Phase III Comments and Discussion

[Corey Rossen]

Danielle, do you think that open enrollment really affects the numbers that much? If so, why do you think the mass exidise from attending Grant?

I feel thet the Community was asked their concerns and the Community responded with economic issues, as well as others. The Community responded, wasn't that the idea--to get a pulse on the Community's interests and concerns?

I thought the Forum was fantastic, it also left more questions & concerns looming for the Community--I think that is a job well done. The Community has concerned interest and the city has Committees and the BOE to respond and reassure.

I understand the masses will never agree, but the conversation has been started and will continue.

Corey

[Jill Jusko]

Here's some additional info from the Lakewood City Schools Website:

This URL -- http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/administrativeDepartment.aspx?aid=17 -- includes a variety of materials for or about the Sept. 15 forum. One of those is a link to the density map.

Also at the Lakewood City Schools site: "Small groups of nearly 50 tables discussed and debated the proposals for nearly an hour and then were asked to come to consensus on which proposal to recommend. The group was also given the option of deciding that either proposal was acceptable. By a ratio of 3:1, the tables of participants chose the option to rebuild Lakewood High School’s east side, rebuild or renovate Roosevelt and Lincoln, and decommission Grant."

The complete item from which I pulled the previous paragraph is at http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/districtNewsArticle.aspx?artID=565.

[Danielle Masters]

Corey I do not have the open enrollment numbers for this year. But I do remember seeing them last year and the only Mass exodus from Grant was a couple of families that left for Horace Mann so that their kids could be in full day kindergarten. We do have some children open enrolled at Grant and we do have families that are at Grant because their children are in the gifted program. I do know that at least last year Lincoln did have more students open enrolled there than any other school. I will not make judgements on that because parents choose certain schools over others for various reasons, such as daycare and wanting all children in the same elementary building. I am not sure if the open enrollment numbers will be released. Open enrollment happens through out the district and it does change the numbers a bit.

[Meg Ostrowski]

There were many documents used by the committee. They all show the same thing. Elementary student population is much denser in the center of the city closer to Grant. Lincoln's higher enrollment, is due to open enrollment, school choice and programs located there by the district. Grant's lower enrollment is a result of the same.

[Corey Rossen]

Danielle, I agree with you--families choose their selected schools for their own individual reason(s). I think that the open enrollment discussions contribute to the gray fuzzy areas of the entire debate. My feeling is that this is part of the problem that everyone realizes - there are many great ideas, numerous reasonings, multiple discussion and breaking points, and yet somehow only one result/answer in the end. This, I feel, is why this is such a hot topic...intriguing and important, yet frustrating on some fronts and seemingly boundless.

Personally, I enjoy the ability to discuss everyone's opinions while trying to keep an open mind about differing points of views and reasonings that lead to the basis of decisions. I also love statistics and numbers, especially the ways in which they can be used to support a belief or statement--both in favor of and opposing a thesis.

It is safe to say, that the Community feels passionately about its children and the future of the city - and this is a very good thing.

Corey

[Ahmie Yeung]

Now the question is, are all the schools going to be the same size or does the District plan to have small, medium and large size elementary schools. We asked the table moderator to obtain an answer. The answer provided to her and back to the table is that idea is that all the schools are to have approximate equal enrollment. All schools treated equally.

Incorrect. Emerson and Horrace Mann are larger buildings because they were former middle schools. They have a capacity of approximately 25 more students than the other 2 already rebuilt, or the 2 that will be rebuilt. And they both serve an area of low family population density - data the committee had but did not present. I have the spreadsheet that shows this in my possession, I do not know if I can attach it to this but I will try.

Horace Mann at the upper left is undersized as it is (it only has a 359 enrollment – needs to grow to 435). Emerson the school at the upper right is undersized (it only has 374 enrollment – needs to grow to 435). The place for these two south schools to gather the students they require is from Grant (green area) on the map.

You say south schools but use the names of the north schools. HM and Emerson were actually both at about 310 students in May. Their capacity is close to 500, so they're around 63% of capacity. Capacity for the other two already rebuilt schools, if I remember correctly, is around 475. Harrison was over 75% capacity last year and there have been complaints that families feel like they're bursting at the seams there. That was the main logic behind keeping Roosevelt - to act as a pressure valve for Harrison.

Due your own interpolation.
http://www.lakewoodcityschools.org/docs ... %20map.pdf
Remember, earlier the numbers indicated that 220 additional children are needed, so this is still 60 children shy of that number, but if the line is drawn any more north it would include the actual Grant School site in the Roosevelt-Hayes boundary and thus the whole point is mute. Why would you keep Grant open if it fell in another school districts’ boundary.

I have done my own interpretations of this, extensively and with the help of a mapping expert at the County Auditor's office since the consultants retained by the school district were not forthcoming with data or assistance to the district configuration subcommittee (though they apparently fell over themselves in their rush to answer any questions the Sites subcommittee had, which is rather suspicious). Here's the thing - only about 30% of our student population comes from north of the train tracks. The plan as it looks now is to put more than 50% of our student seats up there, all along Clifton. Only 25% of Lincoln's current student popluation comes from north of Clifton, the rest is all squeezed between Clifton and the train tracks. Lincoln is 1 mile east of HM and 1 mile west of Emerson, and there are very few kids (and very widely-spaced single-family houses) right in the middle of that northern area. In the highly affected region of Grant's district, you have closer-spaced houses, a whole lot of doubles and other multi-family housing. More than 2x as many households are affected by a longer walk without Grant than are without Lincoln.

Now to draw the two new vertical north-south lines that will increase enrollment for Horace Mann on the northwest and Emerson on the northeast.
Use St. Charles Ave. as a proposed line running north-south from the lake to Franklin Blvd. The area east of this new line will become part of Emerson.
Use Northland as a proposed line running north-south from the lake down to the proposed line added following Franklin Blvd. running straight horizontal. The area west of this new vertical line will become part of Horace Mann.

Now Lincoln and Grant get to fight for what is remaining. Does it look like the boundary you had in your mind? Grant does not get to swallow up all of Lincoln and Lincoln does not get to swallow up all of Grant. Neither district gets to remain in tact as a whole. It is a new hybrid district.

That's not exactly how redistricting works - they have to take into account walking distance and how many kids have the longer walk (and how likely those kids are to have access to a ride to school). Drawing the boundary line as you suggest puts a bunch of kids walking over a mile, which the superintendant indicated would (politically) require busing, which is financially impossible. More likely is that Emerson's southern boundary will be extended to pick up some more Harrison students, but as it is Emerson's boundaries are huge compared to the other schools. In my data-gathering opinion, a mistake was made in earlier phases of this process - they kept Emerson because they looked at population/housing density as a whole, not student/family density. Emerson's district has a very low family density compared to the other schools - the housing density of the condos skews the data but does not significantly add to the student population (there are elementary students in less than 1% of the condos, as opposed to the 9.4% of housing units having elementary school children in them across all of Lakewood). Walking/travel routes are important because we have to add crossing guards at the funnel-through points. If Emerson were to take most of Lincoln's students, they'd have a long walk but there would be little, if any, increased need for crossing guards. If they took a large portion of Grant's, there would be an increased need for crossing guards. This is an additional expense that is accounted for when redistricting goes on, among others.

Many people put a lot of weight on walking distance – last nights presentation had eight slides discussing this issue.

I hope I explained the weight on that issue above - ignoring it puts the district up to the pressure to bus, which it can't afford. As for the 8 slides on the issue last night, I don't know what you're talking about - i have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation and I don't remember seeing any real emphasis on the issue.

Personally, I felt these eight slides were misleading because it made you feel that a three quarter of a mile walk equates to the right number of students in that boundary and that is clearly not true. Also, the circles shown are not three quarter of a mile in radius, they are shown as five eighths of a mile in radius. Nitpicking yes, sorry about that. Also, the thirteenth slide of the presentation last night states 2,275 students. We know from reviewing the data that there are 2,610 children. This means 335 children are unaccounted for. I have been told that if your child is in Special Education or in Gifted you are left off the map. It doesn’t matter if your child walks or does not walk you are not on the map, you have no representation. Also, I was told that if you have more then one child in your home you are still only counted once. Even if both children walk or do not walk, not all your children are counted. Everyone is equal, everyone counts. No person should make a determination that just because of some category you fall under you do not get to be counted. Besides, people move, circumstances change, counting everyone gives a better long term picture as to where the children are.
Also, if you were to overlay these same circles on the colored map with existing school boundaries today with seven schools you would find that all seven schools have children outside these circles. Thus, all seven schools already have children that walk more then three quarter of a mile to school.

that circle represents actual walk, 3/4th mile circles as the crow flies actually turn into a 1mi walk for the kids on the edges of the circle because they can't walk a straight line as represented by the radius.

As for the gifted and special education children, they are not included because they are basically automatic open enrollment kids. There aren't gifted or high-needs special education programs (such as the one for autistic children) at all schools, so those kids weren't counted for walking distance. It's assumed that they're evenly spread out through the district, not clustered in certain areas.

For the density maps (which I had a hand in creating - the one that only showed Lincoln and Grant's areas, with different shades of grey to indicate the student density), ALL children were counted. If there were 3 kids in one household, all three kids were counted. The dot maps don't show all the kids because they physically can't, but the number of students left out of the circles reflects actual number of children not number of households/addresses.

Yes, even with the 7 school configuration there are already kids walking more than 3/4th of a mile for all schools except Lincoln. Even Lincoln's half-mile circle overlaps with HM's and Grant's. Again, children are not spread out equally throughout the town (and never will be, because housing is not spread out equally throughout our town), so we can't just spread the schools out evenly and say we're serving everyone in an equal way.

If Grant remains (decommission Lincoln) there will be 60 children that need to walk more then three quarter of a mile to reach Grant.

Incorrect. There are about 60 children who will have to walk more than 3/4th of a mile to ANY school - they are euqlly likely togo to Emerson or HM as they are to Grant (in fact, due to number of barriers to cross, more likely to go to Emerson or HM than Grant).

If Lincoln remains (decommission Grant) there will be 25 children that need to walk more then three quarter of a mile to reach Lincoln. This number is interpolation of overlaying the new hybrid boundary on the slide presented last night and counting dots.
The other 5 schools are what they are. The boundary needs to be drawn to make sure enough children are included to reach the enrollment level.

You missed a digit. It's about 120 kids. Twice as many, in an area of doubles and higher housing instead of an area that's almost entirely single-family houses. Which points to a class disparity, which puts the district at risk of legal challenge on the basis of class discrimination.

If you care about walking distance then the choice is to use the Lincoln site but the way the maps were produced, without actual school boundaries, you are led to think just the opposite.

I really have no idea how you're coming to that logical conclusion as it's totally off from the way that the county auditor's department analyzed it with me.

To have an honest discussion about walking distance our elected officals need to present the boundaries for the two options. Then pull out your compass and draw your circles, until then give the walking circles a rest.

Yeah, that'd've been nice. It was something I was trying to get at with the block groups I created with the help of the county auditor's office on that actual density map that was belatedly handed out to the tables.

[Ahmie Yeung]

The population density issue is a great concern to many, however, in my understanding, Lincoln has approximately 406 students and Grant has 330 students (please chime in if the numbers are incorrect). Does this change the mentality of the population density focus because more people/students in this area does not necessarily (in this case at least) equal more students at Grant?

The 406 students at Lincoln, a large percentage of those are due to open enrollment, which is influenced by non-mainstream programs (Gifted & Talented, in the case of Lincoln) as well as siblings of non-mainstreamed kids going to the same school, as well as other individual/personal factors, and the amount of available classroom space. Lincoln has a higher capacity currently than Grant does, from my understanding, so it can have a higher enrollment. Grant was turning away kids who wanted to open-enroll in it this year, with 330 kids in it. It can't physically hold 400 students in it's current size. Just like Roosevelt can't hold as many kids as Grant can at *its* current size. The older buildings were not all built to the same capacity sizes - they were built to the size needed at the time for the community they served.


I also realized after I left the house for an appiontment (that I almost ran late to due to my earlier reply to Robert) I forgot to address one issue of confusion that I caused. Economic redevelopment wasn't the "first" thing mentioned by the majority of the tables, it was the most frequently cited logic. I didn't track the order that each table mentioned things (can't assume that they were in order of importance anyway), I just made general categories and put a hash mark every time an issue related to that category was raised. Economic redevelopment was the overwhelming "winner" of the report-outs I was able to hear and understand (I was having some auditory issues where i was seated and some people didn't speak directly into the microphone). For more than a few tables, it was the *only* reason cited. I don't know if anyone was taking an official tally of the table-reports or not, it wasn't my assignment, it was just my scientifically-minded natural habit to collect data. Everyone was supposed to fill out an individual survey and list their own three reasons, if people followed directions (which is iffy, I don't think everyone at my table even bothered to do more than just check their preference), then allegedly that data is being collected and compiled. What will be done with it hasn't been really openly said, but I will be personally requesting it.

[Corey Rossen]

I'm sorry to be hung up on an issue, but that seems to be the norm...I can't seem to correlate the density numbers with the enrollment numbers. Grant has a higher density area than Lincoln yet a much smaller enrollment. Lincoln, with the lower density, is at or near enrollment capacity. Does density really play a roll, that is what I am still trying to figure out?

I know the "density" term keeps getting thrown around, but what is it really telling us?

Corey

[Danielle Masters]

Another reason Grant can't currently hold as many students as in years past is because we have the modular units sitting idle in our parking lot while we have children housed in classrooms meant to be resource rooms. Are there ulterior motives in making Grant look like a smaller school? Is there a reason why students are being turned away? Is there a reason that families coming into the district are told to enroll their children in a school other than their home school?

[Danielle Masters]

Corey I recently asked for the current enrollment numbers throughout the district and specifically the open enrollment numbers. Once I receive those numbers we will be able to see just how many children currently attending Lincoln and Grant actually live within the boundaries of those schools. I will share the information with everyone once I receive that data. Hopefully at that point your questions will be answered.

[Meg Ostrowski]

I think there are many reasons why some kids in the Grant boundary don't attend Grant. I have met families that chose to go elsewhere because they were concerned about their children not being able to concentrate in the "open classroom environment." (There are no walls between classrooms, just visual dividers.). I have met families that open enrolled because they had heard that Grant would be closing. (This rumor has been around since my kids were in diapers and it is not helped by the fact that the 50 Year Committee never considered closing Lincoln as a possibility...leaving Grant looking vulnerable.) Some open enrolled elsewhere to take advantage of all-day kindergarten before it was made available district-wide. Some were scared away by School Choice, when one sub-group didn't meet AYP, these were almost exclusively new families that had never experienced the school. Some prefer a brand new building and believe this will insure an uninterupted elementary experience for their kids. I'm sure there are more reasons but the bottom line, with everything being equal at the end of this process, I suspect that most families will attend their "neighborhood school."

[Ahmie Yeung]

Corey, there are more students that go to Lincoln but many of those students open enroll. If you are to look at the population density more children live around Grant. Many of those going to Lincoln are reside outside of it's boundaries. And as I said in my previous post I am hoping that someone posts the density map, it is an important piece of the puzzle.

I'm attaching the density map that I helped create, with assistance from John Strok of the County Auditor's office. This was on the resource table and belatedly distributed to the tables after Betsy and I raised the issue when the table discussions were already underway - I had been told that they'd be part of the packet at each table in the first place and am rather miffed that they weren't, doubly so when they asked Phase III committee members to stand and it was so apparent that a large portion of the tables had NO ONE at them, not even a facilitator, who had been at the Phase III meetings. My own table facilitator wasn't on the committee, she is a Hayes teacher and said that they just asked teachers and staff from the schools not on the chopping block to be facilitators because they didn't have enough of the committee members stepping up to do it (I'm guilty of that myself but I wasn't even sure if I'd be up to attending the meeting as I am 6 weeks pregnant and wasn't sure I'd be up to it)

oops, forgot to hit submit on this. Just ate too much at Melt for lunch and now I'm too queasy to even look at the computer screen, wanted to submit this with the attachment before I forget hope I didn't forget anything else I was trying to reply to.

[Ahmie Yeung]

Since people are asking about open enrollment patterns, I could share a resource I created in Google Earth that makes it very clear where kids are coming from/going to as of last May. I changed the colors of the dots to reflect which school they were going to. As was pointed out earlier, there are many, many reasons that parents open-enroll, and building capacity limits how many kids can open-enroll into a school. When Lincoln was built, the possibly-not-called-Grant-yet elementary school in the center of town was still in what is now the northern part of the Board of Education building. That building was likely entirely too small to serve the population in the center of town, so Lincoln was built with a higher capacity than it would have been if, say, the current Grant and Lincoln buildings had been built at the same time. When the current Grant building was constructed, there was already the larger Lincoln building, we were in the middle of the baby boom hitting elementary schools, and the Grant building was constructed to those realities.

Speaking of the baby boom, I think I also forgot to address the issue of the projections that have been presented. I'm not 100% sure of the source of the ones that came out in the spring, I think it was actually a projection by the state of Ohio done as part of the determination that they're only going to fund 6 instead of 7 elementary schools. If so, bear in mind that they have reason to lowball estimates - it means they can use the money in another part of the state, where they may feel there is a higher need (or a higher political payback, if we're going to be cynical - I'm personally rather irritated by hearing over the summer which Northern Ohio school districts are getting stimulus money - seems to be predominantly better-off suburbs that could shoulder the burden themselves better than Lakewood can). Also, I'm not entirely clear on WHEN those projections were done and what data was available when they were done. Numbers of live births started going up a few years ago, and 2007 surprised demographers by having more live births than the peak of the baby boom (1957). I've been trying to get a grasp on 2008's birth numbers but it doesn't look like they've been analyzed quite as deeply yet (it takes a good long while to compile them, I think compiling may have only been finished in July or August, I'm not even finding preliminary numbers for 2008 yet). National birth statistics generally seem to have preliminary numbers mid-year the following year, and it takes often another year to get really in-depth analysis of what's going on where out of them. If the analysis was done in early 2007, such as around when that 50 year committee post at the start of this thread was done, they wouldn't have even known yet that 2006's birth numbers were a 3% increase over 2005's, which was the largest single-year increase since the Echo Boom in the 80s. As important as looking at the data is, being aware of when the data was looked at - and if there have been any significant changes since - is important. There's no way they had accurate 2008 numbers in the spring of this year when those charts were presented. There was a look at Lakewood's birth numbers across time, but that's only a small part of the story because plenty of children who go to Lakewood schools weren't born in Lakewood - or even in Ohio. My eldest and one of the kids I carpooled home last year were both born outside of Ohio, I don't know if there is any data on where Lakewood's children are born overall, but considering how many ESL kids I've heard about attending in certain areas, it's safe to assume that certain parts of town are getting more born-out-of-the-area students too. But we don't even know if that data is being collected - I can't remember if I was asked where my son was born when I enrolled him, does anyone remember being asked that?

[Meg Ostrowski]

At the forum on Tuesday, our table facilitator had a different understanding of what we were there to do than what I had been told throughout the committee process.

It was my understanding that we were supposed to listen to the presentation, reference the discussion guide, complete the individual survey, then have a group discussion, try to reach consensus and complete our group survey by placing a dot next to the preferred option of the three presented.

Our facilitator said we should first have the discussion, before filling out our individual surveys. I questioned this and referred to the agenda, saying that it was my understanding it should be done before the discussion to see where we each stand. She asked "How can you know what to put down if we haven't even discussed it?" I said as an individual who served on the committee, just heard a presentation and had reviewed the discussion guide, I knew what I wanted and why. She said I could complete mine first if I wanted to...I think I was the only one at my table that did. We had a group discussion, which was difficult given the lack of information. We could not reach consensus. Our facilitator said that was OK, we would just take a majority vote and place our dot. I challenged this saying that it was my understanding that this was to be a consensus exercise not a majority vote. She offered to double check with someone and I took her up on it. She went and asked a woman that I did not recognize from the Phase III Committee, came back and told me that she was correct, we were to take a majority vote and place our dot. I asked the name of the woman she spoke with and I was given assurance that this person was a reliable source. I challenged the majority vote again. Understandably annoyed, she offered to get a second opinion, I said I appreciated her willingness and off she went again, quickly returning to the table with a new understanding that if we could get to 4/1, we could place our dot and document any opposition. We ended the discussion 3/2 without placing our dot.

This was just my table. I have had many conversations this week with others that participated in the forum and have heard two similar stories and much frustration.

I will be writing to the board regarding my experience and I encourage you to do the same if you have concerns with the process.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Hi guys,

Yes the Forum was enormously frustrating, the "packet of information" for each table was absent. Right now I'm just posting to help people understand the density map more clearly, as it is very important to understand what it says.

This is an explanation of the gray and black rectangle map Ahmie posted up there, labeled "Housing and Student Density, Lincoln and Grant boundaries."

Everything above the train tracks is Lincoln's current district, everything below the train tracks is Grant's current district.

The first number in each segment, is the actual number of public elementary students enrolled, 2008-2009 school year. The second number is the actual number of houses in each zone. The first number is a snapshot of the current school year; the number of enrolled students may change. The second number is a good number to figure out what doesn't change, because these are homes that don't move, that have been here, most of them, for almost a hundred years already. Some have said that populations move but the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the trend is not for people to move from the higher density housing zones, to the lower ones. People on Elmwood are not likely to be moving up to Edgewater.

The County Auditor's office graphed number of kids per houses. So if you look at the upper left, as high as you can go, by Lake Erie, you'll see that there are 81 houses, and only 3 children distributed among them. If you go as far south as you can, to the dark rectangle along Lauderdale, you'll see that there are 466 houses, with 58 children. As the map says at the top, darker is denser. More houses per zone, more kids per house.

The U.S. Census bureau gives the average number of elementary kids per house in Lakewood as 10 per cent. So when you look at the first number, the number representing number of students, and it is higher than ten percent, you can see that it is an area particularly dense with children and families. For example, with the Lauderdale rectangle: There are 466 houses. Ten percent would be 46 kids, but there are 58.

The first goal of the District Configuration Committee was to make sure that we put or kept schools near where the kids actually live. That seemed sensible and good for Lakewood's neighborhoods and children, particularly as we have no buses, and we describe our city schools to prospective homebuyers and parents, as "walkable".

A rule we followed was that a good route was the shortest walk for the greatest number of students, particularly considering how young they are, K thru 5, which means children as young as 5 would be walking with parents, grandparents, babysitters, and would be accompanied by strollers and younger siblings.

This goal and this rule were not mentioned to the community at the forum, and as Ahmie stated, the density map was left out of the presentation, not included in the "information packet" but "made available" at the back of the room, if people wanted it, though people were never told it was there, and it was never explained as being an important part of the discussion.

As we have now heard, the Lakewood City School website is already reporting that "the 'community has decided' that it wants Grant to be closed. Based on a presentation that didn't include an accurate representation of where children actually live and where "family friendly" houses actually are.

If Grant closes, the only elementary school in Lakewood between Clifton and Athens will be Horace Mann, on the far west of the city. The entire center of the city, from one end to the other, will be left without a school. Young families seeking a good place to go to raise their kids will recognize that Lakewood does not welcome them, or want them. In the days after the "Community"
Forum, I've heard of three families that are saying that they will move if there is no central school. And before certain people rejoice, these weren't families living in two family houses, or apartments. They were each from single family homes that they own, families from the threatened middle class of Lakewood.