Anonymous wrote:If Sandy supports anything before requiring residency verification and an audit of transfers into WSHS from Lewis then her entire WSHS constituency should vote her out in 2027.

+1. Though to be fair, what else is she going to do? She doesn’t have any real skills. She’s not even a good politician.

If Sandy supports anything before requiring residency verification and an audit of transfers into WSHS from Lewis then her entire WSHS constituency should vote her out in 2027.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said they will have flexibility “if they can”, but also said there will be overcrowding. She’s watching her words to give people hope and defer blame to someone else if it doesn’t work out. This is what happens when we have politicians as school board members.

She’s being honest and not promising things she can’t deliver, which you’d also complain about. But go on.

Go watch the July 18 meeting and tell me that Sandy Anderson has anything but complete disdain for members of her community. She was shaking with hatred at her constituents. I encourage you to go watch it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the entire school is moving out of WSHS boundaries to Lewis, that will leave WSHS quite UNDER enrolled. HV has an enrollment of 759 according to their school profiles, WSHS has an enrollment of 2731. Taking out HV puts WS under 2000 students, which would make it one of the smallest high schools in Fairfax County.

You forgot to divide the total by 7 to account for each individual grade. Only four "grades" of HV attend WSHS. So with those numbers a rolling average of about 433 kids (not 759), for grades 9-12, attend high school from HV.

Still puts it at 2298 which is under enrolled compared to its size and capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She said they will have flexibility “if they can”, but also said there will be overcrowding. She’s watching her words to give people hope and defer blame to someone else if it doesn’t work out. This is what happens when we have politicians as school board members.

She’s being honest and not promising things she can’t deliver, which you’d also complain about. But go on.

I’m not complaining. I’m making observations. Clearly you don’t know the difference. But go on.

Anonymous wrote:If the entire school is moving out of WSHS boundaries to Lewis, that will leave WSHS quite UNDER enrolled. HV has an enrollment of 759 according to their school profiles, WSHS has an enrollment of 2731. Taking out HV puts WS under 2000 students, which would make it one of the smallest high schools in Fairfax County.

You forgot to divide the total by 7 to account for each individual grade. Only four "grades" of HV attend WSHS. So with those numbers a rolling average of about 433 kids (not 759), for grades 9-12, attend high school from HV.

Just go to boarddocs or email her back and ask! Why come to DCUM and open up the nonsense speculation again?

Anonymous wrote:She said they will have flexibility “if they can”, but also said there will be overcrowding. She’s watching her words to give people hope and defer blame to someone else if it doesn’t work out. This is what happens when we have politicians as school board members.

She’s being honest and not promising things she can’t deliver, which you’d also complain about. But go on.

Yeah that makes no sense.

If the entire school is moving out of WSHS boundaries to Lewis, that will leave WSHS quite UNDER enrolled. HV has an enrollment of 759 according to their school profiles, WSHS has an enrollment of 2731. Taking out HV puts WS under 2000 students, which would make it one of the smallest high schools in Fairfax County.

Here’s the email:

I hope you are all having a wonderful summer! I wanted to drop you a quick note to check in about how things are progressing with the boundary work, advise you of a number of upcoming opportunities, and provide an update on the new FCPS website.

As explained below, the Board voted 9-2 in favor of the revised boundary policy at the July 18 regular meeting. I was proud of the work our board did to conclude the revision of this policy that started in 2018.

I also want to share why I personally voted no to my colleagues’ motion locking in phasing for up to seven grades depending on the school. My colleagues knew of my concerns that their proposal would cause increased crowding at some of our schools that are currently overcrowded. I supported the substitute language that was ultimately taken from the existing policy.

The amendment for the substitute language doesn't change the policy significantly from the draft I worked on in the Governance Committee over the last six months, and it does not lock the county into something we don't know is possible. It does, however, give enough flexibility to take advantage of the possibility of allowing ALL students to finish where they start if we can, which the original amendments would not have been able to ensure for elementary students.

The next phase of the process will take place with our Superintendent, Dr. Reid. She will use the updated policy to review and propose any future changes to school boundaries. One of the strongest aspects of this new policy is the required robust community engagement. No boundaries will be changed without the Board’s approval unless it’s a temporary emergency adjustment (i.e. fire, flood, etc). Not only will there be initial discussions in each region, but there will also be pyramid-level meetings once we determine if schools in a pyramid have a proposed change.

The School Board will vote on any recommended, permanent boundary changes, and there will eventually be an implementation date for the changes. All this to say, there is no set date for potential boundary changes. Whatever the timeline or the path forward, I know that all the School Board members feel strongly about keeping the public informed.

I will continue to keep you updated on the Board’s work regarding the Policy 8130 review in my monthly newsletters. I would encourage those looking for more information to be careful about where you are getting your information. Some articles and sources are posting false information meant to rile up members of our communities for their own gain. I will continue to work hard to keep you informed as I find out more about the plan.

An article in the Washington Examiner from this morning claims there is already a map with HVES zoned to Lewis. I imagine that may have promoted her email. Questionable source and author, but it does raise some questions.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/3103349/fairfax-county-wants-to-use-our-children-as-guinea-pigs-in-an-equity-experiment/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWOqlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHbJzjORGAELjK54Ti40oGVMDTkUxEP2lsi1Iwx-CxPeGmj0A_BxO3LmXzA_aem_e-XiQ-cKR31KOtefPUVKmw

She said they will have flexibility “if they can”, but also said there will be overcrowding. She’s watching her words to give people hope and defer blame to someone else if it doesn’t work out. This is what happens when we have politicians as school board members.

Anonymous wrote:I hope Jeff doesn’t lock this before someone explains this to me. Sandy Anderson sent an email that is confusing. She said they voted 9-2 to update the boundary policy but that she voted no for an amendment and then something about kids being able to finish where they started.

Question: Was a phasing amendment allowing kids to finish where they started, approved?

She never shared the results of the amendment vote. I read that email several times and did not get it.

Why don't you post the e-mail?

Sandy Anderson voted in favor of revisions to the boundary policy and against proposed amendments that would have guaranteed that students would be allowed to remain in schools they were already attending.

In other words, as the policy is implemented, Anderson wanted to preserve FCPS's ability to require students to switch schools without "grandfathering." If your kids is a rising high school sophomore or junior in, say, the fall of 2025 or 2026, Anderson may tell you that she hopes they will be able to stay at their current schools, but she wasn't prepared to promise that would be the case.

I hope Jeff doesn’t lock this before someone explains this to me. Sandy Anderson sent an email that is confusing. She said they voted 9-2 to update the boundary policy but that she voted no for an amendment and then something about kids being able to finish where they started.

Question: Was a phasing amendment allowing kids to finish where they started, approved?

She never shared the results of the amendment vote. I read that email several times and did not get it.