Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Dumb not to move the Colvin Run kids and get rid of it as a split feeder
Not dumb if you think it would have been a bad idea to just move more SFHs into Langley. And the Colvin Run area is still closer to McLean than to Langley.
They should stop trying to social engineer demographics. Isn’t that illegal?
Anonymous wrote:Why not send all of Spring Hill to Langley?
Looking at a map, Colvin Run seems to be the more obvious school to send to Langley.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Dumb not to move the Colvin Run kids and get rid of it as a split feeder
Not dumb if you think it would have been a bad idea to just move more SFHs into Langley. And the Colvin Run area is still closer to McLean than to Langley.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Contact your school board member and all at large members.
The loudest voices from Colvin run were the ones against that boundary change.
I'd expect the staff's final recommendation reflects input in advance from School Board members.
It's a crappy process when the School Board doesn't add seats where they are most needed and then ends up encouraging people to bid against one another to move out of two great schools - Longfellow/McLean - to other schools.
But the final staff recommendation will have people for and against it just like any of the earlier options. From an objective perspective, the final recommendation does two things that neither Option A or B did, which is to move some multi-family housing into Langley. At the same time, it avoids moving too many kids out of Longfellow/McLean, as option C (which also would have left all of Colvin Run at Longfellow/McLean) might have done.
I think you are giving the staff too much credit.
Anonymous wrote:Dumb not to move the Colvin Run kids and get rid of it as a split feeder
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Contact your school board member and all at large members.
The loudest voices from Colvin run were the ones against that boundary change.
I'd expect the staff's final recommendation reflects input in advance from School Board members.
It's a crappy process when the School Board doesn't add seats where they are most needed and then ends up encouraging people to bid against one another to move out of two great schools - Longfellow/McLean - to other schools.
But the final staff recommendation will have people for and against it just like any of the earlier options. From an objective perspective, the final recommendation does two things that neither Option A or B did, which is to move some multi-family housing into Langley. At the same time, it avoids moving too many kids out of Longfellow/McLean, as option C (which also would have left all of Colvin Run at Longfellow/McLean) might have done.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Contact your school board member and all at large members.
The loudest voices from Colvin run were the ones against that boundary change.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Do you mean all of Colvin Run? Most of those kids already go to Cooper. I would have thought they’d move all of them too.
Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Anonymous wrote:Oh no!!!! I was really hoping Colvin Run would switch to Cooper. Does anyone think this could possibly change?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well one of my kids basically loses her closest
friends if scenario a or c are chosen and she does not make friends easily. Such is life, but still sad.
Kids change friends going into middle schools a lot. I would not worry about that.