When do they plan on making a decision? My child is on 6th so it would be nice to know!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly SFH because geographically that is what makes the most sense to move to Langley. The apartments are closer to McLean. If you go with option C then you end up with a very weird island of kids going to McLean. The school board needs to do what makes the most sense from how the boundaries currently are and if that means more SFH to Langley than that is what they should do. Plus it is not like McLean is super diverse either....

McLean HS is 53% white (and that includes kids of middle eastern and North African heritage who are considered “white” for statistical purposes.) I would call that pretty diverse.
http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:030,0

It’s 9% FARMs

11% last year, probably higher this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly SFH because geographically that is what makes the most sense to move to Langley. The apartments are closer to McLean. If you go with option C then you end up with a very weird island of kids going to McLean. The school board needs to do what makes the most sense from how the boundaries currently are and if that means more SFH to Langley than that is what they should do. Plus it is not like McLean is super diverse either....

McLean HS is 53% white (and that includes kids of middle eastern and North African heritage who are considered “white” for statistical purposes.) I would call that pretty diverse.
http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:030,0

It’s 9% FARMs

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly SFH because geographically that is what makes the most sense to move to Langley. The apartments are closer to McLean. If you go with option C then you end up with a very weird island of kids going to McLean. The school board needs to do what makes the most sense from how the boundaries currently are and if that means more SFH to Langley than that is what they should do. Plus it is not like McLean is super diverse either....

McLean HS is 53% white (and that includes kids of middle eastern and North African heritage who are considered “white” for statistical purposes.) I would call that pretty diverse.
http://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13:::NO:0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:030,0

The modular brings McLean’s capacity up to 2343. Maybe they’d be better off leaving the boundaries alone for now rather than moving kids into Cooper just as Cooper’s renovation is beginning.

Anonymous wrote:It is mostly SFH because geographically that is what makes the most sense to move to Langley. The apartments are closer to McLean. If you go with option C then you end up with a very weird island of kids going to McLean. The school board needs to do what makes the most sense from how the boundaries currently are and if that means more SFH to Langley than that is what they should do. Plus it is not like McLean is super diverse either....

The “weird island” would still be closer to McLean than to Langley. It comes down to whether the School Board meant what it said when it said greater economic diversity was a relevant consideration. They can go ahead and move the SFH areas to Langley instead, but good luck the next time they attempt to justify a boundary change based on demographic considerations.

If you are supportive of adding some apartments to Langley you can comment at McLeanBoundary@fcps.edu and let them know you support or do not object to Option #3. As PP noted, many of those apartments are not cheap but there are units less expensive than anything in the current Langley district. McLean would still retain other less expensive apartments in other areas of Tysons and Falls Church.

It is mostly SFH because geographically that is what makes the most sense to move to Langley. The apartments are closer to McLean. If you go with option C then you end up with a very weird island of kids going to McLean. The school board needs to do what makes the most sense from how the boundaries currently are and if that means more SFH to Langley than that is what they should do. Plus it is not like McLean is super diverse either....

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 Langley parent (in aSFH) and I don't understand why I am allegedly against apartments. If I had my way, I would move all the kids on this side of 123 that currently go to McLean to Langley.

Another Langley family here. I also welcome apartments. I don’t know why people think Langley families try to keep apartments out of Langley. The surrounding areas just seem to be zoned for single family. I would be glad to see the apartments from Tysons go to Langley. Let’s be honest. Those apartments are not cheap.

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 Langley parent (in aSFH) and I don't understand why I am allegedly against apartments. If I had my way, I would move all the kids on this side of 123 that currently go to McLean to Langley.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

I know there were builders over the past decade or so who lobbied to try and get FCPS staff to make administrative boundary changes to reassign new developments from Marshall to Langley and then Herndon to Langley and failed in both instances. The carve-outs on the other side of Route 7 zoned to Langley in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna go back many years.

Alot of it goes back to the Aldrin opening and before that what to do with Shouse. Most of it makes zero sense. Colvin Run opening and boundary meetings were dismal. Before that opened Spring Hill had a residency clean out audit- 70 to 100 students were removed. Some from out of state some from all over the county etc. There were posts on DCUM where people used other addresses for their kids to enroll at Mclean. If it happened once it still happens. FCPS is too PC.

Here's another and current FCPS just too weird. https://www.tollbrothers.com/luxury-homes-for-sale/Virginia/Arden
That is across Route 7 from the access roads leading to Colvin Run and is assigned to Spring Hill, Cooper, Langley. Sales center is 1367 Tate Modern Lane, Great Falls, VA 22066 If not across 7 and down Towlston a walker would be .5 miles from this under capacity school. Instead Brabrand and this school board will NOT do an administrative boundary change. Colvin Run is undercapacity.

This is total incompetency. It is just as stupid as busing Whitman walkers who can see the site from their houses to Sandburg.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

I know there were builders over the past decade or so who lobbied to try and get FCPS staff to make administrative boundary changes to reassign new developments from Marshall to Langley and then Herndon to Langley and failed in both instances. The carve-outs on the other side of Route 7 zoned to Langley in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna go back many years.

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

Builders are known for bribing officials, and officials are happy to take the money to gerrymander. And the builder gets to say that their new subdivision is in (Langley.Mclean, whatever). Gross and obvious.

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

Too late, there are already apartments at McLean.

They've always made a special exception for Langley, so that "equity is at the margin of everything we do" rather than the "center."

Even when the boundaries cross Route 7 in Herndon, Reston, and Vienna, the only areas that ever get added are single-family homes. Sounds like you can expect more of the same.