Charter Schools Aren’t the Problem, Reactionary Leadership Is

Over the past months, some district leaders have suggested that our schools face an imminent threat of being taken over by charter school operators if enrollment dips below 60% capacity. The argument, repeated in recent meetings, is that the “school board is the last line of defense” against such a scenario.

But where is the evidence?

First, we want to mention that this concern is grounded in a very real and disturbing part of current Ohio law (Revised Code 3313.411(A)(5)).  And charter schools lobbied aggressively this budget season to modify this law in a way that would have given it much more “teeth” to force public school districts to sell assets to charters and other non-traditional schools. Thankfully, those provisions were removed from the budget once finally adopted in July after a full court advocacy effort by public school leaders and advocates across the state.  We cover this law in more detail below.

That said, we take significant issue with how the district manipulated it’s explanations of this law during the Elementary Task Force process to justify its efforts to close an elementary school after the fact.  This fearmongering and manipulative presentation of information distracts from real, proactive solutions and paints a false picture of urgency that isn’t grounded in facts.  It whipped certain parts of the community into a frenzy, believing Lakewood urgently needs to shutter a newly built elementary school without presenting basic factual context about the law, how it currently operates, and the threat it poses to ALL district assets and not just elementary schools.

Take Lakewood High School, for example. According to the school district, its current enrollment sits at roughly 57% capacity. If falling below 60% capacity was a driving concern for evaluating facility consolidation (either under the current law or as proposed in the budget amendments), why on Earth would the school board spend several years looking only at elementary buildings (of which we have seven) and not include ANY analysis of our high school which is the single largest asset in the district? 

Superintendent Niedzwiecki recently pronounced herself to be a leader who believes that “clarity is kindness” and school board president Nora Katzenburger and vice president Betsy Shaughnessy have pronounced similar sentiments in recent meetings.  An honest and transparent dialogue with the community would have acknowledged that – if the threat they were projecting toward elementary schools was real genuine – an much greater threat and urgency exists in evaluating how to prevent Lakewood High School from a similar forced sale to a charter school.  Beyond the misleading messaging, the fact that the school board has not once attempted to evaluate this identical threat to our high school and middle school facilities speaks volumes to the current school board’s mismanagement of public resources and their inability to think strategically about the entire district and its threats and opportunities.

Similarly, our high school, middle schools, and certain elementary schools have seen significant student movement over the last few years. How many students have left, and what is driving those changes? Which schools have lost the most enrollment, and over what timeframe? The two schools which were targeted for closure over the past year, Grant at 82% and Lincoln at 70% capacity, are literally the most utilized schools in the district and happen to be the only two schools with “5 Star” ratings on the state scorecards.  Did the school board ever consider that closing these top performing and highly utilized assets might in fact re-active historical enrollment declines in the district, which these two schools appear to have largely been responsible for stabilizing? Without any real data analysis, arbitrarily moving to close one of the two highest capacity and highest quality schools in the district seems less like a necessity and more like a knee-jerk reaction or a post-rationalization of some hidden intent.  This offers neither “clarity” nor “kindness” in leadership or communication. 

Elementary Task Force member Zach Robock raised similar questions directly at the September 2nd Board of Education meeting, and in earlier emails, he pointed to rural Ohio districts where schools operate well below 60% without any risk of charter intrusion. Board of Education candidate Monica Bruaw stated “I also confirmed with attorneys at Bricker and Graydon that there is no guidance about ORC 3313.411, in case law or Attorney General opinions on how to calculate the 60%”. This means that it is up to each district on how to calculate capacity. Why are Lakewood leaders choosing to interpret the law differently? Why only now and why only as it relates to certain facilities?

It’s worth mentioning again the need for a comprehensive evaluation of all of Lakewood’s facilities beyond elementary buildings. All of our elementary schools are currently at higher capacity than both the middle school and high school. If capacity truly is the deciding factor, then the district should be addressing enrollment trends at every level, not just pointing to one or two elementary schools as the problem.  A good faith strategic planning exercise (ideally also including a 10-year facilities master plan) is how well managed school districts handle these topics.

Beyond the nonsensical nature of spending over a year arbitrarily evaluating which elementary school to close, without any sort of plan or understanding of the entire district’s facilities and the threats and opportunities they face, the work that was done on the elementary level highlights a how truly ridiculous and self-destructive closing a newly built elementary in isolation would be for the district.  Even if it were to be repurposed as an early childhood center. 

As task force member and lawyer Zach Robock has pointed out in prior publications, the district’s own data shows that one or more of the six remaining elementary schools would be over-capacity immediately with current enrollment and unable to house all of the district’s current students along with maintaining special education and gifted programs.

Further, the district’s proposal to “repurpose” the newly built elementary school that is shuttered and centralize preschool and pre-K in that single building would only make   the 60% capacity utilization concern. This is because the repurposed centralized preschool would immediately be operating well under the capacity of the elementary school it is replacing, thus putting it at far greater risk of needing to be sold to a charter school than the elementary it replaced.

Assuming that current preschool and pre-K enrollment in all of Lakewood is 180 students (that number is fuzzy as district has not been explicitly clear on current enrollment):

• If those 180 current pre-k students were to be planted into Grant Elementary as a dedicated centralized pre-k, the building would be at 45% capacity (assuming max capacity of 396 students).

• If those 180 current pre-k students were to be planted into Lincoln Elementary as a dedicated centralized pre-k, the building would be at 48% capacity (assuming max capacity of 374 students).

• If those 180 current pre-k students were to be planted into Roosevelt Elementary as a dedicated centralized pre-k, the building would be at 51% capacity (assuming max capacity of 352 students).

Again, there has been no explanation of how this concept of a centralized pre-k fits into the supposed “charter school risk”. There is also no market demand study for the idea of this centralized facility to begin with, as outlined by Katie Slife Rustad.

The question we should all be asking is this: If there is an enrollment issue, do we close some of our strongest schools that are integrated into the fabric of our neighborhoods in order to gamble on a centralized pre-k- or do you proactively work to bring families into Lakewood’s public neighborhood schools? The latter takes vision, collaboration, and transparency. The former is possibly overreaction and misguided risk, which may actually be scaring away families from enrolling in our district.

As Mayor George stated, “Lakewood City Schools must take the long view in this process. Closing neighborhood schools should be taken off the table unless or until there are no other options. We owe it to the children of Lakewood to do the right thing and keep our walkable, neighborhood school model intact and thriving”.

Mayor George further elaborated, “We are all aware of the current chaos facing education at both the federal and state levels. This should not be a reason to throw away our long-cherished values here in Lakewood – instead, we should fight even harder to preserve them. I believe this is a time for Lakewood to keep a steady hand and not let the current winds blow us off our strongly held beliefs on education. We do not know where enrollment will be in the future – especially as Lakewood expects to add a minimum of 400 to 600 housing units in the next two to three years, and possibly many more beyond that. What we do know is that this community values our model of high quality, walkable neighborhood schools.”

We urge the district to step back and create a thoughtful strategy that leverages our many strengths to fortify and promote Lakewood Schools to increase building utilization. By elevating local leaders who recognize the district’s potential and equipping them with accurate data interpretations and proven tactics, we can position our schools for long-term success. Lakewood residents deserve facts and overarching, long term solutions, not manufactured crises that selectively look at only a portion of our facilities.

Stay Connected

News is moving fast. Sign up to get updates directly from Preserve Lakewood Schools so you’re always in the loop. Sign Up Here!