The Observation Deck

At the Lakewood School Board meeting last night the Board voted, in what can be viewed as an illegal procedure, to close Grant Elementary School. Despite an hour and a half of public comments and pleas to the Board to provide the rationale for their decision, the Board refused to offer an explanation of why they decided to keep Lincoln open.

Most in the audience didn't even realize the vote was coming down, as Besty Shaughnessy, the current Board president, forced a vote in what can only be described as cowardly. She mumbled the resolution to keep Roosevelt, Lincoln, and finish the High School.

If our Board Members felt so confident and righteous in their decision they wouldn't have been so resistant to sharing the criteria and rationale they used to base their decision. One exception, Mr. Markling did try his hardest to convince other Board Members to follow standard protocol and procedures according to their bylaws. When challenged by Markling that the resolution put forth was blank, Shaughnessy responded by saying that she would "just fill in the blanks".

Once parents in attendance realized that the vote was to keep Lincoln open, Shaughnessy stopped the meeting to recess. When the Board came back the only comments offered were from Ed Favre, who insulted those who spoke on Grant's behalf as paranoid and unwilling to change their position.

Who can believe in this Board? Who would support a group of people who asks for your vote, who dismiss months of work and data by a community committee, and then won't even explain to you why they are closing your school?

Shame on us. Two out of this bunch ran unopposed this past election. There isn't the opportunity anytime soon to vote them out.

By the way, I will stand by what I predicted earlier. They will vote to close a school this fall. As has been the plan all along. Am I paranoid, Mr. Favre? Everyone told me I was wasting my time serving on Phase 3 because the BOE had already decided. You and the rest of the BOE proved them right tonight.

Again, there was one Board member who tried his hardest to make the process fair and transparent. Thank you, Mr. Markling.

By the way, there was not one single "Lincoln" parent who spoke on behalf of their school. I guess it's because they knew they had the vote in the bag.

For those not at the meeting it's important to know that lots of data was presented. Data showing that they longest walking distances would be under the keep Lincoln scenario (hopefully Ahmie will post that data), data regarding student density and how it took 6 months for the board to get the phase III committee information of where the kids lived even though it was one of the first pieces of information requested and several non-Grant parents who were members of the phase III committee spoke on how information was suppressed. A simple question was asked, what is your criteria. I want people to understand that what the board showed last night is that they do not feel they are accountable to the public, some of you may be okay with that but I am not.

I am a Lincoln parent and was at last night's Board Meeting. Yes, it was poorly handled by the Board Members. The whole process has been. One Lincoln parent did speak at the forum. I chose not to judging by the emotion and frustration (well warrented) in the room. Also I had written my own letter to the Board directly as I do not feel the whole picture has been presented. Too much information was left out. The Board has one set of data, the volunteers have another, the school principals have another regarding current enrollment and where the students live.

There are too many unknowns, no plan. If enrollment has been on the rise why no repeal to the state to argue the case for all seven schools remaining? Why vote on this issue before the levy vote? Transition?

Yes, some Lincoln parents felt their school's fate was sealed. We've been preparing for it's closure. My gut reaction is that it will still close as the Board gave itself the perfect excuse not to open its doors this fall and reopen on a specified timeline (as we still have to secure funding), construction.

Lisa, many of us are very worried about closing any school, it just doesn't make sense. The enrollment data shows our district wide numbers are higher than originally projected. I am so worried about how we are going to close a school. It seems absurd to have brand new beautiful, technologically advanced buildings that are overcrowded. It is frustrating that the board has never really looked at keeping all 7 buildings, it's a sad thing for the entire city. I thank you for writing to the board, people need to understand this isn't about two schools this is about an entire community.

If enrollment has been on the rise why no repeal to the state to argue the case for all seven schools remaining?

Lisa,

As you may have read in other posts our city and Board does have a choice. We can choose as a community to fund the building of the 3rd school on our own. Considering it would cost only dollars a month it may be worthwhile. Maybe citizens should decide. Why can't we put in on a ballot?

Thanks for writing your post. You are not the first "Lincoln" parent to question and it does take some guts. We could all be winners in all of this. I think the community could figure this all out, but we have a Board standing in our way who doesn't think they have to be accountable to the citizens of Lakewood. Who doesn't want us to figure it out because they have a plan...a plan they're not sharing.

Kristine

This sounds really familiar to the situation with the Dress Code. They held meetings just to, somehow, validate their own agenda in their minds.

This is really unfortunate and I hope this empowers the voters. Remember folks, they work for us. We granted them that power and trusted that their votes would be consistent with the public's opinion.

I'm just worried that these fools will still be in power if I decide to put my future kids into the Lakewood City School system. That's the perspective I have to look at things from. Not really a current thing, like parents who have kids in our schools now, but like someone who will have to decide if I want to stick with living in this area and raising a family, or not.

You can have the safest car in the world, but if the driver is drunk, it won't help you.

I have a bunch of data regarding distances, the ones I specifically mentioned last night regarding distances were done quickly from the new maps and I'm c&p that information into this post for ease of access. Other parts of the data (particularly how many kids are affected by these routes) is not as easy for a "lay" reader to follow, I will have to rewrite it a bit and might just go ahead and count all the kids in the current Grant district area that are deeply adversely affected (such as, by having their streets arbitrarily cut in half - so much for the request placed upon the District Configuration group to provide RATIONAL boundary information/thought).

Relating to student numbers, this year's kindergarten enrollment is actually demonstrating what I've been TRYING to get through the administrators and school board members' brains since January. Total number of live births has been going up significantly since around 2003/2004. My kindergartener was born in May 2004. From what is already data-analysed and available (it takes a year to a year and a half for the federal government to make total sense of the birth records in a meaningful way, some of this due to not all municipalities having their records computerized so it takes longer for the fed to receive the information from them) the curve of the increase has been pretty similar to what was seen during the Baby Boom.... only it's larger numbers earlier. This makes sense since we're talking about a larger childbearing age population of women to begin with than the one that bore the Baby Boomers - those mothers had quite a few children, who then actually had fewer children per woman than their mothers, but now their daughters are tending to have more children per woman than Boomer mothers did - Boomer women had around 2.2 children/woman and their daughters are tending more to 2.5 or 2.7 children/women. The highest number of births during the post-WWII baby boom was in 1957. The new boom we're seeing was first really noticed in 2007, which had more live births than 1957. Think about it, what generally happens to mothers when they're about 50 years old, if they gave birth to their first child around the average age for their generation (early-mid 20s)? Hello, Grandma. Now how are we going to "house" all these Boomer grandchildren that are being born NOW when they hit school age in 5 years? Are our enrollment numbers REALLY going to continue to trend downward? Remember that births tend to cycle in a wave pattern, with the percentage of total births going up and down over time. We're emerging from a pretty long down trend that followed the "Baby Boomlet" (during which my younger siblings were born) which went from about the the mid-80s to mid-90s. And how old are those "boomlet" babies that were born in 1985 now? What are they just now starting to do? Hmm... settle down and start families. Couple that with the growing attraction of living in Lakewood from other forces (CMSD school closures, housing prices/values which have actually been relatively stable in Lakewood compared to exoburbs, growing environmental awareness and a desire to shorten our commutes that is also driven by fuel price flux, among other variables) and there really is a pretty solid argument to make that we've actually hit bottom in our enrollment decline and should now reasonably expect a pretty significant increase year-to-year. This year's larger-than-expected kindergarten group will be next year's larger-than-expected first grader group, and so on for several years. Our "low" enrollment in the middle schools and even high school makes sense to anyone who knows what birth cohorts tend to look like over the span of decades. What do we do when the low tide cohort ages out of schools and is replaced by the incoming high tide group? If they manage to sell off the Grant property, how the hell are we going to afford to re-acquire another lot in the center of our district, where it's most needed and most feasable to be located? How likely is the State of Ohio to want to give us a hand when we've already demonstrated that we squandered what they gave us by not being logical about the decisions NOW?

Really, the most disappointing thing is that they seemingly gave up on 7 schools without a fight. The reasoning behind not fighting to keep 7 schools has not been made clear publicly to my knowledge, it seems to be a decision that went without question much less appeal when handed down by the Ohio BOE, from what I'm able to deduce.

Anyway, here's what I had in my hand last night when I was talking about walking distances under the two proposed 6 school map configurations:

Distances for “extreme walkers” with current boundary proposals. Highly emotional and subjective stuff that's all about "me" as a Grant parent, as I'm sure Mr. Farve would tell you (yes, that was sarcasm) - but make your own decisions and feel free to verify my calculations if you'd like. Just go to http://maps.google.com then click directions then select walking directions from the drop down options (and how cool is it that they have public transit directions as an option? *love love love*). Enter the starting address or intersection and the end one (I indicated what I used below) and hit the button. Not hard, and you don't even have to get your winter gear on, though going and checking that there's actually traffic lights at the intersections suggested for crossing as well as the feasability of placement of crossing guards wouldn't be a bad idea. Sending masses of kids across Detroit for the whole of Lakewood's stretch of that street - where are you going to put crossing guards? Do you really expect the kids from Grant's current area to go out of their way to cross where there's a crossing guard instead of at the nearest traffic light intersection? How about that Hilliard/Madison intersection that several of the split-in-half streets now get to cross and the (from my casual/non-scientific observations) about 1 in 3 cars exiting Carabel that seem unable to comprehend the necessity of the "Right Turn onto Madison ONLY" sign and proceed to cross green-lit traffic to right turn onto Hilliard if not actually be foolish enough to attempt a LEFT there?

Here's what I had:

Emerson with Grant
• corner of Cliffdale & Edgewater.
o Take Cliffdale to Lake to Belle to Clifton to Emerson = 1.2mi

Emerson with Lincoln
• corner of St. Charles & Franklin.
o Take St. Charles all the way to Clifton, across to Emerson = 1.4mi
o Take St. Charles to Detroit to Manor Park to Merl to Jackson = 1.3mi
o Take St. Charles to Detroit to Marlowe to Ramona to Clifton = 1.3mi

HM with Grant
• corner of Lakeland & Edgewater
o Lakeland to Lake to Summit to Clifton to Webb to HM = 1mi
o Lakeland to Lake to Webb to HM = 1mi
• Corner of Lakeland & Detroit
o Lakeland to Detroit to Granger to Northwood to Webb to HM = 1mi

HM with Lincoln
• 1550 Wagar (approximation of the southern address cut-off since exact is unknown)
o Wagar to Detroit to Granger to Northwood to Webb to HM = 1mi

Hayes with Grant
• Corner of W. Clifton & Detroit to corner of Delaware & Woodward
o W. Clifton to Riverside to Madison to Atkins to Delaware to Hayes = 1.3mi

Hayes with Lincoln
• Corner of Victoria & Hilliard to corner of Delaware & Olive
o Hilliard to Olive Ave to Hayes = .9mi BUT INVOLVES CROSSING 6-WAY INTERSECTION
o Victoria/Revely to Athens to Arthur to Delaware = 1.1mi

[for ease of walking directions from Google Maps, the corner of Clifton and Jackson was used for Emerson and the corner of Webb & N. Clifton was used for HM. These distances should be accurate within .1mi, which is approximately the distance between two side streets along Clifton or Detroit]

We ... trusted that their votes would be consistent with the public's opinion.

That's not what you should expect and not what good leaders do. Good leaders do what needs to be done, not what the electoral majority wants to be done. Or what the unions want done, or the bankers. Good leaders do what's right in the long run, even if it hurts in the short run.

There are two reasons we are facing so many problems at so many levels. Resource depletion, multiple economic crises, etc.....

1) “Public opinion” tends to see issues very narrowly and in the very short term, and....

2) We tend to elect the folks who tell us what we want to hear.

I am not well-versed on the issues behind school closings but I don't think for one second that the members of the BOE are “fools.” And I don't see any evidence that they did not cast their vote with our community's long-term interests in mind.

That's not what you should expect and not what good leaders do. Good leaders do what needs to be done, not what the electoral majority wants to be done.

Well, I would agree. Which is why I do disagree with the BOD decision. The only "reason" that we got from Betsy Shaughnessy on not closing Lincoln was because about a 100 or so people said so at a PUBLIC forum. Which frustrated many in the community.

And the point the Phase III Committee made when they chose not to make a recommendation to the BOE was to not base everything on Public Opinion. To do their homework, do more research, make a really good decision based on good data. But, they chose NOT to do that. They didn't to the work we asked them to do.

If they had good reason to close Grant, if they felt so confident in the work they had accomplished, if they had a good data rich rationale than they would have chosen to share that with the community. Instead, they chose to communicate to the community that they didn't feel like they owed us an explanation.

If Grant is being closed the better solution would have been to close Lincoln as well. A new school at....

Anyway, If there are nearly 700 students at those two schools I don't understand why the State is insisting one be closed. I know, they are not insisting that it be closed they are just renigging on their promise to help finance 7 schools. To me it's the same thing.

Bill Call wrote:If Grant is being closed the better solution would have been to close Lincoln as well. A new school at....

Bill

We all know the Kaufman Park idea floated by Meg was genius. But we could build a burger
place there.

Bill Call wrote:IAnyway, If there are nearly 700 students at those two schools I don't understand why the State is insisting one be closed. I know, they are not insisting that it be closed they are just renigging on their promise to help finance 7 schools. To me it's the same thing.

Bill

The state NEVER SAID WE HAD TO CLOSE A SCHOOL.
The School Board did, the only known reason for closing
Grant according to the PhaseIII Committee was reuse.




.

Tim Liston wrote:I am not well-versed on the issues behind school closings but I don't think for one second that the members of the BOE are “fools.” And I don't see any evidence that they did not cast their vote with our community's long-term interests in mind.

I *am* well versed in the data that the school board allegedly looked at before making this decision because I was one of the primary people gathering it. The data I have looked at came from the Cuyahoga County Auditor's Office, the US Census, birth trends from the CDC showing that we're looking at the start of another baby boom that began around 2003 (the year that about half our "surprisingly large" kindergarten class was born), Case Western's Center on Urban Poverty, and the minimal data the school system actually finally supplied after dragging their feet (it took them a MONTH to provide me with a spreadsheet of student addresses that couldn't have taken more than 5 minutes to export, after my formal request of that information as a committee co-chair - I had requested the data earlier as just an interested committee member and been totally blown off). All the data I have seen points to the area currently served by Grant being the highest density of households with children for the last several decades as well as the last school year, and that the area north of the train tracks is already quite adequately served by the two already rebuilt elementary schools (which each have a seating capacity of 30 more than the other 4 schools in the district will have upon completion of this project - 502 vs 472 - due to their being former middle schools and the retention of some of their original buildings' characteristics). In fact, by the school system's "proposed 6 school boundary lines" maps that Mr. Markling posted here on the Deck, Horace Mann and Emerson so OVERSERVE the north-of-the-tracks part of town that, in order to have equity of enrollment totals with the other four schools with Lincoln closed, they would need to take children not just from north of the tracks, but all children north of Detroit and still some south of Detroit on the west end of town - just so their enrollment totals stay on par with the other 4 schools. If Lincoln is kept, then children from as far south as the latitude Franklin is on, across the entire stretch of Lakewood and even a bit further south than that in some parts, have to go all the way up to Clifton to get to school just to keep the enrollment numbers balanced. That is a much bigger burden on a larger number of families than Lincoln contains, many of whom have less reliable transportation - which currently isn't as much an issue because they live in the most walkable area of Lakewood (according to walkscore.com - check for yourself if you'd like). But take their elementary school away and we may have issues with increased absenteeism when families who don't have reliable personal/private transportation can't get their young elementary school kids to the proper building now that it's too far away to walk (especially with younger siblings in tow). Plus the increased safety barriers between the density of student addresses and the schools (Detroit where they can't put a crossing guard at even half the crosswalks, the 6-way intersection that is Hilliard/Madison/Etc, and the train tracks) increases the age at which parents are likely to feel confident letting their elementary child(ren) walk to school without adult supervision... AND the "Lincoln kept" boundary lines divide at least 10 streets in the center of town in half by house number, making "walking schoolbuses" even more challenging to organize.

Those are verifiable facts, ones that I would expect elected leaders who aren't just going by the opinions and desires of the powerful few to take into serious consideration in their decision making process. Instead, these facts and others have been seemingly totally blown off and absolutely NO rational explaination has been offered for the decision making process. But the most heavily affected population is expected to roll over and take it, offering up their bellies after our elected leaders have stabbed us in the communal backs.

Yeah, I'm pissed. Nothing quite like righteous indignation to start a civil war, is there?


Ahmie

Tim -

I suggest that wherever you took political science classes refund your money and scrap their syllabus.

Politicians are OUR elected representatives. They are accountable to us. They are not dictators, even though there are some people influencing things in our city for their own wallet.

I'm hoping that this is the spark that fires the populace to hold OUR elected representatives to represent US.

I am still trying to understand why the BOE voted to put roughly 1500 elementary seats north of Detroit when there are only roughly 1000 elementary students north of Detroit, leaving less than 1500 seats south of Detroit when there are roughly 2000 students?

sharon kinsella wrote:Tim -

I suggest that wherever you took political science classes refund your money and scrap their syllabus.

Politicians are OUR elected representatives. They are accountable to us. They are not dictators, even though there are some people influencing things in our city for their own wallet.

I'm hoping that this is the spark that fires the populace to hold OUR elected representatives to represent US.

Be nice!