Dublin City Schools Internal Planning Team Map Scoring Group Contains Internal Biases for DEI Map 3

We know not one IPT member clearly runs the risk of a personal bias in favor of Map 1, whereas a solid group contain personal elements that would certainly bias them towards Map 3.

At last night’s Dublin City Schools Board of Education meeting, Dr. John Marschausen presented a scoring chart of the three proposed redistricting maps. Everyone knows Map 2 is going nowhere, so the focus has been and will continue to be on Map 1 (the common sense map) versus Map 3 (the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) map). Below is the outcome of the scoring group’s work:

Not to quibble on the eight factors, but factor one (Balance School Facility Utilization) and factor six (Account for Future Growth) seem fairly similar, which is why the ranking for both categories is identical and favors Map 3 over Map 1. Eliminating one of those redundant elements puts Map 1 ahead of Map 3, with the former getting four 1st places and one 2nd place versus the latter getting three 1st places and two 2nd places.

At any rate, I wanted to dig a little deeper at the membership of the Internal Planning Team (IPT) who scored the maps. Let me state that I am working quickly and did my best to identify the home locations (blacked out so I can’t be accused of doxxing them) and voting preferences of each member. If there is an error, I apologize. Of the seventeen members, more than half don’t even live in Dublin. Now, some could argue that with no skin in the game those folks are the most unbiased. Maybe, but three of them are Democrats who presumably favor DEI policies, so are likely biased towards Map 3 and against Map 1. In total, there are five Democrats versus three Republicans on the IPT, so DEI Map 3 likely has more support than Map 1.

Frankly, while I get the no skin in the game appeal, I also think being disconnected from the impact of their decisions also means they are disconnected from the Dublin community. They won’t have to interact with Dublin parents at kid sports events, church, or other community events. They can let their personal views cause chaos for Dublin families without really having to deal with the consequences.

Perhaps Marschausen verbally said this at the meeting, but was the scoring process video recorded so we could hear and see what each member said as they threw out numbers for each category for each map? Transparency would dictate it should have been video recorded. If it was, can someone send me the link?

Next, four members will be moved from their current high schools to another less appealing high school, with three going from Jerome to Coffman and one going from Coffman to Scioto. Two of the four will be hurt only by Map 1, so they likely ranked Map 3 higher to help their personal cases. With home values expected to be impacted by such moves, those four negatively impacted members would favor Map 3 over Map 1 or possibly favor doing nothing so the status quo keeps them whole.

Finally, two other members live in Killilea, which as you may recall is skipped over in Map 3 to grab the Bailey Elementary School (BES) neighborhoods. They likely fear what could happen if BES neighborhoods are successful in defeating Map 3, so knowing the group has more members with a bias in favor of Map 3, they might have scored the maps to protect themselves. In fairness, they also could have favored Map 1, as it keeps their kids with their current classmates.

The brass tax on the IPT is this: The ranking process is inherently subjective, as it isn’t like kicking a field goal in football (it either went through the uprights or it didn’t). Based on the data above, we know not one member clearly runs the risk of a personal bias in favor of Map 1, whereas a solid group contain personal elements that would certainly bias them towards Map 3. Thus, knowing the make-up of the IPT, I’m not shocked that Map 3 subjectively squeaked out a score higher than Map 1.

Keep fighting the fight BES neighborhoods!!!!

P.S. To the end, I’ve received a very strong response to the “Defeat Amy Messick” idea should she put her personal DEI politics ahead of common sense by favoring Map 3. We are north of four figures and climbing. I will publish the final numbers closer to the November 10 decision day. If you want to join your neighbors who already have pledged to support the effort, email me at mayer4governor@gmail.com (I’m no longer running for governor, so use the email for these types of purposes).