Dr. R. Marschhausen, superintendent of Dublin City Schools, said the district will press pause on the high‑school redistricting process to allow more community input and to revise the process before any new map is released. "The goal is to get this right and not to just get this done," Marschhausen said, and added: "We need a cooling off period."

Why it matters: redrawing attendance zones can change where students attend school, affect feeder patterns and sibling placements, and is likely to influence transportation, building capacity and program access across the district. Marschhausen said the board will play a larger role moving forward and that the district plans to use community feedback to set the criteria an external firm will use to draw any new map.

Marschhausen told trustees he has contacted Planning Next, the external consultant used for the district's Journey 2030 process, and that he expects the board to appoint members to the administrative policy committee in January to review Policy 51 20 for potential amendments. He said the district will launch a series of focus groups in the spring — "at least" the more than 20 groups used previously — and that the consultant will present summarized community values to the board so the board can set the guiding criteria for redistricting.

During board discussion and public remarks, trustees and community members asked for transparency about how focus‑group members will be chosen, whether subject‑matter experts will be included, and whether middle‑ and elementary‑school boundaries might also be considered depending on the criteria established. Marschhausen said the district has a framework of previous groups (BACs, PTO presidents, student advisory council, faculty councils and municipal leaders) but that he wants the board to help determine group composition.

Trustees pressed for a published timeline and periodic public updates so the community can monitor progress without relying on public‑records requests. Several trustees said they want the new process to surface new voices, not only repeat the same stakeholder list, and to allow the board to weigh criteria such as proximity, feeder patterns and socioeconomic balance.

Cost and existing work: Marschhausen said the district's initial contract with Cropper GIS for the redistricting work was $95,000 and that the traffic study cost roughly $23,000; he added that legal fees related to complaints and public‑records reviews have already been sizable and that he anticipates legal bills could exceed $100,000 as the district completes the process. He also said the traffic study could be continued and expanded as the work resumes.

Next steps: Marschhausen said he will ask the board in January to authorize policy‑committee review of Policy 51 20 and to set a timeline for the RFP process to select a firm to redraw maps. In the spring the district plans to convene focus groups, gather feedback, hold a work session to share results publicly, and then have the board set guiding criteria that a chosen consultant will use to draw a new attendance map.

What this was not: No new attendance map or formal redistricting action was adopted at the meeting. Trustees paused the process and directed a renewed public engagement and policy review; any concrete map proposals will come later, after the consultant work and public input.