Dublin parents urge stop to repeated moves, demand data transparency in high‑school redistricting debate

About 30 residents spoke at a Dublin City Schools listening session Tuesday evening, pressing the board to either adopt Map 1 or rework Map 3 and to make the redistricting data and scoring method public. The session was the second of three listening sessions and was convened to gather community feedback on proposed high‑school boundaries.

Speakers repeatedly said the same neighborhoods — especially Bristol Commons and the Bailey area — have been moved multiple times in recent years and said that pattern imposes academic and emotional costs on students. "Can you imagine being redistricted three times in just six years with no end in sight? Enough is enough," said Kelly Sheffield, a Bristol Commons resident. "It's time for Dublin City Schools to create a fair, long‑term plan that doesn't repeatedly uproot the same neighborhoods."

Residents disputed the district's internal scoring and data transparency. Chang Liu, who reviewed the Planning and Impact Tool (PIT) scoring, said the reader scores and individual data were not made available to the public and concluded, "the PIT results cannot be trusted" without a transparent reanalysis. Multiple speakers asked the district to publish raw scoring, reader sheets, and the assumptions behind travel‑time and utilization estimates.

Several commenters focused on proximity, feeder patterns and safety. Kevin Cooper, who described living directly across the street from Jerome High School, urged the board to keep his planning block at Jerome and called it "unprecedented" to move a neighborhood that sits adjacent to its high school. Yao Chang and others said Map 3 would turn short walks or bike rides into multi‑mile trips crossing busy roads and bridges, increasing safety risks and eliminating after‑school participation for many students.

Multiple speakers raised mental‑health concerns for children who have been moved repeatedly. "Think about what you're doing to these kids," Tracy Borgan said, describing the stress of forming and then losing friendships across multiple redistrictings. Residents asked the board to weigh student well‑being in addition to statistical metrics.

The socioeconomics criterion — measured by free‑and‑reduced‑lunch (FRL) percentages — was the most contested technical point. Several residents said the FRL data displayed on maps may be incorrect and that the weighting of socioeconomic criteria appears to overpower other factors such as proximity and feeder continuity. "If socioeconomics is being given six times the weight of other components, that needs to be explained and revisited," said Yao Chang.

Some attendees urged concrete policy changes. Jody Schafer asked the board to grant a one‑time sibling exemption so a middle‑schooler would not be forced to attend a different high school from an older sibling at the same time. Others asked the board to ensure each high school attendance zone includes at least one apartment complex to preserve options for renter families.

Not all speakers opposed Map 3. Sven Christensen and others said Map 3 reduces the overall number of students disrupted districtwide and that the internal planning committee found benefits to that option; they urged the board to use Map 3 as the basis for further refinement. Several Scioto parents also urged the board to invest in supports and programming at Scioto rather than treat the school as a reason to reject redistricting options.

No formal vote or action occurred during the listening session. The board thanked commenters, said staff have read submitted emails, and reminded attendees that the process remains open; the board announced it will meet on the 29th in the PAC to continue deliberations.

Why it matters: the final boundary map will determine which high school thousands of Dublin students attend, affecting daily commutes, extracurricular access, feeder relationships across elementary and middle schools, and the demographic mix at each high school. Speakers asked the board to publish its data, reconsider weighting in the scoring model, and account for safety and mental‑health effects before finalizing any map.

Sources: testimony during the public listening session (speakers quoted are identified below).