The Observation Deck

The Lakewood City School District Board of Education does want to hear from you so we have taken our regular school board meetings on the road to a neighborhood school near you.

While you can see and hear our regular board meetings on television, as well as on our website at http://lakewoodcityschools.org/content_page2.aspx?cid=516 (videos) and http://podcasting.schoolpointesites.com/Channel/Feed/86 (podcasts), nothing beats a live meeting.

Our updated regular meeting schedule can be found on the front page and in the most recent edition of The Lakewood Observer: http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/read/2011/04/20/regular-school-board-meetings-are-coming-to-your-neighborhood-schools.

I know that there will be reply posts in this thread calling for school board and city council meetings to be on separate nights, but they are not. And that has been helpful when we need to meet jointly. For example, school officials recently met with a city council committee on an “off” Monday to discuss pools, water slides, and Frappuccino® machines. The more our school and city officials can meet the better as it ensures an open channel of communication. But, I digress.

Please attend a regular school board meeting and share your vision of the Lakewood City Schools with your five elected school board members.

Second the motion.

The last school board meeting had some interesting moments.

There was some discussion of Teacher Based Training. Some parents have questioned the 3 days off teachers received for these sessions. It was explained that those days off give teachers a chance to meet, discuss mutual problems, teaching techniques and experiences. Some data from the Norfolk, VA school system was provided that indicated those meetings can improve student performance. I'm skeptical of all statistics but the general theory makes sense. Although I'm not sure the three days off make sense. Wouldn't the students be better off with three extra days in school? Shouldn't those discussions take place on a weekly basis on a Friday aftertoon to provide more immediate feedback?

Dr. Madak admitted that while overall enrollment is down slightly, elementary attendance has increased. He stated that it would take a couple of years of increasing or stable enrollment to make any conclusions about enrollment. While the decision has been made to close Grant he indicated that it won't be closed until 2015 or so.

There was a small discussion about phase III. Apparently the State will re-examine the decision to fund only six elementary schools. He said something that I found a little confusing: That it's possible that another elementary school besides Grant might be closed. I may have misheard. If anyone has better ears let me know what you heard. If we end up with only five elementary schools will we be closing one of the newly renovated schools? That's always a possibility. Which begs the questions: which school? And doesn't that indicate a need to have a central elementary school?

Most of the time was spent discussing expulsion policy. Most expulsions are for truancy. Mr Berdine stated that in the 25 years he has been in this business it never made sense to him to expel or suspend a student for truancy. That reminded me of the time my son was suspended for missing school. He received an out of school suspension. My wife's comment was something like "What the hell kind of sense does that make?.

Bill Call wrote:The last school board meeting had some interesting moments.

There was a small discussion about phase III. Apparently the State will re-examine the decision to fund only six elementary schools. He said something that I found a little confusing: That it's possible that another elementary school besides Grant might be closed. I may have misheard. If anyone has better ears let me know what you heard. If we end up with only five elementary schools will we be closing one of the newly renovated schools? That's always a possibility. Which begs the questions: which school? And doesn't that indicate a need to have a central elementary school?

Hi Bill,

Dr. Madak has mentioned before that the District might close a school EVEN IF the OSFC came back and said that we NEED SEVEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, and that the state would be willing to fund them.

He said that if this is the case, Grant would not necessarily be the school. So this would be going from seven to six, not six to five, and the eliminated school might not be Grant.

I guess this is the scenario for if the economy gets worse and the state bails on us and doesn't fund anything, including what we've already paid for all by ourselves.

Grant would probably not be the school closed, because money-wise, it is the school that needs the least amount of work (and it does serve the most dense population of Lakewood's families, in the center, as you point out, and the District would need to remain walkable.)

This would be tough scenario, that would include our class sizes increasing, so everyone would fit. Right now if we had only six schools, we would be just about to burst at the seams, which is not an attractive situation for famiiies deciding whether they should stay in Lakewood schools with their young children, or move to Lakewood for its good schools.

Our class sizes are still desirable, especially when compared to some of our neighboring communities. (Which points to the fact that as Cleveland schools' class sizes rise and rise, more responsible parents will do whatever they can to move to Lakewood in order to participate in our excellent school system.) And our school population will grow even more.

Matt Markling wrote:I know that there will be reply posts in this thread calling for school board and city council meetings to be on separate nights, but they are not. And that has been helpful when we need to meet jointly. For example, school officials recently met with a city council committee on an “off” Monday to discuss pools, water slides, and Frappuccino® machines. The more our school and city officials can meet the better as it ensures an open channel of communication. But, I digress.

Wow, Matt. Frappuccino machines? Will these be at the pools along with the water slides?
It's a good thing we have money for these luxuries. This sounds like exactly the meeting the public would love to attend. Was that one open to the public?

And please can you further explain the Frappucino and waterslides? Are the Frappuccino machines for the school cafeterias? Where are the waterslides supposed to go, and who asked for them?

Thanks.

Betsy Voinovich

Betsy Voinovich wrote:Dr. Madak has mentioned before that the District might close a school EVEN IF the OSFC came back and said that we NEED SEVEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, and that the state would be willing to fund them.

He said that if this is the case, Grant would not necessarily be the school. So this would be going from seven to six, not six to five, and the eliminated school might not be Grant.

I guess this is the scenario for if the economy gets worse and the state bails on us and doesn't fund anything, including what we've already paid for all by ourselves.

Grant would probably not be the school closed, because money-wise, it is the school that needs the least amount of work (and it does serve the most dense population of Lakewood's families, in the center, as you point out, and the District would need to remain walkable.)

From the Board Web site:

"When Will Grant Close?

The intention is to follow the Phase III Steering Committees recomendation of keeping all seven elementary schools open until construction is complete. However, if the districts finances worsen significantly, a school may have to be closed sooner.That does not necessarily mean it will be Grant because that school will be needed for transition space during construction"

So.. if finances worsen a school will have to be closed before the begining of phase III. That school won't be Grant because Grant will be needed during construction of a much larger Taft school which will be used to house the students now attending Grant.

Is the intent is to keep Grant open after the construction of the new Taft School? Then Why do we need a larger Taft School?

Is the intent to close another school during construction, keep Grant open during construction then close Grant and reopen the previously closed school?

The question seems simple enough: When will Grant close?

Alternate answers provided by me:

Grant will close at the end of phase III.

Question: After phase III is complete how many elementary schools will be open and which schools will they be?

Phase III is expected to cost $75 million. The State is expected to pay $50 million. Is it worth the extra money to rehab Lincoln? How much will it cost to rehab and enlarge Lincoln? How much to enlarge and rehab Grant? How much to build a completely new school on an alternate site that can accommodate 700 students?

Bill Call wrote:

Betsy Voinovich wrote:Dr. Madak has mentioned before that the District might close a school EVEN IF the OSFC came back and said that we NEED SEVEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, and that the state would be willing to fund them.

He said that if this is the case, Grant would not necessarily be the school. So this would be going from seven to six, not six to five, and the eliminated school might not be Grant.

I guess this is the scenario for if the economy gets worse and the state bails on us and doesn't fund anything, including what we've already paid for all by ourselves.

Grant would probably not be the school closed, because money-wise, it is the school that needs the least amount of work (and it does serve the most dense population of Lakewood's families, in the center, as you point out, and the District would need to remain walkable.)

From the Board Web site:

"When Will Grant Close?

The intention is to follow the Phase III Steering Committees recomendation of keeping all seven elementary schools open until construction is complete. However, if the districts finances worsen significantly, a school may have to be closed sooner.That does not necessarily mean it will be Grant because that school will be needed for transition space during construction"

So.. if finances worsen a school will have to be closed before the begining of phase III. That school won't be Grant because Grant will be needed during construction of a much larger Taft school which will be used to house the students now attending Grant.

Is the intent is to keep Grant open after the construction of the new Taft School? Then Why do we need a larger Taft School?

Is the intent to close another school during construction, keep Grant open during construction then close Grant and reopen the previously closed school?

The question seems simple enough: When will Grant close?

Alternate answers provided by me:

Grant will close at the end of phase III.

Question: After phase III is complete how many elementary schools will be open and which schools will they be?

Phase III is expected to cost $75 million. The State is expected to pay $50 million. Is it worth the extra money to rehab Lincoln? How much will it cost to rehab and enlarge Lincoln? How much to enlarge and rehab Grant? How much to build a completely new school on an alternate site that can accommodate 700 students?

Bill,

Grant School and Phase 3: it may turn out that many people are going to have a tough time looking Matt Markling in the eyes-if not presently.

Refresh my memory, why was there such urgency to make a decision about Grant and Lincoln? At this point, given the current enrollment numbers (trend), the plan to close Grant School looks like it could be a very large mistake.

The decision to close Grant was made in 2010...Phase 3 will be complete in 2015?

Help, I'm really trying to piece together the logic.

Scott Meeson

Scott Meeson wrote:

Bill Call wrote:

Betsy Voinovich wrote:Refresh my memory, why was there such urgency to make a decision about Grant and Lincoln? At this point, given the current enrollment numbers (trend), the plan to close Grant School looks like it could be a very large mistake.

The decision to close Grant was made in 2010...Phase 3 will be complete in 2015?

Help, I'm really trying to piece together the logic.

Scott Meeson

I very rarely do this, I swear... but, as the District Config co-chair that was CONSTANTLY HARPING ABOUT BIRTH TREND DATA FROM THE CDC AND CENSUS...

I. TOLD. YOU. SO.

Population of children is going up. 2007 had more live births than the HIGHEST number of births in one year during the baby boom (1957). The years following have not seen a fall off. Number of births per woman is up (was around 2 during the 70s and 80s, going up closer to 3 now nationwide, and look around you, how many families with very young children in Lakewood have only two or have two and are "definitely done"?). Lakewood itself didn't see the increase in births, but Cleveland sure did and a SIZABLE portion of Lakewood's elementary students are born in Cleveland (and the board HAS that information, I got it from them - from memory it's between 1/3rd and 1/2 of our elementary students born in Cleveland, a good chunk born elsewhere, only maybe 1/4th born in Lakewood). Lakewood is consistently ranked an attractive place for families to live among the options in Ohio, by in-state and nationwide groups. We do not have space for more elementary school children, nor safety of walking routes for a bunch of kids crossing Detroit (less than 1/3rd of our population of minors lives north of Detroit, historically and currently, from census data so once again WHY THE HECK are we sticking more than half of our elementary school capacity up there, with THE two largest elementary buildings already up there? HM & Emerson on their own house could easily the entire elementary population north of Detroit Road from my last count, Harrison is bursting at the seams so Roosevelt is needing enlarging to pick up some of that slack and Grant could have its bounary extend eastward further if Lincoln were not there and Emerson was taking some of those kids instead of the ones south of Detroit they're currently taking, which makes crossing guard issues much less of a problem since there are fewer lights to put crossing guards at with that configuration than with a "let's send 1/4th of the kids in the district across Detroit and the train tracks to HM/Lincoln/Emerson" scenario that people who have their sites set on the Grant property for commercial redevelopment have been pushing for).

School board meetings have been at the same time as my grad classes until this semester, and I've just been exhausted by the time they start with teething baby (hehe... 2010 birth numbers look like they're going to put 2007 to shame, for what it's worth). Will try to make it up there sometime... might bring some of those "look what you got coming, you need the elementary capacity" rugrats with me.

But I'm sure I'm going to be brushed off and ignored AGAIN because I'm "just" a simple mom, not a business owner or school employee like made up the MAJORITY of the people at the Phase III meetings and vote. Being a mother whose eldest is in 1st grade, with two more not yet school age, who has a degree in sociology, access to census data and knows how to read it and TRIES to explain it... no... I'm an ignorant simpleton just ignore me.

Oh, and I'm also a home owner and property tax payer and trained petition circulator and politically active... yeah... just ignore me... nothing to see here....

Oh, and as for looking Matt in the eye - yeah, let's just hope they open their eyes and face reality (and Matt, and me, and every other Cassandra that's been trying to point out this easy-to-predict problem for the last many years) BEFORE irreversible resource-sales and construction mistakes are made.

Ahmie "Cassandra" Yeung, that's me. Watch out for that Trojan Horse of commercial redevelopment of a public asset, eh?

Matthew John Markling wrote: . . . officials recently met with a city council committee on an “off” Monday to discuss . . . water slides, and Frappuccino® machines.

Maybe I have misguided priorities, and I've been off the deck for a bit, but do you mean this as a joke?

Scott Meeson wrote:Help, I'm really trying to piece together the logic.

You can't fit the pieces together using the information at hand, meaning there is information not-at-hand that makes closing Grant and keeping Lincoln at all or any taxpayer cost desirable to someone.

Someone is aiming to profit outside of the overall mission to shepherd the City and School District to remain heathy and viable for the families that live and send their children to school here.

I think it has to do with development, pure and simple. Developers don't care at all what's good for a community. Their money is made long before the ventures which are "developed" fail, as evidenced all over country.

Mike Zannoni wrote:

Matthew John Markling wrote: . . . officials recently met with a city council committee on an “off” Monday to discuss . . . water slides, and Frappuccino® machines.

Maybe I have misguided priorities, and I've been off the deck for a bit, but do you mean this as a joke?

Mike,

No.

Matt