FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

We had a zoom meeting with Sandy Anderson monday giving very VERY clear feedback about our neighborhood and we felt she was very dismissive and would not bring our thoughts to the larger board. It left us all with a very bad taste in our mouths. She also didn't answer specific questions we had and instead brought completely different pyramids and schools into the conversation. I was extremely disappointed.

In addition to the feedback on the maps themselves, who else would we contact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Feels like all the fighting could be solved if FCPS would just create an ESOL magnet school to fast-track English language acquisition through a strict and rigorous immersion program. Take the problem kids out of the system at all levels, get their language skills up to par, and then put them back in. Alternatively, created some additional test-in magnet schools at the Elementary and Middle-School levels, and open a second TJ in the Western part of the county. Any/all of these ideas would quell much of the rightful uproar about boundaries changing for families paying the highest property taxes, and empty-nesters tired of seeing their property values penalized by poor school ratings.

You make a lot of sense.

Magnet West. They could even call it the Dunne School or Reid School!

No these are terrible ideas. Aside from the obvious equity issue, there is no way a single school would be able to house all ESOL kids, never mind the transportation challenges in getting them all there. And creating a magnet school would not help solve the capacity issues in the western part of the county which was their whole reasoning for making the purchase.

I really don't care about equity given the property taxes I'm paying in two great neighborhoods bordered by problem areas. FCPS needs to deal with the ESOL issue, and the only way for non-English speakers to achieve fluency and mastery is full immersion in a rigorous environment. As for magnet schools, ift they are test-in it's your choice to have your kids test or not. If not, they can go to your local schools. NYC manages to do this without so much griping, and kids take the public transportation from all the boroughs, with some VERY long commutes. Stop penalizing kids who want to learn in an English-speaking classroom free of behavioral issues, and stop penalizing homeowners who are funding your schools despite the obvious hit to their property values.

You’re asking for an English immersion program….isnt that what regular schools are?

Dont ALL kids want to learn in a classroom without behavior issues? Why do you think there would be no behavior issues at a magnet school?

Goodie for kids who test in to whatever magnet style is popular these days but what about the kids who live in the high school desert this site as a regular high school could solve?

There are seperate ESOL classes for students in MS and HS that are focused on teaching students who are not fluent in English. The classes are not shared with non-ESOL classes. My understanding is that there are different teaching methods that are employed to help the ESOL students learn the material and English. FCPS does not do this in ES. Students are placed directly into a regular class and expected to learn English and the subject material with their same aged peers. This seems not to work all that well for many kids.

The issue is not necessarily the language barrier, although that is part of it, but that many ESOL studetns are coming from places where they did not attend school in their native language. We have a 2nd grader arriving to the US who is not fluent in English and has never attended school, but we are putting them in a class with 2nd graders and expecting that they will learn how school works, learn English, and learn concepts that build on concepts that they were never taught because they have not attended school. You can guess how well that goes.

We are asking teachers to do too much and asking parents at the schools with a heavy immigrant population to wait patiently while their kids are ignored because the school is graded based on how many kids pass the SOL. This includes the kids who come from places where they speak a different langauge and have never been to school before.

ES needs to have a robust ESOL program. Kids in ESOL need to be in their own classes that can be taught to them and meet their needs. Non-ESOL kids need to be in classes that can meet their needs. We seem to understand this in MS and HS but not ES. The parents at high poverty schools whose kids are doing well, I know of Henrdon and SLHS, know that there is a school within a school. The MC/UMC kids are in honors and AP/IB programs. They are not in classes with ESOL learners or kids who are grade levels behind. The kids at those schools do receive a good education but it is a different environment then Chantilly or Centerville or Oakton, I am choosing those schools because they are close to Herndon and SLHS. There is a division between the kids and there are fewer high level AP/IB classes offered because there are fewer kids who can take those classes.

It is less that Herndon or Lewis or SLHS ot Mt. Vernon does a poor job of educating the kids, many kids do very well there, and more that there are fewer opportunities because more has to be done to help the kids who are struggling and that number of kids is far larger at those schools. If you want your kid to take higher level IB classes or have better access to classes like AP Physics C, you probably have to pupil place out of the Title 1 HS. That is why parents don't want their kids moved to those schools; you lose academic opportunities.

[Anonymous]

ES needs to have a robust ESOL program. Kids in ESOL need to be in their own classes that can be taught to them and meet their needs.

I agree and disagree with this.

Yes, ES needs to have a robust ESOL program, but disagree that they need to be in their own classes--at least at K-1 level.

I taught K and 1. Kids learn the language pretty quickly at that point.

I do think there needs to be intensive English instruction, as well.

In the current environment, I suspect we will have fewer older kids arriving that have not been in school at all.

But, the idea of an "immersion school" is ridiculous. It would be an utter failure because it would not be "immersion." It would be a bunch of kids who don't speak English going to English language class all day and speaking their native language to their friends in the class.

Also, truancy is a huge problem with these kids. They need to attend the closest school possible. Sending them further away won't work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We had a zoom meeting with Sandy Anderson monday giving very VERY clear feedback about our neighborhood and we felt she was very dismissive and would not bring our thoughts to the larger board. It left us all with a very bad taste in our mouths. She also didn't answer specific questions we had and instead brought completely different pyramids and schools into the conversation. I was extremely disappointed.

In addition to the feedback on the maps themselves, who else would we contact?

I would suggest the "At large" members. And, it wouldn't hurt to contact all the other members, as well. But, be sure you have your talking points clear and ready.

I haven't watched any of the meetings --except for clips here and there. What is the attitude of other members towards Sandy Anderson? Are the moves you object to totally within her district? If it affects another district, approach that person, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a zoom meeting with Sandy Anderson monday giving very VERY clear feedback about our neighborhood and we felt she was very dismissive and would not bring our thoughts to the larger board. It left us all with a very bad taste in our mouths. She also didn't answer specific questions we had and instead brought completely different pyramids and schools into the conversation. I was extremely disappointed.

In addition to the feedback on the maps themselves, who else would we contact?

I would suggest the "At large" members. And, it wouldn't hurt to contact all the other members, as well. But, be sure you have your talking points clear and ready.

I haven't watched any of the meetings --except for clips here and there. What is the attitude of other members towards Sandy Anderson? Are the moves you object to totally within her district? If it affects another district, approach that person, too.

I spoke with Sandy Anderson 1:1. It is about what that poster described, except she stated she was actually in favor of grandfathering after giving all the reasons why grandfathering won't be able to happen.

Honestly, I think she is in over her head, and likely has a very small circle of like minded people, to not have anticipated how unpopular this rezoning is and particularly the way it was pushed forward.

If they had left the original policy intact, done small targeted rezoning to fix actual issues, and stuck to the tradition of guaranteed generous grandfathering, then they would not be in the mess they are in now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a zoom meeting with Sandy Anderson monday giving very VERY clear feedback about our neighborhood and we felt she was very dismissive and would not bring our thoughts to the larger board. It left us all with a very bad taste in our mouths. She also didn't answer specific questions we had and instead brought completely different pyramids and schools into the conversation. I was extremely disappointed.

In addition to the feedback on the maps themselves, who else would we contact?

I would suggest the "At large" members. And, it wouldn't hurt to contact all the other members, as well. But, be sure you have your talking points clear and ready.

I haven't watched any of the meetings --except for clips here and there. What is the attitude of other members towards Sandy Anderson? Are the moves you object to totally within her district? If it affects another district, approach that person, too.

I spoke with Sandy Anderson 1:1. It is about what that poster described, except she stated she was actually in favor of grandfathering after giving all the reasons why grandfathering won't be able to happen.

Honestly, I think she is in over her head, and likely has a very small circle of like minded people, to not have anticipated how unpopular this rezoning is and particularly the way it was pushed forward.

If they had left the original policy intact, done small targeted rezoning to fix actual issues, and stuck to the tradition of guaranteed generous grandfathering, then they would not be in the mess they are in now.

I think that if the school board had kept the original process, the over crowding at WSHS could have been dealt with fairly easily by simply sending the Keene Mill island down near Burke to White Oaks/Lake Braddock, and closing the Sangster split feeder along Reservation and Gamelord to send 100% of Sangster to Lake Braddock, with grandfathering of all current Lake Braddock students. Many families have wanted this to happen in recent past years.

If they had done that sensible change with grandfathering guaranteed and without the emotional baggage of this controversial county wide rezoning, it could have been done with minimal, manageable push back and much less controversy.

Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.

The school board started this 8130 change because they wanted cover to do gerrymandered bussing of high performing kids to low performing schools to achieve an equity One Fairfax utopia.

They did not anticipate the winds changing in 2025, making equity rezoning virtually impossible, so they now are throwing everything at the wall to make something stick to justify the turmoil they created.

Everyone is now up in arms, so even sensible rezoning between equal quality/equal distance schools is getting fierce resistance.

[Anonymous]

<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

The other sticky point over there is the fact that Sangster is the AAP center for Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley, and those schools don’t have LLIV. Keeping the split feeder means that the AAP kids at OH/HV are going sort of in pyramid for AAP.

Now … they definitely have no problems sending kids out of pyramid for an AAP center. But that shouldn’t happen IMO and parents don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

Sending all of Sangster to LB (with generous grandfathering) makes the most sense.

LB is much closer to that neighborhood than Irving, and almost the exact same distance as WSHS, so there will actually be transportation savings from this move from cutting the middle school commute in half.

Sangster is a split feeder. This will close the split feeder.

Lake Braddock and WSHS are equivalent schools, with similar quality, outcome, student body, military community, facilities, etc. They overlap significantly with scouts, sports, church and community groups.

Housing values won't change. They might even go up.

The Gamelord and Reservation neighborhoods are actually the closest part of Sangster to Lake Braddock. They would have the shortest commute of all of the Sangster neighborhoods to Lake Bradfock, which somewhat nulifies any transportation arguments against rezoning.

With extensive grandfathering of 6th-12th graders, closing the Sangster split feeder and sending 100% of Sangster to Lake Braddock would be a seamless, relatively painless process that actually benefits those students instead of hurting them and makes sense for the district and the community.

If this has been proposed a couple of years ago, before all the controversy of 8130 and Thru got everyone so worked up, it would not hsve been met with the resistance that is happening now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

Sending all of Sangster to LB (with generous grandfathering) makes the most sense.

LB is much closer to that neighborhood than Irving, and almost the exact same distance as WSHS, so there will actually be transportation savings from this move from cutting the middle school commute in half.

Sangster is a split feeder. This will close the split feeder.

Lake Braddock and WSHS are equivalent schools, with similar quality, outcome, student body, military community, facilities, etc. They overlap significantly with scouts, sports, church and community groups.

Housing values won't change. They might even go up.

The Gamelord and Reservation neighborhoods are actually the closest part of Sangster to Lake Braddock. They would have the shortest commute of all of the Sangster neighborhoods to Lake Bradfock, which somewhat nulifies any transportation arguments against rezoning.

With extensive grandfathering of 6th-12th graders, closing the Sangster split feeder and sending 100% of Sangster to Lake Braddock would be a seamless, relatively painless process that actually benefits those students instead of hurting them and makes sense for the district and the community.

If this has been proposed a couple of years ago, before all the controversy of 8130 and Thru got everyone so worked up, it would not hsve been met with the resistance that is happening now.

That being said, before FCPS rezones any of WSHS, they nedd to do a full residency check of that school.

They have had kids as far away as Robinson, South County and Lewis/Saratoga attending the school under false addresses, along with other Lewis zoned neighborhoods closer to the mixing bowl and from the Lewis neighborhoods along the parkway. There is not an insignificant number of out of zone students attending WSHS.

Before FCPS displaces current WSHS families, they need to prove that they aren't rezoning them to accomodate out of zone kids using false addresses who shouldn't be there to begin with.

[Anonymous]

SA cannot guarantee grandfathering or “phasing” as it is now called. She said that it definitely would not be for 6-12, but if a student started at a school, hopefully they would be able to finish at that school, meaning Irving kids would then be sent to LBSS for HS.

I would also disagree that if this had been proposed a few years ago, it would still be met with resistance. Families purchased homes for the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

Sending all of Sangster to LB (with generous grandfathering) makes the most sense.

LB is much closer to that neighborhood than Irving, and almost the exact same distance as WSHS, so there will actually be transportation savings from this move from cutting the middle school commute in half.

Sangster is a split feeder. This will close the split feeder.

Lake Braddock and WSHS are equivalent schools, with similar quality, outcome, student body, military community, facilities, etc. They overlap significantly with scouts, sports, church and community groups.

Housing values won't change. They might even go up.

The Gamelord and Reservation neighborhoods are actually the closest part of Sangster to Lake Braddock. They would have the shortest commute of all of the Sangster neighborhoods to Lake Bradfock, which somewhat nulifies any transportation arguments against rezoning.

With extensive grandfathering of 6th-12th graders, closing the Sangster split feeder and sending 100% of Sangster to Lake Braddock would be a seamless, relatively painless process that actually benefits those students instead of hurting them and makes sense for the district and the community.

If this has been proposed a couple of years ago, before all the controversy of 8130 and Thru got everyone so worked up, it would not hsve been met with the resistance that is happening now.

That being said, before FCPS rezones any of WSHS, they nedd to do a full residency check of that school.

They have had kids as far away as Robinson, South County and Lewis/Saratoga attending the school under false addresses, along with other Lewis zoned neighborhoods closer to the mixing bowl and from the Lewis neighborhoods along the parkway. There is not an insignificant number of out of zone students attending WSHS.

Before FCPS displaces current WSHS families, they need to prove that they aren't rezoning them to accomodate out of zone kids using false addresses who shouldn't be there to begin with.

They should also check Edison … the best HS in Prince George’s County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone watching the work session hear that at the BRAC meeting on Monday they will be reviewing NEW maps based on feedback?

I don’t think that was the original agenda so someone is definitely changing things up- gotta stay on top of it this summer.

On June 23 the BRAC will review REFINED scenarios.

Ricardy Anderson newsletter dated June 10, 2025 provides-
The Superintendent’s Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC) will review refined scenarios and provide feedback on behalf of our community during their next few meetings. Share feedback with your pyramid BRAC representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone watching the work session hear that at the BRAC meeting on Monday they will be reviewing NEW maps based on feedback?

I don’t think that was the original agenda so someone is definitely changing things up- gotta stay on top of it this summer.

On June 23 the BRAC will review REFINED scenarios.

Ricardy Anderson newsletter dated June 10, 2025 provides-
The Superintendent’s Boundary Review Advisory Committee (BRAC) will review refined scenarios and provide feedback on behalf of our community during their next few meetings. Share feedback with your pyramid BRAC representative.

So they are going to provide new maps based on the community feedback/outrage from May? Will they incorporate new divisions with the western high school purchase?

I know we all feel constantly dragged and on-edge about final proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:<<<Now, everyone is in a fighting mood, so even sensible changes that would have been welcomed by the affected families 2 years ago, such sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, now is getting angry pushback and organized resistance.>>>


I am the poster above and we do not want to go to be rezoned LBSS. I t is a fantastic school, but it does not change the fact that there are several reasons we want to stay in our current pyramid That is our main sticking point. SA even said in our meeting, Sangster sits in the WSHS boundary and we are the homes closest to Sangster. They said they are only looking to eliminate split feeders under 25% and we are 29%. A conversation dozens of pages back discussed distance to WSHS and LBSS, and how we are a group that is closer to WSHS anyway.

SA kept saying how families don't want split feeders and that is the main reason for eliminating them- and we are a group several hundred homes strong saying we absolutely do not mind them, so why change? I know not everyone in our neighborhood agrees, but enough do that we are really fighting to stay put.

The other sticky point over there is the fact that Sangster is the AAP center for Orange Hunt and Hunt Valley, and those schools don’t have LLIV. Keeping the split feeder means that the AAP kids at OH/HV are going sort of in pyramid for AAP.

Now … they definitely have no problems sending kids out of pyramid for an AAP center. But that shouldn’t happen IMO and parents don’t like it.

This was brought up to our school board member and her response was dismissive & started discussing eliminating AAP centers in the future. The issue there, is that the AAP center decision is a separate conversation & not part of the boundary conversation. It’s not currently happening in these schools.