The Observation Deck

Ryan –

Certainly you would admit there is plenty of blame to go around as it concerns the tough decisions local citizens and boards must make regarding the delivery of public education. This issue wasn’t created two years ago but rather has been building for decades. I will remind you that:

The R’s have controlled the Ohio Senate since 1985.
The R’s controlled the Ohio House from 1995-2009.
The R’s controlled the governor’s office from 1991-2007.
The R’s controlled all statewide offices from 2000-2005’ish and most since recently.

I do not blame the R’s only for all of our problems (although I am still upset that the R’s didn’t deliver comprehensive tax reform for all Ohioans sometime between 1997 and 2004).

You’re right, “maybe it is time to re-examine what we all stand for...” and “think out of the box.” This holds true for reliable D's and R's alike.

Regardless, I attended a meeting yesterday which convinced me that a corrections bill will go through Columbus before summer which will take last year’s across the board cuts even deeper, including the Department of Education. I, for one, am happy our state constitution forbids deficit budgets. But, this forces tough decisions to be made now and not be shoved down the road.

That aside, though, personally, I am not convinced that Lakewood must close Grant or any school. Yes, the state believes we have more capacity than students and wants a school closed. But what to the users feel.

I think we've all been slapped in the face on multiple occasions by both parties over the years.

David Anderson wrote:I think we've all been slapped in the face on multiple occasions by both parties over the years.

I agree 100%.

That aside, though, personally, I am not convinced that Lakewood must close Grant or any school. Yes, the state believes we have more capacity than students and wants a school closed. But what to the users feel.

I think we've all been slapped in the face on multiple occasions by both parties over the years.

I feel so strongly about the points you and Ryan are making. I've been doing a lot of thinking on this issue. Put aside that it seems like 3 of our BOE members had their minds made up way before Phase III meetings got underway (they deny it and I have no proof).

The point is that no matter what their intentions were they could have proceeded with a process that wouldn't have divided our city. There were plenty of great people of all backgrounds, politically and otherwise, that started on the committee but saw the writing on the wall and quit.

We cannot allow 3 people to continue to divide parents, students, and citizens. By not explaining their decision it sets up an Us vs Them mentality. Maybe they thought they were appeasing parents by creating a huge community committee. I don't know. It was the wrong thing to do and now they are hiding behind a "pseudo process".

What they should have done? First, given clear more focused goals to the committee instead of an anything goes plan. Secondly, when they learned that OSFC wouldn't give Lakewood enough money continue with the original plan they had promised us the Board should of a)Had the enrollment figures double-checked. A State BOE Members has told us (Concerned Citizens) that mistakes are made all the time, and b)They should have researched the cost of building a school on our own and then put it to the voters.

Let's be clear. We can keep all 7 schools open and not to a thing to them. Leave them as they are. If fact, Grant was not slated to be renovated because of the condition of the building like the other two, R and L. It's only 40 years old w/air conditioning. It was slated because it's an open-concept school. We can build walls! However, it costs only a few dollars a month to taxpayers to rebuild a school our own...that much Phase III did find out.

The community ought to decide. Put it on a ballot. Might spoil someone's plan though...

Kristine

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:I feel so strongly about the points you and Ryan are making. I've been doing a lot of thinking on this issue. Put aside that it seems like 3 of our BOE members had their minds made up way before Phase III meetings got underway (they deny it and I have no proof).

The decision was made to close Grant before the first Phase III meeting was held. Trust me on this one. No source will be provided but that's the way it was.

The closing of Grant was the last gasp of the Geiger Gang of Four. If it was best to close one school then Lincoln should have been closed.

Perhaps it is time to Defeat The Board and reopen this issue next year. Make the Board elections a referendum on Grant.

I liked the idea of a building at Kaufman Park. However, a new school with a much larger footprint at the Grant site would have most of the advantages with none of the disadvantages.

With a new board 2011 could be the year of renewal. That renewal won't happen unless the Geiger holdovers are removed.

Speaking of renewal:

I was very impressed with Matt Dolan.

I think he has a tough fight on his hands for a number of reasons:

1. This is a Democratic town

2. That means so much that in 1998 Russo was elected with 61% of the vote even though he was under indictment, http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index. ... he_us.html

3. The demographics have changed so much that a large percentage of the voters are dependent on government for their survival. They will not be swayed by arguments about job losses. Those voters will be voting to preserve their sinecure.

4. See 1 through 3. Democrats have turned California and Michigan into economic basket cases but Democrats are still elected and reelected.

He might gain some traction and some support by pointing out that Mayor Fitzgerald opposed the reforms and is supported by the current power structure.

He might gain a little more support by pointing out the advantage of having one party control the Executive Council (Democrats) and one party controlling the County Executive (Republican).

If you really want reform you will need someone who is willing to shake things up and down and inside out.