This archive article is selected from The Cleveland Pages, the city's only weekly independent journal of politics and opinion on the Internet. Find out all about the Cleveland Pages here, or check out the current issue.
The Free Times, in an article no longer online, called Cleveland Pages "Spicily independent... in the best tradition of citizen-journalist."
The Cleveland Pages is a somewhat-weekly commentary on what's new and why it's all happening in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. If what you read here is upsetting, you might prefer this simple-minded happy-talk instead.
Bookmark the Cleveland Pages at http://re.cleveland.oh.us. Bookmark this issue at http://re.cleveland.oh.us/archives/20020326.html.
A Cleveland Pages archive search will be available soon... Meanwhile, skip to the flat-file archive list! And read an overview of who's putting this thing out and what it's about.
(Some revisions and commentary added on the 29th.)
The Cleveland Municipal School District tonight distributed a draft listing of schools to be repaired, rebuilt, moved, or closed as a result of the planning process that began with the passage of Issue 14, last May's bond issue.
CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett emphasized repeatedly that no final decisions have been made, and none of the school closings are scheduled to occur before 2007. First, all schools will be made (to quote the slogan), "warm, safe, and dry." Then some major improvement projects will be undertaken at dozens of schools while about sixteen schools, mostly elementary schools, prepare to close, mainly due to a need to match declining enrollments.
I have some comments on the plan and the public forum in which it was announced. In order to make the facts available immediately here is a memo that includes an outline of the plan so far.
Schools recommended for closure based on population projections follow, with the earliest possible close date in parentheses:
Quoting directly from the memo: This is not the final step. The Master Planning process will continue until May 16, 2002, the date the Cleveland Board of Education approves the plan, and until August 2002 when the OSFC approves the Plan. So browse the memo and reports here, or request your own copy from the Hotline at 216-858-4288, and take action as you see fit.
Judging from the media buzz, I wasn't the only one surprised by the dramatic changes being planned. On the other hand, it should have been obvious that eight hundred million bucks is going to do a lot more than fix windows even in a district this size. Seventy thousand kids, you're looking at more than ten grand a head. This is a big money issue. It's just dawning on us how big.
Specific school closings and realignments aside, it struck me that repairing and replacing school buildings is the right thing to do, so much more than every other big-ticket project that has even been discussed in this town since Kucinich killed the People Mover. Every criticism of strategic substance that could be (and rightly has been) directed at Gateway, the Rock Hall, Tower City, and all the rest--every one of those attacks is answered squarely by the "Issue 14" projects.
The last part is the key. Not once have we heard the evil words "public-private partnership" used in association with Issue 14 projects. A need was determined, an opportunity for generously matching funds from the state came about, the voters were asked to make the dollar commitment, and now a framework for spending that money is being put together. Which only goes to show that if a public need is important enough, the taxpayers will come through. If promoters have to complicate matters by referring to "economic multipliers" and public-private handwaving, you can count on the whole thing being a scam.
So far, I'm impressed with the honesty of the thing. It's a colossal amount of money. We knew that going in and had a chance to say go or no-go. In general, I like what I see, but the administration and board need to keep listening as we go along.
A few things triggered my skepticism. For example, a board resolution that gives "priority" to city residents for construction jobs sends the right signal. How enforceable is it though?
Also, some of the major building decisions could be questioned. How is it that Denison School, which was built in 1970, so far gone that it really needs to be replaced? It's always been ugly, in that misbegotten late-Sixties-institutional "pod" kind of way, but the building seems stable and not too badly scuffed up. (I say that as someone who votes there, knows a couple dozen students there, and kicks a soccer ball against the big windowless wall every now and then.) It's not beautiful; from here, however, it seems reasonably functional.
Or, as Chuck Hoven pointed out during Tuesday's public meeting, why close Tremont? That's a beautiful 1917 building with some class. Tremont may be old, but there's something to be said for classical architecture. Hoven suggested the board instead consider closing one of the other nearby schools--Buhrer, Scranton, or Luis Muñoz Marín. (Marín is a middle school.)
One clue was offhandedly offered by someone who (being a bit late to the meeting) I could only assume was a school district staff member. He explained that a document called the Ohio Schools Design Manual is used by the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission to make some determinations on the state share of funding for local school projects. In this manual is a recommendation that elementary schools have at least a four-acre site, or failing that in urban districts that the site should come as close as possible to that standard. He speculated that the other, much newer schools in the Tremont area fit the open-space standard better than Tremont School itself does. (I haven't verified whether this is true or not, or whether it really had anything to do with the decision.)
I don't spend enough time in these buildings to have anything close to a true understanding of how good or bad they really are, so someone please tell me. Preferably in writing with a lot of pictures and other backup.
It's extremely important for the board and staff to spend money where it will do the most good. If we said, hypothetically, that the right building for the children is not necessarily the one that will attract the most state funding, then we may have another children versus money issue. I'm not totally convinced of Hoven's point. It sounds plausible, however.
Issue 14 money is somewhat constrained. It can't be used on outdoor athletic facilities, it can't be used to equip classrooms with books and computers, and it's not available for staff salaries. Wisely, the board plans to leave conduits and other infrastructure for more electrical wiring and network cables throughout many if not all affected schools. While I am extremely skeptical of the wild promises made for computers in the classroom, it would be crazy not to make future networking easier and cheaper. It's an obvious truism in business-- extra conduit and cable runs that might never be used are far cheaper than paying someone to put a line in later, after the walls have been closed up again.
Grooving on the positive vibe, I appreciated the administration's effort in setting up neighborhood meetings at JFK, East Tech, Lincoln-West, Glenville, and John Marshall high schools. At these locations people could watch the Channel 50 cable show "Educating Cleveland's Children" starring schools CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett, but also submit questions to staff members who would then phone them in to Byrd-Bennett, Board Vice-Chair Margaret M. Hopkins, and a teachers' union representative at the studio.
The folks on the cable show could have kept their responses much shorter to allow time for more questions.
The meeting at Lincoln-West (just south of Clark between 30th and 31st), was reasonably well attended considering the thick, slushy, snowy weather. We had maybe two dozen members of the public along with a few school staffers.
Catalyst reports that a similar bond issue process is going on right now in Cincinnatti, but Catalyst writers are much more satisfied with the structure for public participation there than here. Read for yourself.
This document's template was last modified on Wednesday, 09-Nov-2005 18:51:58 EST. There is a new Cleveland Pages more or less every weekend. The entire Cleveland Pages website is © 1997,1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003 by Mark W. Schumann, all rights reserved. Copyrights belonging to others on individual items are noted. Nobody else would take the credit or blame for these opinions anyway.
Go to the front page
Last validated 26 March 2002:
![[ Valid HTML 4.0! ]](/images/vh40.gif){kind=small}
![[ Valid CSS! ]](/images/vcss.gif){kind=small}
![[ Bobby Approved! ]](/images/approved.gif){kind=small}
![[ Made with Cascading Style Sheets]](/images/mwcts.gif)
The W3C validator verifies that documents on this site conform to the Strict HTML 4.01 specification, which is a step towards consistency, accessibility, and interoperability.
Bobby checks for opportunities to improve access for users regardless of disabilities or special needs.