My take away from the various public forums was that 1) it was not a "very flawed" process - it was a process that clearly defined its key goal - "best physical learning environment possible by uniform and equitable utilization of facilities, according to the needs of the educational program" and attempted to deliver it. It was also an open and accountable process 2) Its quite a stretch to say that "our community values the walkable school model" particularly more than providing uniform and equitable utilization of facilities - would you rather walk to school or have classrooms of 28-30 children? and 3) walkable schools was a vocal group of parents - its difficult to conclude that this is the key priority for the entire community. Small sample size.

Just wondering, outsidein, if you realize that the new redistricted map was not even presented to the public before it was recommended to the school committee. I wouldn't call that "open and accountable" -- it also seems that everyone wants to rush this decision since the vote is scheduled only a few days after the public meeting. This is not at all "open and accountable" as you stated. In addition, the residents who did attend the April meeting may have been a small group (probably due to the lack of public announcements about the meeting) -- but they represented all the people who could have been affected by any one of the models -- and they overwhelmingly preferred Model J, the more walkable model.

Was there any consideration for how many families are impacted from walkable to unwalkable (I'd use 0.7 mile as walkable, but some similar number would make sense)? Or or how much the impacted families are impacted? If a family moves from unwalkable to unwalkable or walkable to walkable, I don't think that matters as much, so 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.

If you look at the neighborhood being carved out of Muraco and Lincoln in the proposed plan, any reasonable person would conclude that walking is part of the value proposition. It's not just elementary school that is close. These people chose to be close to middle school, high school, town center and the T. Moving them from Lincoln to Muraco or vice versa would be a walkable-walkable move of low impact. Moving them to Lynch - 1.7 or 1.9 miles away (yes, most homes are over 1.5 miles from Lynch) is a much bigger impact and the two are not comparable at all.

@outsidein: All proposed plans provide similar class sizes, so your comment about class sizes of 28-30 is way off the mark. No one was asking for that.

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 we predict how many new students 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. Does RAC have such analysis result for the confidence interval? How is it calculated?

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, one idea is to 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. The Winchester town can consider compensating them by providing free bus, or something else. Since you mentioned 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?

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.

"...there would be no response that would please everyone". This is the excuse being given for proposing a flawed plan upon the two targeted neighborhoods in Winchester. These neighborhoods are being asked to bear the burden and swallow the redistricting plan of an overpopulated school system while the more affluent neighborhoods in Winchester remains largely unaffected. Please tell me why this is a "palatable" solution? The RAC members cited that they struggled with the options presented for 6 months.

Remember, for those of us with children in the affected neighborhoods we will be affected for a minimum of 6 years. How is this fair to us? How is it a sustainable solution to force us to spend time and money being forced to drive our children to a school so remote from our neighborhoods?

If this plan is so palatable, then why not volunteer your children to attend Lynch and make your contribution to the larger good of the town? My home is equidistant from both Lincoln and Muraco at .5 miles. I should have the right to have my child attend one of these schools and not be forced to Lynch. As I've mentioned in other forums, this essentially amounts to bullying of our neighborhoods. We wouldn't stand for it in school when it is child to child, so why is it okay now? Deeply Concerned Winchester Father

All I'm saying is that for every plan that was presented at the previous forum meetings, there were parents that had similar concerns...lack of walkability, unsafe walking routes, division of neighborhoods. Short of a school choice or lottery plan - which while appealing on the surface, seem difficult to administer while respecting both fairness and class size guidelines - or a grade-leveled plan, which would affect all of Winchester in terms of having to attend a less convenient school, increased transitions and juggling kids in 2-3 schools at the same time, some subset of people will be affected, especially those living on district borders. (Almost all of the initial feedback to the committee apparently rejected the former two models, so the focus then turned to finding the best option for redistricting.)

I don't blame you for being upset. We live one block from Lincoln, and I'd be crushed to be moved, when we specifically bought our house because it was in spitting distance of all three schools. If you note, I'm not sold on the plan - it's only worth putting families through this pain if it truly solves the overcrowding issue for the foreseeable future, and I haven't yet heard the committee's reasoning on why they feel this is the best solution, other than what I can infer from the proposal. I'll also admit to being new to town and not understanding all of the socioeconomic nuances of the various neighborhoods, so this is valuable discussion for me to be aware of.

Do you agree that "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."?
Would you agree to volunteer your children to attend Lynch?

I only ask for an independent check on the RAC's work.The numbers you state above to be verified. Double check the analysis that was done to confirm assumptions for projections on past known data and past known enrollments. Take a second look at the other solutions than redistricting. Have someone be able to stand up and answer the questions we all have.

I find it amazing that you are amazed by people complaining about quality difference between the schools. The MCAS test scores are there. Whether the test scores are meaningful can be debated, but it should not be a surprise if some parents believe the schools have quality differences based on MCAS data.

Whether there is a good plan can be explored further. But why the current plan is chosen over other plans or idea? and why the current plan is rushed to vote? 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." May I ask you would you volunteer your children to attend Lynch?

What's wrong with Lynch? Define a "large" impact? If my children were redistricted to Lynch or Ambrose, I would be fine with it. Did you attend the meetings? Talk to any committee members? Participate in the process up to this point? If so, you wouldn't say the only "crude" metric was "minimizing the number of families. And you still have a chance to be heard at the school committee meeting. Speak up there as well.

outsidein, do you understand many families do not know about the public meetings until very recenlty? Many people living in the disrupted area are not as much social-economically advantaged, so they may not have time,energy, or even English skill to get involved in the processes, or even heard about this issue until a few days ago. This does not mean these families' concerns can be ignored. This is exactly the reason why the vote should be postponed so that more people can be involved in this process.

outsidein, large impact means the whole Winchester down due to the perceived overcrowding issue. "What's wrong with Lynch?" I already explained. I did not get involved in this issue until recently, because I never heard about this issue until recently. From the report, it is apparent that the final plan was chosen mainly because the number of families/student impacted is minimized. Of course, I (and many people in our neighborhood) will speak up in the next meeting.

With all due respect, you would be surprise what an independent consultant can do. Better numbers, better analysis, better projections, better explanation, better process. An ability to answer questions and defend their results. Possibly a more sustainable solution that doesn't have us redistricting again in 5 years. Not to mention unquestionable impartiality. The committee seem like hard working and dedicated individuals, but this is not something that we should do on a volunteer basis. When we were planning to build VO we did not have volunteers do the design even though we know what facilities we want the school to have.

Mike - Why did you not suggest this at the beginning? I attended both of the public meetings and never heard this as a suggestion or a single question about the impartiality of the committee. That the result is not what you hoped for does not bring into question the integrity of the process.

The committee spent 6 months weighing the educational and social needs of all. There were two public hearings. The committee received 100's of letters. The job they did was arduous and commendable. Any insinuation that the committee was biased or influenced by personal or outside sources is insulting. The committee deserves a thank you from everyone in Winchester and an apology from those questioning its integrity.

I strongly urge everyone to move on to the merits both for and against the plan in question and move away from deriding our friends and colleagues on the committee.

BAV, do you understand many families do not know about the public meetings? Many people living in the disrupted area are not as much social-economically advantaged, so they may not have time and energy to get involved in the processes, or even heard about this issue until a few days ago. This does not mean these families' concerns can be ignored. This is exactly the reason why the vote should be postponed so that more people can be involved in this process.

With regard to communication about the process:

-- the RAC's process and public hearings were publicized through every public school newsletter on a weekly basis.
--The information was disseminated through the preschools as well.
--It was covered in the papers (Star, Patch, Times).
--The committee had a website www.winchesterredistricting.com, which received thousands of hits. The website was kept up-to-date, including the posting of all presentations.
-- Interested parties that were not able to attend the public hearings were encouraged to submit comments to the committee online.

With regard to procedures, I would like to quote one parent's comment: "the new redistricted map was not even presented to the public before it was recommended to the school committee." -- "it also seems that everyone wants to rush this decision since the vote is scheduled only a few days after the public meeting."

SG - The map proposal is a linear combination of the three previous models. There are no changes proposed in the final model that were not proposed in the earlier models. Anyone claiming to be blindsided was not paying attention. They may still have legitimate concerns about the model, but confusion should not be one of them.

BAV - Thank you for your comments.
In my neighborhood there are many families with modest income or net wealth, or use English as the second language, or coming from a different culture. These people may get used to spending most of their energy and time in dealing with their work. They may not pay attention to or understand the town newspaper, public school newsletter, or RAC website and public hearings. But there are social-economic factors behind this phenomenon. I hope you can understand this point.
I believe no family should be ignored in our Winchester town. This is exactly the reason why the vote should be postponed so that more people can be involved in this process.

If not affected, I probably wouldn't have demanded it. However, I would have understood those being impacted demanding it and would support it. As for professionals that specialize. Yes for each part of the analysis and process there are professionals that specialize in this type of planning process.

Of course the committee was biased. After all, none of their homes are affected. Correct? I would agree with your proposition if some of the school committee members could sit on our side of the fence and take the hit and have their children uprooted. Then and only then could I agree that they acted impartially.
Robert Burnham, 17 Oak Street.

Robert, since you seem to know everybody's motives in this - why don't you just come up with the redistricting plan? I love Monday morning quarterbacks that sit on the sidelines and cast asperions on people they don't know. Why didn't you suggest this idea at any of the prior public hearings? I think you need to stick with debating the merits of the plan and stop questioning the integrity of the people that developed it. It weakens your arguement, speaks more about you than the committee members, and distracts from the actual issues / concerns people have about the plan.

Mike - I'm not accusing you of casting aspersions. My comment was in response to RSB's comment "Of course the committee was biased...". I respect that you think an independent consultant would help but I think that even if an independent consultant came up with a different plan, those impacted by it would challenge the "independence" the consultant and probably request a second opinion on the consultant. Where would it end? We'd be in the same situation just one year and several hundred thousand dollars later. I'd rather people voice their concerns to the school committee and let our elected officials handle it. An independent consultant is no holy grail that will solve this problem. No matter what group gets redistricted, people will be upset and angry. Its understandable.

I only knew about the patch a few days ago. I am vocal "suddenly", because I only heard of this issue a few days ago. I also knew of people in my neighborhood who did not know about this issue until a few day ago. I believe many people in my neighborhood will not get used to the idea of switching to a new school. People with hurt feeling will tend to remember for very long time. I hope we all be open minded to new ideas, and listen to all people's concerns.

Where were you the past 18 months? Do you receive notices from school? Did you vote in the override? Do you read the paper? People are choosing to impugn the process when they are unhappy with the outcome. Waaaaaay too late to cry foul over the process. Don't like the proposed map? Argue on the merits of the proposal but do not argue that you didn't have time to review it.

The superintendant's office has sent out emails, at least as far back as September. Each school had a parent rep on the RAC, there was alo a community representative and a parent from the special education advisory committee. There were article in the Star, the Patch and the Globe. I believe FAN hosted a meeting (definitely there was outreach to parents with young children not in school yet). My neighbor was aware of this and they work in Boston and their children are in daycare in Boston. Neither the school committee, the superintendant nor RAC were trying to hide something. They were very open about asking for community input. And if you look back on minutes fom the school committee (available on their website), they were given updates throughout the process as well. The RAC used feedback from the April meeting to devise a plan. They worked long and hard, and knew that they couldn't please everyone.
If an independent consultant is used for this, then what's next, if say the police dept or fire dept doesn't like their budget, have an independent consultant redo the budget recommended by the volunteer appointed finance committee.
We are a small town, we can manage our affairs with good representation.
I am quite appreciative of all those that volunteer their services within the town, as we all should be, since not all of us have the time or skills to serve on these committees. If anything, join me in saying thank you to those who served on RAC!

Feel free to isolate yourself from the community. Feel free to disconnect by neither reading about the issues nor voting on them. Feel free to tell the 10's of volunteers on the committee that you impugn by calling biased, the 100's of citizens who attended meetings and spoke up, and the 1000's who wrote letters about this issue that their time was wasted because you chose to disengage and use our town as a "bedroom community" and that now you would like a "do over". However, it is amateurish to complain about the process, which was open, fair, and impartial because the proposal is displeasing to you. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

"Bullied out of" the school community? Is that really what you think. A little dramatic perhaps?

The fair and open thing to do was to form a committee which took comments and concerns from ALL citizens for MONTHS and MONTHS before drafting multiple redistricting options. Then taking comments and commentary AGAIN from all citizens before reaching a final draft which fulfilled the goals and outcomes outlined by the school board while at the same time being considerate of input from interested parties.

I might add the committee is made up of unpaid VOLUNTEERS. These people dedicated countless hours to this project. They gave up time with their families to help all of us. Most committee positions in this town are unpaid. People here want to be involved. The sense of community is something that differentiates WInchester from "the broader metro Boston environment." It is also one of the reasons many people choose to live here. Anyone who wants to be involved CAN be involved.

Did you attend the meetings where the rationale for the plans were outlined? DId you attend and voice your opinion? Did you send a letter to the committee outlining your ideas? To claim ignorance of this WIDELY publicized (not just the local newspapers and online media, but the Boston Globe) topic is kind of pathetic, whether you have children in school or not. Do you talk to your neighbors?

RSB, you started off with all these inflammatory process about "amateurish" town and "biased" committee members. You aren't the only person in Winchester raising children, working long hours, and in many cases dealing with elderly parents, sick animals, and whatever else consumes 110% of most people's lives. I find it hard to believe that you didn't have 3-5 hours over the past 6 months to attend the two public meetings and submit comments and suggestions to the committee. Your "woe is me, I'm too busy with my life arguement really is a shame on you. I mean, really, you couldn't find 5 hours over the past 6 mos to get somewhat engaged in this? It seems so important to you now.

Not sure what lines your trying to read between, but the redistricting was done to balance the number of children at each school. Input was solicited from anybody interested. I don't think the RAC looked at which neighborhoods didn't submit comments and specifically targeted them for redistricting. That's quite a conspiracy theory. I think its safe to say though that if you didn't participate, or at least listen to the discussions over the past 6 months then you really have no basis to complain about not knowing about redistricting or being aware of what was being discussed.

Sally Ann - no, that is not a fair assumption at all. Two of the most vocal groups at the public meetings are slated to move in 2013 with the current proposal. Speaking out - and speaking out in large numbers - did not seem to make any difference for those areas (I'm referring to the Ambrose "Westland Walkers" and certain parts of the Flats moving from Lynch to V-O)