The lack of clarity around key questions and obvious concerns over the last week indicates a lack of planning to truly determine the viability of the plan presented. The Board has repeatedly characterized community concerns as “emotional” and suggested that families simply need time to process the proposal. But asking whether the enrollment projections, capacity calculations, and implementation assumptions actually support the plan’s viability is not an emotional response. It is exactly the scrutiny the Board should expect when asking the community to accept significant changes to its schools. The onus is on the Board to demonstrate that the plan is well conceived, that the numbers support it, and that the foreseeable consequences have been adequately considered. The community should not have to reverse-engineer the proposal to determine whether it is viable. The Board may ultimately decide that this is the best and most reasonable solution to a difficult situation. But it has not yet demonstrated that the proposal is sufficiently developed, supported by the numbers, or fully thought through to justify asking the community to accept it.