Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, indeed, the WSHS did speak up for your Sangster neighborhood. It is right there in the notes. So accusing the BRAC members of throwing Sangster under the bus is not accurate and is lashing out at these volunteers incorrectly.

The answer is because FCPS wants WSHS to be rezoned to around 105% capacity or less, and does not want new split feeders created.

If the Thru and BRAC recommended maps do not get WSHS down to 105% capacity, then Dr. Reid and the school board rep Anderson will, making their choices which will involve far more disruptive changes than keeping Sangster together and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

The Hunt Valley proposed change from map 3 created a split feeder, which is explicitly against the terms of Policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to BRAC and Thru by the school board. The same would be said if Daventry is sent back to Lewis. It creates a split feeder


Eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock explicitly follows policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to Thru and BRAC by the school board.

Rolling Valley split feeder getting half sent to Irving/WSHS and the other half sent to Saratoga and staying at Key /Lews also follows Policy 8130 and the directives given BRAC and Thru by Reid and the school board.

Your beef should be with the school board, Reid and policy 8130, not with your BRAC reps or thru who are just following unstructions to the letter.

Sandy Anderson has stated that her goal was for all of Rolling Valley to go to WSHS, not half of the split feeder to switch to Saratoga and stay at Lewis. At the Lewis meeting Friday, Reid appeared surprised and taken off guard that RV was moved out of Lewis to WSHS. I think there is going to be a fight on this one. From the Lewis families sent to Saratoga who are now fighting to stay at Rolling Valley and to also go to WSHS, from Sandy Anderson, the Lewis families and the Rolling Valley neighborhood getting moved into WSHS fighting to get someone else (Daventry? Keene Mill? Hunt Valley?) moved into Lewis to replace the Rolling Valley families. And lewis families fighting to keep Rolling Valley at their school.

Sangster is not the only fight happening with WSHS. Monday's meeting at Irving will be interesting.

Seeing what Reid proposes in her final maps to address the can of worms Sandy Anderson opened with Rolling Valley to WSHS will be very interesting too.

You too sound informed. Can you answer the question of how many students Sangster sends to Irving /WS. Is it less than 20 kids per class?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Thank you for the clarity. If I'm reading everything right, it also looks like Sangster is bringing in less than 20 kids a class. BRAC has been asking for solid numbers from Thru because earlier numbers were inadvertently inflated with AAP. The math still isn't matching for me in how moving less than 20 kids a class from WS will make a significant impact in overcrowding?

There is one other neighborhood moving over to LB, the Keene Mill attendance island near White Oaks elementary.

Combined, they are exactly the amount of kids needed to get WSHS to 105%

Wow. I know they were trying to get at least to 105%, but that still sounds pretty overcrowded to me. Too bad larger changes weren't made for that area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Sangster/Irving/West Springfield and I currently have a child at each school. I have been predicting this boundary change since we bought our home in 2014 before our oldest started kindergarten. I think the change to LBSS is a good one for my child currently in elementary school. I think my neighbors can be convinced as well, but right now change is hard for them and they are digging in for a fight. The meeting tomorrow should be… interesting.

My kids went to Sangster, not long ago.

Most of the people in that neighborhood then expressed a wish to go to LB with the rest of Sangster.

Most people there sounded like you.

That is why I am flabbergasted that they are so upset by this.

Is it mostly parents of little kids upset, who are caught up in the anti rezoning fever? I don't hear this from middle and high school parents.

[Anonymous]

I went to a meeting for Sangster/Irving/West Springfield and I was shocked by who was in attendance. Parents of 1st graders and preschoolers who don’t want to be zoned to LBSS… OK… move in the next 6 years?!!? Or actually gain some experience with the school and see that everyone else is going to Lake Braddock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is LBSS really that much of a dump that families don’t want to send their kids there? I always thought it was pretty good, based on the test scores.

Lake Braddock is a fantastic school.

WSHS and Lake Braddock ovetlap quite a bit due to the communities, sports, social events, performing arts, theater, churches, scouts, military families and more.

Many Lake Braddock and WSHS families are shocked and surprised at this reaction from the Sangster split feeder neighborhood,

[Anonymous]

Yeah I would understand if you have a middle or high schoolers (reference the Sangster drama), but absolutely not for those with younger kids.

Disclaimer: just because I don't understand their feelings doesn't mean I'm right. I'm a sangster parent that is solidly in the LB side of the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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

Thank you for the clarity. If I'm reading everything right, it also looks like Sangster is bringing in less than 20 kids a class. BRAC has been asking for solid numbers from Thru because earlier numbers were inadvertently inflated with AAP. The math still isn't matching for me in how moving less than 20 kids a class from WS will make a significant impact in overcrowding?

There is one other neighborhood moving over to LB, the Keene Mill attendance island near White Oaks elementary.

Combined, they are exactly the amount of kids needed to get WSHS to 105%

Wow. I know they were trying to get at least to 105%, but that still sounds pretty overcrowded to me. Too bad larger changes weren't made for that area.

WSHS has some smart uses of space from the renovation.

105% capacity is less than the school has been at for years and does not feel overcrowded at all.

They only got trailers this year. 2 trailers, 4 classrooms total, for overflow of around 100-120 kids.

The proposed changes get WSHS back to where they were a couple of years ago, where they won't need trailers.

Honestly though, FCPS could do something far less disruptive than this rezoning, which involves simply waiting one year.

When class of 2026 graduates (735 seniors vs mid 600s average for all the other grades) WSHS will drop enrollment starting in 2026 by around 100 students.

Additionally, even though WSHS has been closed to transfers for at least a decade or more, FCPS views WSHS as "closed" to transfers, not CLOSED to transfers. Until a few years ago, WSHS averaged about 30 inbound transfers per year, almost all teachers kids, military living in Ft. Belvoir housing (they have special transfer regs) and German immersion kids. This number of inbound transfers to closed WSHS has held fairly steady for years.

Over the past couple of years, the number of transfers into "closed" WSHS has rapidly ballooned, to the point of doubling from their historical average of 30 from the 3 groups above, teachers kids, military and German immersion.

Last year, "closed" to transfers WSHS had 58 transfer students into WSHS, most from South County and surrounding high schools

A sangster parent asked me what argument they should use when I told them transportation and distance were a bad argument because the numbers work against them.

This is the argument I would use, the actual numbers provided by FCPS on their various dashboards

Wait for the class of 2026 to graduate
Send back all of the transfer students except for those 3 traditional groups, which should take the inbound transfers into WSHS back to around 30 transfers, plus or minus. Enforce the closed transfer policy.

Do both those things, which should drop WSHS enrollment by around 120 students, which would eliminate the need for trailers without rezoning a single student.

Don't rezone Rolling Valley into WSHS, because whether or not Sangster gets moved to Lake Braddock, the Rolling Valley numbers are too unpredictable right now and are very likely to balloon to far more than 20 students, based on the recent history of Daventry from Lewis to WSHS.

Use FCPS concrete numbers and written policies to argue your position. Not feelings, transportation or arguing that a different neighborhood should be rezoned so you can stay at WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, indeed, the WSHS did speak up for your Sangster neighborhood. It is right there in the notes. So accusing the BRAC members of throwing Sangster under the bus is not accurate and is lashing out at these volunteers incorrectly.

The answer is because FCPS wants WSHS to be rezoned to around 105% capacity or less, and does not want new split feeders created.

If the Thru and BRAC recommended maps do not get WSHS down to 105% capacity, then Dr. Reid and the school board rep Anderson will, making their choices which will involve far more disruptive changes than keeping Sangster together and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

The Hunt Valley proposed change from map 3 created a split feeder, which is explicitly against the terms of Policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to BRAC and Thru by the school board. The same would be said if Daventry is sent back to Lewis. It creates a split feeder


Eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock explicitly follows policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to Thru and BRAC by the school board.

Rolling Valley split feeder getting half sent to Irving/WSHS and the other half sent to Saratoga and staying at Key /Lews also follows Policy 8130 and the directives given BRAC and Thru by Reid and the school board.

Your beef should be with the school board, Reid and policy 8130, not with your BRAC reps or thru who are just following unstructions to the letter.

Sandy Anderson has stated that her goal was for all of Rolling Valley to go to WSHS, not half of the split feeder to switch to Saratoga and stay at Lewis. At the Lewis meeting Friday, Reid appeared surprised and taken off guard that RV was moved out of Lewis to WSHS. I think there is going to be a fight on this one. From the Lewis families sent to Saratoga who are now fighting to stay at Rolling Valley and to also go to WSHS, from Sandy Anderson, the Lewis families and the Rolling Valley neighborhood getting moved into WSHS fighting to get someone else (Daventry? Keene Mill? Hunt Valley?) moved into Lewis to replace the Rolling Valley families. And lewis families fighting to keep Rolling Valley at their school.

Sangster is not the only fight happening with WSHS. Monday's meeting at Irving will be interesting.

Seeing what Reid proposes in her final maps to address the can of worms Sandy Anderson opened with Rolling Valley to WSHS will be very interesting too.

You too sound informed. Can you answer the question of how many students Sangster sends to Irving /WS. Is it less than 20 kids per class?

Nah- that person is just throwing out other areas (Daventry, Keene Mill, Hunt Valley) to keep things going and away from the RVES/Saratoga moves. Daventry creates a split feeder. Keene Mill moves walkers to both Irving and WSHS to needing bus transportation (not to mention LBSS is closer than Lewis) and Hunt Valley is closer to South County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting for Sangster/Irving/West Springfield and I was shocked by who was in attendance. Parents of 1st graders and preschoolers who don’t want to be zoned to LBSS… OK… move in the next 6 years?!!? Or actually gain some experience with the school and see that everyone else is going to Lake Braddock.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.

I think keep RV split feeder at Lewis and send that entire area to Saratoga so they are no linger a split feeder.

Then send back the 2-3 dozen students transferring into WSHS since it is closed to transfers.

Wait for class of 2026 to graduate.

Look at the numbers then without rezoning anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.

Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.

Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.

This would be a good solution too.

[Anonymous]

Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.

Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.

Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.