Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

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

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?

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%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

The Region 4 BRAC (like many other regions) recommended that the split was not an issue and that if room allowed (after keeping HV at Sangster). It is listed on the grid in #8. Thur listened to the BRAC on keeping many other slips across the board ..why not this one?

Yes, indeed, the WSHS did speak up for your Sangster neighborhood. It is right there in the notes. So accusing the BRAC members of throwing Sangster under the bus is not accurate and is lashing out at these volunteers incorrectly.

The answer is because FCPS wants WSHS to be rezoned to around 105% capacity or less, and does not want new split feeders created.

If the Thru and BRAC recommended maps do not get WSHS down to 105% capacity, then Dr. Reid and the school board rep Anderson will, making their choices which will involve far more disruptive changes than keeping Sangster together and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

The Hunt Valley proposed change from map 3 created a split feeder, which is explicitly against the terms of Policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to BRAC and Thru by the school board. The same would be said if Daventry is sent back to Lewis. It creates a split feeder


Eliminating the Sangster split feeder and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock explicitly follows policy 8130 and the rezoning process given to Thru and BRAC by the school board.

Rolling Valley split feeder getting half sent to Irving/WSHS and the other half sent to Saratoga and staying at Key /Lews also follows Policy 8130 and the directives given BRAC and Thru by Reid and the school board.

Your beef should be with the school board, Reid and policy 8130, not with your BRAC reps or thru who are just following unstructions to the letter.

Sandy Anderson has stated that her goal was for all of Rolling Valley to go to WSHS, not half of the split feeder to switch to Saratoga and stay at Lewis. At the Lewis meeting Friday, Reid appeared surprised and taken off guard that RV was moved out of Lewis to WSHS. I think there is going to be a fight on this one. From the Lewis families sent to Saratoga who are now fighting to stay at Rolling Valley and to also go to WSHS, from Sandy Anderson, the Lewis families and the Rolling Valley neighborhood getting moved into WSHS fighting to get someone else (Daventry? Keene Mill? Hunt Valley?) moved into Lewis to replace the Rolling Valley families. And lewis families fighting to keep Rolling Valley at their school.

Sangster is not the only fight happening with WSHS. Monday's meeting at Irving will be interesting.

Seeing what Reid proposes in her final maps to address the can of worms Sandy Anderson opened with Rolling Valley to WSHS will be very interesting too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

The Region 4 BRAC (like many other regions) recommended that the split was not an issue and that if room allowed (after keeping HV at Sangster). It is listed on the grid in #8. Thur listened to the BRAC on keeping many other slips across the board ..why not this one?

Yes, indeed, the WSHS did speak up for your Sangster neighborhood. It is right there in the notes. So accusing the BRAC members of throwing Sangster under the bus is not accurate and is lashing out at these volunteers incorrectly.

The answer is because FCPS wants WSHS to be rezoned to around 105% capacity or less, and does not want new split feeders created.

If the Thru and BRAC recommended maps do not get WSHS down to 105% capacity, then Dr. Reid and the school board rep Anderson will, making their choices which will involve far more disruptive changes than keeping Sangster together and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

I'm not the OP, but you sound very informed. Can you help answer the question of how many students does Sangster (not AAP) send to WSHS per class?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is LBSS really that much of a dump that families don’t want to send their kids there? I always thought it was pretty good, based on the test scores.

It’s definitely a good school that people do seek out. However: West Springfield is slightly but noticeably pulling ahead lately and has a little more “prestige.” But I don’t think that necessarily matters as much, I think people just really don’t want to move.

West Springfield isn't more "prestigious" than Lake Braddock.

People simply don't like change unless they are the ones behind the change.

Going into this boundary review, the three main things people might have predicted were Langley kids getting moved to Herndon, West Springfield and Chantilly kids getting moved somewhere, and kids getting moved into Lewis. The first and third things haven't happened, and the fancy new Western HS addresses overcrowding at Chantilly, so that leaves the West Springfield folks who'd be moved feeling like they are getting picked on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

That scenario that showed the 2 schools staying at WSHS was not a stand alone map.

It was I think Map 1, which was just showing the work the Thru did on that specific mandate where they worked on attendance islands, including the Sangster island. It was the first layer for the actual map, Map 3.

The other map focused on eliminating split feeders (Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock and Rolling Valley split feeder to Saratoga ) and other shifts that Thru suggested, which created new split feeders (half of Hunt Valley to South County) which was not supposed to occur because Thru was tasked with eliminating split feeders, nor creating split feeders.

Map 1 and Map 2 were just the 2 layers. Map 3 combined these mandates into a single map, which is the actual map

The Region 4 BRAC (like many other regions) recommended that the split was not an issue and that if room allowed (after keeping HV at Sangster). It is listed on the grid in #8. Thur listened to the BRAC on keeping many other slips across the board ..why not this one?

Yes, indeed, the WSHS did speak up for your Sangster neighborhood. It is right there in the notes. So accusing the BRAC members of throwing Sangster under the bus is not accurate and is lashing out at these volunteers incorrectly.

The answer is because FCPS wants WSHS to be rezoned to around 105% capacity or less, and does not want new split feeders created.

If the Thru and BRAC recommended maps do not get WSHS down to 105% capacity, then Dr. Reid and the school board rep Anderson will, making their choices which will involve far more disruptive changes than keeping Sangster together and sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Anonymous wrote:Is LBSS really that much of a dump that families don’t want to send their kids there? I always thought it was pretty good, based on the test scores.

It’s definitely a good school that people do seek out. However: West Springfield is slightly but noticeably pulling ahead lately and has a little more “prestige.” But I don’t think that necessarily matters as much, I think people just really don’t want to move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

Stop being such a baby. This type of grandfathering is unnecessary and atypical.

Good grief. I am no where near this area, but why make a statement like that.

It is extremely typical. It may not be honored, but wanting that is certainly understandable. Not much notice--if you knew years ahead, it would be different.

Nope. The typical practice is that, when high school boundaries change or new schools open, rising freshmen are expected to attend their assigned school. If that's a problem they can try and pupil place. But they aren't given an automatic option to pick between high schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

Stop being such a baby. This type of grandfathering is unnecessary and atypical.

Good grief. I am no where near this area, but why make a statement like that.

It is extremely typical. It may not be honored, but wanting that is certainly understandable. Not much notice--if you knew years ahead, it would be different.

+1. There is an unbelievable amount of animosity here. Zero civility, maybe only a hand full of thoughtful comments. So much anger. Total shame.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

DP. I think this makes a lot of sense across the county. Liberal grandfathering would make a lot of these changes less disruptive and would lead to more community support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

Stop being such a baby. This type of grandfathering is unnecessary and atypical.

Good grief. I am no where near this area, but why make a statement like that.

It is extremely typical. It may not be honored, but wanting that is certainly understandable. Not much notice--if you knew years ahead, it would be different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

Stop being such a baby. This type of grandfathering is unnecessary and atypical.

Anonymous wrote:Sangster should stop fighting rezoning and just focus on guaranteeing garndfathering for current Irving enrolled students to continue to WSHS.

6th and younger from that neighborhood should just attend LB with all of their friends and classmates from Sangster.

I agree! Rezoning of current Sangster students is fine. But the children already at Irving should have a choice to continue to WSHS.

Is LBSS really that much of a dump that families don’t want to send their kids there? I always thought it was pretty good, based on the test scores.

I live in Sangster/Irving/West Springfield and I currently have a child at each school. I have been predicting this boundary change since we bought our home in 2014 before our oldest started kindergarten. I think the change to LBSS is a good one for my child currently in elementary school. I think my neighbors can be convinced as well, but right now change is hard for them and they are digging in for a fight. The meeting tomorrow should be… interesting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so puzzling that that Sangster neighborhood is upset about being rezoned to... Lake Braddock of all places.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. If RV is kept at Lewis would Sangster be able to remain at WS per the BRAC recommendation?

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

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?