Boundaries assessment update 2023

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do the kids in Tyson's currently go? If they go to McLean, will that bring McLean to a really low FARMS?

Tysons is currently zoned about 55% to Marshall and 45% to McLean. Not sure what you mean by the second question.

PP. I didn't state it clearly. I was responding to someone who said to move them to Langley--so I was asking if it would lower McLean's fARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where do the kids in Tyson's currently go? If they go to McLean, will that bring McLean to a really low FARMS?

Tysons is currently zoned about 55% to Marshall and 45% to McLean. Not sure what you mean by the second question.

PP. I didn't state it clearly. I was responding to someone who said to move them to Langley--so I was asking if it would lower McLean's fARMS

Not really. Spring Hill Elementary’s FARM rate is around 10%. McLean has many other apartment and townhouse neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

McLean had a refresh, not a reno. It's an overcrowded mess, which has accelerated need for capital improvements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

You might want to check your facts. McLean hasn’t been renovated for almost 20 years and the renovation it did get back around 2005 was cut-rate compared to later, more expensive renovations.

And no one begrudges the fact that Langley got renovated more recently. Some of us do think it should not have been expanded to the extent it was during its renovation, given the fact that the growth within its then-existing boundaries was minimal and other schools would have benefited more from additions. And there’s also the fact that a vocal group of Langley residents have lobbied hard to keep Langley under-enrolled, because that’s their insurance policy to ward off any suggestion that their neighborhoods should be reassigned to Herndon (which is closer to their homes and now also has some surplus capacity).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

McLean had a refresh, not a reno. It's an overcrowded mess, which has accelerated need for capital improvements.

Ok...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

You might want to check your facts. McLean hasn’t been renovated for almost 20 years and the renovation it did get back around 2005 was cut-rate compared to later, more expensive renovations.

And no one begrudges the fact that Langley got renovated more recently. Some of us do think it should not have been expanded to the extent it was during its renovation, given the fact that the growth within its then-existing boundaries was minimal and other schools would have benefited more from additions. And there’s also the fact that a vocal group of Langley residents have lobbied hard to keep Langley under-enrolled, because that’s their insurance policy to ward off any suggestion that their neighborhoods should be reassigned to Herndon (which is closer to their homes and now also has some surplus capacity).

You are a broken record. Is this the only school you fixate on? It's beyond tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Langley ended up 277 students below the school’s design capacity in June.

Let’s see what the fall enrollment looks like. If they still have 200 or more vacant seats, I’d rezone some of that affordable housing now getting built in Tysons there. Marshall ended up 93 kids above its design capacity in June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We live in the CVHS boundaries and no one has asked whether we want our kids to attend a 3000 kid HS. Shouldn't this be something discussed wtih the community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Langley ended up 277 students below the school’s design capacity in June.

Let’s see what the fall enrollment looks like. If they still have 200 or more vacant seats, I’d rezone some of that affordable housing now getting built in Tysons there. Marshall ended up 93 kids above its design capacity in June.

Affordable housing is not getting zoned for Langley. If they really need to add students, they will find a way to snake the western portion of their boundary into additional UMC neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We live in the CVHS boundaries and no one has asked whether we want our kids to attend a 3000 kid HS. Shouldn't this be something discussed wtih the community?

DP. Yes, but the School Board gives no cares about Centreville/Westfield/ Chantilly. Also, they're probably hoping most people have either forgotten or don't know what happened when Westfield got that big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

Actually, it seems like an unusual example of common sense and foresight within FCPS. The additional seats are now very much needed. In case you hadn't heard, there's a school only 3 miles away that is grossly overcrowded and in need of somewhere to send their kids?

It would have made more sense to add capacity at the schools that actually need it, no?

Anyway, it’s a joke that Langley is some great resource for McLean when the GFCA fought tooth and nail to limit the number of kids redistricted in 2021. We’ve seen that movie already.

Sure, it would make sense to add capacity to McLean - however, McLean had a renovation relatively recently (within the last decade), and Langley was up for their (much-needed) renovation. But do continue to begrudge Langley their renovation. It seems to be your hobby.

It was 2005 and was a much smaller update.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We live in the CVHS boundaries and no one has asked whether we want our kids to attend a 3000 kid HS. Shouldn't this be something discussed wtih the community?

DP. Yes, but the School Board gives no cares about Centreville/Westfield/ Chantilly. Also, they're probably hoping most people have either forgotten or don't know what happened when Westfield got that big.

Westfield was fine when it was that big--but the SB took several more affluent communities out and gave them to South Lakes. They wanted to stay at Westfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

So who were Jeff Platenburg’s co-conspirators in this plot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems circular. Build an addition to Langley it didn’t need so wealthy people living 10-13 miles away could continue to argue there’s no need to change the boundaries when it’s under-enrolled.

Great way to maintain a 3% FARMS school with a boundary that borders a 50% FARMS school and pretend it’s perfectly logical.

So who were Jeff Platenburg’s co-conspirators in this plot?

You don’t even need co-conspirators when the School Board exercises so little oversight over Facilities. You just bump up the approved expansion from 2100 seats to 2370 and don’t tell anyone until it’s almost finished. Great Falls is happy and the building contractor is even happier.

And then Platenberg got to take credit for having expanded capacity county-wide, even if it was at a location that isn’t convenient and is surrounded by neighborhoods with old people and families sending their kids to privates.

It’s ridiculous and it leads some people familiar with the shenanigans to say they’ll vote against school bonds in the future, but the problem with that is that it penalizes other schools that have greater needs and may finally be getting renovated.