Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

Sangster is located within the WSHS boundary. It is inside the neighborhood of Orange Hunt Estates. Those of us who live there understand that we are assigned to Sangster as the elementary school because we are walkers. We would have to be bused to Orange Hunt Elementary. The Sangster/Orange Hunt boundary is at the point 1 mile from the school. So that is why we identify as living in West Springfield and see Irving/West Springfield as our child’s school. The first iteration of the boundary scenarios did not “fix” our split feeder because Sangster is located within the WSHS boundary. And we don’t want our split feeder fixed.

There are better solutions to overcrowding at WSHS. Shifting children living on West Springfield/Lewis boundary to Lewis, which has room. Moving German immersion (Did you know Orange Hunt is over capacity too thanks to transfers in for German immersion???) to White Oaks and Lake Braddock pyramid, which have room.

But really let’s wait and see. West Springfield is full of government civilians. Let’s see what happens with Trump and his downsizing of the government workforce. Families are going to have to leave for other employment opportunities.

Anonymous wrote:How are Timber Lane families feeling about being moved to Shrevewood?

The Hollywood Rd move from Timber Lane to Shrevewood has been in every scenario. Initially they were going to go onto Kilmer/Marshall, which didn’t get nearly as much opposition as the Jackson/FCHS move. Scenario 4 has them continuing onto Longfellow/McLean, which adds another split feeder to Marshall. With the Wolf Trap/Westbriar splits likely undone, I think Freedom Hill might be the only school in the pyramid that doesn’t split.

How are Timber Lane families feeling about being moved to Shrevewood?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

+1
You have no idea what this child’s story is. What activities they participate in. What friendships are formed. The trolls here lately are trollier than usual.

Where on earth did you get that anyone was mocking a child?

Every last person who has mentioned those Irving speakers talked about how brave and compelling they were, and what a good argument they made for grandfathering middle schoolers through high school, just like the secondary school 7th and 8th graders get to be grandfathered through high school.

No one anywhere has mocked those kids who spoke.

Why don’t you reread what was said. This person is obviously mocking the child. Here it is again:

“Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went. 🥴”

Sorry, I read it as she was standing up for the kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

+1
You have no idea what this child’s story is. What activities they participate in. What friendships are formed. The trolls here lately are trollier than usual.

Where on earth did you get that anyone was mocking a child?

Every last person who has mentioned those Irving speakers talked about how brave and compelling they were, and what a good argument they made for grandfathering middle schoolers through high school, just like the secondary school 7th and 8th graders get to be grandfathered through high school.

No one anywhere has mocked those kids who spoke.

Why don’t you reread what was said. This person is obviously mocking the child. Here it is again:

“Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went. 🥴”

Anonymous wrote:Pulling up scenario 4 on phone for McLean and not seeing any difference from current map. Is there a better way to view these?

I think the only difference is the Spring Hill island from McLean to Langley. Then for Timber Lane, a small portion is moving to Shrevewood, but will still feed to Longfellow/McLean.

Pulling up scenario 4 on phone for McLean and not seeing any difference from current map. Is there a better way to view these?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

+1
You have no idea what this child’s story is. What activities they participate in. What friendships are formed. The trolls here lately are trollier than usual.

Where on earth did you get that anyone was mocking a child?

Every last person who has mentioned those Irving speakers talked about how brave and compelling they were, and what a good argument they made for grandfathering middle schoolers through high school, just like the secondary school 7th and 8th graders get to be grandfathered through high school.

No one anywhere has mocked those kids who spoke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

+1
You have no idea what this child’s story is. What activities they participate in. What friendships are formed. The trolls here lately are trollier than usual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

You are talking about and mocking a child. What you failed to mention is that he said he has a sibling at WSHS, so of course that school would feel more like his community than LB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unrelated to boundaries, but it looks like Sangster was just rated the #1 Elementary School in Fairfax County and #2 in all of VA.

Sangster darn well better be rated as one of the best. They have the lowest ELL population in the county, even less than Great Falls ES, and equally low FARMs. Anything less than peak SOL scores would be a shameful result.

Sangster is actually one of the wealthiest elementary schools in FCPS


Ooh, what if to keep that Sangster neighborhood at WSHS, they move some Orange Hunt kids to Rolling Valley, and move that Sangster neighborhood into Orange Hunt Elementary,?

They keep saying that their Sangster classmates who attend Lake Braddock are not their community, that the West Springfield schools and kids are their community.

Moving them out of Sangster would solve all those issues, by moving them away from the LB zoned students who are not their community, and into a WSHS zoned elementary school instead. The townhomes across from Sangster and the Reservation houses could stay at Sangster and LB, but the other half of that neighborhood could all move away from Sangster, since they don't feel a connection to that community the way they feel a connection to the WSHS neighborhoods and students

That would fix the Sangster split feeder and move that neighborhood away from Sangster and over to their friends and community.

I think moving those families to OH is a decent idea. It would require a bunch of other movements though, as you outlined. I think some Sangster families would not be pleased either. I think some of them very intentionally chose the unique combo of Sangster and WSHS. Would they really want to be moved out of the #2 elementary school in VA?! Even before those rankings were released, Sangster was viewed as the best elementary school in the area. And some put WSHS above LBSS for various reasons. Even if they don't vocalize this, they're probably thinking it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Madison/McLean meeting taken over early by Madison parents getting assurances from Reid they won't be moved to Marshall and some Marshall parents at Wolftrap worried they won't be moved to Madison as proposed in Scenario 4.

Kilmer and Marshall will not emerge stronger from this process.

The most important note in this discussion is that Dr. Reid had a separate meeting with parents of a particular neighborhood, the Mayor and principals and Dr Reid stated that it has changed her mind on a few things.

Parents called her out on selectively choosing who to meet with and not being equitable as to who she listens to

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:No one is using that argument. I’m just giving some historical perspective as someone who grew up here and how they have always seen themselves as one community.

Sangster parent after Sangster parent said that at the meeting. I am not talking about the Irving Middle School speakers. I am talking about Sangster parents.

I personally think rezoning should be delayed until a residency check can be completed and that no one needs to move from WSHS.

However, listening to speaker after speaker with younger kids saying LB is not their community, WSHS is, when 80% of their classmates go to LBSS, made me a little indignant for the rest of Sangster. I overheard others walking out of the meeting expressing the same feelings about that particular Sangster argument.

I support no rezoning at WSHS, but that Sangster community argument was not a good look, in my opinion, and I don't think I am alone in that impression.

Anonymous wrote:Madison/McLean meeting taken over early by Madison parents getting assurances from Reid they won't be moved to Marshall and some Marshall parents at Wolftrap worried they won't be moved to Madison as proposed in Scenario 4.

Kilmer and Marshall will not emerge stronger from this process.

The most important note in this discussion is that Dr. Reid had a separate meeting with parents of a particular neighborhood, the Mayor and principals and Dr Reid stated that it has changed her mind on a few things.

Parents called her out on selectively choosing who to meet with and not being equitable as to who she listens to

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the other Sangster families offended, puzzled or amused by the whole the Sangster kids who go to Lake Braddock aren't our community argument?

There is definitely talk in surrounding communities about that angle, not about the kids at Irving but the families without kids at Irving.

One LB parent spoke up 2 meetings ago about that argument, and she did seem a bit offended and a little befuddled.

Why would you consider kids who went to school with your kid for 6+ years to be part of your community? One kid spoke at the Irving meeting about how he desperately didn't want to lose all of the new friends he's met (in one quarter of school) this year at Irving and pleaded to stay there instead of being sent to LBSS, where his former Sangster classmates of seven years went.

Everyone there agreed heartily with the Irving Sangster kids, whether they think the Sangster split feeder should go to WSHS or to LBSS.

There was not one person in the room that was not part of fcps leadership who disagreed with those Irving kids.

But the Sangster people wifh younger kids repeatedly saying that their Sangster classmates are not their community, were a little bit much and quite a bit surprising. It felt very dismissive of all their classmates at Sangster.

Why is everyone picking on Sangster? White Oak families need to cut it out.