The 6 1/2-month effort to redraw borders for the town’s seven elementary schools — the first such changes since the late 1980s — ran into a buzz saw of dissent on Thursday, May 31. As an estimated 80 people attended the public hearing, 22 of them offered a range of arguments during public participation, 16 of those targeting a specific zone.
Braced by the choruses of discord, members of the School Committee’s redistricting subcommittee voted on a series of motions aimed at keeping the process on track as well as developing flexibility for residents and options for a final vote, expected this month.
One of the votes made clear the subcommittee had heard residents who live in Zone H and would not favor that in a final map, unless it were changed. Following the subcommittee votes, some in the audience applauded.
Zone H is one of 19 proposed areas called “buffers,” which let the school administration decide between two schools a student may attend. For more about buffers, read here >> (.PDF). New students in Zone H, bounded by Mass. Ave. and Gray on the east and west, might attend Brackett or Bishop.
To see all of the proposed lines and buffers, the latest proposed map, No. 5, is here >> (.PDF).
The movement toward new district lines, spurred by a need to have 380 students in the new Thompson School when it opens in September 2013, has resulted in a series of maps since the redistricting advisory committee began meeting last November. Each new map, responding in part to community concerns, offered lines that seem to shift like an amoeba.
Once it receives a final proposal, the School Committee may have more than one map to consider. That is a possible upshot of motions presented by committee member Paul Schlichtman.
“I would like to offer the committee some options with a little revision,” he said. The full texts of his motions are below.
Bodie provides background
Before the public had its say, Superintendent Kathleen Bodie supplied some numbers behind the process. For one, she said, enrollment has grown at an average annual rate of 1.75 percent since 2001, and 475 students have been added districtwide since 2005.
The enrollment trend led to seeking a larger Thompson, from one that accommodates 335 students, to one for 380. To get state reimbursement money, Arlington has to come close to that Thompson target.
At the same time, she said, the state “is not making Arlington redistrict.”
Despite sharp public criticism about the process since last November, Bodie found a ray of sunshine: “Everybody loves their school — that’s good news.”
She added: “Where we are now is very different from where we were seven months ago.”
To correct imbalances and have Thompson open on schedule, she provided a list of drivers that have aided the work of the volunteer redistricting advisory committee.
To head off earlier critiques, the plan includes grandfathering; that is, all who are now in a school will still be in the same place next year, and so will siblings.
As to buffers, she said she was not suggesting them “as a panacea,” but they will help.
Buffers will affect families new to the district. Children will be assigned according to enrollment imbalances by next spring, she said.
She added that she expects software to be in place next year that the public can use to tell whether they will be in a buffer. In addition, she said, when parents register, they can choose a preferred district.
She praised Adam Kurowski, the town’s GIS director, who has made revamping redistricting maps a top priority.
Comments from the public
Her comment that Dallin, Brackett and Bishop are the most crowded drew queries later from public speakers, the majority of whom raised questions about Zone H. It is now in the Brackett district, but new families could have children placed at Bishop.
“If they are so crowded,” said a speaker, “why is Zone H so large?”
The 22 speakers, who spoke for an hour, raised issues of safety, unfairness and dislocation of communities. Some suggested buffers would lead to a decline in property values. A number suggested they would not support a future override.
Realtor Bill Copithorne, head of Sweeney & O’Connell and a fourth-generation Arlingtonian, said confusion and concern about buffers would have a negative effect on property values. He did not cite a specific percentage or how a number might be predicted. The full text of his statement is here >>
Contractor David Villandry, who provided his full statement, said, “A local realtor has told us that being in the Brackett District places an increased value of $50,000 on your home.”
Walnut Street resident Mark Rosenthal, who also provided his full statement, said, predicted a decline in the potential selling price of his home at 10 percent. “If just 400 of those 1,000 voters swing from the ‘for, column to the ‘against’ column,” he said, “future overrides will have no chance.”
Other speakers tried to use Bodie’s bright words into dark. One found little positive in the list of drivers pushing the process.
Still another, Richard Eckhardt, wanted buffers off the table altogether, but suggested an incentive program instead to encourage families to choose schools that would correct enrollment imbalances.
“There will be a cost, yes,” he said, “but it would be incredible bargain compared to [the current proposal].”
Subcommittee deliberation
Following public participation, subcommittee members deliberated and voted on motions to send the process forward.
Leba Heigham, subcommittee chair, asked of the other voting members Judson Pierce and Schlichtman (Kirsi Allison-Ampe does not vote): “Do we have appropriate information to recommend a plan to the School Committee?”
The answer: Not yet.
Pierce wanted to know whether there was enough time before June 30 to finish the work involved. Schlichtman offered motions in part to keep the process from going back to square one.
“Buffers are preferable townwide,” he said, adding, “We need to have policies in place.” He also noted in response to comment from the public that night that it is untrue that under draft map 5, “massive amounts of people will be moved.” Still, he said, he’d vote against draft 5 if it came before the full committee.
Pierce said he would support Schlichtman’s first motion, which makes many changes to Zone H. At the same time, Pierce said, “I see a lot of uncertainty.”
He said he favors “more gradual” change and would consider two or three different maps, noting comments made that night. He words drew some applause.
Schlichtman’s first two motions were adopted, 2-1, with Heigham dissenting.
His third motion was withdrawn.
Schlichtman’s first motion was to create a new map, 6A, one that incorporated the language in the motion described as Motion 1. One June 3, he said that during the meeting, he was listening for addresses of folks who were testifying; he said he thought about two-thirds of those in H who testified would have been removed from H under the motion, as most live in that far southwest corner of the buffer. The other third remained in the buffer. This was designed to pull the most obvious walk-to homes out of the buffer.
His second motion was to create map 6B, which incorporated both the changes listed in the description of Motion 1 and Motion 2.
Pierce made a motion to get a map with H removed; Schlichtman voted for it to see the data, but he said June 3 that he does not think he could support it in the future.
The last motion was to send our views back to the ad-hoc redistricting committee, which passed 3-0.
Next steps in the process
Next up, the School Committee’s policies & procedures subcommittee is to meet Monday, June 4, to discuss redistricting.
The redistricting advisory committee is set to meet Wednesday, June 6, from 7 to 9:30 p.m. in the School Committee Room, sixth floor, Arlington High School.
The School Committee has added a meeting for Thursday, June 7, where the issue may arise.
The committee’s next regular meeting is set for Tuesday, June 14.
A bit of history
Elementary redistricting occurred about 1984, after Parmenter and Crosby schools closed. Parmenter students were redistricted to Bishop, and Crosby’s went to Hardy and Thompson. The last redistricting in Arlington occurred in the late 1980s, when the Gibbs Junior High (formerly Junior High East) was closed and all were redistricted to Ottoson.
3 motions by Schlichtman
“I have prepared the following three motions pertaining to redistricting. Based on the report of the redistricting subcommittee and the testimony of community members, I may choose to offer any or all of the following motions tonight.
Motion 1: To make revisions to Buffers A, B, and H.
Add to Buffer H:
. Massachusetts Avenue (even numbers) 1008- 1026 -between Walnut Street and Orchard Place
. Orchard Place (all addresses)
. Gray Street (even numbers) 156-170 side of Gray Street from the existing district line west to Highland Avenue.
Remove from Buffer H:
. Albemarle Street (all addresses)
. Gray Street (odd numbers) 181-251 — existing buffer west of Highland Avenue
. Gloucester Street (odd numbers) 1-49 — south side of Gloucester Street, west of Highland Avenue
. Highland Avenue (odd numbers) 49-77 — west side of Highland Avenue between Gloucester Street and Gray Street
. Newport Street (odd & even numbers) 1-39 — all addresses north of Gray Street
. Scituate Street (odd & even numbers) 1-42 — all addresses north of Gray Street
. Mount Vernon Street (odd & even numbers) 41-72 — all addresses south of Gloucester and Albemarle Street and north of Gray Street
. Walnut Street (odd & even numbers) — 29 and above all addresses south of Walnut Court
Eliminate Buffer B, and incorporate homes currently contained in Buffer B into Buffer A
Motion 2: To make revisions to Buffer T
Add to Buffer T:
. Mass. Ave. (odd numbers) 1077-1173
. Old Colony Lane
. Hobbs Court
. Quinn Road
. 5 Forest St.
. Ryder Street (all odd numbers)
Remove from Buffer T:
. Washington Street (even numbers) 220-226 — south side of Washington Street
. Ronald Road (all addresses)
. Overlook Road (odd & even numbers) 49-104 — all addresses between Peter Tufts Road and Washington Street
Motion 3: To maximize parental choice policy for zone and student
To ask the Policies and Procedures committee to devise buffer assignments that maximizes the ability of parents to choose their school.
This story was first published Sunday, June 3, 2012, and updated to correct the votes on motions and to make opposition to overrides clear.
