The Observation Deck

You misunderstand me. I said I would like to know their side, I am curious, but I am not demanding they give it to me or even come on this forum. If I care enough to know their side I should take the time to contact them. They are by no means required to, nor should they be, to come on to this forum. Here I am just partaking in general discussion, not requesting their participation in particular.

As for the city, there have been people from the city that have participated in here from time to time and they have not always been treated the best, so therefore I do not blame them for not making a regular habit of it. Likewise, I do not blame anyone from the board if they never come on here.

You can call me a filter all you want, but it does not change the fact I am not. I am simply a citizen just like you whom holds their own opinions on matters in the city. I’m sorry if them differing from your’s is a problem.

Matt Markling wrote:Okay ... I guess I missed those "constructive criticisms" as of late, Chris.

Most recent issue I openly admitted to disagreeing with Council on was the closing of the parks. I may have differed with people on here about the reasons behind it, but from the beginning I stated being against it. I also out right was apposed to the pit bull ban and thought that the dogs in Lakewood’s parks ordinance was very poorly written. There are a couple other ordinances that I think were passed long before being properly vetted. There are many more to go along with the park closure ordinance.

Matt Markling wrote:Again, your questions are fair and should be answered.

Thank you

Matt Markling wrote:I just hope you hold your friends at City Hall to the high standard of transparency and accountability you want from our educational leaders.

I do, although we may disagree as to what that degree is, and to what they may or may not be hiding.

Matt Markling wrote: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.

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up. I agree, the decision should be certified with a vote. (I imagine that would be proper decorum, right? I may be mistaken, I’m not as familiar with how they run.)

I am pleased that the district may finally be coming around to the idea that we may need to maintain seven elementary schools...but cost is a real concern.

Perhaps now they should consider closing one and "super-sizing" a sixth centrally located elementary building as part of their Master Facilities Plan.

A central location maximizes flexibility, allowing boundaries to be tweaked as needed to accomodate whatever enrollment the future holds.

An expanded central location could provide equal access to special programming (CHAMPS & Discovery) and double as a venue for community recreation/education offerings and/or UA evening courses as they grow.

Why not do that with Emerson? It's a huge school on a large lot. And there is plenty of recreation space there are well. And evening courses are offered practically across the street at Taft, which was my understanding at least.

And the school has been renovated recently. Seems like what you are describing.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Why not do that with Emerson? It's a huge school on a large lot. And there is plenty of recreation space there are well. And evening courses are offered practically across the street at Taft, which was my understanding at least.

And the school has been renovated recently. Seems like what you are describing.

Yes, but I was thinking of something more central, geographically.

I know that some are opposed to a larger school template. Even the OSFC guidelines suggest a smaller capacity, similar to our new elementary buildings, Harrison and Hayes.

Our renovated elementary schools (Horace Mann and Emerson) are much larger, which forced special programming to the northern corners of the city to justify the size and utilize the space. Additionally we are paying a premium for these historic renovations, which the state will not help fund.

Due to this situation, there is a third grader riding her bike 1.9 miles during the morning rush to reach the only classroom in the district that can meet her at her level because the family does not have a car. I admire her spirit but worry that there are others that passed on the opportunity because of this obstacle.

I am not against historic renovation but if we are going to pay a premium for space, I think equal access to programming should take priority.

I am also not against a seven elementary school configuration, provided one is centrally located, but I am concerned with cost.

Meg,

What school exists that meets all of the qualifications you listed?

Sounds like a nice dream to me.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Meg,

What school exists that meets all of the qualifications you listed?

Sounds like a nice dream to me.

The Phase III process made it clear to me that most people think dreams are too much trouble to pursue.

So, within the confines of what can/will be considered, I think there is great possibility for the Grant/BOE property.

Thealexa Becker wrote:Why not do that with Emerson? It's a huge school on a large lot. And there is plenty of recreation space there are well. And evening courses are offered practically across the street at Taft, which was my understanding at least.

And the school has been renovated recently. Seems like what you are describing.

Thealexa, not Emerson because it is extremely far from children in the southern part of the city, particularly around Hayes, and take a look at what it's boundary lines are like even WITH a 7 school configuration - they are already so oversized that they have to take kids from far south in order to be anywhere equal in percentage of capacity with other schools, which makes longer walks for kids (or longer pickup/dropoff lines for those driving, which also decreases air quality for the neighborhood from all those idling vehicles). From what I've been able to ascertain, the decision to convert Emerson to an elementary school from a middle school was made looking at pure population density, not density of housing with children (which was available by neighborhood block from the US Census for a couple decades quite easily, and could likely be gotten further back with just a bit of digging/public records requesting). The northeast corner of Lakewood has by FAR the lowest density of residences with children (there is, on average, less than two families with minor children in any of the high density housing along Edgewater). The highest density of housing with children has been, consistently across time, the area between Detroit and Madison throughout Lakewood, but especially from the center westward. Unfortunately, due to lack of accounting for this, when Phase I and Phase II were done, all the elementary schools in that swath of our town north-to-south (Garfield, McKinley, Franklin, and darnit I'm forgetting the one that was the north half of the property that is now just Harding - was that Harding Elementary?) were closed/swapped for a different building further north, Taft being the only one between those roads that was closed from my counting (and Emerson basically replaced both Taft and Franklin while TRYING to take some of the overflow from Harrison, which has been bursting at the seams basically since it opened from what I've heard). When we had 10 elementary schools, FIVE of them were on or between Detroit and Madison - McKinley, Harding, Grant, Franklin, Garfield. McKinley, Garfield and Grant are basically where the first three elementary schools were in this town, before it was even called Lakewood (the BOE building across the parking lot from Grant is the actual original site, but we're talking less than 500ft difference here, not a quarter mile or more). In case you're not aware, the north part of the BOE building is the original central elementary school building, then there is the ramp-bridge part that connects it to the other part of the building which is the original high school building (or I may have switched them, I'm a tad groggy right now as it's past midnight). Our town GREW around having the primary schools along Detroit, and added the other schools as the population spread. The attractive features that drew families to the center of town (not the least of them proximity to the schools for an easy walk for their children) did not change for over 100 years. I dropped off a kid who is now in 5th grade at McKinley for the public pre-k program. I didn't move to Lakewood myself until 2005 but I came here quite frequently as a teen when I lived in the ever-unhip Parma, and even occasionally as a CWRU student because I thought Lakewood was way better than Coventry.

What Meg is referring to with the Grant/BOE property is also that the Grant property is much larger than many people realize - it extends in a peninsula south toward Hilliard between houses/back yards further than is obvious. With a little bit of creative architecture work, a rebuilt central elementary school on that property (still called Grant or not, I'm not that attached to the name) could be repositioned so that it could connect to the original buildings and incorporate VERY NEEDED renovations to the BOE building (which does not meet any but the most rudimentary handicap accessibility markers, for one thing), share some maintainance costs between the two buildings the way several of our neighboring municipalities have done, and preserve some very important qualities that our town was built around - while also providing more equality of access to the special programs (like the gifted program aka Discovery or the special needs program known as CHAMPS) instead of having them out on the edges of town (and a real pain for the few families who happen to have one kid who is Autistic and one who is Gifted... which happens). Plus, this would allow the central elementary school to expand/contract its boarders with the other school boundary lines more productively if there IS a sudden influx of students in one of the areas along the perimeter, without dramatically increasing walking distance for any of the kids impacted by the change. Oh, and for the record, the section of town currently serviced by Grant's boundary lines has the HIGHEST density of households with minor children per square quarter mile in the entire town. I've run the numbers based upon census data AND the school district's own enrollment information obtained via public records request. I know why the boundary lines are the way they are, I've counted the kids for myself.

And yeah, I'm one of the ones they blow off. Never mind the degree in sociology and graduate work in community & social development, apparently that's not relevant. I've been telling them that the demographic trends say "woah, stop, reconsider" since 2008 and been being brushed off AND had the data I provided them withheld from public discussions aimed at reaching "consensus" (which wasn't consensus - it was pressure applied at tables with a handful of people and majority rules at each table being reported as the "consensus" agreement to the little sticker board, with lots of snearing and denegrating of experience, and a suspicious HEAVY majority of people with lakewood.k12.oh.us in their email addresses on the sign in sheet... with very few people with children elementary age or younger there... especially since these meetings happened on school nights overlapping dinner and bedtime for your average kids in that age range, without childcare available onsite except for the big meetings where there was only childcare for ages 5+... yeah, it was a REALLY open and inclusive atmosphere for families directly facing the impact of these decisions... see if you can get an official to give you an estimate of average age of participants and compare that for yourself with the average age of parents of elementary school children...)

Update to the post of mine that Betsy reposted, copied from my replying to my own post over in the schools section of this forum:

Update: spoke to Ms. Ramsey this evening at Kindergarten orientation night. The district is putting in a job posting for an additional 3rd grade teacher in the next few days. The 3rd grade was initially to be split between two classes when letters were sent out, and the students who were told they had the other teacher (who I believe got reallocated to Kindergarten due to THEIR extraordinarily and *ahem* unpredictably large enrollment) will be switching to the newly re-created class with the new teacher.

THANK YOU for all who did whatever they did to make this happen.

Ahmie Yeung wrote:THANK YOU for all who did whatever they did to make this happen.

I thank Superintendent Jeff Patterson and Principal Roxann Ramsey, as well as Board Members Betsy Shaughnessy, Ed Favre, Linda Beebe, Tom Einhouse, and Emma Petrie Barcelona, for listening to parents, pupils, and citizens.

You see, Chris, the educational leaders at the Lakewood City Schools don’t need to “Tweet via Twitter” to listen to the concerns facing our system of public education. Our school leadership engages all stakeholders personally.

Nor do our current educational leaders have such egos that they are afraid to fix problems.

We have new leadership at the Lakewood City Schools. And, I say, “Thank you!”

Wow Ahmie,

A lot to respond to here. But first, hooray for our administration and board that they are acting quickly on remedying the situation in the Grant third grade. To give them credit, they did already have a second third grade teacher, but she was moved to Kindergarten. They saw the large third grade class coming, but not the third K class.

As for the discussion about where the schools are, YES! The schools have been put further away from where the students live. Somewhat decisively. Some of us have wondered if Lakewood is embarrassed to have schools, they seem bent on making sure that they are on all of the far corners.

It isn't fair that all the gifted programs are now North of Detroit. In some families qualifying for that program is life-changing. I too know a family that is rising early to walk almost two miles to get their child to our one third grade gifted class. It shouldn't be at Emerson. It should be more accessible to a greater number of families. Having an advanced kid doesn't necessarily mean you have an "advanced" income, and a two car or even one car family.

Since the majority of our family density is middle and south, and has been for a hundred years based on County Auditor's reports and US Census reports, and is likely to continue to be, if you look at the last ten, twenty, thirty years, if a program is supposed to serve all of the families, it doesn't make sense to put it far away from a majority of them.

Meanwhile. We are here with seven schools. A central school with a campus that served the community is a beautiful idea but with all of this discussion about no money, it seems that we have to hang tight and make the best decisions we can, with the money we have.

When resources are tight, good decisions, based on real criteria, are essential. When there's a lot of money around, mistakes don't hurt so much. We don't have a lot of money here but we have a lot of responsible citizens who are capable of making decisions that will keep our city sound for the future, if they are confident about the way the money is being spent.

Hiring another teacher for Grant's third grade is necessary-- both because of the fire hazard in the overstuffed classroom, and the District's promise regarding class size. Class size is high up on the priority list and Superintendent Patterson is in the trenches with this stuff, fighting for every element that Lakewood families value, and prioritizing them when he has to.

Thanks for the news Ahmie.

Betsy Voinovich