Superintendent Jeffery Patterson will advise the Lakewood School Board to not close any
schools due to an increase in enrollment that looks to continue.
They will look for savings in other ways, other than the reported $400,000 savings from
the closing of Roosevelt, Grant or Lincoln.
Read the complete story in tomorrow's Lakewood Observer!
No one has covered this better than the Observer, with all of Observers.
Isn't it time you joined with Lakewood's hometown news effort?
It is easy, fun and needed.
.
Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
From the Lakewood Schools,
After thoroughly combing through data on the city’s youth population, Superintendent Jeff Pattterson has determined that closing an elementary school at this time is not in the district’s best interest due to significant growth in Lakewood’s age 0-5 population and the affect that likely will have on the district’s future enrollment.
In May, the Board of Education passed a budget reduction resolution that included closing an elementary school beginning with the 2013-2014 school year. At that time, Superintendent Patterson announced that the administration would do its due diligence in examining the data of where students live, how many would be affected by specific schools closing and the capacities of the remaining schools should one close and that he would announce his decision on which school to close in August.
“We promised the public we would painstakingly go over the data to make sure the right decision was made in regards to closing a school. In the process, we discovered that the population among our youngest Lakewood residents is growing and that closing an elementary school may not serve us well at this point in time,” Patterson said. “I apologize for any distress the earlier announcement of a planned school closing has caused parents. We are confident that reversing that decision is the right one for our current and future students.”
Superintendent Patterson will make his recommendation to the Board of Education at its meeting today, Aug. 6.
Data obtained through the U.S. Census and City of Lakewood’s live birth records indicate that 3,020 children ages 0-4 are living in Lakewood. That is compared to 2,631 children ages 5-9, or a nearly 15% increase. Historically, on average 79% of the children living in Lakewood will enroll in Lakewood City Schools. Using that figure, district officials calculated that six remaining school buildings with a capacity of 430 (the current capacity of the district’s new buildings) would not be able to accommodate the projected increased enrollment. In addition, between 500-750 students would be affected by redistricting if Grant, Lincoln or Roosevelt closed.
In an effort to replace the estimated $400,000 in annual savings that was expected to come from the school closing, the district will continue to find places to reduce costs as well as explore new sources of revenue.
In addition to asking the Board to revise the budget reduction resolution, Patterson also plans to ask the Board to request a new district enrollment projection from the Ohio School Facilities Commission. The OSFC in 2008 revised the district’s Master Facilities Plan due to decreasing enrollment at the time to include six elementary schools rather than seven be rebuilt or renovated in the district.
Due to the state’s revision of the master plan, the Board of Education in April 2009 voted to close Grant Elementary School as part of Phase III of the master plan, leaving Roosevelt and Lincoln elementary schools to be the fifth and sixth elementary schools rebuilt in the district. A new enrollment projection by the state, if it agrees to conduct one, would determine if a seventh elementary school should be re-instated in the Master Facilities Plan.
After thoroughly combing through data on the city’s youth population, Superintendent Jeff Pattterson has determined that closing an elementary school at this time is not in the district’s best interest due to significant growth in Lakewood’s age 0-5 population and the affect that likely will have on the district’s future enrollment.
In May, the Board of Education passed a budget reduction resolution that included closing an elementary school beginning with the 2013-2014 school year. At that time, Superintendent Patterson announced that the administration would do its due diligence in examining the data of where students live, how many would be affected by specific schools closing and the capacities of the remaining schools should one close and that he would announce his decision on which school to close in August.
“We promised the public we would painstakingly go over the data to make sure the right decision was made in regards to closing a school. In the process, we discovered that the population among our youngest Lakewood residents is growing and that closing an elementary school may not serve us well at this point in time,” Patterson said. “I apologize for any distress the earlier announcement of a planned school closing has caused parents. We are confident that reversing that decision is the right one for our current and future students.”
Superintendent Patterson will make his recommendation to the Board of Education at its meeting today, Aug. 6.
Data obtained through the U.S. Census and City of Lakewood’s live birth records indicate that 3,020 children ages 0-4 are living in Lakewood. That is compared to 2,631 children ages 5-9, or a nearly 15% increase. Historically, on average 79% of the children living in Lakewood will enroll in Lakewood City Schools. Using that figure, district officials calculated that six remaining school buildings with a capacity of 430 (the current capacity of the district’s new buildings) would not be able to accommodate the projected increased enrollment. In addition, between 500-750 students would be affected by redistricting if Grant, Lincoln or Roosevelt closed.
In an effort to replace the estimated $400,000 in annual savings that was expected to come from the school closing, the district will continue to find places to reduce costs as well as explore new sources of revenue.
In addition to asking the Board to revise the budget reduction resolution, Patterson also plans to ask the Board to request a new district enrollment projection from the Ohio School Facilities Commission. The OSFC in 2008 revised the district’s Master Facilities Plan due to decreasing enrollment at the time to include six elementary schools rather than seven be rebuilt or renovated in the district.
Due to the state’s revision of the master plan, the Board of Education in April 2009 voted to close Grant Elementary School as part of Phase III of the master plan, leaving Roosevelt and Lincoln elementary schools to be the fifth and sixth elementary schools rebuilt in the district. A new enrollment projection by the state, if it agrees to conduct one, would determine if a seventh elementary school should be re-instated in the Master Facilities Plan.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
-
Justine Cooper
- Posts: 775
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:12 am
- Location: Lakewood
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Kudos to our Superintendent Patterson and Whoo hoo for the children and families! 
"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive" Dalai Lama
-
Betsy Voinovich
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Wow, Superintendent Patterson was certainly right on the mark about increased enrollment. Or as Ahmie Yeung puts it on the Schools Message Board, "Holy Crowded Classroom, Batman!"(viewtopic.php?f=142&t=11161)
Without calling around to check with elementary school secretaries I already know that Emerson had to add a FOURTH Kindergarten, our one third grade gifted class lost their beautiful space to the fourth K class and Ms. Bluemel quickly set up a new classroom a floor above the old one.
Grant had to add a THIRD Kindergarten. The second third grade teacher who had spent her summer preparing to teach third grade was pulled from third grade and is now the 3rd Kindergarten teacher. Leaving a third grade class of OVER THIRTY at Grant, with one teacher. But according to Ahmie, that's only one of the problems, a bigger (or should I say smaller) one being that all of these kids are stuffed in a small classroom in the modulars which she is sure is probably a fire hazard, before any other issues come up.
To quote her post:
The desks were pressed edge-to-edge in I think 3 rows of 7 with a few more off on the side, with the back corner desk by the door so close to the door that I couldn't get in the room in my wheelchair. I am nearly positive I saw the teacher have to turn sideways to squeeze between desks and wall on the other side of the room. There is NO room in there for the kids to do ANYTHING other than desk work.
At the end of this school year, these kids are going to not only be getting tested for Gifted & Talented, but also the first big state tests if I remember correctly. This class needs to be split into two, or the chances that our rating is going to DROP are SIGNIFICANT. I'm sure the teacher is highly qualified and competent, but there's only so much even the best teacher ever could do while teaching in a darn sardine can! Plus, I sincerely suspect that this is violating fire code, to have that little space to move around in an emergency evacuation situation. Weren't we promised that class sizes would be kept reasonable? This is not a reasonable class size for the grade, or for the room. How ironic to have THIS happening in Grant when people have been pushing for Grant to be closed. What more evidence do people need that we NEED a central elementary school?
We CANNOT allow the core of our town to be left to rot like this. I'm at the moment trying to keep from going full-on "it's just part of the conspiracy to undermine Grant so it can be closed" mentality, TRYING to trust that our leaders aren't doing this INTENTIONALLY... Some reassurance would be appreciated.
So good news and bad news. For those that are positive that the keeping of seven schools was a completely cynical move by the School Board to make believe they don't intend to turn over Grant to Downtown development, until the DAY AFTER the levy passes, our own very (re)productive families will make this difficult.
For the non-cynics, Jeff Patterson clearly fulfilled his promise to carefully examine the actual situation in the Lakewood School District before recommending which school to close, and came up with statistics that made it impossible to close any of them.
As Jim pointed out in his From the Publisher's Desk column in the latest paper, this is great news about people's faith in the future of Lakewood and its schools, but it presents the problem of finding the money-- not only to keep a building open-- but to pay for the education of all of these kids. (http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... ck-to-work)
The same cynics point to Grant always being last on the list in terms of equity with the other schools-- ie, large classes at Grant, students who should be placed in special programs kept in regular classrooms at Grant, lack of building maintenance and numerous code violations allowed to exist at Grant. The gifted and talented program taken away from Grant. And yet it continues to thrive and produce great test scores because of an administration and teachers that are up to the challenge, and use the difficulties thrown their way as opportunities to be innovative in the building and in the classrooms, making sure that what they pass on to students is a great education. It will be great to see a real commitment made to Grant school, and to all of our new students.
The first sign of this real commitment would be that the document stating that Grant will close that was approved by 4 of 5 Board members be rescinded or overturned or whatever the jargon is for that, now that our enrollment numbers will cause the OSFC to realize we need all of our schools. The next sign would be that the OSFC actually comes back and certifies that we need the seven schools, and that a written commitment is made to keeping them all. You know, before the levy. And before the school board elections next Fall.
Betsy Voinovich
Without calling around to check with elementary school secretaries I already know that Emerson had to add a FOURTH Kindergarten, our one third grade gifted class lost their beautiful space to the fourth K class and Ms. Bluemel quickly set up a new classroom a floor above the old one.
Grant had to add a THIRD Kindergarten. The second third grade teacher who had spent her summer preparing to teach third grade was pulled from third grade and is now the 3rd Kindergarten teacher. Leaving a third grade class of OVER THIRTY at Grant, with one teacher. But according to Ahmie, that's only one of the problems, a bigger (or should I say smaller) one being that all of these kids are stuffed in a small classroom in the modulars which she is sure is probably a fire hazard, before any other issues come up.
To quote her post:
The desks were pressed edge-to-edge in I think 3 rows of 7 with a few more off on the side, with the back corner desk by the door so close to the door that I couldn't get in the room in my wheelchair. I am nearly positive I saw the teacher have to turn sideways to squeeze between desks and wall on the other side of the room. There is NO room in there for the kids to do ANYTHING other than desk work.
At the end of this school year, these kids are going to not only be getting tested for Gifted & Talented, but also the first big state tests if I remember correctly. This class needs to be split into two, or the chances that our rating is going to DROP are SIGNIFICANT. I'm sure the teacher is highly qualified and competent, but there's only so much even the best teacher ever could do while teaching in a darn sardine can! Plus, I sincerely suspect that this is violating fire code, to have that little space to move around in an emergency evacuation situation. Weren't we promised that class sizes would be kept reasonable? This is not a reasonable class size for the grade, or for the room. How ironic to have THIS happening in Grant when people have been pushing for Grant to be closed. What more evidence do people need that we NEED a central elementary school?
We CANNOT allow the core of our town to be left to rot like this. I'm at the moment trying to keep from going full-on "it's just part of the conspiracy to undermine Grant so it can be closed" mentality, TRYING to trust that our leaders aren't doing this INTENTIONALLY... Some reassurance would be appreciated.
So good news and bad news. For those that are positive that the keeping of seven schools was a completely cynical move by the School Board to make believe they don't intend to turn over Grant to Downtown development, until the DAY AFTER the levy passes, our own very (re)productive families will make this difficult.
For the non-cynics, Jeff Patterson clearly fulfilled his promise to carefully examine the actual situation in the Lakewood School District before recommending which school to close, and came up with statistics that made it impossible to close any of them.
As Jim pointed out in his From the Publisher's Desk column in the latest paper, this is great news about people's faith in the future of Lakewood and its schools, but it presents the problem of finding the money-- not only to keep a building open-- but to pay for the education of all of these kids. (http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/20 ... ck-to-work)
The same cynics point to Grant always being last on the list in terms of equity with the other schools-- ie, large classes at Grant, students who should be placed in special programs kept in regular classrooms at Grant, lack of building maintenance and numerous code violations allowed to exist at Grant. The gifted and talented program taken away from Grant. And yet it continues to thrive and produce great test scores because of an administration and teachers that are up to the challenge, and use the difficulties thrown their way as opportunities to be innovative in the building and in the classrooms, making sure that what they pass on to students is a great education. It will be great to see a real commitment made to Grant school, and to all of our new students.
The first sign of this real commitment would be that the document stating that Grant will close that was approved by 4 of 5 Board members be rescinded or overturned or whatever the jargon is for that, now that our enrollment numbers will cause the OSFC to realize we need all of our schools. The next sign would be that the OSFC actually comes back and certifies that we need the seven schools, and that a written commitment is made to keeping them all. You know, before the levy. And before the school board elections next Fall.
Betsy Voinovich
-
Ahmie Yeung
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:05 pm
- Location: Near Malley's
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Regarding enrollment numbers for Kindergarten district wide.... ahem... [straps tap shoes to my canes, cues PowerPoint presentation of the information I supplied the board back in 2008 regarding birth trends, and does a lively dance while singing "I told you so, I told you so"] Sorry, just needed to get that out of my system in a semi-public manner. Demographic trends MATTER, folks... and it didn't take a whole lot of attention to see what was coming between the birth numbers, CMSD hi-jinx, and closing of some of the nearby private school options. Anyone who's taken a glance at Lakewood's data on where the students are born (which they do collect, I've seen it myself) KNOWS that the majority of Lakewood's students weren't born in Lakewood, so the "reassurance" that Lakewood itself hasn't seen a dramatic increase in births was something I debunked as a factor YEARS ago... Cuyahoga County *has* seen an increase in births in the last 10 years, especially Cleveland where a "healthy" percentage of our students emerge. We've also got quite a significant immigrant percentage (from other countries or even just other states) to account for in our projections. I kinda wonder if the state-level folks were ever challenged in their assumptions with the real data that Lakewood had access to in that regard? Perhaps THEIR computations are based on state-wide averages that contain MUCH less migration than we have? It's a logical explanation for the discrepancy.
Realistically, the Kindergarten room that the wonderful Ms. Keane is teaching in, could potentially be swapped with the 3rd grade class (it's a good 30% larger than the room they're in), if getting an additional 3rd grade teacher instead of an aide really ISN'T a fiscal possibility. At least then they wouldn't be packed in like sardines and would have the chance to do actual hands-on learning activities without having to wait for another room to be available (or the time consumed by moving from their regular classroom into another space unduly eating into instruction/activity time - switching rooms, especially when it might involve getting bundled up in the winter to move to the main building from the Modulars, isn't exactly a quick process with that many kids). Just a suggestion, which I have not made to Ms. Ramsey yet as I'm waiting to see what they do regarding staffing. As it is, it looks that Ms. Keane is getting the entire room to herself this year instead of having it divided in half with the other Kindergarten class as it was the year today's 3rd graders were in Kindergarten. I'm sure the idea of switching rooms after the school year started would just thrill the teachers to pieces though. To do our part as a supportive community I suggest we be ready with flowers and chocolate and maybe some massage gift certificates if that winds up being the case.
And ha ha Betsy about the (re)productive families
Very punny.
Ahmie
Realistically, the Kindergarten room that the wonderful Ms. Keane is teaching in, could potentially be swapped with the 3rd grade class (it's a good 30% larger than the room they're in), if getting an additional 3rd grade teacher instead of an aide really ISN'T a fiscal possibility. At least then they wouldn't be packed in like sardines and would have the chance to do actual hands-on learning activities without having to wait for another room to be available (or the time consumed by moving from their regular classroom into another space unduly eating into instruction/activity time - switching rooms, especially when it might involve getting bundled up in the winter to move to the main building from the Modulars, isn't exactly a quick process with that many kids). Just a suggestion, which I have not made to Ms. Ramsey yet as I'm waiting to see what they do regarding staffing. As it is, it looks that Ms. Keane is getting the entire room to herself this year instead of having it divided in half with the other Kindergarten class as it was the year today's 3rd graders were in Kindergarten. I'm sure the idea of switching rooms after the school year started would just thrill the teachers to pieces though. To do our part as a supportive community I suggest we be ready with flowers and chocolate and maybe some massage gift certificates if that winds up being the case.
And ha ha Betsy about the (re)productive families
Very punny.Ahmie
-
Stan Austin
- Contributor
- Posts: 2465
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Ahmie and Betsy----Your on the ground reporting is very important to those of us who aren't immediately connected, but, nevertheless concerned about our schools.
Stan
Stan
-
Ahmie Yeung
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:05 pm
- Location: Near Malley's
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Thanks Stan - and bigger dose of the thanks goes to Betsy. She saw that I was complaining about this on FB and nudged me to repost here.
-
Betsy Voinovich
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:53 am
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Ahmie Yeung wrote:Thanks Stan - and bigger dose of the thanks goes to Betsy. She saw that I was complaining about this on FB and nudged me to repost here.
Hi Stan and Ahmie,
Thanks to both of you. I have to say Ahmie's breakdowns of situations, both in their details and in her descriptions of their far-ranging effects-- are great for their on the ground and "off the ground" (social/economic/political/historical perspective --what other disciplines could I bring in here, Ahmie?) -- coverage of what's happening.
I encouraged her to bring over her words from Facebook because of the need that all the parents and citizens have to know what's happening in our schools. And while I know that Ahmie probably is Facebook friends with lots of us, as Stan points out, it's great to be able to talk here with everyone about issues that affect all of us. Ahmie takes the time to break it down and break it down well.
The sentence that kills me in Superintendent Patterson's news release is, "“I apologize for any distress the earlier announcement of a planned school closing has caused parents." Because of the great number of us who gulp and say, "yeah-- for three years." As Ahmie points out, the population trends were evident three years ago.
However, the larger point is that this is great news and the reason there are more families here is that Lakewood and its schools have attracted them. This is only possible because of engaged and involved School Board members, teachers, parents, students, community members and administrators, particularly our hard-working and ever-conscientious Superintendent.
Betsy Voinovich
-
Christopher Bindel
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 pm
- Location: Delaware by Lakeland, Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
You know, when I saw that Patterson decided to not close the 7th school I was happy, but so frustrated. I unlike many of you do not have kids in the system but I am currently in the process of looking to buy a home in Lakewood and plan on having kids within the next 2 years, so this is still a real concern for me.
It drives me crazy because this spring when Patterson was meeting with people around Lakewood I went to 2 of those meeting and brought up birthing numbers at both. I know for a fact that birth numbers in 2007 exploded, and though I haven't looked since then, it would not surprise me if they have kept pace. When I brought this up he pretty much brushed it off like he had heard the argument too much and that it is unfounded then directed the question to board members Betsy Shaugnessy and Linda Beebe and they also said that the influx of new students wasn't enough to cause any sort of real change. They then asked a parent who was there, I don't remember who it was, but they apparently seemed to be an authority on the topic and they backed up the same thought.
How the hell can it be that the numbers of kids 0-6 can change so drastically in 6 months? I some how don't think they did. They may have been hopping they were right, but seriously, look at the facts and be realistic! Now lets just hope the state re-examines our numbers and helps us pay for a 7th school.
P.S. I'm not trying to say anything bad about Patterson. I have talked to him a few times and he is very nice, and the first meeting I asked this question I think he had been Superintendent for a very short amount of time, perhaps not having enough time to view and understand all the data, however I imagine the board members should have known better.
It drives me crazy because this spring when Patterson was meeting with people around Lakewood I went to 2 of those meeting and brought up birthing numbers at both. I know for a fact that birth numbers in 2007 exploded, and though I haven't looked since then, it would not surprise me if they have kept pace. When I brought this up he pretty much brushed it off like he had heard the argument too much and that it is unfounded then directed the question to board members Betsy Shaugnessy and Linda Beebe and they also said that the influx of new students wasn't enough to cause any sort of real change. They then asked a parent who was there, I don't remember who it was, but they apparently seemed to be an authority on the topic and they backed up the same thought.
How the hell can it be that the numbers of kids 0-6 can change so drastically in 6 months? I some how don't think they did. They may have been hopping they were right, but seriously, look at the facts and be realistic! Now lets just hope the state re-examines our numbers and helps us pay for a 7th school.
P.S. I'm not trying to say anything bad about Patterson. I have talked to him a few times and he is very nice, and the first meeting I asked this question I think he had been Superintendent for a very short amount of time, perhaps not having enough time to view and understand all the data, however I imagine the board members should have known better.
-
Jim O'Bryan
- Posts: 14196
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:12 pm
- Location: Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Christopher Bindel wrote:You know, when I saw that Patterson decided to not close the 7th school I was happy, but so frustrated. I unlike many of you do not have kids in the system but I am currently in the process of looking to buy a home in Lakewood and plan on having kids within the next 2 years, so this is still a real concern for me.
It drives me crazy because this spring when Patterson was meeting with people around Lakewood I went to 2 of those meeting and brought up birthing numbers at both. I know for a fact that birth numbers in 2007 exploded, and though I haven't looked since then, it would not surprise me if they have kept pace. When I brought this up he pretty much brushed it off like he had heard the argument too much and that it is unfounded then directed the question to board members Betsy Shaugnessy and Linda Beebe and they also said that the influx of new students wasn't enough to cause any sort of real change. They then asked a parent who was there, I don't remember who it was, but they apparently seemed to be an authority on the topic and they backed up the same thought.
How the hell can it be that the numbers of kids 0-6 can change so drastically in 6 months? I some how don't think they did. They may have been hopping they were right, but seriously, look at the facts and be realistic! Now lets just hope the state re-examines our numbers and helps us pay for a 7th school.
P.S. I'm not trying to say anything bad about Patterson. I have talked to him a few times and he is very nice, and the first meeting I asked this question I think he had been Superintendent for a very short amount of time, perhaps not having enough time to view and understand all the data, however I imagine the board members should have known better.
Chris
It was talked about at length here in 2006 - 2011 in various threads. It was mentioned
numerous times by then School Board President Matthew Markling, who was also against
any sale of school property for years just to see where the numbers landed. Between the
birth rate, the home/rental market tightening up again, and the Lakewood "cool" factor, we
all should have seen it. But for those that didn't it was also pointed out repeatedly during
Phase III by people branded as "wackos" by those desperate to close Grant.
As for Patterson, he is better than "a nice guy" he is really qualified, loves Lakewood,
Lakewood kids and Lakewood Schools, and he is proud of all of them. The Board is OK
sometimes too.
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system."
Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it."
His Holiness The Dalai Lama
-
Danielle Masters
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Lakewood, OH
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Chris,
I think it gets back to them not wanting regular old citizens to be able to see the writing on the wall before the professionals. Betsy and I went to meetings back before Franklin was slated to be closed. I know both of us asked the facilitator what would happen if birth and enrollment numbers went up, he stated that we were an inner ring suburb and that would never happen. We were appalled because this man didn't seem to understand that with Cleveland in a steady decline and Lakewood investing in new schools it was bound to attract residents from a few short miles away. He was adamant in his refusal to listen to concerns.
I tracked the enrollment numbers for years stating in the paper at least once that based on the kindergarten explosion we could not go down to six schools without exceeding the capacity of the new schools. That was also several years ago. I will be honest I grew disillusioned and now only have two children in the public schools. I homeschool the other three.
I do though think we need strong schools and strong leaders. A good first step would be for them to admit they should have paid closer attention to the numbers. It was evident this was going to be an issues years ago and it's doesn't bode well for planning when they couldn't or refused to see that. I want to have faith in our schools, I want to know all of Lakewoods children are receiving a good education with the class sizes repeatedly promised. I do hope all these issues can be put behind the community and that we can go forward to continue to strengthen the schools.
I think it gets back to them not wanting regular old citizens to be able to see the writing on the wall before the professionals. Betsy and I went to meetings back before Franklin was slated to be closed. I know both of us asked the facilitator what would happen if birth and enrollment numbers went up, he stated that we were an inner ring suburb and that would never happen. We were appalled because this man didn't seem to understand that with Cleveland in a steady decline and Lakewood investing in new schools it was bound to attract residents from a few short miles away. He was adamant in his refusal to listen to concerns.
I tracked the enrollment numbers for years stating in the paper at least once that based on the kindergarten explosion we could not go down to six schools without exceeding the capacity of the new schools. That was also several years ago. I will be honest I grew disillusioned and now only have two children in the public schools. I homeschool the other three.
I do though think we need strong schools and strong leaders. A good first step would be for them to admit they should have paid closer attention to the numbers. It was evident this was going to be an issues years ago and it's doesn't bode well for planning when they couldn't or refused to see that. I want to have faith in our schools, I want to know all of Lakewoods children are receiving a good education with the class sizes repeatedly promised. I do hope all these issues can be put behind the community and that we can go forward to continue to strengthen the schools.
-
marklingm
- Posts: 2202
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:13 pm
- Location: The 'Wood
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Jim O'Bryan wrote:Christopher Bindel wrote:You know, when I saw that Patterson decided to not close the 7th school I was happy, but so frustrated. I unlike many of you do not have kids in the system but I am currently in the process of looking to buy a home in Lakewood and plan on having kids within the next 2 years, so this is still a real concern for me.
It drives me crazy because this spring when Patterson was meeting with people around Lakewood I went to 2 of those meeting and brought up birthing numbers at both. I know for a fact that birth numbers in 2007 exploded, and though I haven't looked since then, it would not surprise me if they have kept pace. When I brought this up he pretty much brushed it off like he had heard the argument too much and that it is unfounded then directed the question to board members Betsy Shaugnessy and Linda Beebe and they also said that the influx of new students wasn't enough to cause any sort of real change. They then asked a parent who was there, I don't remember who it was, but they apparently seemed to be an authority on the topic and they backed up the same thought.
How the hell can it be that the numbers of kids 0-6 can change so drastically in 6 months? I some how don't think they did. They may have been hopping they were right, but seriously, look at the facts and be realistic! Now lets just hope the state re-examines our numbers and helps us pay for a 7th school.
P.S. I'm not trying to say anything bad about Patterson. I have talked to him a few times and he is very nice, and the first meeting I asked this question I think he had been Superintendent for a very short amount of time, perhaps not having enough time to view and understand all the data, however I imagine the board members should have known better.
Chris
It was talked about at length here in 2006 - 2011 in various threads. It was mentioned
numerous times by then School Board President Matthew Markling, who was also against
any sale of school property for years just to see where the numbers landed. Between the
birth rate, the home/rental market tightening up again, and the Lakewood "cool" factor, we
all should have seen it. But for those that didn't it was also pointed out repeatedly during
Phase III by people branded as "wackos" by those desperate to close Grant.
As for Patterson, he is better than "a nice guy" he is really qualified, loves Lakewood,
Lakewood kids and Lakewood Schools, and he is proud of all of them.
Jim and Chris,
Jeff Patterson is the best Superintendent the Lakewood City Schools has ever had and Superintendent Patterson will never be a "tool" for anyone ... much to the chagrin of those who want to control our school board and local system of public education.
Chris,
While I appreciate your constructive criticism of our school board members (and hope you don't "unfriend" me on Facebook), I believe that all five of our current school board members, as well as Treasurer Tim Penton and Superintendent Patterson, have the best interest of our students and school system in mind. I applaud our local educational leaders for willing to take a step back and evaluate the prior Phase III decision. I also understand the feeling that formal action should be taken on Superintendent Patterson's recommendations to put to rest any conspiracy theories.
As an aside, Chris, I really wish you would direct some of your very good constructive criticism toward the Mayor and City Hall rather than "appearing" to be a constant apologist for our good friends at 12650 Detroit Avenue.
Matt
-
Christopher Bindel
- Posts: 277
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 2:57 pm
- Location: Delaware by Lakeland, Lakewood
- Contact:
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
I criticize the people of city hall plenty when I disagree with them. You will see in these threads themselves times I have openly discussed where I disagree with them. Just because I maybe don't disagree with them on points you do does not make me their "constant appologist." I hold my own opinions as i hope you do to.
It is quite possible to conceive that maybe, because I do not follow it as closely as i do city hall, I just might not have all the background information and don't know where the board is coming from. Perhaps as a former board member you can help clear some of that up, and by doing so I would by no means consider you as an appologist to the board but just sharing information, or maybe trying to explain their point of view. That is all I ever do. For people who might not be paying close attention, or might not understand what is going on I try to help make it clear. And for those instances where it isn't clear, or could be seen negatively i some times offer other possible explanation, not to say they are right, but to try an show they are as possible as the opposition being spouted.
As for the board, I would like to hear from their side, when the numbers were there, why they didn't think this was going to be a problem. Its not like it snuck up on the city. From at least 2007 you can see the numbers growing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not demanding they come on here and give me their reasons, I'm just saying I would appreciate knowing their side. And i know they didn't want to close a school but were considering it for the best of the district because we needed to save money. But I think they were riding too much on hope that the numbers wouldn't go up, and ignoring the trend, in the hope to save money. (This is an opinion based on some basic observations, I will gladly be corrected)
What was this referring to? Sorry I just didn't understand the statement and didn't want to miss-respond.
It is quite possible to conceive that maybe, because I do not follow it as closely as i do city hall, I just might not have all the background information and don't know where the board is coming from. Perhaps as a former board member you can help clear some of that up, and by doing so I would by no means consider you as an appologist to the board but just sharing information, or maybe trying to explain their point of view. That is all I ever do. For people who might not be paying close attention, or might not understand what is going on I try to help make it clear. And for those instances where it isn't clear, or could be seen negatively i some times offer other possible explanation, not to say they are right, but to try an show they are as possible as the opposition being spouted.
As for the board, I would like to hear from their side, when the numbers were there, why they didn't think this was going to be a problem. Its not like it snuck up on the city. From at least 2007 you can see the numbers growing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not demanding they come on here and give me their reasons, I'm just saying I would appreciate knowing their side. And i know they didn't want to close a school but were considering it for the best of the district because we needed to save money. But I think they were riding too much on hope that the numbers wouldn't go up, and ignoring the trend, in the hope to save money. (This is an opinion based on some basic observations, I will gladly be corrected)
I also understand the feeling that formal action should be taken on Superintendent Patterson's recommendations to put to rest any conspiracy theories.
What was this referring to? Sorry I just didn't understand the statement and didn't want to miss-respond.
-
marklingm
- Posts: 2202
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:13 pm
- Location: The 'Wood
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Christopher Bindel wrote:I criticize the people of city hall plenty when I disagree with them. You will see in these threads themselves times I have openly discussed where I disagree with them. Just because I maybe don't disagree with them on points you do does not make me their "constant appologist." I hold my own opinions as i hope you do to.
It is quite possible to conceive that maybe, because I do not follow it as closely as i do city hall, I just might not have all the background information and don't know where the board is coming from. Perhaps as a former board member you can help clear some of that up, and by doing so I would by no means consider you as an appologist to the board but just sharing information, or maybe trying to explain their point of view. That is all I ever do. For people who might not be paying close attention, or might not understand what is going on I try to help make it clear. And for those instances where it isn't clear, or could be seen negatively i some times offer other possible explanation, not to say they are right, but to try an show they are as possible as the opposition being spouted.
Okay ... I guess I missed those "constructive criticisms" as of late, Chris.
Perhaps it would be nice to hear City Hall explain City Hall?
Christopher Bindel wrote:As for the board, I would like to hear from their side, when the numbers were there, why they didn't think this was going to be a problem. Its not like it snuck up on the city. From at least 2007 you can see the numbers growing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not demanding they come on here and give me their reasons, I'm just saying I would appreciate knowing their side. And i know they didn't want to close a school but were considering it for the best of the district because we needed to save money. But I think they were riding too much on hope that the numbers wouldn't go up, and ignoring the trend, in the hope to save money. (This is an opinion based on some basic observations, I will gladly be corrected)
Please tell me that you see the irony in this statement, Chris.
You want to hear the Lakewood City Schools' side ... but never ask/demand/care that City Hall toss in its side without your "filter."
In any event, your questions as to why the sudden change of opinion by the Lakewood City Schools are very good questions.
My opinion on this subject is well documented.
Again, your questions are fair and should be answered.
I just hope you hold your friends at City Hall to the high standard of transparency and accountability you want from our educational leaders.
Christopher Bindel wrote:I also understand the feeling that formal action should be taken on Superintendent Patterson's recommendations to put to rest any conspiracy theories.
What was this referring to? Sorry I just didn't understand the statement and didn't want to miss-respond.
Right here, on The Observation Deck, there are those who have stated that, because the Board never formally voted to accept Superintendent Patterson's recommendations, this change of position is simply political gamesmanship to get an operating levy passed. A vote would certainly silence such theories.
Matt
-
marklingm
- Posts: 2202
- Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:13 pm
- Location: The 'Wood
Re: Superintendent Patterson To Recommend Not Closing School
Christopher Bindel wrote:Perhaps as a former board member you can help clear some of that up, and by doing so I would by no means consider you as an appologist to the board but just sharing information, or maybe trying to explain their point of view.
Chris,
As a point of clarification, you will never call me an apologist for the Board on this issue. I raised the same questions, comments, and concerns that you have raised in this thread. Again, my position is well documented in The Lakewood Observer, The Observation Deck, and, most importantly, at many school board meetings in open session.
There are people in this town who refuse to speak to me because of my Phase III position. Be careful, Chris, you may find that your friends at City Hall will be shunning you soon if you keep making too much sense.
As Jim O'Bryan said in his article, "From The Publisher's Desk: Schools Open - Back To Work:"
Jim O'Bryan wrote:Now is the time to pay attention to what is happening in the Lakewood City School District. Maintaining our outstanding schools will take support from all of us. Stay informed and get involved.
http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2012/08/21/from-the-publishers-desk-schools-open-back-to-work
Matt