Chart 1 describes enrollment at each school with current district boundaries - so demonstrating underutilization with current boundaries. redistricting necessary!

Chart 3 describes after redistricting - 460 at 100%, which assumes two additional classrooms built out adding 40 more seats to the designed 420 building.

I would echo Mike's comments above. The redistricting plan has too many holes and un answered questions which will have ramifications for years upon these families. God forbid a child actually tries to walk from the Washington Street area to Lynch and crosses the very busy Main St. All it will take is one child to get hurt and people's eyes will be open. This plan does not need to be rushed through the system because the committee is running out of time. Do the right thing not the easiest thing. We are the parents after all. We should be better than this plan demonstrates.

Apparently you are not affected by this awful plan!!!

Your right walkability should be looked at for everyone. There are so many studies connecting walking to school and better performance, The less traffic, the less pollution, the better town character. There was a plan presented in April that improved walkability for everyone in town. There was no explanation as to why it was thrown out. An independent review would verify the results and provide that explanation.

YM, if your home has always been Lynch district, then you bought/rented your place knowing that you could not/would not walk to school so it was obviously not your top reason for choosing to live where you do. It's different for those who bought a house because it was in close walking distance from a school, never imagining they would be redistricted. That is why so many people are upset and commenting on walkability. But I agree with you that walkability should be important for all of the schools and for our town in general. I thought Plan J was the best proposal for that reason. The problem seems to be that the school with the most unused capacity is in a mostly non-walkable neighborhood without many kids.

To answer your question, I think I would be fine with Lynch if that is what I had always planned on. However, the people being moved out of Muraco and Lincoln bought their houses in order to walk to and attend one of these schools that are nearby. These people (myself included) made sacrifices in order to buy here or have been planning for years to count on their kids walking to school, including families with several kids and single parents who very much depend on that flexibility. There are also some people who may not know everything about the adequate yearly progress problem (which really is a poorly thought out law) and the MCAS scores (which is, unfortunately, the only thing elementary schools are judged by), so don't worry. I think most of the upset is due to people believing they had been in control of their school choice when they bought their house and finding out that we quite possibly will be pushed out and forced into a situation we were intentionally trying to avoid by living close to a school.

YM, I agree with you. If walkability is important, then it should be for every family in Winchester. Plan J is NOT walkable to everyone. AND Plan J affects 200+ students while the final recommended plan affects 112 students. That's twice the number of students. What about the additional 100+ students who will get affected? Do none of them walk to school as well??? The only thing probably is that Plan J spares the Swanton neighborhood and it doesn't matter if it affects other neighborhoods. Plus, a school is built not by teachers but by teachers, parents and students. If truly "outstanding" Lincoln and Muraco students are moved to a Lynch, they should not be concerned about going to a school with lower MCAS scores. They should look forward to pulling up Lynch's MCAS scores.

@David. The RAC recommended moving only 68 students to VO -- 41 from Ambrose and 27 from Lynch. I think you were looking at the VO projected enrollment for 2015-16 (376) in Chart 1 and then adding 84 to get to the 460 number in Chart 3? But Chart 3 shows that VO is not projected to get to 460 until a year later -- the 2016-17 school year. In 2015-16, VO is projected to be at 453.

With respect to capacity, VO is being built with 21 classrooms, which results in a capacity of 420 if one uses the formula: capacity = #classrooms x 20. Footnote 10 on page 6 of the report suggests that two additional classrooms may be built, which would bring the number of classrooms to 23 and the capacity to 460.

For what it's worth, I disagree that capacity can be determined by simply multiplying the number of classrooms by 20. In a building like Muraco, for example, which had 15 classrooms in 2004, 18 classrooms in 2006 and 24 classrooms in 2009 (with the exception of two modular classrooms, the extra 9 classrooms were created by subdividing classrooms and reconfiguring interior space), applying that formula would mean that Muraco's capacity went from 300 to 480. Obviously this makes no sense since the building did not get any bigger (except for the two modular classrooms). Classrooms that were added on an emergency basis, solely to meet an enrollment surge, should not be included when determining capacity.

Henry - Actually this was key concern. In the proposed model only 112 students (90 if 5th graders are grandfathered) are redistricted, the least of any publicly provided model.

BAV, to quote one parent: "just minimizing the number of families impacted would be a very crude metric to use. Making a few families bear a large impact isn't fair."

SG - I was directly responding to Henry who claimed that "disturbing as few children as possible" was not taken into account. It was.

As to the claim that it is a crude metric, I guess I disagree. It is ONE metric. In the Winter I wrote to the committee and recommended that this be the key metric used after the educational goals were achieved. (I also recommended keeping neighborhoods together whether they stayed or moved.) The quote raises a false dichotomy of a few children bearing a large impact and implies that there is a better option where a large number bear a smaller impact. No such plan exists. And based on the statistics, there is no way to send every child to the closest school. This should have been discussed more when the override was passed. While attending meetings about the proposed override, it was made clear to me.

BAV - Why you think there is no better option where a large number of family bear a smaller impact? How about keeping the current boundaries, so that no kid is disrupted? As to the goal of evenly distribute students among the 5 elementary schools, or keeping school size below 500, we can encourage voluntary choice by parents to send their kids to less crowded school, such as VO or Lynch. Parents who prefer new school building or prefer smaller class size, may choose to Lynch or VO if they want to. (I noticed that some people such as outsidein for example who are not bothered if their children were sent to Lynch or another school) The Winchester town can consider compensating them by providing free bus, or something else. Since as some people think there is no perfect plan, I think my idea is much more fair to everyone. Why let one or two neighborhood sacrifices, if all Winchester resident can share the responsibility/impact more evenly and lightly?

I believe over the time a dynamic balance of school size will be established, with zero disruption, and can accommodate to future and unpredictable change in student numbers of each district. And most of all this idea is fair to everyone in our town.

Regarding projected future enrollment in the next few years, what is the error bar and the probability distribution result from the analysis? For the next few years, can anyone really predict how many new students will join each school district after their families moved in either by purchasing houses or renting properties? If the error bar is about 5-10% for the projected enrollment numbers, then the whole basis for the redistribution plan does not hold.

SG - If the goal is to move away from the neighborhood school model, than anything is on the table and your assertion is correct. I was working under the assumption that a neighborhood school model was kept. Options such as these (k-2 and 3-5 town wide schools, etc) were discussed and overwhelmingly people said that they wanted to keep neighborhood schools. Under the model you are proposing there would be essentially no school lines and families would be free to move to any school that had space. Your neighbors on either side and across the street could all go to different schools. In the beginning, at least, no one really wanted this option. Maybe now some people do. You could be right.

BAC, I respect your openmindness to new ideas. My idea still have school lines (current lines), but allow (or encourage) people to volunteer to less crowded schools in order to deal with the possible overcrowding issues in one or two schools. Thus, the neighborhoods are still kept to a large extent. Similar to a few months ago several kids chose to move from Lynch to other schools, my idea would keep a neighborhood to one school district to a large extent, while allowing some minor adjustment in order to alleviate the perceived or possible overcrowding in one or two schools. My idea would also remove the need for another redistribution in 3-5 years, which would likely affect some other neighborhoods.

Winchester Parent, spot on! Very well said

Winchester Parent
Well said.

Winchester Parent -- Thank you for your comments, because I believe more discussions are likely to lead to better plans or ideas. Here are my comments to your questions:
1, I do not propose a complete choice plan. For each family, the default school is still their current school according to current district lines. However, if their school is over-crowded, parents in this school district is free (or encouraged by town) to move to less crowded school .
2. What happens when more students want to attend than a particular school than it can accomodate? Lottery?
--- According the prediction of RAC, in the next few years, the maximum enrollment for a school is about 22-24 students, depending on whether existing classrooms are reclaimed. On the RAC report I could not find the maximum number of students that each school can accommodate legally. If the maximum number is 600 for a school, then such a scenario (more students than legally allowed number) is not likely to happen. You had mentioned “I believe I speak for many when I say class size is more important than the mode of travel to and from the school building.” If there are quite some people who share your view, then this scenario is much less likely to happen, because these people would choose to move to a less crowded school with smaller class size.

---- To be continued ---

--- If, this scenario did happen, then my proposal is to request newly arrived students (based on the date of moving to the school district of Wincheter) to move to a less crowded school, and put them on the waiting list for their desirable school. Lottery is not an unfair idea, but I think the waiting list idea is more reasonable and also a fair idea. Such ideas on the details can be discussed among our town.
“Would families be granfathered? What happens when a new family moves into the neighborood and the school is already full? Can of worms.”
--- A good plan is likely to require carefully thinking on the details. But I do not think that this would result in can of worms. To answer your question, if a school already reaches the legal maximum capacity, obviously a family cannot grandfather in a sibling student. But that family has the option to move all their kids to a less crowded school. When a new family moves into the neighborhood and the school is already full, the new family can move all their kids to a less crowded school. And their name can be put on a waiting list for their desired school.
According to the RAC redistrict plan, the grandfather-in of a sibling student is not considered.
--- to be continued ---

“It could also result in families driving not just to the next-closest school, but all the way across town if they are crowded out of their neighborhood school.”
--- It is theoretically possible that a family (perhaps a new family to town) is crowded out of his/her neighborhood school, or even forced out of the next closed school, but I think the chance is quite small, because from your comment I think many parents value class size than walkability. Do you realize that according to the RAC plan, a whole neighborhood is already forced to move not to the next-closed school, but to a much more distant school, not by their own choice, and in the mean time the capacity of near schools are not reached? Is this fair? Why let one or two neighborhood sacrifices, if all Winchester residents can share the responsibility/impact more evenly and lightly per household?

I thought our current plan allows for parents to opt into another school as space allows, which is basically what you are proposing. I really have a problem with splitting children from ONE family among different schools because they happen to move to a neighborhood after the teams are established. You said newcomers would move to a less crowded school. After VO is completed, it will have the greatest capacity for the smallest population (of walkers) so a family new to the Muraco neighborhood could end up there. That makes no sense. This is assuming they would like to walk to their neighborhood school (which now seems to be more important than learning environment and educational goals to a lot of people.) That plan seems less fair than asking a (relatively small) number of families to move to a new school TOGETHER with their neighborhood.

I said I believed class size was important because that was one of the primary reasons put forward when the override for VO was proposed. At that time, a majority of people were on board since adding capacity to that school would be of benefit to ALL students across Winchester by alleviating overcrowding.

Again, there is no perfect solution that will please all. People will be impacted by whatever plan is decided upon. The plan outlined by the BAC has taken all concerns into account and put forth a plan that impacts very few (relative to overall population) students.

@Winchester Parent. I agree that a lot of people were on board to build a new VO because it was supposed to be part of the solution to district-wide overcrowding. The problem is that the plan does not alleviate the overcrowding at Lincoln or Muraco. Taking 10 kids from Muraco (assuming the 7 fifth graders decide to stay) will not make any difference. I am completely unaffected by the redistricting as my youngest child will be in 5th grade next year and my house is not near any line. Nevertheless, I am unhappy with this plan because Muraco will continue to be severely overcrowded for the foreseeable future.

Winchester Parent:
According to the current plan proposed by RAC, some families in my neighborhood already would split their children among different schools, because 5th grades are grandfather-in. These families expected their children to go to a certain school when they bought the house; this is complete different from newcomers who have the choice to buy or not buy a new home in a particular area in Winchester. The remote possibility of a Murao new family ended up with their kids in VO is not desirable, but at least this new family can know about this before moving in. If they wish, they can choose to buy a house in VO area.
Different people may have different preference and perspective. I personally like smaller class size, but keeping the current walkable school is more important to my family due to several personal/family reasons. I believe there are many people who have similar thought to me. On the other hand, I also believe there are many people like you who put class size as first priority. I understand your preference, and also respect your preference. I never said walking to school is more important than learning environment and educational goals. I only think class size may not be so important to learning environment and educational goals as some people think. In addition, as many studies can show, walking to school is good for students learning and health.
--- to be continued ---

Yes, there is no perfect solution that will please all. But, is the current RAC proposed plan FAIR? Our discussion really boils down to the definition of fairness. Although the RAC plan impacts very few (relative to overall population) students, the plan is against many family’s will in this relatively disadvantaged neighborhood socioeconomically speaking, so that other parts of the district can enjoy smaller class size or music/computer labs in their current school. This is not a fair plan. The founding fathers of this country expressed concerns about the tyranny of the majority. Let me quote James Madison in Federalist Paper "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." In order to achieve smaller class size and adding music/computer labs to benefit the non-affected majority family and in the meantime force a smaller number of families in a neighborhood (which is also a relatively socioeconomic disadvantaged neighborhood) to change school against their will, is not only unfair, but in my opinion also against the principle of liberty.

SG: Check your facts. One of the neighborhools affected falls within what you would consider an "advantaged" area (i.e. Ambrose.) This is not a socioeconomic issue despite your attempts to spin it that way. It is finding a solution that is fair to ALL students. Your plan to change the entire system, impacting EVERYONE, to spare some inconvenience to a FEW is nonsensical. No one has been complaining about UNFAIR districting until this week.

Further, with all due respect, you are as free as anyone moving to town to move within town. Nobody is forcing you to stay in your current neighborhood "against your will." If walkability is truly your primary concern, above any educational outcome, then feel free to move to a school district that works for you.

Winchester Parent:

Unfortunately the RAC plan is not fair to all students, as I explained. It is only your personal opinion that my idea is nonsensical.
If a FEW is severely sacrificed to spare some inconvenience to the majority, it is unfair. No one was complaining until this week, does not mean the plan is not unfair.
Also with all due respect, you are as free to drive your kids to a district with smaller class size, according to my proposal. According to your above comments, this is just some inconvenience. If smaller class size is your primary concern, then feel free to drive your kids to a school with smaller class size, or feel free to move to a school district with smaller class size.

SG: Smaller class size is not only MY concern, it is the the concern of the SCHOOL BOARD who was ELECTED to work on issues exactly like this one. Further, I AM NOT COMPLAINING about the plan. I do not feel compelled to move because I, along with a clear majority, do not have an issue with the schools, school committee, RAC, etc. If I did, I would consider moving. I would not expect everyone in town to sacrifice so I could have my way. Sometimes what is best for an individual is not best for the community and adults can accept this, focus on the MANY positives involved and move on.

You are clearly disgruntled because you are impacted and have lost all perspective on what is truly FAIR. A democratic system does not ensure an equal outcome for every single party involved. I am sure you are aware of this.

Thanks for expressing your thoughts and best of luck with your plan. I will look forward to hearing all about it at the school committee meeting. I'm sure by then your will have worked out the numberous gaping loopholes.

*numerous

Winchester Parent:
As I said, even majority does not mean the plan is fair. I do not expect everyone in town to sacrifice so I could have MY way. It is not about my own family issues. It is a public issue that affects many families (though a minority town wide). I think everyone in town sharing a tiny amount of sacrifice more evenly is more fair than let a relative small number of families to bear a big share of sacrifice per family. I have explained this idea above. For a person without personal interest in this issue, for example for a person who lives outside the town, I believe he/she would more likely than not accept my idea of fairness.
May I assume you are disgruntled about my idea? I am wondering whether you do not want to share a tiny amount of sacrifice which is relatively evenly distributed among the town. As you said, sometimes what is best for an individual is not best for the community and adults can accept this, please focus on the MANY positives of my idea. These positives are for the whole town, not just for myself or for my neighborhood.
I also want to thank you for expressing your thoughts. During our discussion, I understand more about your concerns. I believe everyone’s concerns should be considered in our Winchester town, and a fair plan should not let a relative small number of families to bear a big share of sacrifice, whether these small number of families live in my neighborhood or in any other neighborhood in our Winchester town.

@Winchester Parent. Just for the sake of accuracy, here is an excerpt from the ressult of the overide vote for the new Vinson Owen;
Winchester will be getting a new elementary school.
Voter turnout may have been lower than normal for the override vote, but those who came out voiced their support for building a new Vinson-Owen Elementary School.The override passed by a vote of 3,026 to 2,121.
"I'm thrilled that the question passed," said School Committee Chairman Sarah Girotti. "I'm looking forward now to the construction phase and the eventual opening of the new school."
Overall, 37 percent or 5,147 people out of the 14,041 registered voters in Winchester made their way to the polls.
"It's nice to see the citizens of Winchester continue their commitment to education that they've had for generations," Girotti said.
The estimated cost of this project, according to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is $28,170,307. Out of that amount, the state is reimbursing the town $10,188,822 and Winchester will spend $17,981,485 on the project.
"I'm delighted the town voted in favor to move forward with this project," said Cindy Bohne, Vinson-Owen PTO co-president

Amen George!!

Love you George but you are wrong. My kids are closer to Vinson Owen and Ambrose yet they attend lynch which is the furthest away. Furthermore my husbands family of eight all attended different elementary schools within town due to redistricting. Wyman Ambrose lynch as you know they survived. Families /streets are always redistricted in towns. So for those of you who.make the argument that you purposefully bought your homes in a specific.district perhaps.you should have dug a little deeper into the facts.....nothing is guaranteed. Redistricting has been happening for years.

@Kathleen - To clarify, the above post was written by my father, George Nowell, Sr.

I appreciate your passion and pride in the Lynch community. As your friend, I respectfully disagree with part of your comments. I do not believe that Lynch is the third furthest school from your house (mapquest, odometer or otherwise). If I am wrong, it is certainly not a "distant third". I think that we can all agree that if there are two schools closer than one might be considered an "exception to the historic norm" in Winchester.

That said, I agree that being asked to redistrict is certainly not unprecedented. If my hazy memory serves, when Wyman School closed, most neighborhood kids from the flats went to Ambrose, which was the next closest school. This lends to my father's earlier point. I don't believe that any of your in-laws went to Lynch Elementary, although most went to Lynch Junior High. Admittedly, I am not the foremost authority and I'll certainly defer to Danny :)

I guess that I should sign Sr. after my patch profile name but I love flattering sentiment by Kathleen Costello- thank you!

In my above post, I was really trying to make a point. As good Winchester citizens, none of us should ever want to make anyone more unhappy than is absolutely necessary via this redistricting process. I recently attended a neighborhood redistricting meeting and witnessed some attendees so emotional/upset that they could not even speak. With this in mind, I say that Winchester can do better.

Having said that, I will stick to my premise that asking any group of students to attend the third most distant school is likely unprecedented in Winchester.

Did they switch your home from Muraco to Lynch after you bought it? Noone is saying they are more special than anybody else or that they can't make transitions (in fact many parents don't care if they are transfered from Lincoln to Muraco or vice-versa, since they could still walk). It's not change people are upset about, it's when change is a step backwards. Why doesn't it make sense to transition more kids to allow a few more to walk to their school? I personally think that would be a change for the better!

This was also discussed months ago - school choice. The overwhelming response from meetings and comments was that people prefered the neighborhood model over grade level and school choice. We need to stop revisiting past decisions and move forward.

LOVE this idea too!

Stephen - The plan to reduce overcrowding at Ambrose ten years ago was also shouldered by those in the Grove St region of town who were asked to give up a safe and flat walk to Lincoln School in favor of a long and dangerous (virtually impossible) walk to Ambrose school. Now that they are settled, I suspect that very few, if any, would ask to be returned to Lincoln School. In time, that is always the case with redistricting and will be this time no matter how the process plays out.

You bring up the real issue. Should proximity trump all other considerations? Just as you might have bought a house to be in Ambrose, they might have bought a house to be in Lincoln. They might have bought so that they could walk their kids to school and then continue on to the Train to Boston. They might have bought so that they could pick up older siblings at McCall at the same time in the PM. Some seem to be saying that the issues important to them are the most important issues. I really do get the angst some are going through, but shifting the map just shifts the issue to others. I have no doubt that if the map were drawn differently, we would be having this exact same discussion with different players. And if we postpone in an effort to shift the lines again, we increase the ugliness of the whole process.

The enrollment projections for Lincoln and Muraco seem to decline significantly over the next four years. So if through this redistricting they go to 100% in 2013, they will be significantly under capacity by 2015 or 2016. This also means that the other schools will be significantly over capacity.

@Townie -- Not sure what chart you are looking at, but Chart 3 of the redistricting committee's report shows Muraco and Lincoln significantly over capacity in 2013-14. Furthermore, the capacity number used for both schools in Chart 3 is inflated. Where Muraco's capacity is listed at 440, the true capacity is 400 (or less, depending on how you count classrooms) and the true capacity of Lincoln is 400, not 420, as Chart 3 suggests. If the true capacity is used, both schools remain over capacity through 2015-16, the years targeted by the RAC. There were 475 kids at Muraco this year. In 2014, there were 315. In 2006 there were 18 classrooms; now there are 24.

CORRECTION - that should have been 2004, not 2014, in the second to last sentence.

@maura, we are looking at the same charts. Lincoln and Muraco will be over capacity in 2013, true, but in the out years they fall dramatically. My point is, if they start AT capacity in 2013, they will be significantly under capacity in the out years.

As far as the capacity issue, these are the capacities as agreed to through through the extensive feasibility study by the MSBA. Arguing them now doesn't solve the problem-the students are still enrolled and we need to relieve overcrowding at some of the schools.

@Townie - Can you show me what MSBA documentation you are looking at for when you say that the capacities were "agreed to"? I have the 2007 Statement of Interest that the former superintendent submitted to the MSBA and Muraco's capacity was listed at 315. And I have the presentation slides from the 2004 redistricting committee where Muraco's capacity was listed as 300, with 15 classrooms.

Well said.

Agree.

RIGHT ON, Jason. Agree agree agree. All exactly what I am seeing/thinking.

THe three options presented were not presented as the final three. Just some examples of some of the models the committee was looking at. The final recommendation is similar to all three, it just happens to be one that you don't like. That said, I agree that the school committee should consider sustainability, practicality, safety, and overall classroom and school distribution when evaluating this plan. I don't see how we could make any reasonable , factual comments about home values and even if you could accurately measure the impact of this plan on your home value (somehow excluding the myriad of other factors that impact your home value), what would you do with the info? For example, if a plan increased your home value and decreased mine, would that be a good plan? Would you somehow aggregate the net value increase and decrease throughout the town?
Why didn't you suggest your grade school model at the last public meeting? To use your football analogies, why throw this desperation pass on 4th and 20?

Fabrizio - In fact there are no changes in the final model that weren't in one of the three preliminary models. And there was no unanimity in preferring one of the models to another--people just heard what they wanted to hear. No one seems to want to move to a new school and everyone would like someone else to move. We can switch to a new model but the fact that someone will have to move doesn't change. I hope those clamoring will be supportive of those who ask for yet another round of changes if changes are made to this model.

Actually Fabrizio I did send a similar proposal to the RAC via the web site. Also, during the open forum they said they ruled out school choice and a few other options this is why they presented the three options that they did. On your second point regarding my home value, I do not live in a district that it will have a huge effect on the value of my home. however, having lived in town for 38 years I feel I have a decent gauge on the effect of properties this may have. To my point if you see the length of time that a house in the Muraco school district stayed on the market during the last 5 years versus other parts in town I would say there is a direct correlation between school and housing . So with that said, this plan may or may not be the best it just does to have to be decided on June 7th. Lets exhaust the possibilities before rushing into something that could effect so many peoples lives.

@BAV - thanks for your clarification. I agree that any of the new suggestions will anger some other group that is redistricted and won't get any closer to a decision.
Jason - I certainly don't have the history of information that you bring to this discussion, so I'll defer to your real estate knowledge. My point is that it would be impossible for any committee to figure out the net economic impact to the whole town based on any school model with any degree of accuracy.
I personally feel that the model proposed is a good one, that maybe there should be some tweaks to it, but I certainly don't think throwing it out and starting with a whole new concept like grade level schools would get us any closer to a solution. In fact, it would probably lead to another 6-12 months of new plans, discussions, and probably we'd all arrive back at the neighborhood type models.
I think we should also consider why we need to make a choice and move on. Its important that those children and families impacted by the redistricting will have time to acclimate to their new school. I believe the goal was to have this finalized before people take off for summer vacations and to give PTOs and schools a chance to prepare welcome events, and other activities next year for new students. The longer we postpone a decision, the less time new students will have to get acclimated before these changes take effect.

Problem:

RAC lists one parent's comment earlier suggesting that the best redistricting plan should be the one minimizing the number of students and families impacted and uses it as the goal for its final proposal. As the debates over this issue evolves, it is clear that the impacts enforced on the minimized families to be affected are so huge not only including risking little kids' safety but also home value depreciation, let alone its other social economic consequences. It is evidently unfair to ask small group of families to shoulder the whole town's burdens no matter how small this group might be.

The goal of RAC and school committee should provide the fairest redistricting solution. I appeal to the school committee and every stakeholder family that the fairest solution is the one that can impact most of the family but with the minimized extent to each one. In this case, the burden of redistricting will be shared by most of families instead of limit number of minorities. The universal impact will keep the neighbourhood intact, safety concern minimized, and preventing otherwise impacted area home value depreciation.

As Mr. Jason Capodanno's comments on Winchester Patch online: the final proposal actually changed rule from a neighbourhood plan to a balanced school number plan. It is time we should take a close look at this plan to see how it will change the areas of this town, including student safety, plan sustainability, and financial impacts such as home values.

Solution:

As many others suggest online that putting all 5th graders and/or Kindergarteners in VO or Lynch, which are the most under capacity schools, will free up classrooms in all other schools. This plan will, to the best extent, evenly impact everyone in the least extent rather than to a few ones with maximized consequences. This is going to be at least a fair solution, i.e., every Winchester resident makes contributions to the redistricting solutions.

To prevent the questioning on impartiality for decision, an independent outside panel should be brought in to evaluate any final decisions.

It is a more than challenge task, however, when accomplished fairly, it will unify the town of Winchester instead of dividing it.

Another great idea!!! Yes, "attracting" kids/families instead of "pushing" kids/families. Great thinking.

fantastic idea! Please, please, please, send it to the committee right away!

So create a "gifted kids" program that will move 100 kids or even 220 kids to balance out the schools? That's anywhere from 5 to 10 classrooms at VO. Doesn't seem plausible. I doubt that many would volunteer and I don't think VO has the space to support it if they did. What happens if 220 kids don't volunteer? Do we then redistrict? Redistricting is balancing among all the schools, not just moving people into one.
Also, what do you propose for the "gifted kids" curriculum"? Or are you just proposing to call something a "gifted" program and hope people will sending their kids into it? If its truly a special program (assuming the school committe can secure funding to develop and support this), won't it give some some the town an academic advantage? how would you select who gets in in a fair and transparent way?
This idea is definitely out of the box, but doesn't seem effective or sustainable. Sorry.

I completely agree with Fabrizio. Solving one "problem" by creatiing a multitued of others is not the answer. What about the VO families who want to send their kids to VO, but might not be able to if their child doesn't qualify as "gifted?" Where's the walkability for them?
Change for the sake of change alone, without merit or cause, is a pointless exercise.

Hello. Thanks for the people who like the idea. I have already sent it to the school committee. Please submit the idea too to gain support for it. Fabrizio, the program could be as big or as small as you want it to be, depending on space. You qualify kids based on objective metrics (math, science, advancement, teacher's recommendations, etc.) If you take the top 1%, then you might end up with 1 classroom, if you take the top 10%, then it may be much more. Nevertheless, no matter what number of students you can move, you will at least be alleviating some overcrowding in the other schools. In NYC, gifted kids programs are overflowing with applications. People would travel across town just to get to them. Massachusetts, although is a state that provides good education across the board, is actually one of the states that don't have a lot of support for gifted/advanced kids. Other schools and other states (ie Texas) are doing it. Check out this website http://aceraschool.org/. This is a school in Melrose that was set up by a Winchester mom. She felt that there is no support in Winchester for her gifted son. And the school is thriving! True, it will give some kids in town an academic advantage, but it will be those kids who deserve it and who work hard for it. Well, everyone applies to Ivy Leagues but not everyone gets in. But then, not all Ivy Leaguers are successful. I am not an academician but I believe there is a way to design this.

Winchester Parent, I am merely responding to the idea that a) VO has extra capacity b) if we cannot redistrict based on neighborhood, then let us recut the students another way. And we need to recut the population to make the move attractive to parents and make it worth their while. VO students will always have room in the school since I assume that the RAC's calculation has already taken into account current and future VO volume. The gifted program will just replace the student volume who would otherwise be moved to VO due to redistricting. This idea is not without merit- in recent years, there have been many applications for chartered schools to address this need for a different kind of education. This idea is an attempt to marry up an excess capacity issue and an unmet demand.

It just seems that this is less of an answer to how to move 100-220 student around the district to balance out the class sizes and more a new initiative to offer a charter school option in Winchester. I agree that Charter schools are a popular option in school districts that perform at a lower academic level. I don't believe there are any examples of where a public school district set up their own charter schools.
For Winchester parents that are frustrated with the lack of a charter school, why not apply for one of the many already out there (Melrose, Malden, etc). Why create another with all the associated costs? I read your original proposal as starting a gifted program not an entirely new charter school.
But, if you think there's alot of pent up demand in Winchester for a charter school, then why hasn't the market already started one? Its because, in general, people are happy with the school performance and don't need a charter school.
So, I'll go back to my original point, if you are suggesting a gifted program, you need school funding, space, and enough people to sign up. And those people that sign up have to be in the right proportions to equally balance class size across all 5 schools. Not likely.

GOC - That is an intriguing idea. (For what it is worth, the idea was recommended by another friend too). I think that it comes with its own set of problems too. In the short term, while it is being set up, I am not sure that many would sign up for it, thus little immediate help. (As indicated by the RAC, there were 1000's of letters and all of them asked for their kids to stay in their current schools.) If successful (a big IF), then, in the long term too many people might sign up for it. You would have to limit the number allowed to enter the program every year to match the space requirement. You might also have to limit from which schools the students could come from (coming from Lynch or VO doesn't help with redistricting). And you might set up a tiered school system which we all claim to dislike. Still, I think this is one of the better alternatives I've heard.

I used to live in Plano, TX and know this kind of program. I believe that GOC's idea is a very good one. For kids who are bored by something they already know, a bit more knowledge and opportunity will keep motivating them. It will help build the whole school district performance as well. As I see from people who live in Texas, this program does not necessarily to lead to an advantageous group, rather it creates diversities.