Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For perspective, this is like sending a kid from Fairfax Station in the vicinity of Clara Barton Drive to Lewis High School via the Fairfax County Parkway.

[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.

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.

+1
Thank you. Glad there are several people hear pushing back on the false narrative that some of these posters enjoy pushing. Though one correction - Langley and McLean are only 3 miles apart. Yes, it made absolute sense to expand Langley when they had the chance, because now that space is rapidly being put to use in helping alleviate McLean's overcrowding, as well as new neighborhoods within the existing Langley boundaries.

[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.

What on earth are you talking about when you claim kids will be "bused longer distances"?? No one redistricted to Langley is going any farther than they would be if they were sent to McLean. Not only is there a large development on Towlston/Rt. 7, there is another one on Georgetown Pike near the GF Village. All of those homes are within the existing Langley boundary and all will be sending students to Langley. The kids moved from McLean to Langley aren't going any further than they would have been. The schools are 3 miles apart!

Your constant lying/gaslighting/misinformation just makes you look ridiculous. Had Langley not expanded when it did, the school would be jammed packed with all of these new families. Can you please just get over your complete obsession with Langley - especially when it clearly doesn't even affect you?

[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.

DP. Sure. No one is saying otherwise. But instead of complaining endlessly on an anonymous forum, why don't you take your grievances to the SB? Also, which school are your kids zoned for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. No one is saying otherwise. But instead of complaining endlessly on an anonymous forum, why don't you take your grievances to the SB? Also, which school are your kids zoned for?

Should anyone really have to tell them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only people who make a claim like that are NOT Langley posters. They are the usual Langley-haters who resort to lying - and it's very obvious.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. No one is saying otherwise. But instead of complaining endlessly on an anonymous forum, why don't you take your grievances to the SB? Also, which school are your kids zoned for?

Should anyone really have to tell them?

Sounds like your cross to bear. Good luck.

[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.

What on earth are you talking about when you claim kids will be "bused longer distances"?? No one redistricted to Langley is going any farther than they would be if they were sent to McLean. Not only is there a large development on Towlston/Rt. 7, there is another one on Georgetown Pike near the GF Village. All of those homes are within the existing Langley boundary and all will be sending students to Langley. The kids moved from McLean to Langley aren't going any further than they would have been. The schools are 3 miles apart!

Your constant lying/gaslighting/misinformation just makes you look ridiculous. Had Langley not expanded when it did, the school would be jammed packed with all of these new families. Can you please just get over your complete obsession with Langley - especially when it clearly doesn't even affect you?

You seem a bit unhinged. I’m not sure there’s any other explanation for your repeated false statements and inability to handle other views without flying way off the handle.

To take just one example, the Colvin Run areas redistricted were generally 1.0-1.5 miles closer to McLean than Langley. And others have pointed out that other areas attending the school are over 10 miles from Langley and closer to several other high schools. Not saying it shouldn’t have been renovated back in 2018, but it was poor planning to expand it to almost 2400 seats, which was also not the original plan.

Good for the building contractors and the families way out in western Great Falls who now get to keep saying there’s no reason even to think about ever moving them to a closer school since Langley is well under its (expanded) capacity. Not really so great for taxpayers or those at other schools that needed to be expanded more than Langley did.

[Anonymous]

Its interesting that Langley has so much posting on here about that school, and schools that sre so much bigger with many more parents and actually relevant to the new western HS have basically no parents commenting, or do you think its just one crazy Langley parent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only people who make a claim like that are NOT Langley posters. They are the usual Langley-haters who resort to lying - and it's very obvious.
DP

So any time that someone posts on the real estate forum or this forum that they live in a Langley-zoned neighborhood in McLean or Great Falls and that roughly half their neighbors send their kids to privates, the correct response is to call them out as liars and “Langley haters”?

Hmmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. No one is saying otherwise. But instead of complaining endlessly on an anonymous forum, why don't you take your grievances to the SB? Also, which school are your kids zoned for?

Should anyone really have to tell them?

Sounds like your cross to bear. Good luck.

The point is that every other school in FCPS takes on some F/R students - why is Langley exempt? Why do I need to explain why this is wrong to the School Board? Why are some schools allowed to be overwhelmed with poverty? I can't wait to leave Fairfax and I have been here for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting that Langley has so much posting on here about that school, and schools that sre so much bigger with many more parents and actually relevant to the new western HS have basically no parents commenting, or do you think its just one crazy Langley parent?

Not sure anyone really thinks the “new western HS” is still a thing with the plan to expand Centreville to 3000 seats.

If you go back and read prior posts there are some folks in that area who aren’t thrilled about it being expanded to 3000 seats but it almost seems like a done deal at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its interesting that Langley has so much posting on here about that school, and schools that sre so much bigger with many more parents and actually relevant to the new western HS have basically no parents commenting, or do you think its just one crazy Langley parent?

Um... the people posting incessantly about Langley do not have kids there. Ask yourself why it is that they keep fixating on this one school when their kids don't even attend. The posters *responding* to these obsessives are from Langley. They are the ones who are rebutting the crazy accusations with actual facts.

[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.

What on earth are you talking about when you claim kids will be "bused longer distances"?? No one redistricted to Langley is going any farther than they would be if they were sent to McLean. Not only is there a large development on Towlston/Rt. 7, there is another one on Georgetown Pike near the GF Village. All of those homes are within the existing Langley boundary and all will be sending students to Langley. The kids moved from McLean to Langley aren't going any further than they would have been. The schools are 3 miles apart!

Your constant lying/gaslighting/misinformation just makes you look ridiculous. Had Langley not expanded when it did, the school would be jammed packed with all of these new families. Can you please just get over your complete obsession with Langley - especially when it clearly doesn't even affect you?

You seem a bit unhinged. I’m not sure there’s any other explanation for your repeated false statements and inability to handle other views without flying way off the handle.

To take just one example, the Colvin Run areas redistricted were generally 1.0-1.5 miles closer to McLean than Langley. And others have pointed out that other areas attending the school are over 10 miles from Langley and closer to several other high schools. Not saying it shouldn’t have been renovated back in 2018, but it was poor planning to expand it to almost 2400 seats, which was also not the original plan.

Good for the building contractors and the families way out in western Great Falls who now get to keep saying there’s no reason even to think about ever moving them to a closer school since Langley is well under its (expanded) capacity. Not really so great for taxpayers or those at other schools that needed to be expanded more than Langley did.

:lol:
You're actually complaining that going 1-1.5 miles "out of their way" to attend a fully renovated, uncrowded school is somehow a hardship for kids who otherwise would be attending the sardine can that is McLean HS? You're not even making sense, you're just foaming at the mouth in resentment over... something. Look, I'm very sorry you're having such a difficult time accepting facts and reality - so much so that you resort to accusing others of making "false statements." The school has been renovated and expanded, and is now being filled with students. That's as it should be. Maybe you should focus on getting your own school (probably McLean) renovated and expanded and leave Langley alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Sure. No one is saying otherwise. But instead of complaining endlessly on an anonymous forum, why don't you take your grievances to the SB? Also, which school are your kids zoned for?

Should anyone really have to tell them?

Sounds like your cross to bear. Good luck.

The point is that every other school in FCPS takes on some F/R students - why is Langley exempt? Why do I need to explain why this is wrong to the School Board? Why are some schools allowed to be overwhelmed with poverty? I can't wait to leave Fairfax and I have been here for many years.

I also can't wait to leave Fairfax and I have lived here for decades. My youngest will be graduating and we will be out of here after that. But my reasons for wanting to leave are different from yours and not relevant to this thread.

As many posters have already said, please show us your plan to bring low-income students to Langley. Geography is fixed. Tell us about the busing routes you seem to desire.