Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

4
School Section For Against Oak Hill 149 1 8 349 24 249 9 49 49 Other/NA 4 1 Total 63 33 Mills CCN 1 VP 96H3 18 96A2 6 Other/NA 5 48 Total 5 73 Patton 83C1 4 Other 1 Total 5 Boone 1 2 Total SSV 1 5 Total Kiker Clayton 4 Total SWES 7 Total Cowan 0

Transcript of Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

Page 1: Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

School Section For Against Notes

Oak Hill 149 1 8 1 person for the proposal has tracking concerns

349 24 91% of OHE's bilingual population moved under Plan 2?249 9

49 49Other/NA 4 1 Other/NA= did not identify their section

Total 63 33 96 Total cards

Mills CCN 1 Keep CCN at MillsVP

96H3 18 These were those who specifically said they lived in that area96A2 6

Other/NA 5 48Total 5 73 78 Total cards

Patton 83C1 4Other 1Total 5 5 Total cards

Boone 1 2Total 3 Total cards

SSV 1 5 Don't move existing SSV neighborhoods to BooneTotal 6 Total cards

Kiker

Clayton 4 All these comments questioned the demographers numbersTotal 4 Total cards

SWES 7Total 7 Total cards

Cowan 0

For: those in favor of Plan 2, Against: Those opposed to part or all of Plan 2

Many of the comments said to address the underutilization separately

Most addressed keeping underutilization as a separate issue/Pro Plan 2 wanted more relief for Mills

Move more kids to Boone/Against plan because "create stress" at Boone

I know 2 parents spoke from Kikerat the meeting. One questioned the process, one welcomed Mills students where

are their comments?

All these comments asked for more students to be moved into SWES

Page 2: Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

School not identified 6 7

Other 12 Other schools who asked to move 96H3/96A2 to Mills

Utilization 37 1

13 Total comments from people who did not identify their school

Those parents who addressed looking at utilization in a separate process