Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:53     Subject: Re:Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.



I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.


I'm not the OP, but honestly, it is going to happen sooner than later. Moving Sangster is a bandaid (bring the numbers to the tippy top of what they are calling 'acceptable overcrowding..105%). Something larger will have to give, and you can't move any more into LB...It will have to go the other way (Daventry/HV/Others?).


WSHS will drop by approximately 100 students when class of 2026 graduates.

105% is not overcrowded at WSHS.

The trailers are not needed once it gets to around 107% which is where it was a year or two ago.

WSHS only needs to lose around 120 or so students to hit 105%

Between Sangster getting rezoned and 2026 graduating, WSHS should lose around 200-250 students by fall 2026.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:48     Subject: Re:Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.



I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.


I'm not the OP, but honestly, it is going to happen sooner than later. Moving Sangster is a bandaid (bring the numbers to the tippy top of what they are calling 'acceptable overcrowding..105%). Something larger will have to give, and you can't move any more into LB...It will have to go the other way (Daventry/HV/Others?).
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:41     Subject: Re:Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.



I think you Sangster people are losing the support of the rest of the WSHS communities, OH, HV, RV, CF, KM and WS when you word your comments as that instead of Sangster going all to Lake Braddock, you want to kick out a neighborhood from the other end and send them past the mixing bowl to Lewis.

People just shake their heads over this, because Lake Braddock is such a good school and has such close ties to WSHS.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:39     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?


They for some reason kept the attendance island at Afton Glen


Because this exercise has shown us that if you show up and petition to stay where you are, the consultants and the BRAC will pretty much allow it. That neighborhood showed up and petitioned to stay at Sangster and LB, so it was allowed.


+1000. It's insane how folks can be "saved" or screwed depending on whether their BRAC members, who may or may not only represent their own neighborhoods but not the entire pyramid, are receptive to their concerns.



Like how both the West Springfield BRAC reps are Hunt Valley parents? Tell me there is not an inherent bias there? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the outcome but I'd be ticked off if I wasn't at Hunt Valley.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:37     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Fire Reid.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:31     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?


They for some reason kept the attendance island at Afton Glen


Because this exercise has shown us that if you show up and petition to stay where you are, the consultants and the BRAC will pretty much allow it. That neighborhood showed up and petitioned to stay at Sangster and LB, so it was allowed.


+1000. It's insane how folks can be "saved" or screwed depending on whether their BRAC members, who may or may not only represent their own neighborhoods but not the entire pyramid, are receptive to their concerns.

Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:29     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.


Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.


Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.


That created a split feeder which is against policy 8130.


There are many instances where they've done things like created new split feeders in the course of trying to solve other issues, whether it's eliminating an attendance island, getting enrollment under 105%, or trying to locate a school within its boundaries.

Citing Policy 8130 as a basis not to do something at this point is likely to fall on deaf ears.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:11     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?


They for some reason kept the attendance island at Afton Glen


Because this exercise has shown us that if you show up and petition to stay where you are, the consultants and the BRAC will pretty much allow it. That neighborhood showed up and petitioned to stay at Sangster and LB, so it was allowed.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:09     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.


Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.


Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.


That created a split feeder which is against policy 8130.


They didn’t think they could eliminate all the split feeders (especially those that cover a large geographical area like Gunston, Sangster, etc.) but they did want to eliminate the very lopsided splits … the ones were 75% go to one middle or HS and 25% go somewhere else. When they ran the numbers in the scenarios, if all of those neighborhoods south of the parkway went to SCHS instead of WSHS, it would have made HV about a 65-35 split which was ok under the established guidelines.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:04     Subject: Re:Boundary Review Meetings
I think the feeling here about Sangster is that we are being kicked out of our community. Next year I will have a senior at West Springfield and (with the boundary change) a freshman at Lake Braddock. It feels weird. And it feels like our community is turning its back on my current 8th grader.

Also moving the students from WSHS to LB is going to make LB (on the high school side) over 100%. So we are being pushed from one overcrowded school to another overcrowded school. But really if we are going to move boundaries then some WSHS people should move TO Lewis. Ugh. The solution isn’t really a solution. And. What. About. Daventry. Send all those townhouses back to Lewis where they belong.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:02     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?


They for some reason kept the attendance island at Afton Glen
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 18:01     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.


Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.


Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.


That created a split feeder which is against policy 8130.


Guess you'll just have to send them to Saratoga and Lewis then.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 17:30     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:Are the people getting moved out of the attendance islands (I think it’s Keene Mill to White Oaks?) also mad or is this just Sangster drama?


They seemed upset too, but recognized that they are particularly low hanging fruit since their attendance island to Keene Mill on the complete opposite end of the pyramid is particularly absurd, especially since they are just outside of the walk zone to White Oaks Elementary.
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 17:28     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.


Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.


Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.


Scenario 3 also mived out the Sangster split feeder to Lake Braddock, and the Keene Mill island to Lake Braddock
Anonymous
Post 10/26/2025 17:27     Subject: Boundary Review Meetings
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:So what’s the solution? Go back to moving HV? Stop the RV?

This is very messy.


Do the scenario 3 for Rolling Valley, and close the split feeder at Sangster, sending all of them to LBSS.
Lake Braddock and WS are completely comparable. I get being upset if you have a middle school kid at Irving, but for anyone with younger kids it should be no big deal at all.


Also Scenario 3 and sent those 150 or so kids from Hunt Valley to South County. It will put South County slightly over capacity but it would take more than 200 kids out of WSHS which would give it much needed breathing room. You could get WSHS down to 90-95 percent capacity.


That created a split feeder which is against policy 8130.