Laserfiche WebLink
4' RECQMMEPJDATIONS <br />Because of the limitations discussed in section ?.0 the sulacommittee <br />does not feel that it is reasonable or appropriate at this time to <br />make a speci=ic recommendation on which ef the above alternatives <br />shou2 7 be implemented by the district. It was the judgement of the <br />cammittee, hawever, that alternatives one and thre= have more merit <br />than the ther alterrtat::ves discussed. <br />Accordingly, the following recommendRtions are made; <br />1. The schco! district shou2d more thoroughly review the feasibi2ity <br />oi: <br />a. Revisinq its" fesde:^ syst=m t a north south ori ntatian as <br />deiined in alternative three. <br />b. Maving to a F, 5 and 6-8 middle scheol cancept as discussed in <br />alternatiVe one. <br />Includzd in the feasi6ility study must be a thorough identificatic <br />and documentation, to the community, of the boundary changes <br />necessary, student enrallment projections and e::pecte.+. i dividual <br />school enreilments versus capacities throuqh 1990, an <br />i entification of a12 direct and indirect costs involved, and <br />possible phasing ir. plans. <br />importance that this study include a;current <br />u and identification of the effects of either af the <br />ernativ s'an the educat:on o= our distriLts <br />any decisians'n this issu the schocl board should <br />iti.^. it ;is consideri,ng and haid`forma2 public <br />se ptxons. Fubiic 3war ness at-this time is not <br />iust be strongly sought out and heavi?! consid red in <br />ikir.g precess. <br />25-