Mr. Pringle appealed the June 23, 1997, decision of the Interstate 35 District Board to restructure its attendance centers because of the impact the decision will have on his third-grade daughter. Besides a number of specific concerns regarding the wisdom of the decision, Appellant contended that the Board did not follow the Barker guidelines. He argued that the Board did not study the issues thoroughly, did not engage in planning when it made the decision, did not have adequate reports and information to support the decision it made, did not provide adequate information to the public, and did not provide for meaningful public input. He points out that public meetings were held on June 16 and June 18, and the Board voted on the issue June 23rd.

The administrative law judge and the hearing panel found that the evidence showed that the restructuring issue had been a subject of study and controversy in the District for several years. In 1992-93, the District engaged in extensive study of the issue. The community was not surprised or uninformed about the issue when it resurfaced for action in the summer of 1997. The Barker guidelines do not mandate a minimum or a maximum time period for consideration of these issues. "Reasonableness" is the polestar. The Board's action, in this case, was found to be within the bounds of reasonableness. Therefore, the decision of the I-35 Board of Directors to restructure the classes in the District so that grades K-4 attend St. Charles, grades 5-8 attend New Virginia, and grades 9-12 attend Truro, was hereby recommended for affirmance.