Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.

I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.

I'm not the OP, but honestly, it is going to happen sooner than later. Moving Sangster is a bandaid (bring the numbers to the tippy top of what they are calling 'acceptable overcrowding..105%). Something larger will have to give, and you can't move any more into LB...It will have to go the other way (Daventry/HV/Others?).

WSHS will drop by approximately 100 students when class of 2026 graduates.

105% is not overcrowded at WSHS.

The trailers are not needed once it gets to around 107% which is where it was a year or two ago.

WSHS only needs to lose around 120 or so students to hit 105%

Between Sangster getting rezoned and 2026 graduating, WSHS should lose around 200-250 students by fall 2026.

Good luck with that!

West Springfield class of 2026 is 735 students

Irving 8th grade is 579 students

That is a decrease of 156 students at WSHS high school between June 4, 2026 graduation and the 2026 school year, just from Class of 2026 graduating.

Irving transfers out around 55 students per grade to Lake Braddock for AAP.

All of those AAP students will return to WSHS for 9th grade.

This means when you factor in both the graduating seniors, plus the AAP kids returning from Lake Braddock, WSHS will drop by roughly 100 students starting the 2026 school year without a single student getting rezoned.

If FCPS starts enforcing WSHS being closed to transfers, WSHS could decrease by 120-130 students in 2026.

WSHS will drop from 2841 students this year, to somewhere around 2725-2750 students next year, just from the graduation of Class of 2026, a smaller enrollment than WSHS had in the 2024-25 school year, which was 2781 students.

This is before a single studdnt is rezoned from WSHS. If you add in the 125 or so students getting rezoned, WSHS could easily be around 2600 students by the start of the 2026 school year.

Insult if you must, but realize that the numbers are the numbers.

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:151,0

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:150,0

It’s not quite that simple. The current WSHS 9th grade class was 634 when 8th graders and now 711 as freshmen. That’s more than the 50 AAP transfers returning. There’s usually some additional growth from the K-8 private school kids. And while this year’s 8th grade class is abnormally small, the 7th grade class is back over 650. WSHS enrollment numbers have likely peaked, but they won’t roll off as quickly as you’re predicting.

When I just looked at the tool posted to check on this. I saw that Irving 8th grade last year was 640

The same class (now freshman) in 9th are at 701. So that is 60 kids, not much more than 50ish from LBSS.

About 50 LB AAP kids, and around a dozen plus military and St. Bernadette students combined. That sounds about right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.

I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.

I'm not the OP, but honestly, it is going to happen sooner than later. Moving Sangster is a bandaid (bring the numbers to the tippy top of what they are calling 'acceptable overcrowding..105%). Something larger will have to give, and you can't move any more into LB...It will have to go the other way (Daventry/HV/Others?).

WSHS will drop by approximately 100 students when class of 2026 graduates.

105% is not overcrowded at WSHS.

The trailers are not needed once it gets to around 107% which is where it was a year or two ago.

WSHS only needs to lose around 120 or so students to hit 105%

Between Sangster getting rezoned and 2026 graduating, WSHS should lose around 200-250 students by fall 2026.

Good luck with that!

West Springfield class of 2026 is 735 students

Irving 8th grade is 579 students

That is a decrease of 156 students at WSHS high school between June 4, 2026 graduation and the 2026 school year, just from Class of 2026 graduating.

Irving transfers out around 55 students per grade to Lake Braddock for AAP.

All of those AAP students will return to WSHS for 9th grade.

This means when you factor in both the graduating seniors, plus the AAP kids returning from Lake Braddock, WSHS will drop by roughly 100 students starting the 2026 school year without a single student getting rezoned.

If FCPS starts enforcing WSHS being closed to transfers, WSHS could decrease by 120-130 students in 2026.

WSHS will drop from 2841 students this year, to somewhere around 2725-2750 students next year, just from the graduation of Class of 2026, a smaller enrollment than WSHS had in the 2024-25 school year, which was 2781 students.

This is before a single studdnt is rezoned from WSHS. If you add in the 125 or so students getting rezoned, WSHS could easily be around 2600 students by the start of the 2026 school year.

Insult if you must, but realize that the numbers are the numbers.

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:151,0

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:150,0

It’s not quite that simple. The current WSHS 9th grade class was 634 when 8th graders and now 711 as freshmen. That’s more than the 50 AAP transfers returning. There’s usually some additional growth from the K-8 private school kids. And while this year’s 8th grade class is abnormally small, the 7th grade class is back over 650. WSHS enrollment numbers have likely peaked, but they won’t roll off as quickly as you’re predicting.

When I just looked at the tool posted to check on this. I saw that Irving 8th grade last year was 640

The same class (now freshman) in 9th are at 701. So that is 60 kids, not much more than 50ish from LBSS.

About 50 LB AAP kids, and around a dozen plus military and St. Bernadette students combined. That sounds about right.

Right but 61 kids transferring in is different than 77 which the PP reported. Since we are talking about the addition of 20 kids being a lot (and yes, I think the RV new WSHS kids will be many more than just 20), we need to get the numbers right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.

I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.

I'm not the OP, but honestly, it is going to happen sooner than later. Moving Sangster is a bandaid (bring the numbers to the tippy top of what they are calling 'acceptable overcrowding..105%). Something larger will have to give, and you can't move any more into LB...It will have to go the other way (Daventry/HV/Others?).

WSHS will drop by approximately 100 students when class of 2026 graduates.

105% is not overcrowded at WSHS.

The trailers are not needed once it gets to around 107% which is where it was a year or two ago.

WSHS only needs to lose around 120 or so students to hit 105%

Between Sangster getting rezoned and 2026 graduating, WSHS should lose around 200-250 students by fall 2026.

Good luck with that!

West Springfield class of 2026 is 735 students

Irving 8th grade is 579 students

That is a decrease of 156 students at WSHS high school between June 4, 2026 graduation and the 2026 school year, just from Class of 2026 graduating.

Irving transfers out around 55 students per grade to Lake Braddock for AAP.

All of those AAP students will return to WSHS for 9th grade.

This means when you factor in both the graduating seniors, plus the AAP kids returning from Lake Braddock, WSHS will drop by roughly 100 students starting the 2026 school year without a single student getting rezoned.

If FCPS starts enforcing WSHS being closed to transfers, WSHS could decrease by 120-130 students in 2026.

WSHS will drop from 2841 students this year, to somewhere around 2725-2750 students next year, just from the graduation of Class of 2026, a smaller enrollment than WSHS had in the 2024-25 school year, which was 2781 students.

This is before a single studdnt is rezoned from WSHS. If you add in the 125 or so students getting rezoned, WSHS could easily be around 2600 students by the start of the 2026 school year.

Insult if you must, but realize that the numbers are the numbers.

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:151,0

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:107::105::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:150,0

It’s not quite that simple. The current WSHS 9th grade class was 634 when 8th graders and now 711 as freshmen. That’s more than the 50 AAP transfers returning. There’s usually some additional growth from the K-8 private school kids. And while this year’s 8th grade class is abnormally small, the 7th grade class is back over 650. WSHS enrollment numbers have likely peaked, but they won’t roll off as quickly as you’re predicting.

When I just looked at the tool posted to check on this. I saw that Irving 8th grade last year was 640

The same class (now freshman) in 9th are at 701. So that is 60 kids, not much more than 50ish from LBSS.

Unfortunately I can’t edit, but you’re right it’s 701. 711 was a typo. 634 was the 8th grade enrollment in September of 2024.

[Anonymous]

I am a new poster today and want to clarify a few things. No one I have spoken to who is fighting for the Sangster /irving/wshs line to continue has ever said to move other people out so we can stay. The only thing we’ve recently become disappointed in was the new shift of neighborhoods being brought IN to Wshs when we are being pushed out. People keep saying we are losing support of other Wshs feeders because we are pushing them out- but that has never been something we’ve suggested or fought for.


We also aren’t blaming BRAC. We have had great conversations both as a group and individually with the members and feel like they do see our concerns. We also agree they have a hard and thankless job and are often not given the info they need in a timely matter.


To the person who attended the meeting and noted the parents of younger kids - are you a parent of a child likely effected? Which meeting did you attend? I was at both in person meetings and am very curious.

[Anonymous]

Im the above poster - We have counted approximately 8-10 students each year go to Irving from Sangster. (Not including aap kids from other schools) Irving currently has 20 from the Orange hunt estates neighborhood that is in question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a new poster today and want to clarify a few things. No one I have spoken to who is fighting for the Sangster /irving/wshs line to continue has ever said to move other people out so we can stay. The only thing we’ve recently become disappointed in was the new shift of neighborhoods being brought IN to Wshs when we are being pushed out. People keep saying we are losing support of other Wshs feeders because we are pushing them out- but that has never been something we’ve suggested or fought for.


We also aren’t blaming BRAC. We have had great conversations both as a group and individually with the members and feel like they do see our concerns. We also agree they have a hard and thankless job and are often not given the info they need in a timely matter.


To the person who attended the meeting and noted the parents of younger kids - are you a parent of a child likely effected? Which meeting did you attend? I was at both in person meetings and am very curious.

+1000

[Anonymous]

I was at a meeting last school year at some random church in central Springfield. And yes, I have children impacted by boundary changes currently in middle and high school. I found the meeting to be full of parents of young elementary school students and preschoolers who were whining about purchasing their homes for a specific combination of schools. Also, lots of “I don’t like the secondary school model” from parents of preschoolers.

It’s important to understand that when you look at Great Schools, Sangster outperforms the rest of the elementary schools that feed West Springfield HS. And that WSHS outperforms LB. So parents will fight for this specific combination of schools for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a new poster today and want to clarify a few things. No one I have spoken to who is fighting for the Sangster /irving/wshs line to continue has ever said to move other people out so we can stay. The only thing we’ve recently become disappointed in was the new shift of neighborhoods being brought IN to Wshs when we are being pushed out. People keep saying we are losing support of other Wshs feeders because we are pushing them out- but that has never been something we’ve suggested or fought for.


We also aren’t blaming BRAC. We have had great conversations both as a group and individually with the members and feel like they do see our concerns. We also agree they have a hard and thankless job and are often not given the info they need in a timely matter.


To the person who attended the meeting and noted the parents of younger kids - are you a parent of a child likely effected? Which meeting did you attend? I was at both in person meetings and am very curious.

There are multiple posts here from Sangster parent(s), maybe one person posting multiple times, posting that someone else should get rezoned out of WSHS instead of them, and blaming the BRAC members.

It could very well be one prolific poster, but there are definitely multiple posts saying those 2 things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at a meeting last school year at some random church in central Springfield. And yes, I have children impacted by boundary changes currently in middle and high school. I found the meeting to be full of parents of young elementary school students and preschoolers who were whining about purchasing their homes for a specific combination of schools. Also, lots of “I don’t like the secondary school model” from parents of preschoolers.

It’s important to understand that when you look at Great Schools, Sangster outperforms the rest of the elementary schools that feed West Springfield HS. And that WSHS outperforms LB. So parents will fight for this specific combination of schools for their children.

So then you understand the desire to keep the pyramid as is for so many families? And that isn’t even taking into account the community aspect that most of us are fighting for. I’m glad it would be helpful for your family,Kim. But everyone has their own reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was at a meeting last school year at some random church in central Springfield. And yes, I have children impacted by boundary changes currently in middle and high school. I found the meeting to be full of parents of young elementary school students and preschoolers who were whining about purchasing their homes for a specific combination of schools. Also, lots of “I don’t like the secondary school model” from parents of preschoolers.

It’s important to understand that when you look at Great Schools, Sangster outperforms the rest of the elementary schools that feed West Springfield HS. And that WSHS outperforms LB. So parents will fight for this specific combination of schools for their children.

If you look at the SAT scores, LB usually out performs WSHS there. WSHS is stronger than LB in other metrics. The two schools really are equal.

I have seen similar things as you too.

Parents of older elementary kids and teens are mostly content or quietly in agreement with the rezoning of Sangster, as long as there is generous grandfathering. Grandfathering is key. They have more community involvement and feel connected to both WSHS and LBSS, through years of sports, activities and community events, and through Sangster itself.

The parents of little kids, preschool kids and babies are furious, just as you observed. They don't have the same deep community ties yet as the Sangster parents of older kids do, so they don't really understand how connected the LB and WS communities really are, and also haven't seen what it is like for those Sangster kids to have most of their friends go to LB while they have to start over at Irving.

My Sangster kid did have to start over at Irving. Even knowing the AAP kids who ended up at Irving, it was much harder than if they had been able to go to Lake Braddock with most of their Sangster friends and classmates.

Change is hard. But after the initial disappointment, with ample grandfathering, I predict that this rezoning change will end up being a very positive thing for the students in that Sangster neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

There are at least 8 WS/LB alumni parents in the group hoping to keep the split. Several who lived the split themselves as kids (on both sides Went to WS from Sangster or to LB from Sangster) so they know the community and the connection well. Just because it was hard for your student doesn’t mean everyone has the same experience.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why were both reps from the same elementary school? Of course they were going to do something like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you surveyed all thr WSHS parents, you would most likely find that the vast majority view Sangster to Lake Braddock as the best possible option for WSHS, since Lake Braddock is such a fantastic school with so much overlap with the WSHS community. Sangster is also Lake Braddock's biggest feeder school, with those Sangster island 7th graders knowing far more Lake Braddock kids than Irving kids, just from their neighbors and classmates.

Of all of the rezoning options of moving kids out of WSHS, Sangster island to Lake Braddock make the most sense and provides the most continuity, best neighborhood and community connection, and the most consistent school experience. Any other rezoning out option, including the Keene Mill island off Huntsman to White Oaks and Lake Braddock, is far more disruptive to the students.

Sorry, complete hearsay. I have actually surveyed almost all the parents at Sangster zoned for WS and the vast, vast majority want to stay within their West Springfield Community. We explained and pleaded with our BRAC reps and the board that we preferred the split...its our community and neighbors. We were told that they were advocating for us. We had board members tell us to our faces that they agreed with us.
We've attended almost every meeting, followed all feedback channels. Again, this move will make Lake Braddock overpopulated, does not help Lewis, is unwelcomed from the neighborhood, and will do little to 'fix' overpopulation at WS in the long run. Many of my LB parent friends feel it's over crowded enough. If you don't live here, if this isn't your neighborhood...kindly don't speak for others.

Sounds like you’re happy to throw other WS neighborhoods under the bus.

What a strange and narrow-minded comment to make. These are simple facts. Scenerio 4 for Region 4 1.) Will make LB over capacity 2.) Moving RV children is taking children from underpopulated Lewis 3.) Split feeders are not an FCPS community priority 4.) The Sangster/Irving/West Springfield parents and families feel strongly tied to the WS community. None of this is 'throwing anyone else under a bus'. If anything, it feels like the Sangster WS neighborhood is being used as a bandaid that will not fix any larger problems. And it is making many feel uncomfortable because the move does not fit into a neat box so that other 'neighborhoods' can feel safe from being moved. We are all one FCPS together, and the moves in region four are not going to help the majority of students in the long run. I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Fixing split feeders was one of the 4 priorities for rezoning since the first Thru meetings.

You're cute. Keep holding on to that.

+1. Our elementary school (Gunston) would have happily been fully rezoned to Gunston which would have fixed the South County/Hayfield split feeder. Instead, the proposals turn it into a South County/Hayfield/Mount Vernon split feeder and move neighborhoods out and add neighborhoods in. I guess no one on the BRAC cared about maintaining our schools community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

If you surveyed all thr WSHS parents, you would most likely find that the vast majority view Sangster to Lake Braddock as the best possible option for WSHS, since Lake Braddock is such a fantastic school with so much overlap with the WSHS community. Sangster is also Lake Braddock's biggest feeder school, with those Sangster island 7th graders knowing far more Lake Braddock kids than Irving kids, just from their neighbors and classmates.

Of all of the rezoning options of moving kids out of WSHS, Sangster island to Lake Braddock make the most sense and provides the most continuity, best neighborhood and community connection, and the most consistent school experience. Any other rezoning out option, including the Keene Mill island off Huntsman to White Oaks and Lake Braddock, is far more disruptive to the students.

Sorry, complete hearsay. I have actually surveyed almost all the parents at Sangster zoned for WS and the vast, vast majority want to stay within their West Springfield Community. We explained and pleaded with our BRAC reps and the board that we preferred the split...its our community and neighbors. We were told that they were advocating for us. We had board members tell us to our faces that they agreed with us.
We've attended almost every meeting, followed all feedback channels. Again, this move will make Lake Braddock overpopulated, does not help Lewis, is unwelcomed from the neighborhood, and will do little to 'fix' overpopulation at WS in the long run. Many of my LB parent friends feel it's over crowded enough. If you don't live here, if this isn't your neighborhood...kindly don't speak for others.

Sounds like you’re happy to throw other WS neighborhoods under the bus.

What a strange and narrow-minded comment to make. These are simple facts. Scenerio 4 for Region 4 1.) Will make LB over capacity 2.) Moving RV children is taking children from underpopulated Lewis 3.) Split feeders are not an FCPS community priority 4.) The Sangster/Irving/West Springfield parents and families feel strongly tied to the WS community. None of this is 'throwing anyone else under a bus'. If anything, it feels like the Sangster WS neighborhood is being used as a bandaid that will not fix any larger problems. And it is making many feel uncomfortable because the move does not fit into a neat box so that other 'neighborhoods' can feel safe from being moved. We are all one FCPS together, and the moves in region four are not going to help the majority of students in the long run. I'm sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable.

Fixing split feeders was one of the 4 priorities for rezoning since the first Thru meetings.

You're cute. Keep holding on to that.

+1. Our elementary school (Gunston) would have happily been fully rezoned to South County which would have fixed the South County/Hayfield split feeder. Instead, the proposals turn it into a South County/Hayfield/Mount Vernon split feeder and move neighborhoods out and add neighborhoods in. I guess no one on the BRAC cared about maintaining our schools community.

[Anonymous]

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.

Why were both reps from the same elementary school? Of course they were going to do something like this.

I’d like to think it was random and not purposeful. Unfortunately it wasn’t due to lack of volunteers from other elem schools. I think it’s a testament to how flawed the process has been.