Leadership Team's Strategic Assessment
Overwhelming top choice. Praised as an "equitable reset" that provides a "fresh start," enhances long-term instruction,
Ranked low-to-last. Concern for targeting a single school, risking "lasting harm" and "resentment."
Ranked in the middle-to-low tier. Seen as preferable to Option 3v2 but still criticized for "singling out" communities for disruption.
Ranked last. The very large school model was strongly deemed the "least optimal choice" for student wellbeing, staff support, and
and fosters community.
sustainable leadership.
This analysis presents the committee with a central philosophical choice: concentrate high-intensity disruption on a small number of school communities to preserve stability for the majority, or embrace systemic reorganization that disrupts everyone equitably to build a new, unified foundation. 4.0 Option Profiles: A Deeper Look at Each Pathway To fully grasp the strategic trade-offs, it is essential to understand the unique narrative and rationale behind each of the four final options. The following profiles distill these distinct approaches, clarifying their intended outcomes and inherent challenges.
4.1 Option 3v2 (Close Merriam School)
This option represents the most direct approach to consolidation, concentrating the entire burden of student displacement on the Merriam school community. Its 395 students would be dispersed across the five remaining schools, causing significant enrollment changes (e.g., +92 students at Gates, +70 at Douglas). The Conant community is relocated intact to the former Merriam building, experiencing a high degree of disruption from the move. The district's leadership team expressed significant concern that this targeted approach risks creating "lasting harm" and "resentment" by singling out one community to bear the primary cost of the district's reorganization.
4.2 Option 4 (Merge Merriam & McT Schools)
This model proposes a targeted consolidation where two school communities, Merriam and McCarthy-Towne, are formally dissolved and reconstituted into a single new school entity. This approach concentrates the most intense displacement and disruption on those two communities while preserving stability for the majority of the district. While seen as slightly preferable to closing a single school, this option was still ranked in the middle-to-low tier by district leadership due to the inherent risk of "singling out" specific communities, thereby creating division.
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software