Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

No, it isn't a half hour from that Sangster neighborhood to Lake Braddock.

Lake Braddock busses already pick up lots of students from that Sangster neighborhood,

And the Lake Braddock bus does not drive past West Springfield on its way to school from the Sangster neighborhood.

It will take the direct route, which goes from either Old Keene Mill to Shiplett to Burke Lake, or Lee Chapel to Burke Lake, coming from the opposite direction, not from West Springfield. The Sangster neighborhood will never need to pass WSHS on its way to Lake Braddock. That would be the most convoluted route possible.

Sangster to West Springfield High School is 4.2 miles, and is a heavier trafficked route, down the main commuting thoroughfare of Keene Mill Rd.

Sangster to Lake Braddock is 5.5 miles, along a less trafficked path.

The difference is negligible.

When you attempt to use the bus ride and distance as your argument against getting rezoned from WSHS to Lake Braddock, you are not helping your cause. You might actually be hurting your cause.

You are ignoring the fact that FCPS already has busses travelling through that Sangster neighborhood, picking up lots of kids from your neighborhood and taking them to Lake Braddock. FCPS has years of bus data from that Sangster neighborhood to Lake Braddock, so FCPS knows exactly how long both the Lake Braddock and WSHS busses take to get from the Sangster neighborhood to both LBSS and WSHS. They also know how much money the district will save each year by cutting the bus routes from that neighborhood in half, only sending one bus to LBSS instead of 2 busses to LB and WS.

The Sangster neighborhood has one or two reasonable arguments against getting rezoned.

The bus and commute time arguments are not one of them.

FCPS has too much transportation data from that neighborhood to both WSHS and Lake Braddock, years worth, for your arguments to have any credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Multiple people? 🤣 When have I claimed to be “multiple people?

You false statement matches your false claim that they said they were starting from scratch. Again, just calling BS on your lie.

I’ll ask you again, since you are clearing dodging, when did anyone at FCPS or on the SB, ever at any point in process, say they were starting from scratch?

DP. It sounds like you ascribe a ton of significance to the use or non-use of the phrase "start from scratch."

As a PP said, that phrase may not have been used. The phrase "comprehensive" is used, and you might want to look at the definition of that term.

I personally heard first-hand that Reid told people in early community meetings the boundary review could be "transformational."

So you'd have to be deliberately obtuse not to know that the School Board started out with grand ambitions and beat a hasty retreat over time. Indeed, it was the fear of these larger ambitions that led your Langley friends to demand multiple meetings with Robyn Lady and set up FairFACTS Matters in the summer of 2024.

Feel free to alternate "sour grapes" with "go touch grass," but your rhetoric betrays the constant fights you try to pick here.

I suspect this poster is also the one who says “boundary changes for thee but not for me.” She really need a hobby and a life.

I think there are at least two of them and they are batshit crazy 🤪. They always post right after each other and will comment on everything related to wshs/lewis, no matter the day or night. I suspect they are Daventry homeowners who are worried about their property values (even though they claim to be well off). I gave up fighting with them in the original boundary thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Multiple people? 🤣 When have I claimed to be “multiple people?

You false statement matches your false claim that they said they were starting from scratch. Again, just calling BS on your lie.

I’ll ask you again, since you are clearing dodging, when did anyone at FCPS or on the SB, ever at any point in process, say they were starting from scratch?

DP. It sounds like you ascribe a ton of significance to the use or non-use of the phrase "start from scratch."

As a PP said, that phrase may not have been used. The phrase "comprehensive" is used, and you might want to look at the definition of that term.

I personally heard first-hand that Reid told people in early community meetings the boundary review could be "transformational."

So you'd have to be deliberately obtuse not to know that the School Board started out with grand ambitions and beat a hasty retreat over time. Indeed, it was the fear of these larger ambitions that led your Langley friends to demand multiple meetings with Robyn Lady and set up FairFACTS Matters in the summer of 2024.

Feel free to alternate "sour grapes" with "go touch grass," but your rhetoric betrays the constant fights you try to pick here.

I suspect this poster is also the one who says “boundary changes for thee but not for me.” She really need a hobby and a life.

Holy moly, how much was paid in "consultant" fees to go from comprehensive changes to almost nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Multiple people? 🤣 When have I claimed to be “multiple people?

You false statement matches your false claim that they said they were starting from scratch. Again, just calling BS on your lie.

I’ll ask you again, since you are clearing dodging, when did anyone at FCPS or on the SB, ever at any point in process, say they were starting from scratch?

DP. It sounds like you ascribe a ton of significance to the use or non-use of the phrase "start from scratch."

As a PP said, that phrase may not have been used. The phrase "comprehensive" is used, and you might want to look at the definition of that term.

I personally heard first-hand that Reid told people in early community meetings the boundary review could be "transformational."

So you'd have to be deliberately obtuse not to know that the School Board started out with grand ambitions and beat a hasty retreat over time. Indeed, it was the fear of these larger ambitions that led your Langley friends to demand multiple meetings with Robyn Lady and set up FairFACTS Matters in the summer of 2024.

Feel free to alternate "sour grapes" with "go touch grass," but your rhetoric betrays the constant fights you try to pick here.

Agree with this post. I agree about "comprehensive." I also remember some discussion from SB members early on (and I think Lady may have been one of them) that alarmed our extremely well organized neighbors who live near the river.

I live in KAA area and know how awful these studies can be. I also know that there is a limit to how many kids can be served in a school and how important a school community can be.

When they purchased KAA, I thought that finally FCPS has done something right. And, then the "Pathways," "Academies" and "Magnets" started being thrown out.

The bottom line is that the Superintendent and the School Board need to concentrate on basics for our students (and I mean to include advanced classes) and make that work before they start throwing in bells and whistles.

Reid frequently mentions a plan for the 22nd Century. I'd prefer that she concentrate on the 21st century. And, this is the same with our schools.

My dad had a saying about my cousin: "Johnny is able to afford the luxuries, but he can't seem to afford the necessities."

That seems to be what Reid wants to do--get the luxuries, but not the necessities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

At whose expense? Almost ALL of WSHS's boundary is within a 2 mile radius of the school. That's why no one feels they should be the ones to go.

Daventry was never built for WSHS. Move them back to Lewis and problem is solved. Lewis gets more students, WSGS numbers decrease. Why was that not in the table.

I get it and I partially agree. But it also creates a small split feeder situation at WSES, unless you also change the Daventry elementary school. And that was a goal - to eliminate split feeders under 15%.

I love when this argument comes up! Centreville had three spilt feeders, kept all three. Robinson and Edison both had 1 split feeder, they kept them. Annandale and Hayfield both had three, they each kept 2. Split feeders were rated at the bottom of the FCPS Boundary Survey of what parents cared about. Split feeders are not the issue, never were. The issue is overcrowding and unpopulated schools. The split feeder nonsense was perpetuated by one small sliver of parent who were zoned for Lewis and want their kids at WSHS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

At whose expense? Almost ALL of WSHS's boundary is within a 2 mile radius of the school. That's why no one feels they should be the ones to go.

Daventry was never built for WSHS. Move them back to Lewis and problem is solved. Lewis gets more students, WSGS numbers decrease. Why was that not in the table.

I get it and I partially agree. But it also creates a small split feeder situation at WSES, unless you also change the Daventry elementary school. And that was a goal - to eliminate split feeders under 15%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Multiple people? 🤣 When have I claimed to be “multiple people?

You false statement matches your false claim that they said they were starting from scratch. Again, just calling BS on your lie.

I’ll ask you again, since you are clearing dodging, when did anyone at FCPS or on the SB, ever at any point in process, say they were starting from scratch?

DP. It sounds like you ascribe a ton of significance to the use or non-use of the phrase "start from scratch."

As a PP said, that phrase may not have been used. The phrase "comprehensive" is used, and you might want to look at the definition of that term.

I personally heard first-hand that Reid told people in early community meetings the boundary review could be "transformational."

So you'd have to be deliberately obtuse not to know that the School Board started out with grand ambitions and beat a hasty retreat over time. Indeed, it was the fear of these larger ambitions that led your Langley friends to demand multiple meetings with Robyn Lady and set up FairFACTS Matters in the summer of 2024.

Feel free to alternate "sour grapes" with "go touch grass," but your rhetoric betrays the constant fights you try to pick here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Dying Frankly, I think the "Sour Grapes" lady is hilarious. Way too much time on her hands, but always amusing. LOL.

Can you help us answer the question of when they said they would start from scratch for the boundary review? Because you two seem to be lying.

I’ll make a deal with you, if you can show that you didn’t lie, then I’ll never say sour grapes on this thread again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Dying Frankly, I think the "Sour Grapes" lady is hilarious. Way too much time on her hands, but always amusing. LOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Multiple people? 🤣 When have I claimed to be “multiple people?

You false statement matches your false claim that they said they were starting from scratch. Again, just calling BS on your lie.

I’ll ask you again, since you are clearing dodging, when did anyone at FCPS or on the SB, ever at any point in process, say they were starting from scratch?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I've started following this chain...but I've noticed that you in particular are the person who likes to post the phrase 'sour grapes'...it's an oddly specific phrase and helps identify you as one person playing multiple people for the sake of just stirring the pot. I just wanted you to know I'm praying for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I don't remember them saying 'scratch' however I've been following this closely from the very beginning and agree with the OP, that there were a lot of promises to make big, long term changes to both fill underpopulated school and lower overpopulated schools. They have done nothing by make tiny cuts along edges...with now the new promise of 'don't worry, we will do this all again in five year's.

It was a poor idea to start with. While some are terrible, there were usually reasons they were drawn that way. They should have done this on a case by case basis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

At whose expense? Almost ALL of WSHS's boundary is within a 2 mile radius of the school. That's why no one feels they should be the ones to go.

Stop transfers in, include Sangster in WSHS, adjust Lake braddock, send Daventry back to Lewis....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they were going to redo boundaries, they should have started from scratch. Example - given travel distance, ALL of Sangster should go to WSHS, instead of the small attendance island being shifted to Braddock.
Sangster kids are traveling up to half hour to get to Braddock, whereas WSHS is much closer.

Blah, blah, blah. The start from scratch idea is such a non starter on so many levels, no where close to a serious comment.

It’s what FCPS originally said it planned to do. Then they got cold feet and we ended up with this largely pointless reshuffling.

When did they say they were going to start from scratch? I’m calling BS.

Some board members said a lot of grandiose things at the start of this process. However, enough board members pushed back about grandfathering that the scope quickly shrank.

Nice try. I’ll ask again, when did they say they were starting from scratch? I’m pretty certain you are straight up sour grape lying.

I don't remember them saying 'scratch' however I've been following this closely from the very beginning and agree with the OP, that there were a lot of promises to make big, long term changes to both fill underpopulated school and lower overpopulated schools. They have done nothing by make tiny cuts along edges...with now the new promise of 'don't worry, we will do this all again in five year's.