FCPS School Board candidates in Dranesville

[Anonymous]

Mr Mobasheri, can you please explain how building a new HS in Tyson’s would relieve overcrowding at McLean HS?

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mr Mobasheri, can you please explain how building a new HS in Tyson’s would relieve overcrowding at McLean HS?

Thank you.

In the coming year, the school board will vote to adjust the boundary of Langley and McLean and shift 400 to 500 students to langley either for the 2020/21 academic year or the one after. There is no stopping this effort. They will vote on it early in 2020 and it will pass with a large majority no matter what the representative from Dranesville votes. What this will do is bring the capacity of both McLean and Langley to capacity by the end of 2023/2024. But what happens after that? Between 2025 and 2030 somewhere between 1250 and 1800 more high school students will find themselves going to McLean, Langley, and Marshall. The numbers will only rise from there into the decade of the 2030's. Marshall is currently mapped into a very small part of this additional 1250 to 1800, but for the moment lets assume they take an equal share. That means each school will have an additional 400 to 500 students attending them and making all three over 20% over capacity. These trends are from the demographic forecasts from the census bureau which the board of supervisors uses. If we dont act now, then it will be too late to do the right thing for the population growth. We cannot over crowd Westmoreland, Old Chain Bridge and Georgetown Pike any longer with short term band aid solutions and costly additions. VDOT wont approve of it. The residents wont. The business community wont. There is simply not any more capacity to accept even more congestion in those areas of 22101 and 22102. We need to be reasonable. We need to be pragmatic. We need to be long term in our thinking. Short term moves like boundary adjustments, and costly and small additions will inevitably lead to even greater troubles only five to ten years down the road. Dont we all want to live hear beyond 2030? We cant kick the can down the roads anymore and we shouldnt. Dont we want to eventually sell our homes to newer families who want schools to be resonably crowded and good facilities?

[Anonymous]

With or without Mobasheri on the School Board (hopefully without) the School Board is not going to reverse its plans, which prioritize a new high school in western Fairfax, to build a secondary school in Tysons just because some Great Falls parents want to look for even more ways to keep Langley under-enrolled so students from western Great Falls can continue to travel 12 or more miles to Langley.

His arguments in support of this are flimsy on so many levels that it's not worth rebutting them yet again. Rest assured that parents outside his community know his agenda and find it laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With or without Mobasheri on the School Board (hopefully without) the School Board is not going to reverse its plans, which prioritize a new high school in western Fairfax, to build a secondary school in Tysons just because some Great Falls parents want to look for even more ways to keep Langley under-enrolled so students from western Great Falls can continue to travel 12 or more miles to Langley.

His arguments in support of this are flimsy on so many levels that it's not worth rebutting them yet again. Rest assured that parents outside his community know his agenda and find it laughable.

Agreed. My sense is it will be a firmly Dem board again, but with 1-2 GOP surprises, less likely in Dranesville thanks to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

[Anonymous]

Elaine Tholen was out campaigning in some McLean neighborhoods today. Nice that she made the effort. Mobasheri obviously would be a total disaster for McLean, and I'm not sure Karloutsos would be much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Elaine Tholen was out campaigning in some McLean neighborhoods today. Nice that she made the effort. Mobasheri obviously would be a total disaster for McLean, and I'm not sure Karloutsos would be much better.

I heard Karloutsos talk about McLean High at an event. She said she visited McLean High and discussed with McLean high principal about this issue. She said:"Mclean High deserves new additions."
I also asked Vinson in person about his plan to solve McLean High overcrowding issue. He said:"We should let some McLean high students enrolled at Langley."

I am not sure what is the best solution. I personally think maybe a new high school is better than shifting capacity issue around. But it will come with new school boundary which will impact adjacent school district. This is so complicated. My children are currently in elementary school. I hope the Mclean high school will not be so crowded when they become high schoolers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.

From day 1 of my campaign that has been the case.

2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.

Minor boundary changes yes. Open enrollment has proven to be a disaster in other circumstances similar to our and I will not support it. McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville supports. In fact, the more I discuss solving our problems with long term solutions rather than short term kick the can down the road band-aid type solutions that create more problems down the road than solve them in the short run, and the more they see the data that I show, the more supportive they become of a new high school in Tysons, especially those I speak to in McLean. VDOT will not support further traffic on Westmoreland or Old Chain Bridge road and the residents neighboring McLean will not support further traffic. I will not support opposing the residents of McLean and going to Richmond and the legislature to get an expansion that will be more costly than anyone anticipates and that will only buy us another three years at most.

3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.

Of course. It is one of my top priorities. Given that the minor boundary change with Langley is already in the works, I will not oppose it. I will make it a top priority to begin research and analysis and the discussion around building a new high school in Tysons to satisfy the coming demand for the next 15 years so that the next generation does not blame us for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the trends that stare us right in the eye today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.

From day 1 of my campaign that has been the case.

2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.

Minor boundary changes yes. Open enrollment has proven to be a disaster in other circumstances similar to our and I will not support it. McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville supports. In fact, the more I discuss solving our problems with long term solutions rather than short term kick the can down the road band-aid type solutions that create more problems down the road than solve them in the short run, and the more they see the data that I show, the more supportive they become of a new high school in Tysons, especially those I speak to in McLean. VDOT will not support further traffic on Westmoreland or Old Chain Bridge road and the residents neighboring McLean will not support further traffic. I will not support opposing the residents of McLean and going to Richmond and the legislature to get an expansion that will be more costly than anyone anticipates and that will only buy us another three years at most.

3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.

Of course. It is one of my top priorities. Given that the minor boundary change with Langley is already in the works, I will not oppose it. I will make it a top priority to begin research and analysis and the discussion around building a new high school in Tysons to satisfy the coming demand for the next 15 years so that the next generation does not blame us for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the trends that stare us right in the eye today.

“McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville support.” Is this true? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.

From day 1 of my campaign that has been the case.

2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.

Minor boundary changes yes. Open enrollment has proven to be a disaster in other circumstances similar to our and I will not support it. McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville supports. In fact, the more I discuss solving our problems with long term solutions rather than short term kick the can down the road band-aid type solutions that create more problems down the road than solve them in the short run, and the more they see the data that I show, the more supportive they become of a new high school in Tysons, especially those I speak to in McLean. VDOT will not support further traffic on Westmoreland or Old Chain Bridge road and the residents neighboring McLean will not support further traffic. I will not support opposing the residents of McLean and going to Richmond and the legislature to get an expansion that will be more costly than anyone anticipates and that will only buy us another three years at most.

3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.

Of course. It is one of my top priorities. Given that the minor boundary change with Langley is already in the works, I will not oppose it. I will make it a top priority to begin research and analysis and the discussion around building a new high school in Tysons to satisfy the coming demand for the next 15 years so that the next generation does not blame us for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the trends that stare us right in the eye today.

“McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville support.” Is this true? Why?

Because most people see it as a short term kick the can down the road solution. It will extend the over crowding problem by three, maybe five years and thats it. We will have to go back to it again by 2030. VDOT will oppose it on the grounds of additional traffic and the fact that the three outlets into McLean HS are simply too small. The neighbors which already complain about the traffic noise and polution will complain about an additional 100 cars and tens of school buses needed. It is simply a band aid, quick fix solution. It doesnt take into account the population growth beyond 2030. We simply cant accept costly short term solutions because they seem convenient and easy to do only to have to face the music in ten years.

[Anonymous]

He doesn’t have a clue what most of Dranesville wants. McLean needs an expansion, and virtually no one in Tysons wants to be relegated to a small urban secondary school.

This guy has been talking utter nonsense for months now, all to try and protect Langley at the expense of other schools. What rubbish to suggest that McLean - with three separate entrances - can’t handle an expansion, when Langley, which only has a single entrance and exit off Georgetown Pike, recently got a major expansion.

After his latest series of statements, this guy could not show his face at any school meeting outside the Langley pyramid without getting booed off the stage. He has no business running for public office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He doesn’t have a clue what most of Dranesville wants. McLean needs an expansion, and virtually no one in Tysons wants to be relegated to a small urban secondary school.

This guy has been talking utter nonsense for months now, all to try and protect Langley at the expense of other schools. What rubbish to suggest that McLean - with three separate entrances - can’t handle an expansion, when Langley, which only has a single entrance and exit off Georgetown Pike, recently got a major expansion.

After his latest series of statements, this guy could not show his face at any school meeting outside the Langley pyramid without getting booed off the stage. He has no business running for public office.

Langley parent here, and I totally agree with you. I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t agree McLean needs an expansion immediately. Of course, in the meantime, they have sending kids to Langley since we have the space right now.

[Anonymous]

* should read - they should be able to send kids to Langley -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.

From day 1 of my campaign that has been the case.

2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.

Minor boundary changes yes. Open enrollment has proven to be a disaster in other circumstances similar to our and I will not support it. McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville supports. In fact, the more I discuss solving our problems with long term solutions rather than short term kick the can down the road band-aid type solutions that create more problems down the road than solve them in the short run, and the more they see the data that I show, the more supportive they become of a new high school in Tysons, especially those I speak to in McLean. VDOT will not support further traffic on Westmoreland or Old Chain Bridge road and the residents neighboring McLean will not support further traffic. I will not support opposing the residents of McLean and going to Richmond and the legislature to get an expansion that will be more costly than anyone anticipates and that will only buy us another three years at most.

3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.

Of course. It is one of my top priorities. Given that the minor boundary change with Langley is already in the works, I will not oppose it. I will make it a top priority to begin research and analysis and the discussion around building a new high school in Tysons to satisfy the coming demand for the next 15 years so that the next generation does not blame us for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the trends that stare us right in the eye today.

“McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville support.” Is this true? Why?

Because most people see it as a short term kick the can down the road solution. It will extend the over crowding problem by three, maybe five years and thats it. We will have to go back to it again by 2030. VDOT will oppose it on the grounds of additional traffic and the fact that the three outlets into McLean HS are simply too small. The neighbors which already complain about the traffic noise and polution will complain about an additional 100 cars and tens of school buses needed. It is simply a band aid, quick fix solution. It doesnt take into account the population growth beyond 2030. We simply cant accept costly short term solutions because they seem convenient and easy to do only to have to face the music in ten years.

The traffic is already happening. The place is already overcrowded. Traffic is not the problem.
Your arguments are so convoluted they are turning back on themselves.

You have opposed any solution for McLean that is not far fetched.

Meanwhile Langley sits under capacity with a brand new renovation.
Just as you want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think an addition at McLean will be costly, how much do you a new HS in Tysons will cost?

I think you just eliminated an ychance of McLean HS district to vote for you since you have damned their children to the over-crowded school for 10-15 years-(how long do you think it would take to find and build a new HS in Tysons?)

And you will lose more Langley aren’t who do not want the diversity of classes decreased at Langley.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri. Of course, a new high school in Tysons is going to be more costly. But we can't simply take the easy road and band-aid solutions year after year and not have them catch up with us. There is no free money here. Failure to be sufficiently forward-looking will eventually cost us dearly. Consider this simple look at what we will be facing in the next 10 years taken from data from the board of supervisors projections:

1) By 2030, the three zip codes 22101, 22102, and 22182 which serve McLean, Langley, and a small portion of Marshall will see their population growth contribute to 30% of the entire growth in the county.
2) Just between 2025 and 2030, the number of High School students in the county will rise by 6,300
3) Are we being too presumptuous if we assume 30% of that 6,300 increase will not come from 22101, 22102, and 22182? No. But can you assume that all of the projects being approved in those zip codes will add no high school students to any of the three high schools mentioned above? If we assume 30% then that's an additional 1800 students. Let's say its 20%. That's still an additional 1,200 students between the three high schools (assuming Marshall is given exactly 33% of that increase).
4) With the rezoning of some McLean students into Langley both high schools will be at capacity by 2024.
5) So where will you put the additional 400 students per high school? 400 more students will bring both schools at roughly 20% overcapacity.
6) Building an addition to McLean seems like a good band-aid type solution. Let's not consider beyond 2030. Let's kick the can down the road. Let's just do a quick addition and all of the families that will see their kids going to high school in 2030 will have to deal with it when the time comes? Is this how we want to plan things? Just do quick and politically convenient and expedient answers to long term challenges? Isnt that what we have been doing for 27 years now?

Your letter last night was clear. No boundary changes. No open enrollment. No addition at McLean. You make some good points above, but that does not take away from the fact that you are protecting Langley at the cost of McLean. Your letter was helpful to me because it clarified your views absolutely; I was able to make my final decision and vote today and beat the crowds. Thanks for that.

This is the candidate Ardavan Mobasheri again. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about my campaigns pillars?:

1) McLean deserves better. What is objerctionable to a stance that says enough band aid type kick the can down the road solutions? When we know the trends in our county and zip codes for the next 10 to 15 years, why would we constantly push for relief that can come cheaply and quickly while continously and negatively impacting us in a not so distant future? Why would we choose to create even more traffic on Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge road with an addition to McLean? Why would we add another 100 cars and tens of school buses into three small two lane roads into McLean HS where familes live and children run around and where families continue to complain about the noise? VDOT will almost certainly object to addtional traffic into Westmoreland and Old Chain Bridge and if they do then it will take an act of VA Legislature and the Governor's signature to get the addition completed. But why would we go thru another round of kicking the can down the road? Dont we want to eventually sell our houses to younger families in five to ten years who would hesitate to look into a town with over crowded schools and congested roads? A new HS in Tysons is the most rational long term solution.

2) Keep One Great Falls. Can you please tell me what is so objectionable about wanting to keep a community that for 25 years has been sending their children to one middle school (Cooper) and one high school (Langley) intact and one? What is wrong with wanting to keep a community together as one? When you split it up you split streets, neighborhoods, soccer teams, cheerleading activities, and recreational activities. What is so objectionable to tell a community that your representative is going to keep your community as one?

3) Let Herndon Decide. Can you tell me what is so wrong when the community itself recognizes that building a new HS will take away a significant part of their park facilities and will increase congestion in and around an already crowded part of town, just so they can shift boundaries so that they avoid doing what is right for Tysons? Can you tell me what is so wrong as to say lets build the HS where it is needed most to satisfy overcrowding at Chantilly, Oakton and elsewhere further south?

4) Can you tell me what is wrong and objectionable for me to say lets play by the rules of the Va Legislature and lets keep the political parties out of our schools and the school board?
5) Can you tell me what you find so objectionable regarding my stance that we should aim for "equality of opportunity" and level the playing field for all of our children and not lower their achievement via "equality of outcome"?
6) Can you tell me what you find wrong with wanting to utilize the latest and greatest in new educational technology so we can fill the achievement gap within our own schools as well as those between us and other countries and getting the help of the latest research from top "education" universities around the country?
7) Can you tell me what you find problematic with wanting to invest even more in our AAP, gifted programs, and special needs programs to not only raise our standards even more but to make us even more competitive globally?

I look forward to hearing your responses

Responded in the other thread as you probably have seen.

But let me ask you this sir: Will you right now agree to the following:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.
2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.
3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.


Status quo is your game, and that means:
Langley - brand new renovation, under capacity
McLean - no renovation for generations, no plans to, growing overcapacity, and this:

1. I will represent all of Dranesville equally.

From day 1 of my campaign that has been the case.

2. I am willing to look at boundary changes, open enrollment and/or McLean expansion if Dranesville favors them.

Minor boundary changes yes. Open enrollment has proven to be a disaster in other circumstances similar to our and I will not support it. McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville supports. In fact, the more I discuss solving our problems with long term solutions rather than short term kick the can down the road band-aid type solutions that create more problems down the road than solve them in the short run, and the more they see the data that I show, the more supportive they become of a new high school in Tysons, especially those I speak to in McLean. VDOT will not support further traffic on Westmoreland or Old Chain Bridge road and the residents neighboring McLean will not support further traffic. I will not support opposing the residents of McLean and going to Richmond and the legislature to get an expansion that will be more costly than anyone anticipates and that will only buy us another three years at most.

3. I promise relief to McLean High before the end of my term.

Of course. It is one of my top priorities. Given that the minor boundary change with Langley is already in the works, I will not oppose it. I will make it a top priority to begin research and analysis and the discussion around building a new high school in Tysons to satisfy the coming demand for the next 15 years so that the next generation does not blame us for sitting on our hands and doing nothing about the trends that stare us right in the eye today.

“McLean expansion is not something that most of Dranesville support.” Is this true? Why?

Most of Dranesville is not in the MHS district. I think you will find that mot of the people in the McLean HS district (including its Principal) are for an addition. You will never find a majority of constituents in any of the magisterial districts for a particular HS expansion because it isn’t theirs. The magisterial districts cover at least three HS.