the access roads leading to Colvin Run and is assigned to Spring Hill, Cooper, Langley. Sales center is 1367 Tate Modern Lane, Great Falls, VA 22066 If not across 7 and down Towlston a walker would be .5 miles from this under capacity school. Instead Brabrand and this school board will NOT do an administrative boundary change. Colvin Run is undercapacity.

This is total incompetency. It is just as stupid as busing Whitman walkers who can see the site from their houses to Sandburg.

That area has always been zoned for Spring Hill - Towlston Rd is the dividing line. While it makes sense for those students to attend Colvin Run, it would have required a boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

dumb boundary maps are an FCPS speciality- look at the island attached to Ft Hunt elementary

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

I know there were builders over the past decade or so who lobbied to try and get FCPS staff to make administrative boundary changes to reassign new developments from Marshall to Langley and then Herndon to Langley and failed in both instances. The carve-outs on the other side of Route 7 zoned to Langley in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna go back many years.

Alot of it goes back to the Aldrin opening and before that what to do with Shouse. Most of it makes zero sense. Colvin Run opening and boundary meetings were dismal. Before that opened Spring Hill had a residency clean out audit- 70 to 100 students were removed. Some from out of state some from all over the county etc. There were posts on DCUM where people used other addresses for their kids to enroll at Mclean. If it happened once it still happens. FCPS is too PC.

Here's another and current FCPS just too weird. https://www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-sale/Virginia/Arden
That is across Route 7 from the access roads leading to Colvin Run and is assigned to Spring Hill, Cooper, Langley. Sales center is 1367 Tate Modern Lane, Great Falls, VA 22066 If not across 7 and down Towlston a walker would be .5 miles from this under capacity school. Instead Brabrand and this school board will NOT do an administrative boundary change. Colvin Run is undercapacity.

This is total incompetency. It is just as stupid as busing Whitman walkers who can see the site from their houses to Sandburg.

That area has always been zoned for Spring Hill - Towlston Rd is the dividing line. While it makes sense for those students to attend Colvin Run, it would have required a boundary change.

And I agree with you about making an administrative boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's also the case that the Langley HS area is the driving force for the potential 2024 push to incorporate McLean as a city... but that the McLean HS area is more likely to be supportive primarily driven by this single issue of the ongoing neglect of McLean's crowding situation. The sooner they redress it, the less supportive the McLean HS folks likely will be of the push for incorporation, and given it's a pretty big hill to climb already that likely would really take the wind out of this initiative's sails (sorry for mixing metaphors)... so I could see FCPS also recognizing the strategic importance of addressing this boundary issue sooner than later as a way of nipping the push for incorporation in the bud, because that's something they REALLY want to avoid.

Can you point to the background on this? I am a Langley parent and DCUM is the first I have heard about incorporating McLean; since Langley area is allegedly the driver of this, I'm curious to hear more information.

There's a whole other thread on this on this forum.

If you want an introduction, you can look at this article: https://www.tysonsreporter.com/2020/12/02/mclean-citizens-association-puts-city-of-mclean-on-agenda/

(Rob Jackson, interviewed in the article, lives in the Langley HS district, as does most of the MCA leadership)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

dumb boundary maps are an FCPS speciality- look at the island attached to Ft Hunt elementary

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

I know there were builders over the past decade or so who lobbied to try and get FCPS staff to make administrative boundary changes to reassign new developments from Marshall to Langley and then Herndon to Langley and failed in both instances. The carve-outs on the other side of Route 7 zoned to Langley in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna go back many years.

Alot of it goes back to the Aldrin opening and before that what to do with Shouse. Most of it makes zero sense. Colvin Run opening and boundary meetings were dismal. Before that opened Spring Hill had a residency clean out audit- 70 to 100 students were removed. Some from out of state some from all over the county etc. There were posts on DCUM where people used other addresses for their kids to enroll at Mclean. If it happened once it still happens. FCPS is too PC.

Here's another and current FCPS just too weird. https://www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-sale/Virginia/Arden
That is across Route 7 from the access roads leading to Colvin Run and is assigned to Spring Hill, Cooper, Langley. Sales center is 1367 Tate Modern Lane, Great Falls, VA 22066 If not across 7 and down Towlston a walker would be .5 miles from this under capacity school. Instead Brabrand and this school board will NOT do an administrative boundary change. Colvin Run is undercapacity.

This is total incompetency. It is just as stupid as busing Whitman walkers who can see the site from their houses to Sandburg.

That area has always been zoned for Spring Hill - Towlston Rd is the dividing line. While it makes sense for those students to attend Colvin Run, it would have required a boundary change.

And I agree with you about making an administrative boundary change.

So Brabrand has held off on administrative boundary changes for years because "equity," but fast forward and his staff is now proffering boundary changes that would move single-family neighborhoods from McLean to Langley, reduce the ESOL/FARMS rates at Langley (already the lowest among any of the base high schools in FCPS), and increase them at McLean.

They hold steadfastly to their principles until they abandon them.

[Anonymous]

McLean families should band together and insist on FCPS setting aside money for an addition.

FCPS is counting on families begging to get moved to renovated, wealthier Langley, so they can keep under-investing in McLean (McLean's renovation in the early 2000s was the cheapest of any high school renovation since 2000). That's what they do every time. It's like when they invited the Wakefield Forest families to come in and ask to move from Annandale to Woodson, or the Oakton families who asked to move from Jackson to Thoreau. But they don't move kids to poorer schools. They talk a good game about equity, but their actions tell a different story.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why they get presentations that don't bother indicating the school pyramids that are affected.

The School Board is getting a presentation from county planning on the 15th: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/BW6M2C590766/$file/2020_FCPSPlanningOverviewFinalADA.pdf

Of the residential development in the Providence District discussed at p. 13, most of this is in Tysons and zoned to Marshall HS or McLean HS. Of the plans coming up for approval in early 2021 discussed at pp. 14-16 and 20, the McLean CBC and West Falls Church TSA projects are both in the McLean HS district.

[Anonymous]

Have any of you that are worried about diversity bothered to look at the different options presented and what each senario does to projected capacity at each of the 4 schools being impacted? Optio B by far projects to the most even distribution of kids by percentage at each school so that is the option the Board should go with...sorry but this needs to be decided strictly by math....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you that are worried about diversity bothered to look at the different options presented and what each senario does to projected capacity at each of the 4 schools being impacted? Optio B by far projects to the most even distribution of kids by percentage at each school so that is the option the Board should go with...sorry but this needs to be decided strictly by math....

That option strips the most single family houses out of McLean, adds no diversity to Langley, and makes Langley even wealthier compared to every other HS in FCPS. If they go with Option B, I never want to hear Scott Brabrand or any School Board member talk about “equity” again. They will have proven, just as they did when they moved single family homes from Annandale to Woodson in 2011, that it’s all empty talk.

[Anonymous]

When Janie Strauss proposed a boundary study in 2018, she proposed moving some of the multi family housing in Tysons to Langley. Her colleagues wouldn’t move forward because they said FCPS needed to make sure it was looking at boundary changes through an “equity-based lens.” Now it’s two years later and two of the options presented by FCPS would further concentrate single family neighborhoods that are maybe 1% FARMS at Langley. Gotta love this School Board for its ability to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When Janie Strauss proposed a boundary study in 2018, she proposed moving some of the multi family housing in Tysons to Langley. Her colleagues wouldn’t move forward because they said FCPS needed to make sure it was looking at boundary changes through an “equity-based lens.” Now it’s two years later and two of the options presented by FCPS would further concentrate single family neighborhoods that are maybe 1% FARMS at Langley. Gotta love this School Board for its ability to say one thing and do the exact opposite.

Which is ridiculous. Langley needs to have a slice into Tysons to absorb some of the expected increase in students come ing from there int he future. We need Marshall, McLean, Langley and Madison to all be able to absorb more students.

[Anonymous]

Plus the TJ enrollment changes, if enacted... which would make option C the most balanced of the available options by math. But also agree they should try and do a carve-out for some MFH in Tysons, though let’s be real even then this area isn’t going to be high-FARMS or add many URM students into the mix, but it’s adding as much diversity to Langley as possible under the current parameters... to get any more and you’d be looking at carving out attendance islands and such to force kids to bus from their current community schools... as much as some folks like to advocate for that I don’t think it’s realistically going to happen (nor desirable, frankly... though I’d remain open-minded to consider any specific alternative boundary plan with actual numbers and maps).

[Anonymous]

Do any of you people actually have kids going to the impacted schools? YJ admission changes will impact numbers at both schools....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plus the TJ enrollment changes, if enacted... which would make option C the most balanced of the available options by math. But also agree they should try and do a carve-out for some MFH in Tysons, though let’s be real even then this area isn’t going to be high-FARMS or add many URM students into the mix, but it’s adding as much diversity to Langley as possible under the current parameters... to get any more and you’d be looking at carving out attendance islands and such to force kids to bus from their current community schools... as much as some folks like to advocate for that I don’t think it’s realistically going to happen (nor desirable, frankly... though I’d remain open-minded to consider any specific alternative boundary plan with actual numbers and maps).

Agree about Option C. It won’t move the needle that much but Langley should have some Tysons apartments/condos. McLean and Marshall would still have more.

[Anonymous]

The draft CIP posted today offers nothing for McLean other than the modular and a boundary change with Langley that the CIP incorrectly suggests has already taken place.

Our School Board members have failed us again. It's time for the McLean HS community to join the ongoing recall effort against Elaine Tholen.

[Anonymous]

Sigh. And she got more support during her campaign from the McLean areas than from her own Langley neighborhoods. I guess we were dupes. I’ll be looking for the people with the petitions this weekend.