Download - Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis
![Page 1: Jan 5 Comment Card Analysis](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082809/557ba8eed8b42a2a548b47ea/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
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](https://reader036.vdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022082809/557ba8eed8b42a2a548b47ea/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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