McLean to Explore Separating from FC & FCPS

[Anonymous]

I am watching on 99 and they are showing the virtual breakout rooms slide for a long time. Are you all still in breakout rooms?

[Anonymous]

Notes:

4 options presented and seeking community feedback (options were developed in part with prior community feedback, but there will be at least another round before anything formal recommended for the board).

Mclean is currently 357 over capacity. Langley is currently 398 under capacity.

Longfellow is currently 40 under capacity. Cooper will be ~120 under capacity post-renovation (didn't provide current).

Reviewed recent actions @ McLean HS:
12-13: +4 temp classrooms
13-14: +4 temp classrooms
18-19: +4 temp classrooms (and weight room expanded)
19-20: +4 temp classrooms (and removed lockers from halls)
20-21: +1 modular (12 classrooms) and converted two sci labs

[comment: Yeah, can't just keep throwing temp classrooms at the problem for 9 years and expect folks to roll over]

Anticipated Effective Date of Boundary Adjustment:
SY 2021-22

They don't take a position on grandfathering/phasing, but seems pretty obvious/likely that this would be part of the plan with it therefore taking until 2024-5 until the full transition was complete, but would see some capacity relief spread over that time.

Option A: Move all of currently-McLean-zoned Colvin Run split feeder area to Cooper/Langley (and the teeny tiny sliver of Westbriar that currently zoned to McLean, leave Spring Hill split as-is today). Projects all 4 HS/MS at 84-98% capacity in 24-25.

Option B: Same as A but adds the currently-McLean-zoned portion of Spring Hill that is north of 267. Projects all 4 HS/MS at 87-96% capacity in 24-25 (most balanced).

Option C: Move all of currently-McLean-zoned Spring Hill (leaving Colvin/Westbriar split as-is today). Projects all 4 HS/MS at 89-99% capacity in 24-25.

Option D: Status quo. Projects all 4 HS/MS at 78-103% capacity in 24-25.

Note, McLean capacities assume the modular remains on-site... temp classrooms (trailers) not discussed but presumably some/all of them could be removed in Options A-C.

[Anonymous]

Actually the trailers are supposedly being removed this year thanks to the modular, but it seems odd to replace 16 classrooms (trailers) with only 12 (modular)? That would seem to exacerbate current crowding.

Maybe they're only removing some of the trailers this year, with the rest to disappear post-boundary adjustment / capacity relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems people fall into one of three camps:

1. McLean should receive in proportion to its tax base, and not have to subsidize geographically distant / less-affluent portions of the same county. Incorporation is long overdue and should happen regardless of crowding situation at McLean HS.

2. Some subsidy is fine and pursuing equity of opportunity across the county is reasonable... but at same time when there is a major pressing issue (like McLean HS overcrowding) it's not fair to those families to be strung along for years and not receive somewhat balanced treatment to resolve those legitimate issues. Pursuing incorporation is a last resort, but that's how frustrating and neglected the situation has become.

3. Everyone in categories 1 and 2 is equivalently a racist and closet segregationist and should be ashamed of themselves. Nobody in categories 1 and 2 could possibly have a valid concern or motivation, and are just obnoxiously entitled and privileged.

Yep. And those who believe #3 simply don’t want to lose the cash cow that is McLean/Great Falls, but they’re too cowardly to come out and say it. Thus they hide behind the usual accusations of “racism” that no one in their right mind takes seriously anymore.

The only valid way is to look at #2: When there is a major pressing issue, the school district should address. If the result is "we'll take our money and our privileged population and peace out" we have to acknowledge that is because the liberals in McLean are actually not interested in anything beyond their own personal needs.

[Anonymous]

The additional docs show they also considered moving:
- The Franklin-Sherman split feeder area
- All of Chesterbrook
- All of Colvin Run and Spring Hill (and Westbriar sliver)

Each of those options wound up with at least one school projected at 105% or higher in 24-25 (and correspondingly greater capacity surpluses as other schools), so presumably were not presented since they lead to less balanced results than Options A-C above.

Also seems there is not much appetite for broadening the scope to include Falls Church, Herndon, Madison, Marshall, or South Lakes HS since this adds additional MS feeder/capacity issues into the mix, and probably is more politically challenging as well... so why pursue those when you've got simpler, less disruptive options available (Options A-C as presented) that lead to more balanced capacity numbers. Only argument otherwise that I can think of would be to promote busing to achieve greater diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems people fall into one of three camps:

1. McLean should receive in proportion to its tax base, and not have to subsidize geographically distant / less-affluent portions of the same county. Incorporation is long overdue and should happen regardless of crowding situation at McLean HS.

2. Some subsidy is fine and pursuing equity of opportunity across the county is reasonable... but at same time when there is a major pressing issue (like McLean HS overcrowding) it's not fair to those families to be strung along for years and not receive somewhat balanced treatment to resolve those legitimate issues. Pursuing incorporation is a last resort, but that's how frustrating and neglected the situation has become.

3. Everyone in categories 1 and 2 is equivalently a racist and closet segregationist and should be ashamed of themselves. Nobody in categories 1 and 2 could possibly have a valid concern or motivation, and are just obnoxiously entitled and privileged.

Yep. And those who believe #3 simply don’t want to lose the cash cow that is McLean/Great Falls, but they’re too cowardly to come out and say it. Thus they hide behind the usual accusations of “racism” that no one in their right mind takes seriously anymore.

The only valid way is to look at #2: When there is a major pressing issue, the school district should address. If the result is "we'll take our money and our privileged population and peace out" we have to acknowledge that is because the liberals in McLean are actually not interested in anything beyond their own personal needs.

Nah, it's just a question of where you draw the line. They've been throwing trailers at the problem for a decade and are still projecting 15% over-enrollment. At what point do they have a legitimate gripe that overcomes being "interested in anything beyond their own personal needs"? 20% over capacity? 25%? 20 years? 30?

I suspect this will largely go away once the boundary study moves forward and the Cooper capacity comes online. I know the schools aren't the ONLY thing driving the incorporation exploration, but I think they're a big pain point right now, and once that pressure goes away there will be less motivation for what is already a pretty challenging endeavor to incorporate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually the trailers are supposedly being removed this year thanks to the modular, but it seems odd to replace 16 classrooms (trailers) with only 12 (modular)? That would seem to exacerbate current crowding.

Maybe they're only removing some of the trailers this year, with the rest to disappear post-boundary adjustment / capacity relief.

The latter. The modular would not replace all the trailers, just most of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Notes:

4 options presented and seeking community feedback (options were developed in part with prior community feedback, but there will be at least another round before anything formal recommended for the board).

Mclean is currently 357 over capacity. Langley is currently 398 under capacity.

Longfellow is currently 40 under capacity. Cooper will be ~120 under capacity post-renovation (didn't provide current).

Reviewed recent actions @ McLean HS:
12-13: +4 temp classrooms
13-14: +4 temp classrooms
18-19: +4 temp classrooms (and weight room expanded)
19-20: +4 temp classrooms (and removed lockers from halls)
20-21: +1 modular (12 classrooms) and converted two sci labs

[comment: Yeah, can't just keep throwing temp classrooms at the problem for 9 years and expect folks to roll over]

Anticipated Effective Date of Boundary Adjustment:
SY 2021-22

They don't take a position on grandfathering/phasing, but seems pretty obvious/likely that this would be part of the plan with it therefore taking until 2024-5 until the full transition was complete, but would see some capacity relief spread over that time.

Option A: Move all of currently-McLean-zoned Colvin Run split feeder area to Cooper/Langley (and the teeny tiny sliver of Westbriar that currently zoned to McLean, leave Spring Hill split as-is today). Projects all 4 HS/MS at 84-98% capacity in 24-25.

Option B: Same as A but adds the currently-McLean-zoned portion of Spring Hill that is north of 267. Projects all 4 HS/MS at 87-96% capacity in 24-25 (most balanced).

Option C: Move all of currently-McLean-zoned Spring Hill (leaving Colvin/Westbriar split as-is today). Projects all 4 HS/MS at 89-99% capacity in 24-25.

Option D: Status quo. Projects all 4 HS/MS at 78-103% capacity in 24-25.

Note, McLean capacities assume the modular remains on-site... temp classrooms (trailers) not discussed but presumably some/all of them could be removed in Options A-C.

Thanks for this awesome summary. Of the options, is A the projected to be most preferred by people and it goes down the line to D?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck. Join the MCA - there website does not say how many members they have.

I see these as your biggest hurdles so I would focus on these:

The VA law that currently prohibits exactly what you want to do.

The lack of incentive for VA state and FC to support this after the tax incentives and infrastructure investments poured into the NoVA/Tysons area, including a new Metro line - they will not have any interest in losing any portion of this tax base - commercial, residential and income wise.

Convincing the citizens of McLean (average age of 48) that they should take fiscal responsibilities for the schools when the first set of bills will be expensive additions for not just the HS, but the overcrowded ES.

On the other hand, I am cheering you on - FCPS needs a wake up call to figure out how to be more responsive and more transparent. I just think it is an uphill fight. Will follow with interest, so please report back when efforts get more organized than DCUM.

Depending on when you started having kids, a 48 yo will be very invested in good schools that are not overcrowded. This is in addition to having great schools boosting property values for those who are beyond child bearing age/no children.

People have kids late and have multiple kids. At age 48 my kids will only be 10 and 12. Plus even if you were past having a school aged child, separating will affect the desirability of McLean real estate. Whether taxes go so much people will want it less or the quality of education improves so much prices will significantly outpace property prices in neighboring school systems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems people fall into one of three camps:

1. McLean should receive in proportion to its tax base, and not have to subsidize geographically distant / less-affluent portions of the same county. Incorporation is long overdue and should happen regardless of crowding situation at McLean HS.

2. Some subsidy is fine and pursuing equity of opportunity across the county is reasonable... but at same time when there is a major pressing issue (like McLean HS overcrowding) it's not fair to those families to be strung along for years and not receive somewhat balanced treatment to resolve those legitimate issues. Pursuing incorporation is a last resort, but that's how frustrating and neglected the situation has become.

3. Everyone in categories 1 and 2 is equivalently a racist and closet segregationist and should be ashamed of themselves. Nobody in categories 1 and 2 could possibly have a valid concern or motivation, and are just obnoxiously entitled and privileged.

Interesting. The maps and numbers presented on 12/7/20 were expansive and repetitive. FCPS decided the scope so excluded elementary, middle, and high schools not in the scope. The maps tell the story of current boundaries and do they make sense.

All those numbers and FCPS did not account for the impact of TJ admissions changes. The mess needs elementary changes which are the building block for middle and high school attendance areas. Planning units should be defined with numbers - what's a planning unit? Geographic segments that go into elementary schools.

FCPS did sloppy work in volumes. It used to do audits on attendance for potential out of boundary or even district. In any area around Tysons for "hot" schools like Mclean it needs to be done. Madison is getting an addition and going from 2146 to 2500 [out year 92%].

Where's the addition for Falls Church which is getting a renovation? Langley and Mclean attendance areas border Loudoun County to the west- no room at Herndon for any movement, north is Maryland, and east is Arlington. FCPS needs to dominoe south - stop at Lee for all I care.

Hmm West Potomac addition money should be split between Mclean and Falls Church.

[Anonymous]

Good point, should be included in the consideration (but not an outsized impact either)... I think there's what, ~50 kids per year zoned for McLean who go to TJ? So 200 enrollment? If they dropped it to say ~20 per year under the lottery (I don't know what the reality would be, just had to pick a number) that'd be 120 kids enrolled back at McLean in the long run (or realistically maybe 100, with 20 choosing to go private if not able to attend TJ).

Even if you assumed ~120, that would only be a 5% increase in utilization at McLean... so in option B that would keep them at 99% projected capacity in 24-25... but maybe this makes a good argument for option C (which would keep Langley and McLean more balanced in terms of capacity, 93% and 94% respectively). Only for option A would that consideration push a school over the 100% threshold (McLean at 103% in 24-25).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good point, should be included in the consideration (but not an outsized impact either)... I think there's what, ~50 kids per year zoned for McLean who go to TJ? So 200 enrollment? If they dropped it to say ~20 per year under the lottery (I don't know what the reality would be, just had to pick a number) that'd be 120 kids enrolled back at McLean in the long run (or realistically maybe 100, with 20 choosing to go private if not able to attend TJ).

Even if you assumed ~120, that would only be a 5% increase in utilization at McLean... so in option B that would keep them at 99% projected capacity in 24-25... but maybe this makes a good argument for option C (which would keep Langley and McLean more balanced in terms of capacity, 93% and 94% respectively). Only for option A would that consideration push a school over the 100% threshold (McLean at 103% in 24-25).

At one point I saw a report that said each of Langley and McLean was the base school for about 150-160 TJ students. So with a lottery approach where Cooper and Longfellow each were sending 15-20 kids to TJ every year instead of up to 40 per year, the direct impact over a four-year period could be about 70-100 additional kids at each school.

However, there could also be a secondary impact: if admission to TJ becomes more random and less predictable, that could prompt more families to just decide to live in a "top" pyramid like Langley and McLean. If that happened, there could be an additional enrollment bump.

[Anonymous]

One interesting thing shared tonight (by a parent who had done research, not FCPS) was that FCPS spent less on the McLean "renovation" in 2005 than on any other high school renovation between 2000 and 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good point, should be included in the consideration (but not an outsized impact either)... I think there's what, ~50 kids per year zoned for McLean who go to TJ? So 200 enrollment? If they dropped it to say ~20 per year under the lottery (I don't know what the reality would be, just had to pick a number) that'd be 120 kids enrolled back at McLean in the long run (or realistically maybe 100, with 20 choosing to go private if not able to attend TJ).

Even if you assumed ~120, that would only be a 5% increase in utilization at McLean... so in option B that would keep them at 99% projected capacity in 24-25... but maybe this makes a good argument for option C (which would keep Langley and McLean more balanced in terms of capacity, 93% and 94% respectively). Only for option A would that consideration push a school over the 100% threshold (McLean at 103% in 24-25).

At one point I saw a report that said each of Langley and McLean was the base school for about 150-160 TJ students. So with a lottery approach where Cooper and Longfellow each were sending 15-20 kids to TJ every year instead of up to 40 per year, the direct impact over a four-year period could be about 70-100 additional kids at each school.

However, there could also be a secondary impact: if admission to TJ becomes more random and less predictable, that could prompt more families to just decide to live in a "top" pyramid like Langley and McLean. If that happened, there could be an additional enrollment bump.

Yeah, not sure what the numbers are exactly... I just saw this and ballparked 50/year for McLean, and since Cooper/Langley not on list figured they must be a good chip lower... but could just be annual variation, etc. https://fairfax.homebyschool.com/top-3-middle-schools-thomas-jefferson-tjhsst/

As for the second-order effects of people moving to the pyramid if TJ, it's possible... also possible some folks who seek TJ might feel they have equivalent odds at a more affordable price point outside of Langley/McLean.

[Anonymous]

(And that more affordable price point could also give them the additional funds needed to make pursuing private enrollment a viable plan B... long story short I wouldn't go overboard trying to anticipate every possible second-order effect, they're harder to predict and smaller in magnitude)