Anonymous wrote:It would be preferable not to allow apartments into McLean or Langley.

Why? Because you are racist?

It would be preferable not to allow apartments into McLean or Langley.

Wow, the Langley boundaries are already huge. They are going to let Langley gobble up even more territory when they should have just added an addition to the school that was seeing more growth?

FCPS incompetence truly knows no bounds. They will dismantle TJ because it's too "elite" while at the same time concentrating more of the wealthiest families living in SFHs at Langley? WTF?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

dumb boundary maps are an FCPS speciality- look at the island attached to Ft Hunt elementary

They boxed themselves in by saying they'd only move McLean kids to Langley, when they could have looked at the boundaries for both schools.

Anonymous wrote:Can’t they just move the high school kids immediately and move middle school kids post renovation?

I know this is not ideal but better than moving into a construction zone.

They received a lot of feedback at the community meetings in late 2019 that people were not interested in moving to Langley if they weren't also moving to Cooper at the same time, and preferred the construction zone scenario to having kids who were in the small cohort moving from Colvin Run or Spring Hill to Longfellow rather than Cooper and then ending up in an even smaller cohort moving from Longfellow to Langley rather than McLean.

As it is, they might still have kids who fall into that category, but it would affect only two classes (the current 7th and 8th graders at Longfellow from CR and/or SH, depending on whether they go with Options 1, 2 or 3).

If you have an issue with moving more kids into Cooper next fall, you should them you prefer Option 4 (no change for now) and that they should revisit when the Cooper renovation is done.

Can’t they just move the high school kids immediately and move middle school kids post renovation?

I know this is not ideal but better than moving into a construction zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

dumb boundary maps are an FCPS speciality- look at the island attached to Ft Hunt elementary

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

Option D is an option, or it would not have been included in the presentation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

I am a Mclean family and I still like this option the best. I could care less if my kids attend school with teens who live in apartments or teens who live in SFH. just looking at the boundary maps, having the Colvin Run kids attend Mclean is dumb...

Also, the Cooper addition will only allow for so many more kids...option A seems too small but option C looks like too many kids....option D is NOT an option....

Anonymous wrote:Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

It's what the people in single-family houses who now want to bail on McLean due to the multi-year neglect and overcrowding like. And it keeps Langley free of any apartments.

Of all the options presented option B appears to make the most sense. It alleviates some of the overcrowding at Mclean but does not add too much to the numbers at Cooper/Langley. Long term an addition is needed at Mclean but this at least makes the overcrowding there less dangerous. Option B seems like a good compromise.

They posted the additional materials from last night here: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/facilities-planning-future/school-boundary-adjustments/mclean-high-school-proposed

Some key points:

* They are still soliciting feedback. They could recommend a boundary change or no change.

* If they redistrict to Langley, they will redistrict to Cooper at the same time.

* They would phase in with rising 7th and 9th graders and grandfather existing students.

* Four options were presented:

- Option 1: Move the portion of Colvin Run currently assigned to Longfellow/McLean to Cooper/Langley - moves the least # of kids of Options 1-3

- Option 2: Move the portion of Colvin Run and the part of Spring Hill in Vienna (but not Tysons) currently assigned to Longfellow/McLean to Cooper/Langley - moves more kids that Option 1

- Option 3: Move the portion of Spring Hill currently assigned to Longfellow/McLean (both in Vienna and Tysons) to Cooper/Langley - moves the most kids of Options 1-3.

- Option 4: No change (predicated on treating the modular addition to McLean as additional capacity, in which case they would project significantly reduced overcrowding at McLean in the future).

* Options 1 and 2 only move single-family neighborhoods to Langley; Option 3 would move both SFHs and apartments in the Spring Hill ES district to Langley

* Their projections do not take into account whether Langley and McLean would pick up additional kids if there is a change in TJ admissions policy to region-based admissions.

* The goal is to make a decision that they would begin to implement in the fall of 2021.

* There were vague references to a new task force to look at growth occurring around Tysons, with the suggestion this might support a permanent addition at McLean, but no promises or commitments.

* Multiple School Board members (Tholen, Frisch, Sizemore Heizer, Omeish, and Cohen) sat in on the presentation; not sure if Keys Gamarra did even though she is also an at-large member.

* They collected and may post feedback from breakout groups collected during the presentation; you can continue to submit comments at McLeanBoundary@fcps.edu.

Wasn’t able to watch last night.