Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dublin parents, students and neighborhoods urge board to reject Map 3, favor Map 1 or Draft 9
Summary
Dozens of residents, parents and students told the Dublin City Schools board that Map 3 would split longstanding neighborhood ties, increase travel time and risk student isolation. Speakers overwhelmingly recommended Map 1 or a modification called Draft 9 that they say better preserves proximity, feeder patterns and walkability.
Dozens of residents and students at a public comment session on Dublin City Schools’ proposed high-school boundary maps urged the district to reject Map 3 and either adopt Map 1 or a modification called Draft 9.
“Why would we ever be forced to go to another high school that is twice as far and over already crowded bridges and dangerous intersections?” Claire Cromloff, a Bristol Commons resident and parent, said, arguing that Map 3 would force children to cross bridges and enter unfamiliar peer groups.
Speakers framed their objections around eight district criteria used to score the proposed drafts: proximity, natural boundaries, transportation efficiency, contiguous zones, feeder patterns, long-term growth, diversity and utilization. Parents and students said Map 3 undermines several of those criteria, especially proximity and feeder continuity, and repeatedly raised concerns about student safety, extracurricular participation and long bus rides.
“Ninety percent of our meetings are talking about socioeconomics and we are forgetting about the other seven criteria,” Sarah Hall said, endorsing Draft 9, a modification of Map 1 she said better balances the district’s scoring factors. Nikita Siraj, a junior at Dublin Kaufman High School, described feelings of anxiety and isolation after earlier redistricting and said she feared similar outcomes for younger students if Map 3 is adopted.
Several speakers cited specific data and projections presented during public comment. Ashley Benton, a Bailey-area parent who leads a data team, said Map 1 would send “432 fewer kids” over the bridge than Map 3 and argued Map 3 would require substantially more bus miles and drivers. Jennifer Durishin and other speakers noted district projections that Jerome High School could reach 111% utilization within 10 years; they said Map 3 delays rather than solves long-term capacity issues.
Residents who live within walking or biking distance of Jerome urged the board to preserve neighborhood assignments to that school. “If a neighborhood can walk, see or hear a high school from their very own yards, they should remain zoned to that school,” Tricia Corbin said, describing children who currently walk to Jerome and the community’s ties to school activities. Oak Park and other planning blocks asked the board to move their blocks to Jerome even if feeder alignments change.
Speakers also criticized the redistricting process and the district’s scoring methods. Multiple commenters said the internal scoring (an IPT-style panel) and the traffic study were opaque or insufficiently robust; some called for the district to reweight the eight criteria or to start redistricting anew with high-school boundaries first. Jesse Armstrong, president of the Amberley Association HOA, said the principal objective — relieving Jerome’s overcrowding — is best met by Map 1 (or by a previously proposed Map 9), and warned that Map 3 would require a repeat redistricting within a few years.
A pediatrician in the audience urged the board to prioritize safety and walkability when deciding school boundaries. Several students and parents said longer commutes would reduce participation in after-school activities and increase burdens on working parents.
Board members and the superintendent listened throughout the evening; no formal action or vote was taken during the session. The district staff said they will collect comments and review the data before the board makes any final boundary decision.
Community groups and speakers asked the board to consider or publish additional analyses — including more transparent traffic modeling, reweighting of scoring criteria, and a fuller accounting of long-term enrollment projections — before finalizing a plan.
The public-comment session ended after roughly 90 minutes with applause and a brief show-of-hands poll in the room, but no board decision. The board said it will consider the testimony and the submitted emails as it moves toward a final boundary recommendation.
