The Observation Deck

I am not sure. I'd like to know the same thing Corey. I'd like to know why Dr. Madak said that he had information regarding phase III that he would share later, that later being in the executive session. And the maps were shown directly after the meeting, in the cafetorium where the meeting was held. There were members of the administration and a school board member there. Perhaps they wanted the public (the group of several people standing there) to see them, to know that they existed. I think they should be made public but right now they have dots showing where the kids live and for logical reasons I don't think they can post those online at the moment. I am sure they will get them out to everyone real soon, at least I hope so but who knows.

One other thing. Those numbers (60 vs 120) do matter because those are the numbers of students affected when we go down to 6 schools. Not sure if I made that clear, those are what is going to happen if either Lincoln or Grant closes and we should try and limit the number of students affected by the transition to 6 elementary schools.

Corey Rossen wrote:Jim O'Bryan should love the conspiracy factor in all of this.
Corey

Corey

I do love the conspiracy factor in all of this, but my chart goes back much, much farther than
2009.

My charts, bore out with more and more emails, charts, conversations, documents, is really
quite amazing. In the end it becomes as simple as follow the money, and who has the most
to gain from the short selling of Lakewood's kids for "higher" projects and goals from "gifted"
people.

No dog in this fight, I am really just sitting back watching this all unfold.

Really quite amazing.

.

Mike Davis wrote:In addition, it is 60/120 today, five years ago it was different and five years in the future it will be different. Not a good enough reason to base a decsion on today.

I call this the Lakewood is flat theory. The theory is that any location is or could be the same as any other location in Lakewood. This is bogus, 100 years of history, current population density and future population density which is guided by our city zoning map tells us that the areas that have been and have higher density will be the higher density areas of the future and the lower density areas will remain the lower density areas.
There was a reason why our 10 elementary schools where located were they where. Thats were the kids where and that is were they are today. Yes fewer of them, but the density hasn't changed.

When we go to the Harrison, Roosevelt, Hayes....Emerson, Lincoln, Horace Mann configuration 3 of the 4 schools closed will be the ones that where in the central area of the city. 2 of the other schools (Emerson replace Garfield and Taft and Horace Mann replaced McKinley) are ones that have been relocated further north and further away from the higher density parts of town.

The final location should be based on were the kids are and will be.

Bill

[quote=Danielle Masters, Also we were shown some maps but that was outside of the meeting as the maps are not ready for the public to view as they shown were kids live. The maps are important in my opinion because they do show that if Grant were to close that many students would have to cross Madison and Detroit to get to an elementary school while that would not happen if Lincoln were to close. But as those maps are not ready yet, that is all I think I can say.[/quote]

Frankly I don't see what was so sensitive about the maps? They just had dots roughly were students reside, no addresses or names. You could guess probably within two or three houses but you'd probably have better luck by just seeing which house had toys in the backyard. I'll trust that they are not public (to take home) for our own good. I would also like to see an overlay showing the density of students with special needs, ESL, low income and minority. While I understand programing will be the same at all schools my hunch is that if we go with a three north and three south configuration vs. a two north, two south, one central configuration, we will see that three south schools will have more students with these needs which will demand more resources at the south schools. Also these schools will be more crowded since they will be located in the higher density parts of town.
Has anyone seen any data on this subject? I'm base my hunch only on the data I've seen on the state report cards.

Bill

Your missing the point.

A hanful of kids walking a little farther to school should not be the deciding factor of which school should be rebuilt. It is too small a number to sway a decision one way or another. The tax payors of Lakewood expect the BOE to take into account the financial stewardship of assets, as well as many other important considerations.

The majority of middle school kids are walking substantially farther to and from school under the new configuration of schools and nobody complained about that. Now we are debating which school to close based on 60 or 120 kids walking a couple hundered feet futher to their elementary school??

It is laughable.

Mike Davis wrote:Your missing the point.

The POINT is the school should be located were the kids are.

Bill

Good luck with that one track thinking

Mike Davis wrote:Your missing the point.

A hanful of kids walking a little farther to school should not be the deciding factor of which school should be rebuilt. It is too small a number to sway a decision one way or another. The tax payors of Lakewood expect the BOE to take into account the financial stewardship of assets, as well as many other important considerations.

It is laughable.

Mike

Well what is that factor, number of parents that answer a last minute email from the PTA?

Just curious.


.

I do not know what you are talking about? PTA e-mail?

How is wanting a school to be located where the kids are one track thinking? Is it financially responsible for the schools to rebuild on a site where property would have to be acquired in order to rebuild? When that isn't the case for the other property. And once again how many zoning laws will have to be changed to build on a property that is on a residential street, 8 houses back from Detroit and surrounded by over 20 homes all the way up to Hilliard?

And speaking of one track thinking the only reason anyone has given for closing Grant is some pie in the sky idea of developing a neighborhood and turning it into a commercial area. I think I heard of some plan like this a few years back and it nearly tore a community apart. I guess this time all we are willing to sellout is a few kids and a block of homes.

The facts are the density is higher around Grant and Grant is the last school in the central part of Lakewood and it sits on a plot of land that is big enough for rebuilding without the added expense of buying homes. Sorry that seems like more than one track thinking.

Mike, if one of your qualifying factors is "historic preservation," then you should be in favor of closing Lincoln. I, like you, think historic preservation is critical; however, under current plans, if Grant is to close then Lincoln will be LEVELED and a new school will be put in its place. So everything that is attractive about Lincoln as a piece of architecture will be lost. Please note that I do not consider Grant to be a noteworthy piece of architecture.

PING! Another point for Grant.

I thought that if Lincoln was to remain open it is slated for renovation not rebuilding, it would be gutted and kept the same on the outside, the same as Emerson and Horace Mann. The only schools that have been leveled are south of the tracks.

Wow, I know I promised to report on the meeting. This is the first chance I've gotten.

Danielle, the last we heard on the Phase 3 committee was that Lincoln would have to be torn down in order to have any chance in the world of qualifying for the OSFC funding. Even then, as the architect pointed out, it was "troubling." It would have to be three stories in order for it to fit the footprint the State requires, with the green space, playground, parking lot, etc. because the lot is too small, and would be all but absurd without acquiring houses on both sides. Especially if it's supposed to serve our community 50 years into the future.

But I promised to report on last night's meeting, and I know it's late, but I did take a lot of notes.

I too wondered last night why we all showed up to be informed about "the new Phase 3 information" in the Superintendent's report, and then Dr. Madak mentioned only that there was new information that we'd get to later, and didn't tell us what it was.

After the general meeting, Board member Matt Markling showed us new maps of the school district, for the first time, where students lived color-coded not by current school boundaries, but by where schools would have to be to have the same number of kids in each school in a six district school system.

I see that Matt has posted those maps, and has explained that these maps are indeed the "new information", and that Dr. Madak doesn't have any other "new information." Dr. Madak said we'd have to look at it later because though the maps are public information, the Board didn't want to release precise information about where children live. The maps, as they're posted now, have the markings showing exactly where children live taken off. You can tell density by how big the area has to be to hold the exact same number of kids.

So the maps are the new info and they're pretty interesting.

The whole meeting was about how important the upcoming levy was. It made one question how we'd have funds to renovate any more elementary school buildings when we're talking about cutting teaching assistants and money for equipment and new textbooks. The parent sitting next to me revealed that her middle-schooler in the gifted and talented program already has a social studies textbook in which Clinton is the president.

As for the debate going on here, putting a school where family-friendly housing is, and has been for more than a hundred years, and will be in the future, as is shown by County Auditor's Office figures and U.S.Census Bureau figures isn't single-minded. It just makes sense. Where do you put a school? Where the kids are. (and have been, and will be.) Most people would think that in an area dense with families and children, a school would be a good idea. The essence of a "no-brainer." When you're selling your city as a good place for families and you go to the area most dense with families and the school is being torn down, especially for a mall or some other kind of development, you wonder what that city really thinks about its families.

These are the same families that are supposed to vote for the levy, right? At the last School Board meeting devoted to Phase 3, we heard the statistics on voting. There are just as many people who vote south of Detroit as there are north of Detroit, and Clifton for that matter. Given that, it would be best just to make the best decision for the whole city, as the the Phase 3 criteria stipulated. What does the least damage to families and children? Well, where does the greatest number of families and children live? Where have they lived in the past? Where will they live in the future? How many times does this have to be said?

Now that Board member Ed Favre brought up the dangers of crossing major intersections, it's interesting to note that in the newest maps, one of the scenarios is much safer than the other. This is only one factor, but it is a factor. And as for the distance children would have to walk-- this is the greatest challenge-- far beyond the danger of intersections-- for very young children and their parents. These aren't middle-schoolers. Permit me to sound like a mother and say these are our babies. The youngest children are kindergartners, which lets you know that they won't be walking to school alone. Most likely they'll be with their parents, who will be bringing other, even younger siblings along with them. We walked these walks as part of what the Phase 3 committee did. We brought strollers and toddlers. We tried to imagine snow drifts and people who don't shovel. We tried to imagine snow and rain and walking up to a mile with a stroller and a toddler and a kindergartner. On Day One of the Phase 3 committee, Ed Favre said, "no busing." "Walkability, " Mr. Favre said, was the number one issue, on Day One. He wrote it on the board in front of the whole room. It is the only thing he wrote. "We need to continue to have a walkable school district," he said. We have to make the right choice. Ten schools to six. There is no margin for error. He was very impressive, and very serious.

I'm sorry to bore everyone to tears, but once again, the Phase 3 criteria, for choosing which schools would stay: Does it work for 50 years? Does it have the least negative impact on families? Does it enhance teaching and learning? Does it take the entire community into account?

For a dense community of families, having your schools close to your families is very positive: a reason to move to Lakewood. If the center of your city is full of families, having a school there is a good idea. How about a library there too? And a couple of cafes? A post office, a bank? Just like a real town. A place where people walk and talk to their neighbors on their way to their neighborhood schools. You know, Lakewood. A rare city now, in which this kind of community interaction and support is possible, and clearly a desirable thing if recent polls are any kind of indication. One of the most livable cities in the country. Why?

Okay. I think we should all head on over-- anyone who is still here after reading this Phase 3 stuff AGAIN-- to Matt Markling's thread to study those maps.

Betsy Voinovich

Danielle, the last plan I heard of was that Lincoln would be rebuilt. Anybody know anything different?