Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

[/quote]

It’s so puzzling that others feel the need to tell neighborhoods how they should feel about being moved from a school community— one that they are well established in. [/quote]

It’s puzzling that Sangster families feel the need to complain about going to Lake Braddock when other neighborhoods around, including those in Hunt Valley, Daventry and West Springfield elementary could be moved to Lewis. Those neighborhoods also feel part of the WSHS community but they could be moved to the other side of the mixing bowl. [/quote]
So Sangster parents should fall on their swords for the greater good? Hunt Valley was offered South County and they rejected it. Nobody wants to leave WSHS, of course they’re going to fight to stay. [/quote]

That Sangster neighborhood was marked to attend Lake Braddock in all versions of the maps.  Map 1 and Map 2 were never meant to be stand alone maps.  Maps 1 and 2 each showed the 2 different priorities BRAC was taxed with, one of which was eliminating split feeders.  Map 3 combined those 2 directives into a single map that represented maps 1 & 2 combined into a single format.

It is misleading to imply that Hunt Valley and Sangster were swapped.

Sangster was always marked to leave WSHS for LBSS.

In fact, part of Sangster off Hooes Rd was selected to get rezoned to South County.  The BRAC committee has been helping Sangster families, because that Sangster neighborhood rezoning was reversed.  So don't say that BRAC is not doing their jobs or not helping Sangster families.

The BRAC reps have to recommend maps, or Reid is going to pick.  They are doing a great job trying to follow their directives and keep as many neighborhoods as intact as possible and as much within their community as possible.  Lake Braddock is part of the Sangster community.[/quote]

It actually sounds like HV and Sangster should work together on this.  BRAC actually recommended to keep that Sangster neighborhood to stay at WS.  There was a scenario that was shown to BRAC keeping both HV and Sangster at WS.  But the public Scenerio 4 map moved the Sangster kids out because somehow Rolling Valley got moved in.  That was not a BRAC recommendation and came as a total surprise.  [color=blue]If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation? [/color] [/quote]

To the blue part, no.

A neighborhood needs to get rezoned out of WSHS, whether or not Rolling Valley is moved into WSHS or stays at Lewis.

WSHS needs to lose enough students to get to 105% capacity.

Moving Sangster out achieves this.

Moving RV in puts WSHS at, I think, 106% capacity.  FCPS is saying RV will only be 5 students per grade, which everyone knows is not accurate based on the number of houses, around 280, and the Daventry history.

Moving Sangster out meand WSHS might not need another rezoning in 5 years.

Moving Rolling Valley in means WSHS will be just as overcrowded in 1 or 2 years
[/quote]

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

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

Combined, they are exactly the amount of kids needed to get WSHS to 105%[/quote]

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

WSHS has some smart uses of space from the renovation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics