Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the county could have two magnets almost inaccessible from the eastern portion of the county? Would a kid who got into a humanities magnet really get bussed from West Potomac or Edison an hour an a half west (no busses in the HOV lanes) for school every morning?

Agree.... Herndon and West Potomac seem like good candidates for TJ2 and TJ3. We need MORE and easily accessed opportunities for all kids. Why we only have ONE STEM magnet high school in all of Northern Virginia is a travesty and a mystery.....it's egregious mismanagement by the collective school boards. Good grief, one to serve all the counties of Northern Virginia??? 🙄 Investing in opportunities like a more robust STEM program and skilled trades preparation/internships is the best way to lift kids out of poverty.

There is already too much focus on stem. They should definitely have another magnet, but it should not be stem focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the county could have two magnets almost inaccessible from the eastern portion of the county? Would a kid who got into a humanities magnet really get bussed from West Potomac or Edison an hour an a half west (no busses in the HOV lanes) for school every morning?

Agree.... Herndon and West Potomac seem like good candidates for TJ2 and TJ3. We need MORE and easily accessed opportunities for all kids. Why we only have ONE STEM magnet high school in all of Northern Virginia is a travesty and a mystery.....it's egregious mismanagement by the collective school boards. Good grief, one to serve all the counties of Northern Virginia??? 🙄 Investing in opportunities like a more robust STEM program and skilled trades preparation/internships is the best way to lift kids out of poverty.

There is already too much focus on stem. They should definitely have another magnet, but it should not be stem focused.

FCPS neither needs nor wants another selective magnet that just leads to controversy.

If you want IB, you can pupil place to Annandale or Lewis. If you want specialized performing arts classes, you can get that at the Fairfax or West Potomac academies. If you want specialized network administration courses, you can get it at the Marshall academy. If you want specialized health career or EMS training, you can get it at the Falls Church academy. All without the drama or boundary issues that would entail if another neighborhood high school closed to reopen as a magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How wrong you are. Had they not expanded the capacity during the renovation, Langley would be over-capacity now and everyone would be even more mad at Facilities Planning's lack of planning. Langley was at 101% capacity at the time construction started and has hovered around 1950-2100 students since 2014. Prior capacity was 1996 and current capacity is 2326 - so room to grow about 10% or take in special programs or students from overcapacity schools like nearby McLean but hardly poor planning.

There is little growth expected within Langley’s boundaries, so expanding it to 2100 rather than just shy of 2400 probably would have been just about right. Instead, it got a larger expansion than it needed, and FCPS is now bussing even more kids who live closer to other schools to Langley instead.

And while you might suggest the excess capacity at Langley could still accommodate more kids from a new special program, or from McLean, past experience suggests Great Falls would fight that. They want the buffer because it’s what reassures them that no one in GF will get sent back to Herndon, which is not only closer to many GF neighborhoods but now also has extra capacity as well.

None of this is good planning, and some would argue it’s bad policy as well (but that’s a different issue).

DP. The only person arguing that a commonsense expansion is "bad policy" is you. Because you are desperate to meddle with Langley's boundaries, even though your kids don't even go there. That chip on your shoulder must be so weighty!

DP here. What about expanding a school that would have had a flat enrollment but for a boundary change was "commonsense" if it means kids have to travel further? Wouldn't it have made more sense to add seats closer to where the kids who attend public schools live? My understanding is that one issue with Langley is that it has many neighborhoods where 50% or so of the kids attend privates

No "chip on my shoulder," just a genuine question, so please refrain from insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree it was dumb to expand Langley as much as they did. It just means more kids on more buses for longer trips to compensate for the locals who turn up their noses at Langley and send their kids to Potomac, Madeira, etc.

No - it means more kids from overcrowded McLean will be able to attend a school that isn’t overcrowded. This is already what’s happening with the new boundaries. So good for them for having the foresight to expand when they had the chance. But do continue irrationally complaining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the county could have two magnets almost inaccessible from the eastern portion of the county? Would a kid who got into a humanities magnet really get bussed from West Potomac or Edison an hour an a half west (no busses in the HOV lanes) for school every morning?

Agree.... Herndon and West Potomac seem like good candidates for TJ2 and TJ3. We need MORE and easily accessed opportunities for all kids. Why we only have ONE STEM magnet high school in all of Northern Virginia is a travesty and a mystery.....it's egregious mismanagement by the collective school boards. Good grief, one to serve all the counties of Northern Virginia??? 🙄 Investing in opportunities like a more robust STEM program and skilled trades preparation/internships is the best way to lift kids out of poverty.

There is already too much focus on stem. They should definitely have another magnet, but it should not be stem focused.

I agree. We need a humanities-focused magnet, like the excellent Maggie Walker in Richmond.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How wrong you are. Had they not expanded the capacity during the renovation, Langley would be over-capacity now and everyone would be even more mad at Facilities Planning's lack of planning. Langley was at 101% capacity at the time construction started and has hovered around 1950-2100 students since 2014. Prior capacity was 1996 and current capacity is 2326 - so room to grow about 10% or take in special programs or students from overcapacity schools like nearby McLean but hardly poor planning.

There is little growth expected within Langley’s boundaries, so expanding it to 2100 rather than just shy of 2400 probably would have been just about right. Instead, it got a larger expansion than it needed, and FCPS is now bussing even more kids who live closer to other schools to Langley instead.

And while you might suggest the excess capacity at Langley could still accommodate more kids from a new special program, or from McLean, past experience suggests Great Falls would fight that. They want the buffer because it’s what reassures them that no one in GF will get sent back to Herndon, which is not only closer to many GF neighborhoods but now also has extra capacity as well.

None of this is good planning, and some would argue it’s bad policy as well (but that’s a different issue).

DP. The only person arguing that a commonsense expansion is "bad policy" is you. Because you are desperate to meddle with Langley's boundaries, even though your kids don't even go there. That chip on your shoulder must be so weighty!

DP here. What about expanding a school that would have had a flat enrollment but for a boundary change was "commonsense" if it means kids have to travel further? Wouldn't it have made more sense to add seats closer to where the kids who attend public schools live? My understanding is that one issue with Langley is that it has many neighborhoods where 50% or so of the kids attend privates

No "chip on my shoulder," just a genuine question, so please refrain from insults.

The extra seats at Langley are being filled by kids from overcrowded McLean - as well as by new neighborhoods built within the existing Langley boundaries (Towlson/Rt. 7 and Georgetown Pike). Yes, a lot of families choose private schools, but you are greatly overstating the amount who do. It’s nowhere near 50% and I’m not sure where you got that number?

[Anonymous]

[url]you have no data on this just your hunch….. facts are that the increase in enrollment is coming from McLean redistricting (to relieve overcrowding there)which they could not have done had the capacity not been expanded.

Additionally, more and more families across the county - not just Langley area- are opting for private schools and homeschool over the growing dumpster fire that is FCPS and their falling test scores, preoccupation with equity and transgenderism and refusal to accept that their choice to keep schools virtual for almost a year had devastating consequences for kids…. Especially special Ed and the most at risk kids. They like to talk the equity talk but their actions don’t back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How wrong you are. Had they not expanded the capacity during the renovation, Langley would be over-capacity now and everyone would be even more mad at Facilities Planning's lack of planning. Langley was at 101% capacity at the time construction started and has hovered around 1950-2100 students since 2014. Prior capacity was 1996 and current capacity is 2326 - so room to grow about 10% or take in special programs or students from overcapacity schools like nearby McLean but hardly poor planning.

There is little growth expected within Langley’s boundaries, so expanding it to 2100 rather than just shy of 2400 probably would have been just about right. Instead, it got a larger expansion than it needed, and FCPS is now bussing even more kids who live closer to other schools to Langley instead.

And while you might suggest the excess capacity at Langley could still accommodate more kids from a new special program, or from McLean, past experience suggests Great Falls would fight that. They want the buffer because it’s what reassures them that no one in GF will get sent back to Herndon, which is not only closer to many GF neighborhoods but now also has extra capacity as well.

None of this is good planning, and some would argue it’s bad policy as well (but that’s a different issue).

DP. The only person arguing that a commonsense expansion is "bad policy" is you. Because you are desperate to meddle with Langley's boundaries, even though your kids don't even go there. That chip on your shoulder must be so weighty!

DP here. What about expanding a school that would have had a flat enrollment but for a boundary change was "commonsense" if it means kids have to travel further? Wouldn't it have made more sense to add seats closer to where the kids who attend public schools live? My understanding is that one issue with Langley is that it has many neighborhoods where 50% or so of the kids attend privates

No "chip on my shoulder," just a genuine question, so please refrain from insults.

But it wasn't flat enrollment - even before the McLean boundary change. At the time of construction start, both Langley and McLean (which are just 4 miles apart) were over 100% capacity so adding capacity at Langley not only made general sense at a time when FCPS enrollment was growing county wide but opened capacity for two over-enrolled schools within a 10 minute drive of one another. Their mistake was in not making the boundary change coincide with the opening of the renovated school n 2017 and allowing MHS to languish over-enrolled for 5 more years. Langley neighborhoods have also seen growth with new developments along Route 7 and Georgetown Pike. Langley current capacity % is inline with most other FCPS high schools so, like your wildly inaccurate 50% guesstimate, your "flat enrollment" assertion is wrong too.

[Anonymous]

Expanding Langley to 2100 seats made sense. Expanding it to nearly 2400 seats only made sense in terms of reducing short-term construction costs. Now we’ll incur higher transportation costs over a much longer period.

In terms of growth, there really isn’t much projected in the Langley district, even with the recent boundary change and a few new single-family developments like the Toll Brothers project off Towlston near Route 7. FCPS has a website that includes high-end projections for potential student enrollment increases from residential development applications before the county. For Marshall, the latest estimate is 719 more kids. For McLean, it’s 617 more kids. For Westfield, it’s 397 more kids. But for Langley, it’s only 4 kids. [Search on Google for “FCPS Residential Development Applications Dashboard” if you want to confirm these numbers.]

But, sure, keep telling us the best and highest use of FCPS resources was to plow more money into Langley so we can bus more kids (or have their parents drive them until they get their licenses) longer distances for years to come. It was a great deal for building contractors, but not for taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Expanding Langley to 2100 seats made sense. Expanding it to nearly 2400 seats only made sense in terms of reducing short-term construction costs. Now we’ll incur higher transportation costs over a much longer period.

In terms of growth, there really isn’t much projected in the Langley district, even with the recent boundary change and a few new single-family developments like the Toll Brothers project off Towlston near Route 7. FCPS has a website that includes high-end projections for potential student enrollment increases from residential development applications before the county. For Marshall, the latest estimate is 719 more kids. For McLean, it’s 617 more kids. For Westfield, it’s 397 more kids. But for Langley, it’s only 4 kids. [Search on Google for “FCPS Residential Development Applications Dashboard” if you want to confirm these numbers.]

But, sure, keep telling us the best and highest use of FCPS resources was to plow more money into Langley so we can bus more kids (or have their parents drive them until they get their licenses) longer distances for years to come. It was a great deal for building contractors, but not for taxpayers.

You do know that neighborhoods age out and turn over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expanding Langley to 2100 seats made sense. Expanding it to nearly 2400 seats only made sense in terms of reducing short-term construction costs. Now we’ll incur higher transportation costs over a much longer period.

In terms of growth, there really isn’t much projected in the Langley district, even with the recent boundary change and a few new single-family developments like the Toll Brothers project off Towlston near Route 7. FCPS has a website that includes high-end projections for potential student enrollment increases from residential development applications before the county. For Marshall, the latest estimate is 719 more kids. For McLean, it’s 617 more kids. For Westfield, it’s 397 more kids. But for Langley, it’s only 4 kids. [Search on Google for “FCPS Residential Development Applications Dashboard” if you want to confirm these numbers.]

But, sure, keep telling us the best and highest use of FCPS resources was to plow more money into Langley so we can bus more kids (or have their parents drive them until they get their licenses) longer distances for years to come. It was a great deal for building contractors, but not for taxpayers.

You do know that neighborhoods age out and turn over?

Some of those Marshall and McLean numbers must be coming from affordable housing being developed in Tysons. Seems like a good time to send some of them to Langley, right? I mean if kids can come from the Loudoun County border to Langley, a short ride from Tysons to Langley should be no problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expanding Langley to 2100 seats made sense. Expanding it to nearly 2400 seats only made sense in terms of reducing short-term construction costs. Now we’ll incur higher transportation costs over a much longer period.

In terms of growth, there really isn’t much projected in the Langley district, even with the recent boundary change and a few new single-family developments like the Toll Brothers project off Towlston near Route 7. FCPS has a website that includes high-end projections for potential student enrollment increases from residential development applications before the county. For Marshall, the latest estimate is 719 more kids. For McLean, it’s 617 more kids. For Westfield, it’s 397 more kids. But for Langley, it’s only 4 kids. [Search on Google for “FCPS Residential Development Applications Dashboard” if you want to confirm these numbers.]

But, sure, keep telling us the best and highest use of FCPS resources was to plow more money into Langley so we can bus more kids (or have their parents drive them until they get their licenses) longer distances for years to come. It was a great deal for building contractors, but not for taxpayers.

You do know that neighborhoods age out and turn over?

If FCPS planning staff won’t make decisions based on specific long-term projections of the potential student yield from new residential housing, they surely shouldn’t be making them based on speculation about “neighborhoods aging out and turning over.” For all they know, the old homeowners in those areas may stick around for years to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expanding Langley to 2100 seats made sense. Expanding it to nearly 2400 seats only made sense in terms of reducing short-term construction costs. Now we’ll incur higher transportation costs over a much longer period.

In terms of growth, there really isn’t much projected in the Langley district, even with the recent boundary change and a few new single-family developments like the Toll Brothers project off Towlston near Route 7. FCPS has a website that includes high-end projections for potential student enrollment increases from residential development applications before the county. For Marshall, the latest estimate is 719 more kids. For McLean, it’s 617 more kids. For Westfield, it’s 397 more kids. But for Langley, it’s only 4 kids. [Search on Google for “FCPS Residential Development Applications Dashboard” if you want to confirm these numbers.]

But, sure, keep telling us the best and highest use of FCPS resources was to plow more money into Langley so we can bus more kids (or have their parents drive them until they get their licenses) longer distances for years to come. It was a great deal for building contractors, but not for taxpayers.

You do know that neighborhoods age out and turn over?

Some of those Marshall and McLean numbers must be coming from affordable housing being developed in Tysons. Seems like a good time to send some of them to Langley, right? I mean if kids can come from the Loudoun County border to Langley, a short ride from Tysons to Langley should be no problem.

L'Auberge Chez Francois, 332 Springvale Rd, Great Falls, VA 22066 to Langley High School - 11.2 miles (not even as far out as you can go in the Langley boundary)

Tysons Corner Center to Langley High School - 4.1 miles

So it would certainly seem reasonable to send some of the affordable housing being built in Tysons to Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[url]you have no data on this just your hunch….. facts are that the increase in enrollment is coming from McLean redistricting (to relieve overcrowding there)which they could not have done had the capacity not been expanded.

Additionally, more and more families across the county - not just Langley area- are opting for private schools and homeschool over the growing dumpster fire that is FCPS and their falling test scores, preoccupation with equity and transgenderism and refusal to accept that their choice to keep schools virtual for almost a year had devastating consequences for kids…. Especially special Ed and the most at risk kids. They like to talk the equity talk but their actions don’t back it up.

You like to make up facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How wrong you are. Had they not expanded the capacity during the renovation, Langley would be over-capacity now and everyone would be even more mad at Facilities Planning's lack of planning. Langley was at 101% capacity at the time construction started and has hovered around 1950-2100 students since 2014. Prior capacity was 1996 and current capacity is 2326 - so room to grow about 10% or take in special programs or students from overcapacity schools like nearby McLean but hardly poor planning.

There is little growth expected within Langley’s boundaries, so expanding it to 2100 rather than just shy of 2400 probably would have been just about right. Instead, it got a larger expansion than it needed, and FCPS is now bussing even more kids who live closer to other schools to Langley instead.

And while you might suggest the excess capacity at Langley could still accommodate more kids from a new special program, or from McLean, past experience suggests Great Falls would fight that. They want the buffer because it’s what reassures them that no one in GF will get sent back to Herndon, which is not only closer to many GF neighborhoods but now also has extra capacity as well.

None of this is good planning, and some would argue it’s bad policy as well (but that’s a different issue).

DP. The only person arguing that a commonsense expansion is "bad policy" is you. Because you are desperate to meddle with Langley's boundaries, even though your kids don't even go there. That chip on your shoulder must be so weighty!

DP here. What about expanding a school that would have had a flat enrollment but for a boundary change was "commonsense" if it means kids have to travel further? Wouldn't it have made more sense to add seats closer to where the kids who attend public schools live? My understanding is that one issue with Langley is that it has many neighborhoods where 50% or so of the kids attend privates

No "chip on my shoulder," just a genuine question, so please refrain from insults.

The extra seats at Langley are being filled by kids from overcrowded McLean - as well as by new neighborhoods built within the existing Langley boundaries (Towlson/Rt. 7 and Georgetown Pike). Yes, a lot of families choose private schools, but you are greatly overstating the amount who do. It’s nowhere near 50% and I’m not sure where you got that number?

I was just going on what some Langley posters have said on other threads. Maybe they were exaggerating, dunno.