New Re-districted Elementary School Maps Drawn For Lakewood City Schools
As we wait in anticipation for a decision from the Board of Education on which elementary school will close and which two will be rebuilt as part of the final phase of the district's facilities plan, the School Board’s agenda indicated new information would be shared at this past Tuesday's meeting.
After the general meeting, Board member Matt Markling showed those in attendance two new maps of the school district. Each map is color-coded to display proposed new boundaries based on a six elementary school configuration. Each places the same relative number of students in each building and attempts to limit walking distances as much as possible.
The maps were posted on the Lakewood Observer Observation Deck by Mr. Markling the day after the meeting. (http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum, topics - A "Phase III Maps" and PHASE 3 INFO AT BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING - TONIGHT 7 PM). As Mr. Markling explained, the map representing the school district configuration if Lincoln closed, shows only two elementary schools north of Detroit. Should Lincoln close, there simply are not enough students residing north of Detroit to support more than two elementary schools in that area.
Another Lakewood resident, Bill Trentel, who attended the meeting, further clarified this on the Deck: “The map with the central school (Grant) would seem to force the two north (Horace Mann and Emerson) school boundaries to be geographically much larger but this is because they are located in areas that are far less densely populated by students… Likewise, the central and three south schools’ geographic boundaries are smaller, and that is because they are located in areas that are more densely populated by students.”
The maps are helpful, because they clearly show where the most densely populated areas of children, families, and family-friendly housing are located. The map with Lincoln decommissioned keeps neighborhoods intact and keeps neighborhood schools in the middle of those neighborhoods. The other map, with Grant decommissioned, sends children walking out of their individual neighborhoods. Take a look at the residential streets that have been split in half in order to send kids to schools further north. These students are being divided and sent to fill up the more northern schools, because not enough kids live in this northern area.
During the redistricting process the argument was made that it is useless to use current student addresses to determine where schools should be. People move, the argument follows, so in “five or fifty years” this could all be different. The Phase 3 Committee’s District Configuration Subcommittee accounted for this by using the, “Does the configuration work for next 50 years?” criterion and seeking County Auditor’s Office records showing housing density for family-friendly housing. The individual schools serve whoever lives in the homes within their boundaries and the houses themselves don’t move. The District Configuration Committee also sought out U.S. Census figures showing these same houses being occupied by families for the last 50 years, and pointed to trends showing that similar distributions of family/student density are likely to continue into the future.
As Bill Trentel points out in a further post: “There was a reason why our 10 elementary schools were located where they were. That’s where the kids were and that is where they are today. Yes, fewer of them, but the (relative) density hasn't changed.”
When I interviewed Mr. Markling for this article, he said the criteria for each re-districting scenario should be these:1) Is it feasible? 2) Is it beneficial? 3) Is it acceptable?
We see that each scenario is feasible, though one is less so, because the building site size is too small. (It has been said that if Lincoln School were to remain open, it would have to be three or four stories tall to accommodate the required number of students and the state of Ohio’s specifications for parking, playground and green space.)
The second question, “Is it beneficial?” points to even bigger differences. At a special session, in which the Board discussed new school boundaries with the community this fall, then Board President Ed Favre expressed his concern over children having to walk through busy intersections, particularly on Detroit and Madison. The scenario with a central school keeps children in their neighborhoods, limiting the necessity of their crossing through these areas of concern. The other scenario sends children, from one end of the city to the other, off of their neighborhood streets and into at least one of these safety hazards, if not two or three.
With a central school, no child has to cross Detroit. With no central school, over 300 children will have to, as they exit their home neighborhoods to get to their new school.
A centrally located school, Grant, allows for the greatest flexibility when enrollment numbers change. Grant is within three quarters of a mile of nine hundred students distributed in a circle around it. At the same special session, Jan Soeder, Assistant Superintendent of Elementary Schools revealed that if the the District had six schools right now, we would be within one hundred students of being completely full. When enrollment numbers rise close to capacity, we are at greater risk for large class sizes and/or constant disruption to neighborhoods, families and learning, as kids are shuffled around. This year’s kindergarten class was almost a hundred children larger than expected. Is this an anomaly or a trend? Only time will tell. Mrs. Soeder felt that one of the newly rebuilt schools would have to be much larger. Grant is the ideal school for this plan, with maximum flexibility because of its location, and a large lot capable of sustaining a larger building.
Which brings us to Number 3. "Is it acceptable?"
At the April Community Forum, Lakewood citizens filled out a survey to determine criteria for selecting the two remaining schools. The most important criteria? CLASS-SIZE--that class size be equitable throughout the city. The second most important criteria? Rated equally: GEOGRAPHIC CONFIGURATION, SAFETY, WALKING DISTANCE, NEIGHBORHOOD EXPERIENCE.
The survey also looked at, “Factors affecting your support for the Phase 3 plan.” The number one factor? Receiving the 47 million dollar state co-funding for the renovations. (Which tells you if we don’t have the state funding--and we might not—the community has said that it will not support this plan.)
The number two factor? Maintaining neighborhood experience.
The second most important thing to Lakewood citizens, after making sure there was money to pay for the plan, was that in implementing that plan, we didn’t tear apart our neighborhoods. (To see all the results of the first Community Forum survey go to www.phasethree.org.)
If walkability, safety, and maintaining a neighborhood experience are important to the citizens of Lakewood, and the third criteria is, “Is it acceptable?” one scenario is clearly more acceptable than the other.
