The Observation Deck

Thank you to everyone who supported the levy with his or her vote last week! The passage of Issue 6 insures that our schools will avoid further painful cuts in the coming year(s). Our administration, principals, teachers, staff and children earned this one with their hard work and dedication.

Some were worried that supporting the levy would send the wrong message to the Board of Education. These voters DID NOT want the school board to think that supporting Issue 6 was a sign of support for the BOE’s recent decision to remove Grant from the OSFC Master Facilities Plan. There are still many concerns regarding the Phase III process and its outcome.

Removing Lakewood's last remaining central elementary school effectively ends our city's tradition of having neighborhood schools. The neighborhoods in the center of Lakewood are full of children and families. The first schools in Lakewood were located there to serve what has always been a residential city. This recent decision changes the very character of Lakewood and makes the center of the city much less attractive to existing and potential homeowners and businesses.

Since the BOE's vote to remove Grant, additional research and public records requests have further strengthened the case for maintaining a centrally located elementary school. We value historic preservation. We understand the development goals of the city. However, we feel that this decision should have been made with EDUCATION as the overriding priority, while minimizing the financial burden on taxpayers during these difficult economic times.

The decision as it stands is dividing our city and will negatively impact the entire school district.

We can do better.

The BOE has yet to take our concerns seriously as they feel we speak for only a few Grant parents, not the larger community. Now is the time to remind them that while we may have supported the operating levy, we will NOT support a bond issue that does not include a centrally located elementary school as part of the plan.

We are gathering a list of supporters in order to simplify communication regarding this issue. If you would like to receive information about what's happening and add your name to the list of people who support a central elementary school, please send me a private message with your e-mail address so that you will be included.

Thank you again.

Meg Ostrowski wrote:Thank you to everyone who supported the levy with his or her vote last week! The passage of Issue 6 insures that our schools will avoid further painful cuts in the coming year(s). Our administration, principals, teachers, staff and children earned this one with their hard work and dedication.

Some were worried that supporting the levy would send the wrong message to the Board of Education. These voters DID NOT want the school board to think that supporting Issue 6 was a sign of support for the BOE’s recent decision to remove Grant from the OSFC Master Facilities Plan. There are still many concerns regarding the Phase III process and its outcome.

Removing Lakewood's last remaining central elementary school effectively ends our city's tradition of having neighborhood schools. The neighborhoods in the center of Lakewood are full of children and families. The first schools in Lakewood were located there to serve what has always been a residential city. This recent decision changes the very character of Lakewood and makes the center of the city much less attractive to existing and potential homeowners and businesses.

Since the BOE's vote to remove Grant, additional research and public records requests have further strengthened the case for maintaining a centrally located elementary school. We value historic preservation. We understand the development goals of the city. However, we feel that this decision should have been made with EDUCATION as the overriding priority, while minimizing the financial burden on taxpayers during these difficult economic times.

The decision as it stands is dividing our city and will negatively impact the entire school district.

We can do better.

The BOE has yet to take our concerns seriously as they feel we speak for only a few Grant parents, not the larger community. Now is the time to remind them that while we may have supported the operating levy, we will NOT support a bond issue that does not include a centrally located elementary school as part of the plan.

We are gathering a list of supporters in order to simplify communication regarding this issue. If you would like to receive information about what's happening and add your name to the list of people who support a central elementary school, please send me a private message with your e-mail address so that you will be included.

Thank you again.

Meg

Not that my voice means anymore than anyone else, but the over whelming thing I have
been hearing for sometime is that most would prefer to keep 7 schools, but have been
lead to believe by our school board and others that it is not a possibility.

The parents I have had a chance to speak with at Lincoln, have said between Grant and
Lincoln, most hoped for Lincoln. Between 6 schools and 7, most would prefer 7.

I think it would be interesting to go back and see exactly why, that decision was made,
and who made it and why.

FWIW

.

Meg and Jim---

I think the passage of the levy gives a little breathing room for everybody.

Without the duress of any kind of pressure, the Board, the immediate Grant community, and Lakewood as a whole can take the time to review the decision making process for this last phase of the Lakewood Schools rebuilding process.

This has been a 10 year project which speaks highly of our town, how we hang in for the long term.

Let's take a breath, a time out, check the process and facts and figures and make sure everybody will be confident that any new data haven't changed the basic direction of the reconstruction project.

Only if the process is accepted, will the completion be ratified with a positive vote.

Stan

Jim,

I have no problem with seven elementary schools provided they are sized appropriately for the neighborhoods they serve, one is centrally located and we can afford them.

Lincoln is an EXCELLENT school and I am not necessarily suggesting that it be removed from the plan but voters have the right to know the impact of removing Grant and that it is significantly more expense to fund a historic renovation project ($16M) than it is to bring a forty year old steel structure up to current educational standards ($4.5M).

I simply DO NOT accept the plan as it stands.

Without the duress of any kind of pressure, the Board, the immediate Grant community, and Lakewood as a whole can take the time to review the decision making process for this last phase of the Lakewood Schools rebuilding process.

Hi Stan,

I really want to agree with you and believe that our BOE would take the time to review their decision. However, I do think that the decision to not retain Grant was already a done deal ever since the BOE passed a resolution June 9, 2008 to demolish Grant (Phase 3 Meetings didn't begin until January 2009). I don't think the BOE would be open-minded to allow a review of their decision. I would support that. I don't think we should be closing any schools. I don't think closing Grant or Lincoln is good for our district or our city.

The second problem, the reason why Grant parents are upset, is that we feel like we have absolutely no control over or voice if the District decides to just start shifting staff and programs out of Grant. Even if Grant is only open for another 3 or 4 years, don't the kids deserve to have the teachers they know stay with them? There has not been a positive message sent out from our district to the community to reassure them to keep sending their kids to Grant. It just feels like another repeat of the Franklin Elementary closing. Promises were made, but not kept. It seems like there is an attempt to make Grant less appealing to parents so they don't send their kids there.

Kristine

If you are not willing to vote against those board members who voted to close Grant and who are delaying the release of records and vote FOR those who voted to keep Grant and who favor open communications and disclosure you are wasting your time.

Those who prefer a secreacy are counting on short memories and indifference. We'll see if they are correct.

Unfortunately not many were convinced that we had a problem on the school board until it was too late to run anyone last fall. We were naïve and trusted in the process.

I remain a hopeful optimist. There is a part of me that thinks Betsy Shaughnessy, Linda Beebe, John Kamkutis and Ed Favre will come around and reconsider their decision in February to remove Grant from the Phase III plan.

Unless someone retires, our first chance to begin changing the face of the school board is November 2011, for terms beginning in January 2012. Two seats will be up, Linda Beebe’s & Matt Markling’s.

Matt Markling has already announced that he will run and he has my support. Matt has worked hard to insure transparency and openness with the public he serves and recognizes that his responsibility is to the whole city.

Linda Beebe will have served 28 years, God bless her, with many awards and recognition for her service. She is obviously beloved by long-term Lakewood residents and has their support. I find her to be very thoughtful but was as dumbfounded by her vote and rationale on the Phase III decision as she was by our objection.

It will be November 2014, for terms beginning in January 2015, when Betsy Shaughnessy’s, John Kamkutis’ and Ed Favre’s seats will be up for election.

In the meantime, I have heard rumblings of petitioning to have board members removed for violation of sunshine laws but I think a better approach would be to keep extending ourselves in hopes that they will work with us and recognize our common interests and commitment to maintaining EXCELLENCE in the district and keeping Lakewood viable as it evolves, nothing personal or self-serving.

Meg---

Linda Beebe will have served 28 years, God bless her, with many awards and recognition for her service. She is obviously beloved by long-term Lakewood residents and has their support.

I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts about Linda Beebe's past service. Lakewood has truly benefited from her hard work over the years.

I've known Linda (and Bruce, her husband and LHS retired history teacher "par excellence") for years. I was one of her early supporters in her first campaign.

I think she can with extremely good conscious (and maybe a desire to have a little free time!!) retire from the seat secure in the gratitude that Lakewoodites hold for her.

An appropriately timed announcement to that effect would allow for thoughtful, and new candidates to step forward. It would be the perfect capstone to her public service career.

Stan Austin

Meg Ostrowski wrote:It will be November 2014, for terms beginning in January 2015, when Betsy Shaughnessy’s, John Kamkutis’ and Ed Favre’s seats will be up for election.

This information came directly from the Lakewood City Schools Board of Education brochure that I picked up at their office but I have heard it is incorrect.

I checked with Lakewood City Schools. Here's what I learned.

Matt Markling's, Linda Beebe's & John Kamkutis' seats are up for election in November 2011 for four year terms beginning in 2012.

Betsy Shaughnessy's & Ed Favre's seats are up for election in November 2014 for four year terms beginning in January 2015.

Has anyone heard if Linda Beebe will run for re-election? John Kamkutis?

Meg Ostrowski wrote:I checked with Lakewood City Schools. Here's what I learned.

Matt Markling's, Linda Beebe's & John Kamkutis' seats are up for election in November 2011 for four year terms beginning in 2012.

Betsy Shaughnessy's & Ed Favre's seats are up for election in November 2014 for four year terms beginning in January 2015.

Has anyone heard if Linda Beebe will run for re-election? John Kamkutis?

Per Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Betsy Shaughnessy and Ed Favre's terms expire 12/31/13. Which would mean a Nov 2013 election.
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en ... S_LIST.xls

hmmm...this shouldn't be so confusing.