The reasonableness of such a practice depends upon the particular circumstances at issue. I note that the grandfather provision in this case is merely an option, however, and that fourth-graders are free to change schools along with their siblings, should they so desire. For this reason, I cannot sustain petitioners' argument. Respondent has long required students to attend different schools for kindergarten and first grade. Absent evidence to the contrary, I find no basis for determining that students will be educationally disadvantaged by a second building-change, particularly in light of the orientation and transition plan which the board has developed for affected students and their parents.
Petitioners articulate additional objections to the board's actions.
District personnel assisted in defining the cells. Petitioners contend that moving cell 4B would more appropriately have achieved the district's goals, because it was geographically closer to Hamagrael and contained a similar number of children. The question is not whether petitioners would have decided the issues differently, but whether the district's reorganization plan, and the board's decisions, were rational. On the record before me, I find nothing irrational in respondent's decisionmaking. Under prevailing authority, therefore, I find no basis for overturning the district's plan.