FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the topic: has everyone contacted SB to protest meetings in Sept but no new boundary maps until October? And extending timeline to incorporate the new high school?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1290689.page :


“Are you concerned about any of these issues? Comprehensive boundary review, Thru consulting integrity, school start times, buses, purchase of new high school, AAP center, IB programs. If so, please write to SB members and Reid ASAP!

Addresses: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sample email text:

I am writing in response to the latest meeting notes and communications about the county-wide boundary review. While I understand that the boundary review was set in motion years ago and that the policy has specific goals in mind (e.g., "eliminating attendance islands"), I also know from following the process that the full current slate of issues is NOT being addressed. I strongly urge the Superintendent and School Board to re-calibrate important decision making that will impact thousands of families rather than rushing to meet a previously set deadline. For example:
- The suggested boundary change maps released by your hired consultant Thru have been challenged on many fronts as not meeting community needs or student safety.
- No revised maps have been released, yet the Superintendent plans to host meetings in each pyramid in September. To discuss what? This would merely be performative to meet the letter of obligations, but not in fact give people updated information to react to and comment on since you've now said new maps will be released in mid-October. Holding "meetings" in September is insulting and unacceptable.
- School start time changes have been casually rolled into boundary change decisions, without an idea of how many families would be affected by boundary changes and therefore how many students will be assigned to each bus route. It's been suggested by school board members that grandfathered students will not be provided buses, meaning that only students with more affluent families will be able to avoid switching high or middle schools (and the negative mental health and academic plunge of switching schools).
- FCPS - really taxpayers - purchased a new high school, yet the additional seats in that school for 2026 are apparently not being considered in the calculations of which students should move schools to accommodate ideal capacity and commute times. This alone is reason to delay the boundary review decisions and recalibrate.
- Issues like student transfers for middle and high schools are not being addressed, although they affect capacity and boundaries: for example the issue of offering AAP at every middle school to eliminate center transfers and then requests for HS transfers. Then the bigger issue of expensive IB programs being underutilized (i.e., unwanted) at FCPS HS in favor of AP schools, but students transferring "for" IB to avoid lower performing schools. Please consider confining IB to one or two schools and letting students access the more popular and financially-positive AP programs.
- These issues should be addressed by any comprehensive boundary review before students and staff are moved around like pawns.
This all seems urgent and obvious to me as a parent of FCPS students and a taxpayer supporting the system.

Please pause and prioritize reasonable actions that help students rather than meet old deadlines or political promises. We are one of the largest school systems in the country, and a leader, and need to reflect that in our decisions and work for our students and a better future.”

+ 100

Having worked in an area where public comments are regularly reviewed, I can say the least effective approach is submitting a generic letter that many others are also sending. This dilutes the message and typically results in a generic reply such as “see comment X.” What carries far more weight is when families share unique perspectives and personal experiences related to the proposed boundary change. I understand it takes more effort to write an original email rather than copying and pasting a template, but if you feel strongly about the impact of these changes, it’s worth the time. A personal statement about how the proposal affects your child and family makes a meaningful difference. Without that, the message often won’t resonate with those reviewing the comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the topic: has everyone contacted SB to protest meetings in Sept but no new boundary maps until October? And extending timeline to incorporate the new high school?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1290689.page :


“Are you concerned about any of these issues? Comprehensive boundary review, Thru consulting integrity, school start times, buses, purchase of new high school, AAP center, IB programs. If so, please write to SB members and Reid ASAP!

Addresses: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sample email text:

I am writing in response to the latest meeting notes and communications about the county-wide boundary review. While I understand that the boundary review was set in motion years ago and that the policy has specific goals in mind (e.g., "eliminating attendance islands"), I also know from following the process that the full current slate of issues is NOT being addressed. I strongly urge the Superintendent and School Board to re-calibrate important decision making that will impact thousands of families rather than rushing to meet a previously set deadline. For example:
- The suggested boundary change maps released by your hired consultant Thru have been challenged on many fronts as not meeting community needs or student safety.
- No revised maps have been released, yet the Superintendent plans to host meetings in each pyramid in September. To discuss what? This would merely be performative to meet the letter of obligations, but not in fact give people updated information to react to and comment on since you've now said new maps will be released in mid-October. Holding "meetings" in September is insulting and unacceptable.
- School start time changes have been casually rolled into boundary change decisions, without an idea of how many families would be affected by boundary changes and therefore how many students will be assigned to each bus route. It's been suggested by school board members that grandfathered students will not be provided buses, meaning that only students with more affluent families will be able to avoid switching high or middle schools (and the negative mental health and academic plunge of switching schools).
- FCPS - really taxpayers - purchased a new high school, yet the additional seats in that school for 2026 are apparently not being considered in the calculations of which students should move schools to accommodate ideal capacity and commute times. This alone is reason to delay the boundary review decisions and recalibrate.
- Issues like student transfers for middle and high schools are not being addressed, although they affect capacity and boundaries: for example the issue of offering AAP at every middle school to eliminate center transfers and then requests for HS transfers. Then the bigger issue of expensive IB programs being underutilized (i.e., unwanted) at FCPS HS in favor of AP schools, but students transferring "for" IB to avoid lower performing schools. Please consider confining IB to one or two schools and letting students access the more popular and financially-positive AP programs.
- These issues should be addressed by any comprehensive boundary review before students and staff are moved around like pawns.
This all seems urgent and obvious to me as a parent of FCPS students and a taxpayer supporting the system.

Please pause and prioritize reasonable actions that help students rather than meet old deadlines or political promises. We are one of the largest school systems in the country, and a leader, and need to reflect that in our decisions and work for our students and a better future.”

+ 100

Having worked in an area where public comments are regularly reviewed, I can say the least effective approach is submitting a generic letter that many others are also sending. This dilutes the message and typically results in a generic reply such as “see comment X.” What carries far more weight is when families share unique perspectives and personal experiences related to the proposed boundary change. I understand it takes more effort to write an original email rather than copying and pasting a template, but if you feel strongly about the impact of these changes, it’s worth the time. A personal statement about how the proposal affects your child and family makes a meaningful difference. Without that, the message often won’t resonate with those reviewing the comments.

+1
And, try to keep it short and use bullets rather than a lengthy, wordy message. The PP with the sample letter sounds like that Nextdoor poster who writes lengthy, wordy essays that confuse the message.

Keep your message simple. Put it up front and then write your paragraph. Finish with a simple request or message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the topic: has everyone contacted SB to protest meetings in Sept but no new boundary maps until October? And extending timeline to incorporate the new high school?

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1290689.page :


“Are you concerned about any of these issues? Comprehensive boundary review, Thru consulting integrity, school start times, buses, purchase of new high school, AAP center, IB programs. If so, please write to SB members and Reid ASAP!

Addresses: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

Sample email text:

I am writing in response to the latest meeting notes and communications about the county-wide boundary review. While I understand that the boundary review was set in motion years ago and that the policy has specific goals in mind (e.g., "eliminating attendance islands"), I also know from following the process that the full current slate of issues is NOT being addressed. I strongly urge the Superintendent and School Board to re-calibrate important decision making that will impact thousands of families rather than rushing to meet a previously set deadline. For example:
- The suggested boundary change maps released by your hired consultant Thru have been challenged on many fronts as not meeting community needs or student safety.
- No revised maps have been released, yet the Superintendent plans to host meetings in each pyramid in September. To discuss what? This would merely be performative to meet the letter of obligations, but not in fact give people updated information to react to and comment on since you've now said new maps will be released in mid-October. Holding "meetings" in September is insulting and unacceptable.
- School start time changes have been casually rolled into boundary change decisions, without an idea of how many families would be affected by boundary changes and therefore how many students will be assigned to each bus route. It's been suggested by school board members that grandfathered students will not be provided buses, meaning that only students with more affluent families will be able to avoid switching high or middle schools (and the negative mental health and academic plunge of switching schools).
- FCPS - really taxpayers - purchased a new high school, yet the additional seats in that school for 2026 are apparently not being considered in the calculations of which students should move schools to accommodate ideal capacity and commute times. This alone is reason to delay the boundary review decisions and recalibrate.
- Issues like student transfers for middle and high schools are not being addressed, although they affect capacity and boundaries: for example the issue of offering AAP at every middle school to eliminate center transfers and then requests for HS transfers. Then the bigger issue of expensive IB programs being underutilized (i.e., unwanted) at FCPS HS in favor of AP schools, but students transferring "for" IB to avoid lower performing schools. Please consider confining IB to one or two schools and letting students access the more popular and financially-positive AP programs.
- These issues should be addressed by any comprehensive boundary review before students and staff are moved around like pawns.
This all seems urgent and obvious to me as a parent of FCPS students and a taxpayer supporting the system.

Please pause and prioritize reasonable actions that help students rather than meet old deadlines or political promises. We are one of the largest school systems in the country, and a leader, and need to reflect that in our decisions and work for our students and a better future.”

+ 100

Having worked in an area where public comments are regularly reviewed, I can say the least effective approach is submitting a generic letter that many others are also sending. This dilutes the message and typically results in a generic reply such as “see comment X.” What carries far more weight is when families share unique perspectives and personal experiences related to the proposed boundary change. I understand it takes more effort to write an original email rather than copying and pasting a template, but if you feel strongly about the impact of these changes, it’s worth the time. A personal statement about how the proposal affects your child and family makes a meaningful difference. Without that, the message often won’t resonate with those reviewing the comments.

I wrote my own a few weeks back, back when the academy was suggested. I gave them what school my kid attends, my reasons for not wanting an academy, my reasons for wanting the kids whose base school is Carson to attend the new HS, and why I wanted the new school to be an AP school and not IB.

It shouldn't take too long to generate an email that addresses why you are concerned about the subject. They will 100% see anything that appears to be a template as being less valued and discount those opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw in Washington Business Journal that some of the vacant and dilapidated buildings in Springfield near the Old Keene Mill/Backlick/495 Interchange have finally been sold for residential redevelopment. Those would be squarely in Lewis’s attendance area.

Future developments are not part of the review.

300 Lewis zoned homes are opening in a few months at the mall.

Lewis' attendance issues will be fixed in 1 year via new development.

Lewis might not have an attendance issue if people who shoudl attend the school actually attended the school. People transfer out because they don't want to be at Lewis. What makes you think the new families will stay at Lewis?

Attempting to stop or reduce transfers without addressing the root cause is not a real solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw in Washington Business Journal that some of the vacant and dilapidated buildings in Springfield near the Old Keene Mill/Backlick/495 Interchange have finally been sold for residential redevelopment. Those would be squarely in Lewis’s attendance area.

Future developments are not part of the review.

300 Lewis zoned homes are opening in a few months at the mall.

Lewis' attendance issues will be fixed in 1 year via new development.

Lewis might not have an attendance issue if people who shoudl attend the school actually attended the school. People transfer out because they don't want to be at Lewis. What makes you think the new families will stay at Lewis?

Attempting to stop or reduce transfers without addressing the root cause is not a real solution.

They're mostly transfering out for AP and language classes. Add more of those at Lewis and there's no reason to transfer out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just saw in Washington Business Journal that some of the vacant and dilapidated buildings in Springfield near the Old Keene Mill/Backlick/495 Interchange have finally been sold for residential redevelopment. Those would be squarely in Lewis’s attendance area.

Future developments are not part of the review.

300 Lewis zoned homes are opening in a few months at the mall.

Lewis' attendance issues will be fixed in 1 year via new development.

Lewis might not have an attendance issue if people who shoudl attend the school actually attended the school. People transfer out because they don't want to be at Lewis. What makes you think the new families will stay at Lewis?

The problem is that FCPS has known for some time that IB vs AP is an "out" for those wanting a transfer. But, it has made no difference.

Attempting to stop or reduce transfers without addressing the root cause is not a real solution.

They're mostly transfering out for AP and language classes. Add more of those at Lewis and there's no reason to transfer out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom Line Up Front

FCPS is conducting a major boundary review that would move 8,660 students under their current "Scenario 3" proposal. This affects roughly 5% of all district students and represents one of the largest boundary adjustments in recent years.
Timeline: We're in Phase 2 of a two-year process. Next major milestone is September 24, 2025 committee meeting, followed by community meetings in October.

Schools Most Impacted

Based on the official scorecard, here are the schools facing significant changes:
Major Enrollment Reductions:

Bailey's Upper ES: -26% enrollment (Justice pyramid)
Halley ES: -23% enrollment (South County pyramid)
Pine Spring ES: -22% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Graham Road ES: -21% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Fort Hunt ES: -19% enrollment (West Potomac pyramid)

Overcrowding Relief:

Pine Spring ES: 111% → 89% utilization
McLean HS: 109% → 100% utilization
Keene Mill ES: 107% → 92% utilization

Schools Gaining Students:

London Towne ES: +8% enrollment
Fairfax HS: +4% enrollment (now at 102% capacity - new concern)
Lake Braddock HS & MS: +4% each

Program Access Issues

The biggest disruption isn't boundary changes - it's program access:

2,252 students lose FLES (Foreign Language Elementary) access
787 Special Education students affected
512 Full-Time AAP Center students impacted

FLES impact is massive because it's offered at only 40% of elementary schools, and boundary changes mean many kids will no longer attend FLES schools.

Proximity Analysis

Distance impacts are mixed:

84% of moved students: Less than 1-mile change
4,424 students get closer to their school
4,236 students get farther from their school
95 students face 3+ mile increases (flagged for review)

Red Flags and Concerns

Questionable Efficiency: Schools like Fort Hunt ES dropping to 64% utilization raises serious questions about resource allocation and planning logic.
Program Disruption Priority: The district is prioritizing boundary "fixes" over maintaining program access, which may not align with family priorities.
Advisory Committee Resistance: The committee is reportedly pushing back on major changes, preferring minimal disruption over comprehensive boundary optimization.
Missing Information: The presentation materials to date lack crucial details about which specific neighborhoods and streets are affected.

What's Still Unknown

Specific neighborhood impacts - which streets/communities are moving where
Receiving school capacity - can schools absorb incoming students?
Transportation details - actual driving distances vs. radius analysis
Grandfathering policies - will current students finish at their schools?

Process Moving Forward

Sept 24: Committee reviews final changes
Oct 13-30: Community meetings
Nov 12: Review community feedback
Nov 24: Final committee recommendations
Implementation: Likely fall 2026

Hot Take
This boundary review affects thousands of families with mixed outcomes. While some overcrowded schools get relief, the changes create new inefficiencies and significant program access disruptions. The scale suggests this is more about comprehensive redistricting than targeted problem-solving.

Key Question for Affected Families: Is your school on the target list? If so, start engaging in the community meeting process now, because these changes have major implications for your family's school experience and daily logistics.

The full scorecard and neighborhood-specific details should be available in the forthcoming separate analysis document but not provided to date.

This summary is based on an excerpt of the scorecard that appears at p. 21 of the slide deck for the September 3, 2025 BRAC meeting.

But that excerpt was only dealing with changes made to eliminate attendance islands or change the boundaries of schools located outside their attendance areas.

There may be other schools that are facing "signficant changes," but they aren't referenced above because the proposed boundary changes aren't based on eliminating an attendance island/school outside its zone, but instead driven by eliminating a split feeder or addressing overcrowding.

The presentation indicates that Thru was still working with its "Scenario 3," which contemplated boundary changes to address all these issues, so the excerpt in the deck isn't providing a full picture.

How would reducing Fort Hunt Elementary from 80% capacity to 64% capacity solve any challenges? Wouldn't that put the school at-risk for a merger or less funding? I understand it could make some in the local community happy by virtue of less "outsiders" being bused in, but what's the overall goal by reducing these attendance islands? There are other schools with attendance islands that aren't even on the list like Stratford Landing Elementary and others throughout Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

We're in the Gambrill neighborhoods that are currently in the Hunt Valley - Irving - WSHS pyramid but if we got moved to Lewis (as has been rumored but not, thankfully, on any of the proposed maps so far), we'd run into the same thing, as Lewis HS is part of the Franconia magisterial district with a different school board rep and a different Board of Supervisors rep. Who knows if they'll consider that issue in the next set of maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom Line Up Front

FCPS is conducting a major boundary review that would move 8,660 students under their current "Scenario 3" proposal. This affects roughly 5% of all district students and represents one of the largest boundary adjustments in recent years.
Timeline: We're in Phase 2 of a two-year process. Next major milestone is September 24, 2025 committee meeting, followed by community meetings in October.

Schools Most Impacted

Based on the official scorecard, here are the schools facing significant changes:
Major Enrollment Reductions:

Bailey's Upper ES: -26% enrollment (Justice pyramid)
Halley ES: -23% enrollment (South County pyramid)
Pine Spring ES: -22% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Graham Road ES: -21% enrollment (Falls Church pyramid)
Fort Hunt ES: -19% enrollment (West Potomac pyramid)

Overcrowding Relief:

Pine Spring ES: 111% → 89% utilization
McLean HS: 109% → 100% utilization
Keene Mill ES: 107% → 92% utilization

Schools Gaining Students:

London Towne ES: +8% enrollment
Fairfax HS: +4% enrollment (now at 102% capacity - new concern)
Lake Braddock HS & MS: +4% each

Program Access Issues

The biggest disruption isn't boundary changes - it's program access:

2,252 students lose FLES (Foreign Language Elementary) access
787 Special Education students affected
512 Full-Time AAP Center students impacted

FLES impact is massive because it's offered at only 40% of elementary schools, and boundary changes mean many kids will no longer attend FLES schools.

Proximity Analysis

Distance impacts are mixed:

84% of moved students: Less than 1-mile change
4,424 students get closer to their school
4,236 students get farther from their school
95 students face 3+ mile increases (flagged for review)

Red Flags and Concerns

Questionable Efficiency: Schools like Fort Hunt ES dropping to 64% utilization raises serious questions about resource allocation and planning logic.
Program Disruption Priority: The district is prioritizing boundary "fixes" over maintaining program access, which may not align with family priorities.
Advisory Committee Resistance: The committee is reportedly pushing back on major changes, preferring minimal disruption over comprehensive boundary optimization.
Missing Information: The presentation materials to date lack crucial details about which specific neighborhoods and streets are affected.

What's Still Unknown

Specific neighborhood impacts - which streets/communities are moving where
Receiving school capacity - can schools absorb incoming students?
Transportation details - actual driving distances vs. radius analysis
Grandfathering policies - will current students finish at their schools?

Process Moving Forward

Sept 24: Committee reviews final changes
Oct 13-30: Community meetings
Nov 12: Review community feedback
Nov 24: Final committee recommendations
Implementation: Likely fall 2026

Hot Take
This boundary review affects thousands of families with mixed outcomes. While some overcrowded schools get relief, the changes create new inefficiencies and significant program access disruptions. The scale suggests this is more about comprehensive redistricting than targeted problem-solving.

Key Question for Affected Families: Is your school on the target list? If so, start engaging in the community meeting process now, because these changes have major implications for your family's school experience and daily logistics.

The full scorecard and neighborhood-specific details should be available in the forthcoming separate analysis document but not provided to date.

This summary is based on an excerpt of the scorecard that appears at p. 21 of the slide deck for the September 3, 2025 BRAC meeting.

But that excerpt was only dealing with changes made to eliminate attendance islands or change the boundaries of schools located outside their attendance areas.

There may be other schools that are facing "signficant changes," but they aren't referenced above because the proposed boundary changes aren't based on eliminating an attendance island/school outside its zone, but instead driven by eliminating a split feeder or addressing overcrowding.

The presentation indicates that Thru was still working with its "Scenario 3," which contemplated boundary changes to address all these issues, so the excerpt in the deck isn't providing a full picture.

How would reducing Fort Hunt Elementary from 80% capacity to 64% capacity solve any challenges? Wouldn't that put the school at-risk for a merger or less funding? I understand it could make some in the local community happy by virtue of less "outsiders" being bused in, but what's the overall goal by reducing these attendance islands? There are other schools with attendance islands that aren't even on the list like Stratford Landing Elementary and others throughout Fairfax County.

They are operating on an assumption that attendance islands (as they define them by looking simply at the current boundary maps) result in students who feel isolated and less connected to their assigned schools than they would feel if a school’s boundaries were contiguous. So they can either reassign or “bridge” the island to eliminate it.

It’s much ado about nothing, basically nonsense crafted by the School Board to effect changes that provide limited benefits. In some cases eliminating attendance islands pulls most of the diversity out of a school. In some cases it results in schools that are well under capacity. In Fort Hunt’s case, it does both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

Most of WSHS zone does not get to vote for their school board rep, due to board of supervisors gerrymandering Pat Herrity's Springfield district a couple year's ago in an attempt to drive him out.

Not voting for the Springfield Rep is not a legitimate argument for Sangster families as the only WSHS neighborhoods that fully vote for the Springfield rep are Hunt Valley and Orange Hunt.

Most of Cardinal Forest and all of Keene Mill vote for the Braddock district rep.

All of West Springfield Elementary and part of Rolling Valley vote for the Franconia district rep.

Most of Rolling Valley votes for the Springfield rep, but not all of it.

Irving now sits in the Braddock district.

Half of Saratoga (zoned for Lewis) votes for the Springfield rep instead of the Franconia rep.

All of this was gerrymandered by Supervisor Chair McKay at the 11th hour at the last redistricting, in spite of many objections from West Springfield families and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity. Nearly all of the redistricting in Fairfax County targeted dividing West Springfield into peacemeal voting districts, even the neighborhoods walkable to Pat Herrity's office on Rolling Rd and in spite of 22152 having the least population shift (least growth and least loss) in the entire county.

Voting for the Springfield rep instead of the Braddock rep just is not a valid argument against eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

Most of WSHS zone does not get to vote for their school board rep, due to board of supervisors gerrymandering Pat Herrity's Springfield district a couple year's ago in an attempt to drive him out.

Not voting for the Springfield Rep is not a legitimate argument for Sangster families as the only WSHS neighborhoods that fully vote for the Springfield rep are Hunt Valley and Orange Hunt.

Most of Cardinal Forest and all of Keene Mill vote for the Braddock district rep.

All of West Springfield Elementary and part of Rolling Valley vote for the Franconia district rep.

Most of Rolling Valley votes for the Springfield rep, but not all of it.

Irving now sits in the Braddock district.

Half of Saratoga (zoned for Lewis) votes for the Springfield rep instead of the Franconia rep.

All of this was gerrymandered by Supervisor Chair McKay at the 11th hour at the last redistricting, in spite of many objections from West Springfield families and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity. Nearly all of the redistricting in Fairfax County targeted dividing West Springfield into peacemeal voting districts, even the neighborhoods walkable to Pat Herrity's office on Rolling Rd and in spite of 22152 having the least population shift (least growth and least loss) in the entire county.

Voting for the Springfield rep instead of the Braddock rep just is not a valid argument against eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock.

Redistricting happens. Sounds like you republicans need to move on and stop whining. That part of Herrity’s district shifts every time the county redistricts because of fluctuations between Springfield, Braddock, Mount Vernon, and Providence.

It’s not some vast left wing conspiracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

Most of WSHS zone does not get to vote for their school board rep, due to board of supervisors gerrymandering Pat Herrity's Springfield district a couple year's ago in an attempt to drive him out.

Not voting for the Springfield Rep is not a legitimate argument for Sangster families as the only WSHS neighborhoods that fully vote for the Springfield rep are Hunt Valley and Orange Hunt.

Most of Cardinal Forest and all of Keene Mill vote for the Braddock district rep.

All of West Springfield Elementary and part of Rolling Valley vote for the Franconia district rep.

Most of Rolling Valley votes for the Springfield rep, but not all of it.

Irving now sits in the Braddock district.

Half of Saratoga (zoned for Lewis) votes for the Springfield rep instead of the Franconia rep.

All of this was gerrymandered by Supervisor Chair McKay at the 11th hour at the last redistricting, in spite of many objections from West Springfield families and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity. Nearly all of the redistricting in Fairfax County targeted dividing West Springfield into peacemeal voting districts, even the neighborhoods walkable to Pat Herrity's office on Rolling Rd and in spite of 22152 having the least population shift (least growth and least loss) in the entire county.

Voting for the Springfield rep instead of the Braddock rep just is not a valid argument against eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock.

Redistricting happens. Sounds like you republicans need to move on and stop whining. That part of Herrity’s district shifts every time the county redistricts because of fluctuations between Springfield, Braddock, Mount Vernon, and Providence.

It’s not some vast left wing conspiracy.

7/9 of the areas redistricting were Springfield district, in spite of all the population growth occurring in other parts of the county.

The maps were literally switched at 10PM before the day of the redistricting deadline.

It was blatant gerrymandering of the Springfield district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

Most of WSHS zone does not get to vote for their school board rep, due to board of supervisors gerrymandering Pat Herrity's Springfield district a couple year's ago in an attempt to drive him out.

Not voting for the Springfield Rep is not a legitimate argument for Sangster families as the only WSHS neighborhoods that fully vote for the Springfield rep are Hunt Valley and Orange Hunt.

Most of Cardinal Forest and all of Keene Mill vote for the Braddock district rep.

All of West Springfield Elementary and part of Rolling Valley vote for the Franconia district rep.

Most of Rolling Valley votes for the Springfield rep, but not all of it.

Irving now sits in the Braddock district.

Half of Saratoga (zoned for Lewis) votes for the Springfield rep instead of the Franconia rep.

All of this was gerrymandered by Supervisor Chair McKay at the 11th hour at the last redistricting, in spite of many objections from West Springfield families and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity. Nearly all of the redistricting in Fairfax County targeted dividing West Springfield into peacemeal voting districts, even the neighborhoods walkable to Pat Herrity's office on Rolling Rd and in spite of 22152 having the least population shift (least growth and least loss) in the entire county.

Voting for the Springfield rep instead of the Braddock rep just is not a valid argument against eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock.

Redistricting happens. Sounds like you republicans need to move on and stop whining. That part of Herrity’s district shifts every time the county redistricts because of fluctuations between Springfield, Braddock, Mount Vernon, and Providence.

It’s not some vast left wing conspiracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Fairfax County School Board!

You already probably know this, but at this point the base of the Democratic Party is the professional class. When the Democrats propose using their kids to equitize schools, they end up significantly cannibalizing their base. And, before you continue your drivel about only republicans being against redistricting, I voted for Walkinshaw by mail because I can’t stomach what is happening to our country, but it sure as hell was a lot more difficult decision than it should’ve been - all because ignorant folks like you pretend that it’s just the republicans who want their kids to have good schools.

I won’t be voting for any Dem at the state level, unless the school board comes to its senses PDQ and shelves this entire disaster of a review. I wish that weren’t the case, but the ballot box is the only thing the school board seems to care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster Split Feeder Family here -

Most of Sangster is closer to LB. We are about 100 houses that are in the WSHS district (in terms of voting representations, neighborhood communities etc.)

The homes physically closest to Sangster are also closest to WSHS.

We have been petitioning to stay a split feeder and continue going to WSHS for several reasons, but one main issue is for our voting representation. We will be voting for WS seats/reps because of our location, but our students will be attending a school where we do not get to vote for issues.

LBSS is a great school and most of Sangster is physically closer, but for our small neighborhood we are closer to WS and do not mind being split.

Most of WSHS zone does not get to vote for their school board rep, due to board of supervisors gerrymandering Pat Herrity's Springfield district a couple year's ago in an attempt to drive him out.

Not voting for the Springfield Rep is not a legitimate argument for Sangster families as the only WSHS neighborhoods that fully vote for the Springfield rep are Hunt Valley and Orange Hunt.

Most of Cardinal Forest and all of Keene Mill vote for the Braddock district rep.

All of West Springfield Elementary and part of Rolling Valley vote for the Franconia district rep.

Most of Rolling Valley votes for the Springfield rep, but not all of it.

Irving now sits in the Braddock district.

Half of Saratoga (zoned for Lewis) votes for the Springfield rep instead of the Franconia rep.

All of this was gerrymandered by Supervisor Chair McKay at the 11th hour at the last redistricting, in spite of many objections from West Springfield families and Springfield Supervisor Pat Herrity. Nearly all of the redistricting in Fairfax County targeted dividing West Springfield into peacemeal voting districts, even the neighborhoods walkable to Pat Herrity's office on Rolling Rd and in spite of 22152 having the least population shift (least growth and least loss) in the entire county.

Voting for the Springfield rep instead of the Braddock rep just is not a valid argument against eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock.

Redistricting happens. Sounds like you republicans need to move on and stop whining. That part of Herrity’s district shifts every time the county redistricts because of fluctuations between Springfield, Braddock, Mount Vernon, and Providence.

It’s not some vast left wing conspiracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Fairfax County School Board!

You already probably know this, but at this point the base of the Democratic Party is the professional class. When the Democrats propose using their kids to equitize schools, they end up significantly cannibalizing their base. And, before you continue your drivel about only republicans being against redistricting, I voted for Walkinshaw by mail because I can’t stomach what is happening to our country, but it sure as hell was a lot more difficult decision than it should’ve been - all because ignorant folks like you pretend that it’s just the republicans who want their kids to have good schools.

I won’t be voting for any Dem at the state level, unless the school board comes to its senses PDQ and shelves this entire disaster of a review. I wish that weren’t the case, but the ballot box is the only thing the school board seems to care about.

Take a deep breath. Breathe. Calm down.

Redistricting for political districts. Not redistricting for school boundaries.

The person was whining about poor old Herrity allegedly being “gerrymandered” out of his seat. Even though he easily won re election. No one is commenting on school boundaries here.