Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the four KaA scenario maps include the other changes Thru is proposing in that area?

Nope and they only show changes at the HS level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the four KaA scenario maps include the other changes Thru is proposing in that area?

No, it looks like the current maps. Emerald Chase shows up as Westfield (where it’s currently assigned) instead of South Lakes (where it’s sent under Scenario 4.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It is so puzzling that the Sangster poster wants to rezone other WSHS students to Lewis to "help Lewis" (a direct quote from one of the upset Sangster posters) so that the Sangster split feeder doesn't get sent to Lake Braddock with most of their classmates, friends, neighbors and community.

I think that the more the Sangster folks make arguments like that, the more support for them remaining at WSHS will drop like a lead balloon across the entire rest of the WSHS community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the options leave Centreville with under 2000 kids. Seems like that planned expansion to 3000 has to be cancelled now. Wonder if they’ll still try to expand it to 2500 to take Willow Springs at some point. They may want to build Centreville back up and let Fairfax HS be the school that eventually shrinks.

They’re already carving out bits of Fairfax HS and sending them to Chantilly and Oakton.

Are those sections parts of the City of Fairfax?

Only City of Fairfax neighborhoods are guaranteed enrollment at Fairfax High School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the four KaA scenario maps include the other changes Thru is proposing in that area?

Nope and they only show changes at the HS level.

Actually, you're wrong. They show changes to Centreville, Chantilly, and Westfield boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the four KaA scenario maps include the other changes Thru is proposing in that area?

Nope and they only show changes at the HS level.

Actually, you're wrong. They show changes to Centreville, Chantilly, and Westfield boundaries.

Right exactly. HS = High School

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

[/quote]

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in. [/quote]

It is so puzzling that the Sangster poster wants to rezone other WSHS students to Lewis to "help Lewis" (a direct quote from one of the upset Sangster posters) so that the Sangster split feeder doesn't get sent to Lake Braddock with most of their classmates, friends, neighbors and community.

I think that the more the Sangster folks make arguments like that, the more support for them remaining at WSHS will drop like a lead balloon across the entire rest of the WSHS community.[/quote]

Hi. Can you stop speaking for Sangster zoned for WS parents. They believe their community, friends, cohort is West Springfield. Clearly you are done for either Daventry or HV. I don't hear the Sangster parents speaking for you. Just shut it. And I agree with the poster who said to stop topping snack on Lewis. How do you think the Lewis families feel seeing posters crap all over their community. Just 🛑.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

[/quote]

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in. [/quote]

It is so puzzling that the Sangster poster wants to rezone other WSHS students to Lewis to "help Lewis" (a direct quote from one of the upset Sangster posters) so that the Sangster split feeder doesn't get sent to Lake Braddock with most of their classmates, friends, neighbors and community.

I think that the more the Sangster folks make arguments like that, the more support for them remaining at WSHS will drop like a lead balloon across the entire rest of the WSHS community.[/quote]

Hi. Can you stop speaking for Sangster zoned for WS parents. They believe their community, friends, cohort is West Springfield. Clearly you are done for either Daventry or HV. I don't hear the Sangster parents speaking for you. Just shut it. [b]And I agree with the poster who said to stop topping snack on Lewis.[/b] How do you think the Lewis families feel seeing posters crap all over their community. Just 🛑.[/quote]

What? Also you realize there are lot of parents on this board. It isn’t a 1:1 conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

Agreed. Other WSHS neighborhoods are looking at moving to lower performing schools. These are champagne problems for Sangster neighborhoods who could move from one great HS to another great HS. They’d be wise to focus on grandfathering.

Moving this pocket causes Lake Braddock to be overcapacity 102-103%, and does nothing to help Lewis. It also won't do anything to help WS overcrowding in the long run if you move them out and Rolling Valley kids in. Region 4 Scenerio 4 does little to solve any long term problems, and ticks off a neighborhood who doesn't believe the split is an issue for their families and feels very connected to the WS community (because they are). BRAC and Thru let region 4 down.

I disagree.

The Springfield BRAC members did a great job following the BRAC instructions on focusing eliminating split feeders.

The Sangster neighborhood is getting moved to an equal or better school if you look at SAT scores, within their community and which they have equal or closer ties to than WSHS.

Of all the possible rezoning scenarios, the Springfield BRAC did the best possible outcome for WSHS and the Sangster neighborhood.

The Rolling Valley rezoning is Sandy Anderson's pet project, so you cannot blame the BRAC committee members for that one.


Even so, it did eliminate a split feeder. Every change in map 4 for WSHS eliminated the WSHS split feeders.

You can't get mad at the BRAC committee members for following their instructions to a T. You can't get mad at them for following instructions, just because other pyramid BRAC reps ignored the instructions. You can't get mad at them for Rolling Valley, that is Sandy Anderson's thing and one of the main reasons why this rezoning process started.

Be mad at the process and the school board. Don't be mad at the volunteer BRAC reps for following the process they were told to follow using the criteria they were given.

Uggg...there's that faulty split feeder argument again. The majority of split feeders in every other pyramid were not closed and parents across the county overwhelming did not see split feeders as an issue (including the families at Sangster). 'Fixing' Split feeders was ranked towards the bottom of the boundary survey and other region representatives actually represented their communities. Both the West Springfield reps were Hunter Valley parents and kept Hunt Valley at WS instead of moving it to an unpopulated school. This is less about Sangster and more about how mismanaged this whole process has been. I actual appreciate all the work the BRAC put into this, but they were always set up to fail. Region 4 Scenerio 4 is not the right one for WS or for the greater FCPS community.

The process has been mismanaged but eliminating split feeders has always been a goal. That is a fact. Just because it wasn’t done at all schools across the county, and where it ranked on whatever priority list you point to doesn’t invalidate that.

Uggg ..again. Who said split feeders were an issue in the first place? An outside consultant who didn't know the region? A country wide survey of parents and teachers? Or was this just an 'idea' from one main board member who is running the process.

The school board put eliminaring split feeders into Policy 8130, not the Thru condultant and not BRAC committee members.

Eliminating the Sangster split feeder is not something new from Map 4.

It was part of the early maps too, Maps 1-3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this. BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS. There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS. But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in. That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this. BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS. There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS. But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in. That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this. BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS. There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS. But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in. That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

I might have the maps reversed, but Maps 1 & 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps.

For a visual, it was intended to be as if 2 phases were drawn on clear plastic, then set on top of each other to create one final map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this. BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS. There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS. But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in. That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

To the blue part, no.

A neighborhood needs to get rezoned out of WSHS, whether or not Rolling Valley is moved into WSHS or stays at Lewis.

WSHS needs to lose enough students to get to 105% capacity.

Moving Sangster out achieves this.

Moving RV in puts WSHS at, I think, 106% capacity. FCPS is saying RV will only be 5 students per grade, which everyone knows is not accurate based on the number of houses, around 280, and the Daventry history.

Moving Sangster out meand WSHS might not need another rezoning in 5 years.

Moving Rolling Valley in means WSHS will be just as overcrowded in 1 or 2 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in.

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl.

So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay.

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps. Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps. Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders. Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County. The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed. So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick. They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible. Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this. BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS. There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS. But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in. That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

The Region 4 BRAC (like many other regions) recommended that the split was not an issue and that if room allowed (after keeping HV at Sangster). It is listed on the grid in #8. Thur listened to the BRAC on keeping many other slips across the board ..why not this one?