Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Testing just to see if this thread was locked. No posts in 14 hours must be a record!

[Anonymous]

We are over it. I just wish someone from fcps would email back with the answers to my questions. Maybe I have to send a formal and legal letter to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Testing just to see if this thread was locked. No posts in 14 hours must be a record!

Here's a post. FCPS usually updates the facilities dashboard in early October including the transfers to reflect the Sept counts. Never happened for the 2025-26 school year. However, the proposed CIP has a link to this on transfers for 2015-26 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2025-26StudentTransfersDashboard/ReadMe

Is it correct? I checked Marshall incoming transfers and it states 58 total but 116 from Langley? Herndon had 275 out but <10 to South Lakes?
Where did they all go? 2024-25 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25StudentTransfersDashboard/ReadMe

Something is really messed up and as of last weeks meetings Ponce sated they were having a roundtable at Lewis on it's transfers and programming. Dunne asked about one for Mount Vernon and was told it could send a rep to the one at Lewis.

Did Reid really propose last week to change boundaries for an elementary school SPA that does not get transportation? Really odd but if true we know the genesis of bus rides for Marshall walkers. Any answers on the newly rediscovered Kilmer capacity? At this weeks work session R Anderson asked about total buildings not just school sites. That Plum Center used to be Edsall Park, Mason District. On almost 10 acres and renovated in 2007. It has some adult ESOL, GED, and cooking classes for ACE on site. That stuff can go elsewhere - seems to be needed for an elementary school. Got kids in trailers but you can learn to make an eclair in a building...

[Anonymous]

It’s safe to assume the 2025-26 transfer information isn’t fully updated yet. They may have the total numbers of transfers in and out of individual schools correct, but the information about transfers from particular schools has not been updated. Your Marshall/Langley example can’t otherwise be explained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Testing just to see if this thread was locked. No posts in 14 hours must be a record!

Here's a post. FCPS usually updates the facilities dashboard in early October including the transfers to reflect the Sept counts. Never happened for the 2025-26 school year. However, the proposed CIP has a link to this on transfers for 2015-26 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2025-26StudentTransfersDashboard/ReadMe

Is it correct? I checked Marshall incoming transfers and it states 58 total but 116 from Langley? Herndon had 275 out but <10 to South Lakes?
Where did they all go? 2024-25 https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/fcps.fts/viz/SY2024-25StudentTransfersDashboard/ReadMe

Something is really messed up and as of last weeks meetings Ponce sated they were having a roundtable at Lewis on it's transfers and programming. Dunne asked about one for Mount Vernon and was told it could send a rep to the one at Lewis.

Did Reid really propose last week to change boundaries for an elementary school SPA that does not get transportation? Really odd but if true we know the genesis of bus rides for Marshall walkers. Any answers on the newly rediscovered Kilmer capacity? At this weeks work session R Anderson asked about total buildings not just school sites. That Plum Center used to be Edsall Park, Mason District. On almost 10 acres and renovated in 2007. It has some adult ESOL, GED, and cooking classes for ACE on site. That stuff can go elsewhere - seems to be needed for an elementary school. Got kids in trailers but you can learn to make an eclair in a building...

On the Transfers by Attending School tab 164 transfer to South Lakes. Also about 2500 total transfers out are to TJ, Mountain View, and Bryant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let’s anonymize the question to remove her name: how can a person claim to “represent Herndon pyramid PTAs”? What does that process look like? Were there votes for each of the PTAs? Just trying to understand how this woman thinks she speaks for all of us?

I've no idea. I did google her name and found that she had attended an FPAC meeting a couple of years ago, I think--as public--not member. She said she had kids at Herndon Middle and High and was concerned about the facilities being in bad repair.
What time did she speak?

She was one of the earlier speakers. What is the remedy for this? It seems misleading for her to say that she represents all of the PTAs in the pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let’s anonymize the question to remove her name: how can a person claim to “represent Herndon pyramid PTAs”? What does that process look like? Were there votes for each of the PTAs? Just trying to understand how this woman thinks she speaks for all of us?

I've no idea. I did google her name and found that she had attended an FPAC meeting a couple of years ago, I think--as public--not member. She said she had kids at Herndon Middle and High and was concerned about the facilities being in bad repair.
What time did she speak?

She was one of the earlier speakers. What is the remedy for this? It seems misleading for her to say that she represents all of the PTAs in the pyramid.

What do you mean “remedy”? What harm did you suffer? Doubt her comments had any impact at this point. You can sign up and testify on the 22nd if you want to go on the record that she doesn’t represent your PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let’s anonymize the question to remove her name: how can a person claim to “represent Herndon pyramid PTAs”? What does that process look like? Were there votes for each of the PTAs? Just trying to understand how this woman thinks she speaks for all of us?

I've no idea. I did google her name and found that she had attended an FPAC meeting a couple of years ago, I think--as public--not member. She said she had kids at Herndon Middle and High and was concerned about the facilities being in bad repair.
What time did she speak?

She was one of the earlier speakers. What is the remedy for this? It seems misleading for her to say that she represents all of the PTAs in the pyramid.

What do you mean “remedy”? What harm did you suffer? Doubt her comments had any impact at this point. You can sign up and testify on the 22nd if you want to go on the record that she doesn’t represent your PTA.

Good question. Not a Herndon parent, but it seems to me that some people think they speak for everyone and they don't.

If they really want to know, do a survey. But, do they really want to set boundaries for schools based on popularity.

Oak Hill here. Love Chantilly, but can see the writing on the wall. Many/most would likely wish to stay at Chantilly. But, anyone with common sense knows it is unlikely. But, there are also very good reasons for Crossfield to go to Western. Savings on distance,buses,safety, etc. Oakton is also at capacity and new development in the area. Why do some at Crossfield get a say when many of the reasons to go to Western are just as strong as for Oak Hill.

If they would just set the boundaries and develop a good, strong traditional school--which it should be, if Reid stays out of the way with her special programs--more people would be supportive.
This could be a great school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let’s anonymize the question to remove her name: how can a person claim to “represent Herndon pyramid PTAs”? What does that process look like? Were there votes for each of the PTAs? Just trying to understand how this woman thinks she speaks for all of us?

I've no idea. I did google her name and found that she had attended an FPAC meeting a couple of years ago, I think--as public--not member. She said she had kids at Herndon Middle and High and was concerned about the facilities being in bad repair.
What time did she speak?

She was one of the earlier speakers. What is the remedy for this? It seems misleading for her to say that she represents all of the PTAs in the pyramid.

What do you mean “remedy”? What harm did you suffer? Doubt her comments had any impact at this point. You can sign up and testify on the 22nd if you want to go on the record that she doesn’t represent your PTA.

Good question. Not a Herndon parent, but it seems to me that some people think they speak for everyone and they don't.

If they really want to know, do a survey. But, do they really want to set boundaries for schools based on popularity.

Oak Hill here. Love Chantilly, but can see the writing on the wall. Many/most would likely wish to stay at Chantilly. But, anyone with common sense knows it is unlikely. But, there are also very good reasons for Crossfield to go to Western. Savings on distance,buses,safety, etc. Oakton is also at capacity and new development in the area. Why do some at Crossfield get a say when many of the reasons to go to Western are just as strong as for Oak Hill.

If they would just set the boundaries and develop a good, strong traditional school--which it should be, if Reid stays out of the way with her special programs--more people would be supportive.
This could be a great school.

This isn't about Western HS. It's about a Herndon parent who claimed to represent all of the Herndon pyramid PTAs and complained that FCPS isn't moving Langley kids to Herndon, and then triggering a reaction from someone else who also claims to be a Herndon parent that PTA lady doesn't represent them (presumably because they are happy with Herndon and don't want anyone reassigned there who doesn't want to be there).

I get the irritation with someone who claims to have a platform they don't have, but realistically nothing is going to change the Langley/Herndon boundary right now. The case for doing so hasn't been made. Things may be different in five years if the Tysons area being moved to Langley eventually overcrowds Cooper or Langley, but that will play out over time, and not before they vote on boundaries on January 22nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, let’s anonymize the question to remove her name: how can a person claim to “represent Herndon pyramid PTAs”? What does that process look like? Were there votes for each of the PTAs? Just trying to understand how this woman thinks she speaks for all of us?

I've no idea. I did google her name and found that she had attended an FPAC meeting a couple of years ago, I think--as public--not member. She said she had kids at Herndon Middle and High and was concerned about the facilities being in bad repair.
What time did she speak?

She was one of the earlier speakers. What is the remedy for this? It seems misleading for her to say that she represents all of the PTAs in the pyramid.

What do you mean “remedy”? What harm did you suffer? Doubt her comments had any impact at this point. You can sign up and testify on the 22nd if you want to go on the record that she doesn’t represent your PTA.

Good question. Not a Herndon parent, but it seems to me that some people think they speak for everyone and they don't.

If they really want to know, do a survey. But, do they really want to set boundaries for schools based on popularity.

Oak Hill here. Love Chantilly, but can see the writing on the wall. Many/most would likely wish to stay at Chantilly. But, anyone with common sense knows it is unlikely. But, there are also very good reasons for Crossfield to go to Western. Savings on distance,buses,safety, etc. Oakton is also at capacity and new development in the area. Why do some at Crossfield get a say when many of the reasons to go to Western are just as strong as for Oak Hill.

If they would just set the boundaries and develop a good, strong traditional school--which it should be, if Reid stays out of the way with her special programs--more people would be supportive.
This could be a great school.

This isn't about Western HS. It's about a Herndon parent who claimed to represent all of the Herndon pyramid PTAs and complained that FCPS isn't moving Langley kids to Herndon, and then triggering a reaction from someone else who also claims to be a Herndon parent that PTA lady doesn't represent them (presumably because they are happy with Herndon and don't want anyone reassigned there who doesn't want to be there).

I get the irritation with someone who claims to have a platform they don't have, but realistically nothing is going to change the Langley/Herndon boundary right now. The case for doing so hasn't been made. Things may be different in five years if the Tysons area being moved to Langley eventually overcrowds Cooper or Langley, but that will play out over time, and not before they vote on boundaries on January 22nd.

This is not just about Herndon/Langley. It is about one person claiming they speak for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They either need to go with Map 4 moving Sangster and Shannon station to Lake Braddock, or leave WSHS alone for the next 5 years.

BRAC gave them a very good map. Map 4 was fair, reasonable, met all the mandates in the least disruptive way possible, and solved the WSHS overcrowding.

Reid rejected a perfectly good map that would have gixed WSHS.

The only change she should have made to Map 4 was keeping SPA 8922 at Lewis.

You keep mentioning BRAC. Region 4 BRAC recommended the changes to map 4 based on updates numbers and community feedback. Reid adopted their recommendations for region 4. Moving those Sangster kids moved like 16 kids per class (it did almost zero in lowering any numbers, and moving RV at Lewis negated any 'numbers' in savings. I also believe that neighborhood has been busting its butt to prevent any neighborhoods in WS to be moved out. The target has moved and Reid will need to focus on a larger area to get WSHS under 115%. Or, neighborhoods unite together and keep pressure on Sandy to keep it off the vague 'watchlist' and into boundary cycle outlined by their own policy.

Reid rejected Map 4 for WSHS.

In Reid's map:

* Sangster split feeder did not get moved to Lake Braddock. Sangster was left at WSHS, leaving over 60 students at WSHS that should have been moved to Lake Braddock.

* The most obvious move from Map 4, sending the Keene Mill island all the way on the other side of the boundary, Shannon Station, Blarney Stone, and a few other streets, to White Oaks and Lake Braddock was nixed by Reid. Instead, Reid moved all those Shannon Station townhouses to overcrowded Cardinal Forest, then moved Cardinal Forest homes that were walkable to CF to Keene Mill. This was around 18 students per grade, close to 120 elemementary students and around 70 high school students total.**

* Map 4 moved Rolling Valley SPA 8922 into WSHS from Lewis. Reid rejected this change temporarily, putting SPA 8922 on a mid cycle review to be looked at for rezoning to WSHS in January 2027.

Combined, the Sangster and Shannon Station recommendations from Map 4 removed around 130 students from WSHS, close to 5% of the students.

Combined with class of 2026 graduating, WSHS would be around the target of 105% capacity by adopting Map 4 rezoning Sangster and Shannon Station to Lake Braddock, and rejecting Map 4 moving SPA 8922 Rolling Valley Key Lewis into WSHS, leaving them at Lewis and Key.

Dr. Reid should have kept the majority of Map 4, rejecting only the Rolling Valley SPA 8922 move.

The school board should override Dr. Reid and adopt the Map 4 moved out of WSHS, and freezing any moves into WSHS.



** The Shannon Station townhouse community is slightly smaller than the townhouse community in SPA 8922. It sends between 15+ kids per grade to WSHS. Anderson wants to rezone SPA 8922 to WSHS claiming it will only be around 5 kids per grade because that is how many it sends to Lewis. In my opinion, SPA 8922 will reflect a similar high number of high school students very quickly if it is rezoned to WSHS from Lewis.

Map 4 was never 'BRAC's map'. They took the Thru map 4 and mage adjusting bases on the numbers and community feedback. Moving kids from Rolling Valley was never recommended by BRAC. I'm on the BRAC, but not for region 4. The whole process was a complete mess.

That explains a lot.

FCPS really treated the BRAC members terribly

Every single meeting I attended, they threw them under the bus repeatedly, any time anyone expressed displeasure with the school board, Dr. Reid, Thru. FCPS or the process.

Our reps honestly tried to do the best job they could, follow the guidance, and rezone as few people as possible. I spoke with several of the cpecial interest reps, and they tried to do a good job too. FCPS treated the volunteers so poorly

Not to mention the Brac members who were literally threatened with legal action personally from disgruntled neighborhoods to leave them alone. Which meant the loudest/most legally equipped neighborhoods went untouched even if was the most logical switch. And now they claim many of those BRAC members are interested in a full time position on the board going forward? The few I have spoken too could not be done fast enough. That was a lot of stress and additional work for being a volunteer. And on top of that having to be the scapegoat and take the blame on chin.

I’m sure they took a lot of undeserved grief. I think they asked for more information from FCPS and Thru Consulting and typically were blown off.

I’ll also say that when I wrote to BRAC members, the BRAC members from our pyramid never acknowledged I’d written them and the BRAC member from FairFACTS Matters consistently did. And we aren’t in the Langley pyramid, so that dispelled the notion that FairFACTS Matters was just a front for Great Falls.

Name your pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They either need to go with Map 4 moving Sangster and Shannon station to Lake Braddock, or leave WSHS alone for the next 5 years.

BRAC gave them a very good map. Map 4 was fair, reasonable, met all the mandates in the least disruptive way possible, and solved the WSHS overcrowding.

Reid rejected a perfectly good map that would have gixed WSHS.

The only change she should have made to Map 4 was keeping SPA 8922 at Lewis.

You keep mentioning BRAC. Region 4 BRAC recommended the changes to map 4 based on updates numbers and community feedback. Reid adopted their recommendations for region 4. Moving those Sangster kids moved like 16 kids per class (it did almost zero in lowering any numbers, and moving RV at Lewis negated any 'numbers' in savings. I also believe that neighborhood has been busting its butt to prevent any neighborhoods in WS to be moved out. The target has moved and Reid will need to focus on a larger area to get WSHS under 115%. Or, neighborhoods unite together and keep pressure on Sandy to keep it off the vague 'watchlist' and into boundary cycle outlined by their own policy.

Reid rejected Map 4 for WSHS.

In Reid's map:

* Sangster split feeder did not get moved to Lake Braddock. Sangster was left at WSHS, leaving over 60 students at WSHS that should have been moved to Lake Braddock.

* The most obvious move from Map 4, sending the Keene Mill island all the way on the other side of the boundary, Shannon Station, Blarney Stone, and a few other streets, to White Oaks and Lake Braddock was nixed by Reid. Instead, Reid moved all those Shannon Station townhouses to overcrowded Cardinal Forest, then moved Cardinal Forest homes that were walkable to CF to Keene Mill. This was around 18 students per grade, close to 120 elemementary students and around 70 high school students total.**

* Map 4 moved Rolling Valley SPA 8922 into WSHS from Lewis. Reid rejected this change temporarily, putting SPA 8922 on a mid cycle review to be looked at for rezoning to WSHS in January 2027.

Combined, the Sangster and Shannon Station recommendations from Map 4 removed around 130 students from WSHS, close to 5% of the students.

Combined with class of 2026 graduating, WSHS would be around the target of 105% capacity by adopting Map 4 rezoning Sangster and Shannon Station to Lake Braddock, and rejecting Map 4 moving SPA 8922 Rolling Valley Key Lewis into WSHS, leaving them at Lewis and Key.

Dr. Reid should have kept the majority of Map 4, rejecting only the Rolling Valley SPA 8922 move.

The school board should override Dr. Reid and adopt the Map 4 moved out of WSHS, and freezing any moves into WSHS.



** The Shannon Station townhouse community is slightly smaller than the townhouse community in SPA 8922. It sends between 15+ kids per grade to WSHS. Anderson wants to rezone SPA 8922 to WSHS claiming it will only be around 5 kids per grade because that is how many it sends to Lewis. In my opinion, SPA 8922 will reflect a similar high number of high school students very quickly if it is rezoned to WSHS from Lewis.

Map 4 was never 'BRAC's map'. They took the Thru map 4 and mage adjusting bases on the numbers and community feedback. Moving kids from Rolling Valley was never recommended by BRAC. I'm on the BRAC, but not for region 4. The whole process was a complete mess.

That explains a lot.

FCPS really treated the BRAC members terribly

Every single meeting I attended, they threw them under the bus repeatedly, any time anyone expressed displeasure with the school board, Dr. Reid, Thru. FCPS or the process.

Our reps honestly tried to do the best job they could, follow the guidance, and rezone as few people as possible. I spoke with several of the cpecial interest reps, and they tried to do a good job too. FCPS treated the volunteers so poorly

Not to mention the Brac members who were literally threatened with legal action personally from disgruntled neighborhoods to leave them alone. Which meant the loudest/most legally equipped neighborhoods went untouched even if was the most logical switch. And now they claim many of those BRAC members are interested in a full time position on the board going forward? The few I have spoken too could not be done fast enough. That was a lot of stress and additional work for being a volunteer. And on top of that having to be the scapegoat and take the blame on chin.

I’m sure they took a lot of undeserved grief. I think they asked for more information from FCPS and Thru Consulting and typically were blown off.

I’ll also say that when I wrote to BRAC members, the BRAC members from our pyramid never acknowledged I’d written them and the BRAC member from FairFACTS Matters consistently did. And we aren’t in the Langley pyramid, so that dispelled the notion that FairFACTS Matters was just a front for Great Falls.

Name your pyramid.

I am a different poster.

We are on the other side of the county.

Our BRAC reps were helpful, but the FairFacts people were exceptionally helpful.

At the beginning of the process, they even offered to drive out to our area and hold a community meeting to get everyone up to speed on the background of rezoning polices, 8130 and the upcoming brac process.

We are far away from them, and our schools do not overlap in any way.

They continued to keep us informed throughout the process.

FairFacts was very helpful to many areas not part of Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They either need to go with Map 4 moving Sangster and Shannon station to Lake Braddock, or leave WSHS alone for the next 5 years.

BRAC gave them a very good map. Map 4 was fair, reasonable, met all the mandates in the least disruptive way possible, and solved the WSHS overcrowding.

Reid rejected a perfectly good map that would have gixed WSHS.

The only change she should have made to Map 4 was keeping SPA 8922 at Lewis.

You keep mentioning BRAC. Region 4 BRAC recommended the changes to map 4 based on updates numbers and community feedback. Reid adopted their recommendations for region 4. Moving those Sangster kids moved like 16 kids per class (it did almost zero in lowering any numbers, and moving RV at Lewis negated any 'numbers' in savings. I also believe that neighborhood has been busting its butt to prevent any neighborhoods in WS to be moved out. The target has moved and Reid will need to focus on a larger area to get WSHS under 115%. Or, neighborhoods unite together and keep pressure on Sandy to keep it off the vague 'watchlist' and into boundary cycle outlined by their own policy.

Reid rejected Map 4 for WSHS.

In Reid's map:

* Sangster split feeder did not get moved to Lake Braddock. Sangster was left at WSHS, leaving over 60 students at WSHS that should have been moved to Lake Braddock.

* The most obvious move from Map 4, sending the Keene Mill island all the way on the other side of the boundary, Shannon Station, Blarney Stone, and a few other streets, to White Oaks and Lake Braddock was nixed by Reid. Instead, Reid moved all those Shannon Station townhouses to overcrowded Cardinal Forest, then moved Cardinal Forest homes that were walkable to CF to Keene Mill. This was around 18 students per grade, close to 120 elemementary students and around 70 high school students total.**

* Map 4 moved Rolling Valley SPA 8922 into WSHS from Lewis. Reid rejected this change temporarily, putting SPA 8922 on a mid cycle review to be looked at for rezoning to WSHS in January 2027.

Combined, the Sangster and Shannon Station recommendations from Map 4 removed around 130 students from WSHS, close to 5% of the students.

Combined with class of 2026 graduating, WSHS would be around the target of 105% capacity by adopting Map 4 rezoning Sangster and Shannon Station to Lake Braddock, and rejecting Map 4 moving SPA 8922 Rolling Valley Key Lewis into WSHS, leaving them at Lewis and Key.

Dr. Reid should have kept the majority of Map 4, rejecting only the Rolling Valley SPA 8922 move.

The school board should override Dr. Reid and adopt the Map 4 moved out of WSHS, and freezing any moves into WSHS.



** The Shannon Station townhouse community is slightly smaller than the townhouse community in SPA 8922. It sends between 15+ kids per grade to WSHS. Anderson wants to rezone SPA 8922 to WSHS claiming it will only be around 5 kids per grade because that is how many it sends to Lewis. In my opinion, SPA 8922 will reflect a similar high number of high school students very quickly if it is rezoned to WSHS from Lewis.

Map 4 was never 'BRAC's map'. They took the Thru map 4 and mage adjusting bases on the numbers and community feedback. Moving kids from Rolling Valley was never recommended by BRAC. I'm on the BRAC, but not for region 4. The whole process was a complete mess.

That explains a lot.

FCPS really treated the BRAC members terribly

Every single meeting I attended, they threw them under the bus repeatedly, any time anyone expressed displeasure with the school board, Dr. Reid, Thru. FCPS or the process.

Our reps honestly tried to do the best job they could, follow the guidance, and rezone as few people as possible. I spoke with several of the cpecial interest reps, and they tried to do a good job too. FCPS treated the volunteers so poorly

Not to mention the Brac members who were literally threatened with legal action personally from disgruntled neighborhoods to leave them alone. Which meant the loudest/most legally equipped neighborhoods went untouched even if was the most logical switch. And now they claim many of those BRAC members are interested in a full time position on the board going forward? The few I have spoken too could not be done fast enough. That was a lot of stress and additional work for being a volunteer. And on top of that having to be the scapegoat and take the blame on chin.

I’m sure they took a lot of undeserved grief. I think they asked for more information from FCPS and Thru Consulting and typically were blown off.

I’ll also say that when I wrote to BRAC members, the BRAC members from our pyramid never acknowledged I’d written them and the BRAC member from FairFACTS Matters consistently did. And we aren’t in the Langley pyramid, so that dispelled the notion that FairFACTS Matters was just a front for Great Falls.

Name your pyramid.

I don't respond well to commands on an anonymous forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They either need to go with Map 4 moving Sangster and Shannon station to Lake Braddock, or leave WSHS alone for the next 5 years.

BRAC gave them a very good map. Map 4 was fair, reasonable, met all the mandates in the least disruptive way possible, and solved the WSHS overcrowding.

Reid rejected a perfectly good map that would have gixed WSHS.

The only change she should have made to Map 4 was keeping SPA 8922 at Lewis.

You keep mentioning BRAC. Region 4 BRAC recommended the changes to map 4 based on updates numbers and community feedback. Reid adopted their recommendations for region 4. Moving those Sangster kids moved like 16 kids per class (it did almost zero in lowering any numbers, and moving RV at Lewis negated any 'numbers' in savings. I also believe that neighborhood has been busting its butt to prevent any neighborhoods in WS to be moved out. The target has moved and Reid will need to focus on a larger area to get WSHS under 115%. Or, neighborhoods unite together and keep pressure on Sandy to keep it off the vague 'watchlist' and into boundary cycle outlined by their own policy.

Reid rejected Map 4 for WSHS.

In Reid's map:

* Sangster split feeder did not get moved to Lake Braddock. Sangster was left at WSHS, leaving over 60 students at WSHS that should have been moved to Lake Braddock.

* The most obvious move from Map 4, sending the Keene Mill island all the way on the other side of the boundary, Shannon Station, Blarney Stone, and a few other streets, to White Oaks and Lake Braddock was nixed by Reid. Instead, Reid moved all those Shannon Station townhouses to overcrowded Cardinal Forest, then moved Cardinal Forest homes that were walkable to CF to Keene Mill. This was around 18 students per grade, close to 120 elemementary students and around 70 high school students total.**

* Map 4 moved Rolling Valley SPA 8922 into WSHS from Lewis. Reid rejected this change temporarily, putting SPA 8922 on a mid cycle review to be looked at for rezoning to WSHS in January 2027.

Combined, the Sangster and Shannon Station recommendations from Map 4 removed around 130 students from WSHS, close to 5% of the students.

Combined with class of 2026 graduating, WSHS would be around the target of 105% capacity by adopting Map 4 rezoning Sangster and Shannon Station to Lake Braddock, and rejecting Map 4 moving SPA 8922 Rolling Valley Key Lewis into WSHS, leaving them at Lewis and Key.

Dr. Reid should have kept the majority of Map 4, rejecting only the Rolling Valley SPA 8922 move.

The school board should override Dr. Reid and adopt the Map 4 moved out of WSHS, and freezing any moves into WSHS.



** The Shannon Station townhouse community is slightly smaller than the townhouse community in SPA 8922. It sends between 15+ kids per grade to WSHS. Anderson wants to rezone SPA 8922 to WSHS claiming it will only be around 5 kids per grade because that is how many it sends to Lewis. In my opinion, SPA 8922 will reflect a similar high number of high school students very quickly if it is rezoned to WSHS from Lewis.

Map 4 was never 'BRAC's map'. They took the Thru map 4 and mage adjusting bases on the numbers and community feedback. Moving kids from Rolling Valley was never recommended by BRAC. I'm on the BRAC, but not for region 4. The whole process was a complete mess.

That explains a lot.

FCPS really treated the BRAC members terribly

Every single meeting I attended, they threw them under the bus repeatedly, any time anyone expressed displeasure with the school board, Dr. Reid, Thru. FCPS or the process.

Our reps honestly tried to do the best job they could, follow the guidance, and rezone as few people as possible. I spoke with several of the cpecial interest reps, and they tried to do a good job too. FCPS treated the volunteers so poorly

Not to mention the Brac members who were literally threatened with legal action personally from disgruntled neighborhoods to leave them alone. Which meant the loudest/most legally equipped neighborhoods went untouched even if was the most logical switch. And now they claim many of those BRAC members are interested in a full time position on the board going forward? The few I have spoken too could not be done fast enough. That was a lot of stress and additional work for being a volunteer. And on top of that having to be the scapegoat and take the blame on chin.

I’m sure they took a lot of undeserved grief. I think they asked for more information from FCPS and Thru Consulting and typically were blown off.

I’ll also say that when I wrote to BRAC members, the BRAC members from our pyramid never acknowledged I’d written them and the BRAC member from FairFACTS Matters consistently did. And we aren’t in the Langley pyramid, so that dispelled the notion that FairFACTS Matters was just a front for Great Falls.

Name your pyramid.

I don't respond well to commands on an anonymous forum.

How about I throw in a please to that command.

Just curious as to what your pyramid is and how FairFACTS got involved into BRAC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't about Western HS. It's about a Herndon parent who claimed to represent all of the Herndon pyramid PTAs and complained that FCPS isn't moving Langley kids to Herndon, and then triggering a reaction from someone else who also claims to be a Herndon parent that PTA lady doesn't represent them (presumably because they are happy with Herndon and don't want anyone reassigned there who doesn't want to be there).

I get the irritation with someone who claims to have a platform they don't have, but realistically nothing is going to change the Langley/Herndon boundary right now. The case for doing so hasn't been made. Things may be different in five years if the Tysons area being moved to Langley eventually overcrowds Cooper or Langley, but that will play out over time, and not before they vote on boundaries on January 22nd.

Listening to some posters here and other places who were against the new high school, they like to claim Herndon HS has hundreds and hundreds of empty seats. Isn't under-enrollment listed as one reason for possible boundary adjustments? Seems like there is a case to be made to me. I'm betting you won't hear about those empty seats nearly as much as we come up on the next boundary review cycle.