School Board Fails To Offer Solid Criteria For Phase 3 Decision
Lakewood School Board Meeting, Board Auditorium, 3/1/2010 7:00 PM.
In the atmosphere of shock and frustration for many community members since the February 16th Board meeting, some members of the School Board attempted to present their reasoning for voting four-against-one to circumvent normal process and choosing to rebuild Lincoln Elementary (thereby closing Grant Elementary). After additional pleas for rationale this night from several community speakers and lone dissenting Board member Matt Markling, some Board members offered statements.
Mr. Markling's criteria for retaining Grant, already on record, is based on Grant's central location. Over the past several months he has argued that Grant’s continued existence is the best scenario given present and predictable student and housing density, in consideration of walking distance & safety, future growth, maintaining neighborhoods, and for ensuring flexibility to retain District-wide equity of classroom size in the face of enrollment fluctuation. His position has remained unchanged, and he did not offer additional comments at this meeting except to urge his colleagues to offer their thinking to a deserving public and to express his dismay at the failure of other Board Members to do so thus far.
Ed Favre took time to describe the train schedules of old, indicating that his decision is not nearly as dangerous as it would have been in years past, because there are fewer trains today, owing to historical changes in the freight industry and Congressman Kucinich’s intervention. Additionally, the trains and crossings are now outfitted with visual and audible warnings that make them safer. To paraphrase: though it may seem objectionable that the new district configuration retaining Lincoln over Grant would seriously increase danger to a large number of elementary students, it’s really not as bad as in the old days. As to why we are now creating the situation at all—why choose to retain Lincoln in the first place, if more unsafe by any measure?—no reason was forthcoming.
Linda Beebe said that she was tired of being "bludgeoned" by data, that data could be used to support any side. However, she was unable to cite any data supporting her decision. Instead, she expressed that she simply did not wish to see another vacant property on Clifton Blvd., where Lincoln is located. Adding to this, she offered an opinion that Grant is a more ideal location for some alternative public use, such as a Recreation Center. Unfortunately, the City Planning meeting was elsewhere this evening, and any expectation that her decision was within the purview of the School Board’s actual mission, to see to the educational needs of Lakewood students, was disappointed. Clifton Blvd, she said, should not suffer further vacancy, because it is “the entrance to Lakewood.” To paraphrase: the potential damage to Clifton Blvd. property owners and to visitors entering Lakewood outweighs the many reasoned objections in terms of student walking distance, safety, site size and flexibility, accessibility, neighborhood integrity, future redistricting flexibility and overall project cost. As to any positive, education-related reason for retaining Lincoln over Grant—how will the education of Lakewood children be better served?—no reason was forthcoming.
Board President Betsy Shaughnessy, echoing Mrs. Beebe, agreed that it was possible that the Grant site could be used for other opportunities that appear in the future. (City Planning was her greatest concern too, apparently.) Mrs. Shaughnessy did, however, emphasize that Lakewood students will have an excellent education no matter what school they attend, without reference to the fact that her preference will make it significantly harder for a large portion of Lakewood students to get to those schools. To paraphrase: things will be fine for all, no matter what, as Lakewood has a fine school system and Lakewood is a fine city. As to any particular reason, educational or otherwise, for favoring Lincoln over Grant, especially in light of the volume of information that has spoken to the contrary—no reason was forthcoming.
When given the chance to share the reasons for his vote, Board Member John Kamkutis replied, “Nah, I’m good.”
To many of the community listening hard for transparent criteria and solid rationale, the School Board continues to be unable to provide any fact-based, education-related reasons to support their decision, at a time when the community is looking to them not only for accountability but also for leadership. If the upcoming levy were a referendum on the School Board, or at least four members, the only choice for many would be to vote it down.
However, it is not. This levy is an operating levy, which we as citizens with a common interest in Lakewood’s future need to pass in order to keep our schools strong. Please vote for the levy to keep our schools—our buildings, our Superintendent, our Assistant Superintendents, our very fine principals, teachers and staff—up and running, until stronger, wiser, more accountable leaders can be put in place.