Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, it made sense to send the kids to Langley--Herndon was full and Langley was not. It made sense--and, contrary to what some on here think, it still makes sense. Otherwise, just close Langley in the name of "equity."

It might not make sense if more of the families living in the Langley area sent their kids to public school, or if Jeff Platenberg hadn’t wasted taxpayer money on an expansion Langley didn’t need.

I'm PP. I was being facetious. It certainly does not make sense to close a successful school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leave Herndon alone. I am glad my kids can be the big fish in the small pond in this school. They are decent athletes and can pretty much make any of the teams without previous experience. The smart kids have better chances to have leadership roles in clubs. I also think they have a slight advantage in college admissions, as they can stand out academically despite going to a “troubled” high school. Let those Langley take the long bus ride on Georgetown Pike. I love that my kids can walk to their school with friends.

Good post!
I do think there is one Herndon parent on these forums who feels differently. Likely, someone with a younger child.

But, I believe that most of them that want Great Falls at Herndon High are the "social engineers" who resent Langley's low FARMS. You know who you are: limousine liberals.

+ a million
It apparently keeps them up at night because they rehash the same resentful posts over and over.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t part of Great Falls used to attend Herndon, rather than Langley?

I don’t personally care whether those areas ever revert to Herndon now or in the future. It is a little off-putting how some Langley posters try to pre-emptively rule it out. They are part of the same school system as everyone else and their boundaries can change, too.

I grew up here (in GF) and yes, Springvale used to be the boundary between Herndon and Langley (back in the 70s/80s). Of course boundaries can change. But when there is no need for them to (i.e. neither Herndon nor Langley are currently overcrowded), then changing them solely for social engineering is going to get pushback. As it should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, it made sense to send the kids to Langley--Herndon was full and Langley was not. It made sense--and, contrary to what some on here think, it still makes sense. Otherwise, just close Langley in the name of "equity."

It might not make sense if more of the families living in the Langley area sent their kids to public school, or if Jeff Platenberg hadn’t wasted taxpayer money on an expansion Langley didn’t need.

Will you ever stop harping on this non-issue? It's been stated repeatedly, in multiple threads, that if a school is being renovated anyway, and there is room to expand, that's the time to do it. Taxpayer money would have been "wasted" had the opportunity to expand not been taken when they had the chance. Langley is barely under enrolled at this point, and it won't be long before it's at capacity, especially if more McLean students are sent there to alleviate that school's overcrowding. Good for the planners for having some foresight.

The chips on your collective shoulders are staggering. Do you have anything other than other people's schools to worry about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t part of Great Falls used to attend Herndon, rather than Langley?

I don’t personally care whether those areas ever revert to Herndon now or in the future. It is a little off-putting how some Langley posters try to pre-emptively rule it out. They are part of the same school system as everyone else and their boundaries can change, too.

I grew up here (in GF) and yes, Springvale used to be the boundary between Herndon and Langley (back in the 70s/80s). Of course boundaries can change. But when there is no need for them to (i.e. neither Herndon nor Langley are currently overcrowded), then changing them solely for social engineering is going to get pushback. As it should.

The question is: was there a need when they drew it? I think there likely was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t part of Great Falls used to attend Herndon, rather than Langley?

I don’t personally care whether those areas ever revert to Herndon now or in the future. It is a little off-putting how some Langley posters try to pre-emptively rule it out. They are part of the same school system as everyone else and their boundaries can change, too.

I grew up here (in GF) and yes, Springvale used to be the boundary between Herndon and Langley (back in the 70s/80s). Of course boundaries can change. But when there is no need for them to (i.e. neither Herndon nor Langley are currently overcrowded), then changing them solely for social engineering is going to get pushback. As it should.

The question is: was there a need when they drew it? I think there likely was.

The boundary at that time obviously made sense. It does not make sense right now, unless you're still advocating for social engineering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, it made sense to send the kids to Langley--Herndon was full and Langley was not. It made sense--and, contrary to what some on here think, it still makes sense. Otherwise, just close Langley in the name of "equity."

It might not make sense if more of the families living in the Langley area sent their kids to public school, or if Jeff Platenberg hadn’t wasted taxpayer money on an expansion Langley didn’t need.

Will you ever stop harping on this non-issue? It's been stated repeatedly, in multiple threads, that if a school is being renovated anyway, and there is room to expand, that's the time to do it. Taxpayer money would have been "wasted" had the opportunity to expand not been taken when they had the chance. Langley is barely under enrolled at this point, and it won't be long before it's at capacity, especially if more McLean students are sent there to alleviate that school's overcrowding. Good for the planners for having some foresight.

The chips on your collective shoulders are staggering. Do you have anything other than other people's schools to worry about?

You seem to be a very recognizable Langley poster repeating herself constantly on this forum. It doesn’t make what you say any more convincing.

Expanding a school in a remote location that had a flat, if not declining, enrollment wasn’t especially smart planning. In the long run, it just means longer commutes for more kids, which isn’t good for the environment. It probably made some building contractors happy, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, it made sense to send the kids to Langley--Herndon was full and Langley was not. It made sense--and, contrary to what some on here think, it still makes sense. Otherwise, just close Langley in the name of "equity."

It might not make sense if more of the families living in the Langley area sent their kids to public school, or if Jeff Platenberg hadn’t wasted taxpayer money on an expansion Langley didn’t need.

Will you ever stop harping on this non-issue? It's been stated repeatedly, in multiple threads, that if a school is being renovated anyway, and there is room to expand, that's the time to do it. Taxpayer money would have been "wasted" had the opportunity to expand not been taken when they had the chance. Langley is barely under enrolled at this point, and it won't be long before it's at capacity, especially if more McLean students are sent there to alleviate that school's overcrowding. Good for the planners for having some foresight.

The chips on your collective shoulders are staggering. Do you have anything other than other people's schools to worry about?

You seem to be a very recognizable Langley poster repeating herself constantly on this forum. It doesn’t make what you say any more convincing.

Expanding a school in a remote location that had a flat, if not declining, enrollment wasn’t especially smart planning. In the long run, it just means longer commutes for more kids, which isn’t good for the environment. It probably made some building contractors happy, though.

Wow, the irony. It is you whose posts are very recognizable - you regurgitate the same grievances over and over, year after year. As I just stated, it made sense to expand a school which was already scheduled for renovation and which had the space. Now they have room to take some of the kids from McLean to help with their overcrowding. It was a smart move and they will be back at capacity in no time - if they’re not already. I’m sorry this particular school keeps you up at night, even though your own kids don’t go there.

[Anonymous]

Of course, SB could also opt for a new Western HS (assuming it’s eventually built) to be a choice/option/magnet program… either a TJ clone/spinoff (due to demand) or perhaps an Arts or other focus… but basically make it a “more reasonable commute distance” option for some folks, which could help alleviate crowding at a number of schools without requiring dramatic boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t part of Great Falls used to attend Herndon, rather than Langley?

I don’t personally care whether those areas ever revert to Herndon now or in the future. It is a little off-putting how some Langley posters try to pre-emptively rule it out. They are part of the same school system as everyone else and their boundaries can change, too.

Yes, part of Great Falls was moved out of Herndon about three decades ago.

It was a plot against the white Herndon parents of modern times who want to keep the amount of poor brown children to an acceptable level, carried out by time/traveling Great Falls mean moms who went into the past and influenced the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t part of Great Falls used to attend Herndon, rather than Langley?

I don’t personally care whether those areas ever revert to Herndon now or in the future. It is a little off-putting how some Langley posters try to pre-emptively rule it out. They are part of the same school system as everyone else and their boundaries can change, too.

The boundary *did* change, quite recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, SB could also opt for a new Western HS (assuming it’s eventually built) to be a choice/option/magnet program… either a TJ clone/spinoff (due to demand) or perhaps an Arts or other focus… but basically make it a “more reasonable commute distance” option for some folks, which could help alleviate crowding at a number of schools without requiring dramatic boundary changes.

I think this is a wonderful idea, however I have zero confidence in this school board to even want to put anything like this together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the time, it made sense to send the kids to Langley--Herndon was full and Langley was not. It made sense--and, contrary to what some on here think, it still makes sense. Otherwise, just close Langley in the name of "equity."

It might not make sense if more of the families living in the Langley area sent their kids to public school, or if Jeff Platenberg hadn’t wasted taxpayer money on an expansion Langley didn’t need.

Will you ever stop harping on this non-issue? It's been stated repeatedly, in multiple threads, that if a school is being renovated anyway, and there is room to expand, that's the time to do it. Taxpayer money would have been "wasted" had the opportunity to expand not been taken when they had the chance. Langley is barely under enrolled at this point, and it won't be long before it's at capacity, especially if more McLean students are sent there to alleviate that school's overcrowding. Good for the planners for having some foresight.

The chips on your collective shoulders are staggering. Do you have anything other than other people's schools to worry about?

You seem to be a very recognizable Langley poster repeating herself constantly on this forum. It doesn’t make what you say any more convincing.

Expanding a school in a remote location that had a flat, if not declining, enrollment wasn’t especially smart planning. In the long run, it just means longer commutes for more kids, which isn’t good for the environment. It probably made some building contractors happy, though.

Wow, the irony. It is you whose posts are very recognizable - you regurgitate the same grievances over and over, year after year. As I just stated, it made sense to expand a school which was already scheduled for renovation and which had the space. Now they have room to take some of the kids from McLean to help with their overcrowding. It was a smart move and they will be back at capacity in no time - if they’re not already. I’m sorry this particular school keeps you up at night, even though your own kids don’t go there.

You need to stop trying to gaslight people. It’s not convincing, and your facts are typically wrong.

For example, you’re apparently the same poster who falsely claimed a Westbriar attendance island - where kids get bussed past Colvin Run on their way to Westbriar - now goes to Colvin Run. And the suggestion that Langley is now close to full capacity - also wrong.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, yet you never stop running your mouth.

[Anonymous]

People need to stop taking about Langley and Great Falls. Nothing will happen.

The real issue is out west with Chantilly/Centreville/Westfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to stop taking about Langley and Great Falls. Nothing will happen.

The real issue is out west with Chantilly/Centreville/Westfield.

+1