Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is watching the phase 2 meeting at Robinson, they had three split feeders...surprise, surprise they kept all three as split feeders in the pyramid.

Ooh.

Dish more please

Right now a parent is railing against adding Rolling Valley to WSHS

...Oh, and add a 4th spilt feeder they did not fix (so they fixed zero split feeders). They did close one attendance island.

Interesting.

The Thru consultant looked annoyed at her and basically blew her off, cause she spitballed a number of kids that could go to WSHS from those 200 townhomes. The consultant didn't answer why they added that neighborhood to WSHS.

It was priority 7 from Region 6.

So they ignored priorities 1-6 and went with this one? Wow, okay.

No. I’m pretty sure they incorporated those too.

This was recommendation number 6: "Adjust boundaries to increase enrollment at Lewis to address overcrowding. Community members pointed out that Lewis is
underutilized and suggested that boundaries be adjusted to better utilize Lewis and increase socioeconomic diversity."

Apologies, they seemed to have incorporated all of the specific changes. If Lewis had listed specific neighborhoods they wanted, THRU probably would have given them to them.

Lewis families and anyone else from the lower SES schools seemingly missed the boat. If COVID hadn’t happened, the boundary changes would have started and then gone through in 2020-2021, when the political climate was totally different. There would have 100% been equity moves at that point.

Ok sure.
But what is being done, they seem to entirely have ignored Lewis. It's underenrolled while others are over capacity. They just....pretended it doesn't exist?

Lewis doesn’t have boundary issues. Lewis has progamming issues. Drop IB and do full AP and attendance will come back.

It is shocking though that FCPS moved 200 upper middle class Rolling Valley jomes out of Lewis to WSHS.

Unbelievable. They are basically stomping on a struggling school when it’s already down.

It’s not down it’s dead and time for a change.

I assure you, Lewis is not dead. It may be a smaller school than any in FCPS, but the folks there can certainly make good trouble, especially against this school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone is watching the phase 2 meeting at Robinson, they had three split feeders...surprise, surprise they kept all three as split feeders in the pyramid.

Ooh.

Dish more please

Right now a parent is railing against adding Rolling Valley to WSHS

...Oh, and add a 4th spilt feeder they did not fix (so they fixed zero split feeders). They did close one attendance island.

Interesting.

The Thru consultant looked annoyed at her and basically blew her off, cause she spitballed a number of kids that could go to WSHS from those 200 townhomes. The consultant didn't answer why they added that neighborhood to WSHS.

It was priority 7 from Region 6.

So they ignored priorities 1-6 and went with this one? Wow, okay.

No. I’m pretty sure they incorporated those too.

This was recommendation number 6: "Adjust boundaries to increase enrollment at Lewis to address overcrowding. Community members pointed out that Lewis is
underutilized and suggested that boundaries be adjusted to better utilize Lewis and increase socioeconomic diversity."

Apologies, they seemed to have incorporated all of the specific changes. If Lewis had listed specific neighborhoods they wanted, THRU probably would have given them to them.

Lewis families and anyone else from the lower SES schools seemingly missed the boat. If COVID hadn’t happened, the boundary changes would have started and then gone through in 2020-2021, when the political climate was totally different. There would have 100% been equity moves at that point.

Ok sure.
But what is being done, they seem to entirely have ignored Lewis. It's underenrolled while others are over capacity. They just....pretended it doesn't exist?

Lewis doesn’t have boundary issues. Lewis has progamming issues. Drop IB and do full AP and attendance will come back.

It is shocking though that FCPS moved 200 upper middle class Rolling Valley jomes out of Lewis to WSHS.

Unbelievable. They are basically stomping on a struggling school when it’s already down.

It’s not down it’s dead and time for a change.

I assure you, Lewis is not dead. It may be a smaller school than any in FCPS, but the folks there can certainly make good trouble, especially against this school board.

Then where are they?? Why aren't they at every one of these meetings shouting from the rooftops? Why are they sitting in their hands when they are purposing moving supposed 'middle class' kids from there school??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

20 students from Lewis to WSHS, exactly.

Let’s stop the hysterics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

So they are only moving 20 Rolling Valleys students to West Springfield?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Pearls=clutched

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:South lakes is IB. What if the students does not want Ib and wants to transfer to Ap school. Which would be the choice?

Closest OPEN AP school. You have to provide your own transportation.

And, closest per home address, not, e.g. per ES district.

[Anonymous]

So WSHS gains 20 Lewis students and loses 173 to Lake Braddock for a net loss of 153 students.

So there is the student shift. The home shift has also been discussed.

No more nonsense posts please.

[Anonymous]

Scenario 4 seems to just responses to community feedback. Not necessarily Thru’s recommendations, right? It doesn’t seem to advance the priorities of school board policy 8130.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Pearls=clutched

Ok, I'm trying to get this all straight. They are moving 99 kids from West Orange Hunt (Sangster) to LB, they bring in 20 kids from Rolling Valley (that seems weirdly low to me that they would have ever had a split feeder with only 20 kids, but let's go with it). So that reduces WS by 79 kids. Where's the rest of the reduction comes from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Pearls=clutched

Ok, I'm trying to get this all straight. They are moving 99 kids from West Orange Hunt (Sangster) to LB, they bring in 20 kids from Rolling Valley (that seems weirdly low to me that they would have ever had a split feeder with only 20 kids, but let's go with it). So that reduces WS by 79 kids. Where's the rest of the reduction comes from?

The Keene Mill Island to White Oaks. Also, only Rolling Valley north of the parkway is going to WSHS. The rest is moving to Saratoga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Pearls=clutched

Ok, I'm trying to get this all straight. They are moving 99 kids from West Orange Hunt (Sangster) to LB, they bring in 20 kids from Rolling Valley (that seems weirdly low to me that they would have ever had a split feeder with only 20 kids, but let's go with it). So that reduces WS by 79 kids. Where's the rest of the reduction comes from?

White Oaks. Huge swath of townhomes west of Huntsman north of Old Keene Mill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Pearls=clutched

Ok, I'm trying to get this all straight. They are moving 99 kids from West Orange Hunt (Sangster) to LB, they bring in 20 kids from Rolling Valley (that seems weirdly low to me that they would have ever had a split feeder with only 20 kids, but let's go with it). So that reduces WS by 79 kids. Where's the rest of the reduction comes from?

The Keene Mill Island to White Oaks. Also, only Rolling Valley north of the parkway is going to WSHS. The rest is moving to Saratoga.

So only 20 kids at Rolling will go to WS and the rest to Saratoga?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why bring new areas to WSHS, better keep areas which are already there to minimize disruption, if overcrowding is suddenly not an issue. How does this make any sense?

WSHS LOST over 250 homes. Stop this nonsense you are trying. Same poster. Over and over again talking to yourself.

Can you please get your facts straight? "Homes" are not students. Many people who live in 'homes' don't have kids. What I want to know is exactly how many 'students' they are actually moving from Lewis at Rolling Valley to West Springfield?

If you look at the delta in Lewis enrollment for scenario 4, the answer is 20.

Yeah and Daventry had a low number too when they petitioned to move from Lewis to WSHS. SB approved it and school age population in the area shot up. Which is one reason why WSHS is crowded now. They shouldn’t move anyone else into WSHS boundary if there moving other kids out. Also it’s not fair to Lewis.