Anonymous wrote:Ok let’s call it 100 townhouses in that area added to WSHS

150 single family homes lost to Cherry Run/LBSS

200ish lost to Sangster/LBSS

Net loss is ~250 households.

Please stop with the nonsense.

What WSHS houses are getting moved to Cherry Run?

Do you mean White Oaks?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok let’s call it 100 townhouses in that area added to WSHS

150 single family homes lost to Cherry Run/LBSS

200ish lost to Sangster/LBSS

Net loss is ~250 households.

Please stop with the nonsense.

WSHS loses only 99 kids from Sangster.

PP was arguing the impact to WSHS of those based on number of homes, especially those townhomes. WSHS gains 100 townhomes and loses 350 single family homes in this scenario.

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:8


Go ahead and look up the latest September enrollment numbers also.

Does this plan reflect kids zoned for KAA, or will that be a reshuffle later?

They already have a plan. This is all for show.

Anonymous wrote:Ok let’s call it 100 townhouses in that area added to WSHS

150 single family homes lost to Cherry Run/LBSS

200ish lost to Sangster/LBSS

Net loss is ~250 households.

Please stop with the nonsense.

WSHS loses only 99 kids from Sangster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?

The most recent numbers posted. They were on here somewhere. Reid also came out and said county wide numbers are down (and blamed ICE)

Wshs was not affected by ICE.

Do you need your hand held and get led to the numbers showing Keene Mill HVES, etc all projecting less?

Ok let’s call it 100 townhouses in that area added to WSHS

150 single family homes lost to Cherry Run/LBSS

200ish lost to Sangster/LBSS

Net loss is ~250 households.

Please stop with the nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?

The most recent numbers posted. They were on here somewhere. Reid also came out and said county wide numbers are down (and blamed ICE)

Enrollment at WSHS actually increased over last year based on the September membership counts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?

The most recent numbers posted. They were on here somewhere. Reid also came out and said county wide numbers are down (and blamed ICE)

Wshs was not affected by ICE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?

The most recent numbers posted. They were on here somewhere. Reid also came out and said county wide numbers are down (and blamed ICE)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

It looks like they might be adding over 100 Rolling Valley town homes to WSHS.

Not even close to 100

What are the streets?

There are a lot of townhouses in that little section of Rolling Valley.

WSHS reduces number of students by 160 and gets to their threshold in scenario 4.

Takes it under the trailer number and with projections for all feeder ES’s being lower now, it’ll be absolutely fine and even under capacity numbers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Yes it is. Because they’re moving a bunch of townhomes in there which currently are zoned for Lewis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are they justifying adding another neighborhood to WSHS and moving a small single family neighborhood to Sangster ? I thought the whole point was to eliminate overcrowding.

Numbers changed and it’s no longer projected to be overcrowded

Like magically changed? Changed how?