Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

I agree. I was listening to that meeting and was really perplexed. Who's scared to move to LBSS (after they included grandfathering)? It's just as good as WSHS. When we house hunted we made no distinction between WSHS, LBSS, Woodson, South County, and Robinson. And kids are friends with kids from schools all through our area. My kids have played on sports teams with every school I named above, both rec and travel.

Just drop it. The Sangster/Irving/WS families did their homework, showed up, made solid arguments, and I did it incredibly respectfully. They weren't particularly 'loud', they advocated for what was best for their families. The Sangster parents who are zoned to LBSS might be upset, but the families who actually live in the Sangster/ Irving boundary are so happy and grateful to stay within their rightful boundaries. It's my understanding that they did polls of their neighborhood, went door to door to have conversations, and made sure that the majority of their neighborhood wanted to stay within their current boundary.

Those arguments were not solid. They were weak arguments, other than the argument that it was unfair that secondary middle school students were grandfathered, while 6/7/8 middle schoolers were not. That was a strong argument.

The rest were not solid arguments, just loud arguments.

Really, this post personifies why people who supported eliminating the Sangster split feeder, especially those who lived in that neighborhood, did not publicly express their support for the Sangster split feeder getting sent to Lake Braddock. They didn't want to get verbally attacked like this post here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

I agree. I was listening to that meeting and was really perplexed. Who's scared to move to LBSS (after they included grandfathering)? It's just as good as WSHS. When we house hunted we made no distinction between WSHS, LBSS, Woodson, South County, and Robinson. And kids are friends with kids from schools all through our area. My kids have played on sports teams with every school I named above, both rec and travel.

Just drop it. The Sangster/Irving/WS families did their homework, showed up, made solid arguments, and I did it incredibly respectfully. They weren't particularly 'loud', they advocated for what was best for their families. The Sangster parents who are zoned to LBSS might be upset, but the families who actually live in the Sangster/ Irving boundary are so happy and grateful to stay within their rightful boundaries. It's my understanding that they did polls of their neighborhood, went door to door to have conversations, and made sure that the majority of their neighborhood wanted to stay within their current boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

I agree. I was listening to that meeting and was really perplexed. Who's scared to move to LBSS (after they included grandfathering)? It's just as good as WSHS. When we house hunted we made no distinction between WSHS, LBSS, Woodson, South County, and Robinson. And kids are friends with kids from schools all through our area. My kids have played on sports teams with every school I named above, both rec and travel.

Just drop it. The Sangster/Irving/WS families did their homework, showed up, made solid arguments, and I did it incredibly respectfully. They weren't particularly 'loud', they advocated for what was best for their families. The Sangster parents who are zoned to LBSS might be upset, but the families who actually live in the Sangster/ Irving boundary are so happy and grateful to stay within their rightful boundaries. It's my understanding that they did polls of their neighborhood, went door to door to have conversations, and made sure that the majority of their neighborhood wanted to stay within their current boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain the new rule that kids can't pupil place for languages? Is that at all schools now?

That is not a new rule.

The document online is from July 2018

Is FCPS is finally starting to enforce the language transfer restrictions?

At the Sandy Anderson/Kyle McDaniel meeting in West Springfield this week, Reid mentioned they were starting to look at transfer requests for languages. So I guess they heard folks on that one.

That would be awesome if they actually enforced it!

So it's fine if students at some schools have access to a far wider array of foreign languages than other students, and the other students have no way to pupil place for in-person instruction?

Doesn't exactly scream equity. It screams gatekeeping and keeping the poors in their place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain the new rule that kids can't pupil place for languages? Is that at all schools now?

That is not a new rule.

The document online is from July 2018

Is FCPS is finally starting to enforce the language transfer restrictions?

At the Sandy Anderson/Kyle McDaniel meeting in West Springfield this week, Reid mentioned they were starting to look at transfer requests for languages. So I guess they heard folks on that one.

That would be awesome if they actually enforced it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain the new rule that kids can't pupil place for languages? Is that at all schools now?

That is not a new rule.

The document online is from July 2018

Is FCPS is finally starting to enforce the language transfer restrictions?

At the Sandy Anderson/Kyle McDaniel meeting in West Springfield this week, Reid mentioned they were starting to look at transfer requests for languages. So I guess they heard folks on that one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain the new rule that kids can't pupil place for languages? Is that at all schools now?

That is not a new rule.

The document online is from July 2018

Is FCPS is finally starting to enforce the language transfer restrictions?

At the Sandy Anderson/Kyle McDaniel meeting in West Springfield this week, Reid mentioned they were starting to look at transfer requests for languages. So I guess they heard folks on that one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

I agree. I was listening to that meeting and was really perplexed. Who's scared to move to LBSS (after they included grandfathering)? It's just as good as WSHS. When we house hunted we made no distinction between WSHS, LBSS, Woodson, South County, and Robinson. And kids are friends with kids from schools all through our area. My kids have played on sports teams with every school I named above, both rec and travel.

Just drop it. The Sangster/Irving/WS families did their homework, showed up, made solid arguments, and I did it incredibly respectfully. They weren't particularly 'loud', they advocated for what was best for their families. The Sangster parents who are zoned to LBSS might be upset, but the families who actually live in the Sangster/ Irving boundary are so happy and grateful to stay within their rightful boundaries. It's my understanding that they did polls of their neighborhood, went door to door to have conversations, and made sure that the majority of their neighborhood wanted to stay within their current boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

I agree. I was listening to that meeting and was really perplexed. Who's scared to move to LBSS (after they included grandfathering)? It's just as good as WSHS. When we house hunted we made no distinction between WSHS, LBSS, Woodson, South County, and Robinson. And kids are friends with kids from schools all through our area. My kids have played on sports teams with every school I named above, both rec and travel.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Many other WSHS families also supported these two moves because yes, while it meant that the rest of WSHS could stay whole, we at least didn’t feel like these kids would be at a “lesser” school and it was fair. I mean—-I guarantee many m families in Lake Braddock or WSHS pyramids house hunted in both areas and would have been fine wherever they found somewhere to live. The Sangster/Irving/WSHS contingent was so outspoken those of us who did support the move didn’t want to speak out. And I’ll be honest because this is an anonymous board, their arguments made at Irving that one community meeting rang really hollow. If they had had more grandfathering in the policy (maybe starting with 6 and up), they would have had really no argument. It’s sad that they backed off of those moves because now WSHS has to continue dealing with this crap for who knows how long. I hope they’re happy—they’re still not “safe” but could have gotten on board with a very workable solution that would have settled the whole community for some period of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the evening was a Cardinal Forest mom who complained that everyone looks down on Cardinal Forest (?) and that the community would not support residency checks (??).

Arguing in favor of residency fraud in an open meeting with FCPS staff and school board members is a real choice.

It wasn’t a bad meeting. There’s just a lot of upset Cardinal Forest moms.

I agree with you on the CF mom, but disagree that it wasn't a bad meeting. Sandy totally avoided a question on Rolling Valley, jumped all over a mom who held up a sign (and then Kyle jumped in to mansplain his kids were there and no one should shout (no one was), told the room to stop shitting on other schools (which no one was doing), and I walked away thinking-what the heck is going to happen in 27 and then again in 2030. At one point Sandy said if you want equity 'sell your house to a minority'. I heard nothing about how the school board is actually helping out kids.

I can’t believe I’m here defending Sandy. But she was responding to a speaker complaining that the school board didnt use economic inequalities as a basis for boundary changes and moving middle class and poor kids around to accomplish equity goals. And Sandy said that wasn’t legal. Which is true.

Meren is very much on board with making all things equitable, she isn’t happy with the new school because it is new and nice and shiny and other schools are not. She has complained that the boundary review did nothing for equity and complained about the different language programs that are not equally available. She didn’t mention the IB/AP inequity, which is used to move out of poorer schools to better off schools.

Oh, please. If Meren was in favor of making all things equitable, she would be objecting to making Thoreau and Madison wealthier at the expense of Kilmer and Marshall. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seemed like she is a cheerleader for the wealthy parents wanting to bail on Kilmer and Marshall.

Meren speaks equity and practices self-interest. You think she’s an equity warrior because she wants to protect South Lakes, but that doesn’t mean she cares about equity across the board.

Absolutely. Meren is a joke who is just out to win votes and the expense of what is best for all students.

Agree! This is her letter she is sending around.

As the Superintendent works to conclude the 18-month long comprehensive boundary review work, I recognize that much attention is on the forthcoming January 22 School Board vote on the recommendation changes. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the school boundary proposal. Allow me to share these thoughts:

I plan to support the recommended changes shared by the Superintendent publicly at the January 8 School Board meeting. I do not plan to bring any amendments to the Superintendent’s final proposal. To do so at this time would be too last-minute.

I think the recommended changes do a good job of reducing split feeders and addressing some overcapacity issues within Hunter Mill District. I am glad a slower approach to change is being utilized by the Superintendent. I’ve maintained throughout this process that changes should avoid creating massive amounts of anxiety and last-minute change for students and families.

Of note:

By including Wolftrap neighborhoods and SPA 3914 (Tysons Woods Park) into Thoreau Middle School and Madison High School, school capacity is more balanced throughout the area. This also adjusts a long-time desire for Wolftrap ES students to be fully in the Madison pyramid. I’m really pleased about this!

The proposal will reduce split feeders at Westbriar, Colvin Run, and Crossfield elementary schools. Reducing split feeders is what is best for kids, year over year. Town of Vienna addresses remain zoned for Madison HS, an important factor for the community.

Regarding Oakton Elementary School and Flint Hill Elementary School with the Wayside and Tamarack neighborhoods: the Superintendent did not adopt my recommendation to adjust these attendance islands. I continue to hear mixed feelings on this from residents, but the proposed boundary map is what I expect will stand.

Lastly, Coates Elementary School was severely over capacity, and these changes will alleviate that problem by utilizing open capacity at the Floris, Herndon, and the McNair elementary schools.

I seriously hate that all the SB members keep pushing the narrative that ALL spilt feeders are bad. The narrative is used to try to force changes that are not needed. I live in a split feeder that remained such(thank goodness) because of its geographic location and community ties. Closing split feeders was at the bottom of the priority list for parents per the county-wide survey. Many communities, like ours, value our split feeder. I get that some communities may feel that there split feeder is problematic, but that is not the case for all splits!!

If they are all about reducing split feeders, then they should have done the Western boundaries earlier than June and fixed Hughes, Franklin and Carson middle school boundaries.

Exactly. They only use spilt feeders as an excuse when it benefits a move they want to make. How about they actually listen to their constituents before they come up with what's "bad" for our kids.

I think though that the feelings on split feeders are actually much more divided than this perspective.

I know in our area, there was a very organized contingent of people who successfully fought having their lopsided split feeder fixed.

But there were plenty of people who lived in that neighborhood, especially older elementary parents who were facing having their kids split from all their friends, and families who did not have the option of choosing between the 2 middle school options, who wanted the split feeder closed. They simply didn't want to express their contrary view point because the people who wanted to keep the split feeder were so loud. But it you talked to them privately, they either welcome the elimination of their split feeder, or were neutral as long as the middle schoolers already in the system were grandfathered.

I don't think you can definitely say that there was not support for eliminating the split feeders. There were plenty of people living in split feeders who wanted their kids to go to the same middle school/high school as the rest of their school friends. It is just that the passion behind those who wanted to keep the split feeders was so loud that it was difficult to publicly state they wanted the split feeder eliminated.

I agree with this - I think those in split feeders who have kids in the schools that would be impacted by a sudden shift were very anti correcting the feeder (e.g. kid now in middle and might be switched to different middle, or to different highschool than their current peer group). Those who have yet to have their kids go to middle school or high school would be more likely to support correcting the feeder.

For the Sangster split feeder specifically, it's a difficult choice between WSHS and LBSS because of the enormous size of LBSS and combination 7-12 bussing vs having kids stay with their peer group.

The Sangster rezoning to Lake Braddock actually had a lot of quiet support that did not speak up publicly because the opposition was so passionate. We had teammates, classmates and friends from Sangster who actually supported the maps that sent all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

When Anderson mentioned silent support for rezoning WSHS, it is really safe to assume she was talking about support for sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock.

Right. Support from people who weren’t affected. Many LBSS families supported the move. It’s easy to support moving someone when it’s not your household affected.

There were families whose kids would be rezoned who supported it privately, some because regular families did not have the option of choosing between Irving or LB. Only AAP families have that option. The other kids who are not AAP in that school had zero choice to attend LB with all their friends, and had to start all over at Irving. Once they were there, they preferred staying, but they are not happy about tge split feeder and would have preferred map 4 from Sangster.

If you are passionately and publicly advocating to keep the Sangster (or any) split feeder, people who want the Sangster (or any) split feeder fixed will not feel comfortable expressing to you their private preference for the elimination of the split feeder. They don't want the public vitriol against them from their neighbors that is so publicly being projected towards FCPS by groups like your group.

If you really believe that all Sangster split feeder parents with kids zoned for Irving support your fight against rezoning to LB, with the same veracity as you, you might be sorely mistaken.

There are definitely families with Sangster kids zoned for Irving who want the split feeder ended, as well as plenty of people who are neutral because both LB and Irving/WSHS are great and equal school options.

I am very much against rezoning WSHS, but honest and objective enough to realize that there are plenty of WSHS families that supported the solutions from Map 4, including families in the Sangster split feeder area, and that Map 4 presented some good long term solutions for WSHS by miving out the island and split feeder to LB, that perhaps should have been implemented in spite of push back, to create a long term solution and stability for WSHS that moved students to an equally ranked neighborhood high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone explain the new rule that kids can't pupil place for languages? Is that at all schools now?

That is not a new rule.

The document online is from July 2018

Is FCPS is finally starting to enforce the language transfer restrictions?