Petitioners' primary argument is that C.S.D. 19 failed to comply with the procedural requisites of Chancellor's regulations A-180 because the zoning proposal was not adopted by March 1, 1993. Petitioners contend that the proposal was not adopted until August 25, 1993. Petitioners also contend that this alleged failure deprived parents and teachers of a meaningful role in the planning process. Respondent asserts that the procedural requirements of regulation A-180 were satisfied. This complies with Chancellor's regulation A-180.
Petitioners also argue that the rezoning plan is educationally disruptive and unsound.
Respondent counters that the decision reached in this case is temporary and educationally sound. Respondent further contends that substantial efforts have been made to insure that the sixth graders required to change schools under the plan will receive adequate instruction and that measures have been implemented to insure student safety. Respondent argues that petitioners' contentions as to the educational soundness of the plan are purely speculative. I find petitioners' contention that the plan does not provide sufficient measures to assure educational continuity and student safety to be speculative and unfounded. The record before me demonstrates that respondent adjusted the proposed plan to address petitioners' concerns.