Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

888
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
888
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis

  1. 1. School Section For Against Notes For: those in favor of Plan 2, Against: Those opposed to part or all of Plan 2 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 Many of the comments said to address the underutilization 49 49 separately Other/NA 4 1 Other/NA= did not identify their section Total 63 33 96 Total cards Mills CCN 1 Keep CCN at Mills VP 96H3 18 These were those who specifically said they lived in that area 96A2 6 Most addressed keeping underutilization as a separate issue/ Other/NA 5 48 Pro Plan 2 wanted more relief for Mills Total 5 73 78 Total cards Patton 83C1 4 Other 1 Total 5 5 Total cards Move more kids to Boone/Against plan because "create Boone 1 2 stress" at Boone Total 3 Total cards SSV 1 5 Don't move existing SSV neighborhoods to Boone Total 6 Total cards I know 2 parents spoke from Kikerat the meeting. One questioned the process, one welcomed Mills students where Kiker are their comments? Clayton 4 All these comments questioned the demographers numbers Total 4 Total cards All these comments asked for more students to be moved SWES 7 into SWES Total 7 Total cards Cowan 0 13 Total comments from people who did not identify their School not identified 6 7 school
  2. 2. Other 12 Other schools who asked to move 96H3/96A2 to Mills Those parents who addressed looking at utilization in a Utilization 37 1 separate process

×