The Observation Deck

Meg Ostrowski wrote:At last night's meeting I was most impressed with the architect's more thorough evaluation of the sites and the way in which Mr. Markling neutralized and summarized forum results, focusing on "academic excellence" and "fiscal accountability."

Meg you are more of an optimist than I am. I took Mr. Marklings statement to bolster his support for the September 15th popular vote. Lincoln is our most highly academically ranked school "academic execellence" and the mythical commercial value of the Grant property "fiscal accountability".

Bill

A view point that disturbed me was Mrs. Beebe's Lakewood is flat view regarding the demographic material. This concept is that the same density of students is possible anywhere in Lakewood and can shift every school year, hence student density shouldn't be considered in the selection of a school site. This is a flawed concept on several grounds. 1) historically, the most students have and will come from the neighborhoods with the most density of housing suitable for families, single and double homes. 2) zoning, Lakewood is a community with a very specific zoning map that dictates the existing and future housing patterns. Large numbers of student will never come from the high density multi-family apartments along Clifton or the Gold Coast or the low density single family homes located along Lake Ave. and north of Lake Ave. and certainly not 1/2 mile out into the lake.

When this plan is implemented three of the four (Franklin, Madison and Grant) elementary schools that will have been eliminated are the ones that where located in the most densely parts of Lakewood. The exception being Harrison. Further more two others where relocated even closer to lower density areas. The end result will be that more students than was necessary will be required to walk further, 3/4 mile and more. These students will primarily come from the neighborhoods on the eastside and central Lakewood. I think this is a bit ironic since one of the stated goals during this process was to keep walkable neighborhood schools.

At the November 16th work session it was stated several times that the school boundries will be redrawn for ALL the schools once the construction is completed. This being the case the only true way to judge the impact of one site over the other is to see what that map will look like under each of the proposed plans. I really don't expect this to happen since it was obvious that the other board members agreed with the "Lakewood is flat" view and that student density shouldn't be considered. Of course this information won't help support the results of the popular vote held on September 15th.

Bill

Bill,

I agree with you about density. These are not difficult concepts. "Everyone" knows where the families live. Either there is a real disconnect between some Board members and how families live today, or there seems to be a willingness to ignore data in order to fit an option that is desired. I don't know. But, it struck me when one of the Board members said that people will just move to where the schools are, huh? Disconnected from the fact that people live in the CENTER because they can get to the grocery stores, to medical care, to other places they need to do business, AND to school. It is connected. It does nothing for a family without a car to move a mile or more away to send their kids to school when they still need to buy food and go to the doctor.

I don't agree with you regarding Mr. Markling's statements. I certainly don't want to speak for him and I am sure if we get it wrong he will clarify for us. However, I think that he was reinforcing what citizens told us they wanted (Community Forum I). People really care that there is consistency between the schools and that all students receive a good education. Grant and Lincoln have received and Excellent rating and Grant was the only school to receive the Blue Ribbon Award (national). The point is that whatever schools we are left with families want good programs. Think about it, if this was Cleveland could you imagine a school being closed that actually is successful? There would be outrage. I am concerned about the apathy on this issue. I can't believe more people are not outspoken. Mr. Markliing did say that the Community Forum II results didn't mean much to him regarding a decision. A couple of BOE members said they were going to "assume" that Lincoln parents didn't just vote for Lincoln because it was there school. Once again it feels like a disconnect to me. Grant parents definitely voted for Grant, Lincoln for Lincoln, and Roosevelt for Roosevelt. The results of the Forum were not accurate. Why? It wasn't supposed to be a vote--tables were to reach consensus. That meant Everyone had to agree at the table. There were about 6-7 people per table. 3 tables reported to me that there were enough Lincoln parents at their table to get a 4-2 or 4-3 split. The dot was placed based on majority vote...not consensus. These are the ones I know about. It was also reported that dots were moved on purpose. Additionally, at the BOE work sessions was a gloss over of the fact that there were twice as many Lincoln families present than Grant (and very few Roosevelt). People absolutely voted for their own school.

We were asked, Phase III, to do the most with the money we have. Again, the people of this community want us to be responsible with the funds we receive. In my opinion, Lincoln shouldn't even been presented as an option to renovate or rebuild. It is a poor site and doesn't have the flexibility for the next 50 years. Yet, there has been an attempt to try to squeeze some kind of building so that it can remain. The only thing that would work with Lincoln would be a demo/rebuild AND building a 3-story building. Unless, more than 2 house are purchased to make this plan even work there will be only about 10,000 square feet left over after playground/parking is built. Really? They would have to build right out to the sidewalks. Where as Grant would have over 67.0000 square feet left over, more growth potential over the next 50 years, a steel building making a renovate or rebuild cost affective (and greener), safer/quieter streets, and it is behind the Board. Keep in mind the Grant building would like nothing like it does now. Something some people haven't been able to get through their mind. Over and over again Lincoln supporters would bring up that Grant is in a commercial area--therefore not safe. Not true. The fact is it is a neighborhood, we are an urban suburb, and it is where most families live.

I am imploring citizens to become informed and get involved. Get the information and the facts. Even after that some will support Lincoln and some Grant. It doesn't matter as long as you get involved and voice what you think will be best to our elected Board members. They are listening. The Deck seems awful quiet on this and we are due to have a decision next month.

We are listening...maybe not saying much...but we are listening.

My question to everyone is why didn't anyone run against those members of the School Board in the last election?

I don't have any experience with the process...but it seems to me there needs to be more choice for the voters.

Rhonda

Bill Trentel wrote:
Meg you are more of an optimist than I am. I took Mr. Marklings statement to bolster his support for the September 15th popular vote. Lincoln is our most highly academically ranked school "academic execellence" and the mythical commercial value of the Grant property "fiscal accountability".

Bill,

Yes, I am an optimist who actually believes hope and acceptance can co-exist...as corny as that might seem. I will hope for the best and accept less if that is all that the board/city can deliver. I have already had to lower my expectations once in this process.

I think in the short term it is difficult to tie academic excellence to new school buildings. We were promised that new facilities would deliver academic excellence but, as I think Kristine pointed out, currently our only "excellent" rated elementary schools happen to be the two that have yet to be impacted by the facilities plan. Despite a comment at the meeting the other night that parents struggle more than students with transition, I think the disruption can affect performance and should be considered. Every measure to minimize the impact will benefit the entire district, even if only in the short term.

I also don't think that Mr. Markling has pinned the fate of our schools on a mythical value and questionable forum results. I trust that he and others will seek the facts and vote accordingly. Unless I suspect otherwise, I will do my best to exercise patience.

The new members of the school board have been left with a real mess, courtesy of Geiger and company.

Bill Call wrote:The new members of the school board have been left with a real mess, courtesy of Geiger and company.

You sure Chaz Geiger "left them" with that mess?


.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Call wrote:The new members of the school board have been left with a real mess, courtesy of Geiger and company.

You sure Chaz Geiger "left them" with that mess?

Yes.

But Bill only 2 of the members are new. So the other 4 are as responsible as Geiger was/is.