Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

[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.

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.

It was all on video. Fairfacts has it and posted it

When did your neighborhood dial in to the rezoning fight?

In the WSHS pyramid, Hunt Valley and West Springfield Elementary were involved from before 8130 was revised, in very large numbers, because they felt the most threat from the potential changes

The other elementary schools felt that rezoning wouldn't affect them, so they weren't as motivated to get involved so early.

They didn't start getting involved until after maps started happening.

I think we are saying the same thing- that the reps were chosen at random. From the outside looking in, that seems fair. What’s being stated by so many is that the priorities can become flawed when reps are only representative of one elementary school. This is not on the reps, but on the process as a whole.

How is it flawed?

Happy with the changes or not, the Map 4 recommendations for WSHS follow ths BRAC guidelines to the letter.

Eliminate split feeders/islands and minimize transportation expenses:

Sangster to Lake Braddock checks both of these boxes. It also checks the equitable access to programs box since LB and WSHS are both AP schools and equally ranked, with one or the other higher depending on the year.

Keene Mill island to White Oaks checks all 3 of those boxes as well.

Rolling Valley to WSHS is a little messier. It checks split feeder and transportation boxes, but is a dramatic upgrade to program equity, by switching from an unwanted IB program to a coveted AP program, and into a much higher ranked school. It also breaks up the Rolling Valley community, by moving a small portion of Rolling Valley to a new elementary school. And it moves more students into an overcrowded school, also against BRAC guidelines and against the whole justification behind rezoning WSHS.

The Rolling Valley move wasn't from the Springfield BRAC reps though. That came from the Springfield school board rep who has been fixated since this process started on miving families out of WSHS so she can move Rolling Valley into WSHS.

The only WSHS change that does not follow BRAC recommendations to the letter is the Rolling Valley move. That did not come from the BRAC committee though. Their changes followed the mandate they were given.

You can't blame those WSHS for other pyramid reps ignoring the requirements, or for the Springfield school board rep's pet project (RV). The WSHS BRAC reps followed the instructions rhey were given as closely as they could.

Please. The RVES community is not being "broken up". A small number of homes south of the Fairfax Co Pkwy are being rezoned to an elementary school on the same side of the parkway. If anything, the RVES community is being strengthened since the townhomes north of the parkway are now being rezoned to the closest middle school (Irving) and high school (WSHS), where the vast majority of RVES students already go.

The Rolling Valley houses outside the Parkway who are getting sent to a new elementary school so 300 of you can switch to WSHS while they stay at Key and Lewis would vehemently disagree with your assessment.

They definitely feel targeted, ripped from their neighborhood, and that your 300 houses are getting special treatment.

[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.

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.

It was all on video. Fairfacts has it and posted it

When did your neighborhood dial in to the rezoning fight?

In the WSHS pyramid, Hunt Valley and West Springfield Elementary were involved from before 8130 was revised, in very large numbers, because they felt the most threat from the potential changes

The other elementary schools felt that rezoning wouldn't affect them, so they weren't as motivated to get involved so early.

They didn't start getting involved until after maps started happening.

I think we are saying the same thing- that the reps were chosen at random. From the outside looking in, that seems fair. What’s being stated by so many is that the priorities can become flawed when reps are only representative of one elementary school. This is not on the reps, but on the process as a whole.

How is it flawed?

Happy with the changes or not, the Map 4 recommendations for WSHS follow ths BRAC guidelines to the letter.

Eliminate split feeders/islands and minimize transportation expenses:

Sangster to Lake Braddock checks both of these boxes. It also checks the equitable access to programs box since LB and WSHS are both AP schools and equally ranked, with one or the other higher depending on the year.

Keene Mill island to White Oaks checks all 3 of those boxes as well.

Rolling Valley to WSHS is a little messier. It checks split feeder and transportation boxes, but is a dramatic upgrade to program equity, by switching from an unwanted IB program to a coveted AP program, and into a much higher ranked school. It also breaks up the Rolling Valley community, by moving a small portion of Rolling Valley to a new elementary school. And it moves more students into an overcrowded school, also against BRAC guidelines and against the whole justification behind rezoning WSHS.

The Rolling Valley move wasn't from the Springfield BRAC reps though. That came from the Springfield school board rep who has been fixated since this process started on miving families out of WSHS so she can move Rolling Valley into WSHS.

The only WSHS change that does not follow BRAC recommendations to the letter is the Rolling Valley move. That did not come from the BRAC committee though. Their changes followed the mandate they were given.

You can't blame those WSHS for other pyramid reps ignoring the requirements, or for the Springfield school board rep's pet project (RV). The WSHS BRAC reps followed the instructions rhey were given as closely as they could.

Please. The RVES community is not being "broken up". A small number of homes south of the Fairfax Co Pkwy are being rezoned to an elementary school on the same side of the parkway. If anything, the RVES community is being strengthened since the townhomes north of the parkway are now being rezoned to the closest middle school (Irving) and high school (WSHS), where the vast majority of RVES students already go.

And to do that, you just need to move those Sangster families out and close that attendance island.

FCPS should send all of the Rolling Valley island to Saratoga, including the 300 townhouses inside the parkway.

To move them into WSHS while insisting other neighborhoods must move out due to overcrowding is unacceptable and very poor treatment of the WSHS families.

If WSHS is sooooo overcrowded that families must move out, then not one house should be moved into WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

Since when is being a split feeder the only factor under Policy 8130?

The lack of fidelity to their own policy is astounding. But I guess they’ve decided who the little people who can be jerked around are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

Since when is being a split feeder the only factor under Policy 8130?

The lack of fidelity to their own policy is astounding. But I guess they’ve decided who the little people who can be jerked around are.

It’s cute that you think one of the five most liberal school boards in the country isn’t woke enough for you. You don’t want them to stop before they’ve destroyed the Democratic Party and public school in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

Since when is being a split feeder the only factor under Policy 8130?

The lack of fidelity to their own policy is astounding. But I guess they’ve decided who the little people who can be jerked around are.

Did you read what was written?

Sangster getting rezoned to LB because they are a split feeder has zero connection to whatever is happening to some Langley neighborhood that is not a split feeder and does not have 85% of its neighborhood currently attending a different school.

The two situations are completely unrelated.

[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.

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.

It was all on video. Fairfacts has it and posted it

When did your neighborhood dial in to the rezoning fight?

In the WSHS pyramid, Hunt Valley and West Springfield Elementary were involved from before 8130 was revised, in very large numbers, because they felt the most threat from the potential changes

The other elementary schools felt that rezoning wouldn't affect them, so they weren't as motivated to get involved so early.

They didn't start getting involved until after maps started happening.

I think we are saying the same thing- that the reps were chosen at random. From the outside looking in, that seems fair. What’s being stated by so many is that the priorities can become flawed when reps are only representative of one elementary school. This is not on the reps, but on the process as a whole.

How is it flawed?

Happy with the changes or not, the Map 4 recommendations for WSHS follow ths BRAC guidelines to the letter.

Eliminate split feeders/islands and minimize transportation expenses:

Sangster to Lake Braddock checks both of these boxes. It also checks the equitable access to programs box since LB and WSHS are both AP schools and equally ranked, with one or the other higher depending on the year.

Keene Mill island to White Oaks checks all 3 of those boxes as well.

Rolling Valley to WSHS is a little messier. It checks split feeder and transportation boxes, but is a dramatic upgrade to program equity, by switching from an unwanted IB program to a coveted AP program, and into a much higher ranked school. It also breaks up the Rolling Valley community, by moving a small portion of Rolling Valley to a new elementary school. And it moves more students into an overcrowded school, also against BRAC guidelines and against the whole justification behind rezoning WSHS.

The Rolling Valley move wasn't from the Springfield BRAC reps though. That came from the Springfield school board rep who has been fixated since this process started on miving families out of WSHS so she can move Rolling Valley into WSHS.

The only WSHS change that does not follow BRAC recommendations to the letter is the Rolling Valley move. That did not come from the BRAC committee though. Their changes followed the mandate they were given.

You can't blame those WSHS for other pyramid reps ignoring the requirements, or for the Springfield school board rep's pet project (RV). The WSHS BRAC reps followed the instructions rhey were given as closely as they could.

Please. The RVES community is not being "broken up". A small number of homes south of the Fairfax Co Pkwy are being rezoned to an elementary school on the same side of the parkway. If anything, the RVES community is being strengthened since the townhomes north of the parkway are now being rezoned to the closest middle school (Irving) and high school (WSHS), where the vast majority of RVES students already go.

The Rolling Valley houses outside the Parkway who are getting sent to a new elementary school so 300 of you can switch to WSHS while they stay at Key and Lewis would vehemently disagree with your assessment.

They definitely feel targeted, ripped from their neighborhood, and that your 300 houses are getting special treatment.

Do you live in one of those homes on the south side of the parkway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It was all on video. Fairfacts has it and posted it

When did your neighborhood dial in to the rezoning fight?

In the WSHS pyramid, Hunt Valley and West Springfield Elementary were involved from before 8130 was revised, in very large numbers, because they felt the most threat from the potential changes

The other elementary schools felt that rezoning wouldn't affect them, so they weren't as motivated to get involved so early.

They didn't start getting involved until after maps started happening.

I think we are saying the same thing- that the reps were chosen at random. From the outside looking in, that seems fair. What’s being stated by so many is that the priorities can become flawed when reps are only representative of one elementary school. This is not on the reps, but on the process as a whole.

How is it flawed?

Happy with the changes or not, the Map 4 recommendations for WSHS follow ths BRAC guidelines to the letter.

Eliminate split feeders/islands and minimize transportation expenses:

Sangster to Lake Braddock checks both of these boxes. It also checks the equitable access to programs box since LB and WSHS are both AP schools and equally ranked, with one or the other higher depending on the year.

Keene Mill island to White Oaks checks all 3 of those boxes as well.

Rolling Valley to WSHS is a little messier. It checks split feeder and transportation boxes, but is a dramatic upgrade to program equity, by switching from an unwanted IB program to a coveted AP program, and into a much higher ranked school. It also breaks up the Rolling Valley community, by moving a small portion of Rolling Valley to a new elementary school. And it moves more students into an overcrowded school, also against BRAC guidelines and against the whole justification behind rezoning WSHS.

The Rolling Valley move wasn't from the Springfield BRAC reps though. That came from the Springfield school board rep who has been fixated since this process started on miving families out of WSHS so she can move Rolling Valley into WSHS.

The only WSHS change that does not follow BRAC recommendations to the letter is the Rolling Valley move. That did not come from the BRAC committee though. Their changes followed the mandate they were given.

You can't blame those WSHS for other pyramid reps ignoring the requirements, or for the Springfield school board rep's pet project (RV). The WSHS BRAC reps followed the instructions rhey were given as closely as they could.

Please. The RVES community is not being "broken up". A small number of homes south of the Fairfax Co Pkwy are being rezoned to an elementary school on the same side of the parkway. If anything, the RVES community is being strengthened since the townhomes north of the parkway are now being rezoned to the closest middle school (Irving) and high school (WSHS), where the vast majority of RVES students already go.

And to do that, you just need to move those Sangster families out and close that attendance island.

FCPS should send all of the Rolling Valley island to Saratoga, including the 300 townhouses inside the parkway.

To move them into WSHS while insisting other neighborhoods must move out due to overcrowding is unacceptable and very poor treatment of the WSHS families.

If WSHS is sooooo overcrowded that families must move out, then not one house should be moved into WSHS.

But it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

Since when is being a split feeder the only factor under Policy 8130?

The lack of fidelity to their own policy is astounding. But I guess they’ve decided who the little people who can be jerked around are.

Did you read what was written?

Sangster getting rezoned to LB because they are a split feeder has zero connection to whatever is happening to some Langley neighborhood that is not a split feeder and does not have 85% of its neighborhood currently attending a different school.

The two situations are completely unrelated.

But they aren't.

Supposedly one group gets moved because a policy says split feeders should be eliminated, yet the very same policy says transportation times should be limited and that gets ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am amazed they are doing this to Sangster yet leaving kids who live so close to Herndon at Langley.

Where is the equity in the process? Who are the right people to contact to express our outrage at the double standards?

Is the Langley school a split feeder?

Sangter is a split feeder.

If it truly is fewer than 20 kids per grade as the Sangster posters are claiming, then that means less than 10% of Sangster goes to WSHS. That falls exactly into the range of split feeder size that FCPS said they intended to eliminate.

If the Langley neigbbirhood is not a split feeder between Langley and Herndon, then the two situations are completely unrelated.

Lake Braddock is also an equal school to WSHS by every metric and the WSHS/LBSS communities are ery tight socially, so again, it is a different situation than Langley and Herndon.

Since when is being a split feeder the only factor under Policy 8130?

The lack of fidelity to their own policy is astounding. But I guess they’ve decided who the little people who can be jerked around are.

Did you read what was written?

Sangster getting rezoned to LB because they are a split feeder has zero connection to whatever is happening to some Langley neighborhood that is not a split feeder and does not have 85% of its neighborhood currently attending a different school.

The two situations are completely unrelated.

But they aren't.

Supposedly one group gets moved because a policy says split feeders should be eliminated, yet the very same policy says transportation times should be limited and that gets ignored.

They are absolutely, completely different scenarios.

[Anonymous]

what cahnges are being proposed to ffx high and woodson? got the email with the boundary tool but not obvious to me what has changed. the tool is not user friendly either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what cahnges are being proposed to ffx high and woodson? got the email with the boundary tool but not obvious to me what has changed. the tool is not user friendly either.

You could look the meeting summary: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2025-10/fall_2025_community_meetings_10-28-25_woodson_and_fairfax.pdf

Potential Fairfax HS pyramid changes are summarized at pp. 19-21.

Potential Woodson HS pyramid changes are summarized at pp. 22-23.

This is based on the latest "Scenario 4" and could change. You will need to use the boundary tool to hone in on these changes, but perhaps having this information first will help you see where to look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what cahnges are being proposed to ffx high and woodson? got the email with the boundary tool but not obvious to me what has changed. the tool is not user friendly either.

You could look the meeting summary: https://www.fcps.edu/system/files/forms/2025-10/fall_2025_community_meetings_10-28-25_woodson_and_fairfax.pdf

Potential Fairfax HS pyramid changes are summarized at pp. 19-21.

Potential Woodson HS pyramid changes are summarized at pp. 22-23.

This is based on the latest "Scenario 4" and could change. You will need to use the boundary tool to hone in on these changes, but perhaps having this information first will help you see where to look.

Thank you. Looks like minor changes to some elemetary schools in FFX pyramid and one change to Olde Creek to eliminate attendance islands, if I understand correctly.

[Anonymous]

Are they looking at more likely scenarios now or are they considering different ones and then selecting from them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they looking at more likely scenarios now or are they considering different ones and then selecting from them?

There are 3 more map revisions.

Map 5 will be revisions to map 4.

Map 5 goes to the school board and they create a new map 6.

Map 6 goes to reid. Reid make changes to create map 7.

Map 7 is the final map the school board votes on, with no opportunity for parent feedback, even if it completely different than maps 4 and 5.