Update, May 2013: The Lay Facilities Committee presented its Final Report & Recommendations to the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Board of Education on May 7, 2013. The full report, can be found here. In response to requests from Board members, this version includes revisions to the proposed financing of the facilities master plan to reduce the cost to taxpayers of the proposed bond issue. All documents that accompanied the report can be found here.
–
The Cleveland Heights-University Heights Board of Education authorized creation of a Lay Facilities Committee in August 2012.
In August 2012, in response to a request that grew out of a community meeting convened by FutureHeights and Reaching Heights,the CH-UH Board of Education established a Lay Facilities Committee. A Cleveland Heights Patch article about that meeting is here. A list of committee members can be found on the “About” page and on the “Roster” page. Meeting dates and available minutes are available on the “Meetings” page.
At its Oct. 2, 2012 meeting, the CH-UH Board of Education discussed the charge they’re giving the Lay Facilities Committee. Broadly, the committee’s task is to come up with recommendations on a plan that is educationally sound (relying on the expertise and input of our district’s instructional leaders) and fiscally responsible and can enjoy broad community support. The goal is to place a facilities bond issue on the November 2013 ballot.
The committee understands that Plan C, which the board accepted last year, is open for revision.
The committee’s goals include the need to engage the community to build consensus around several aspects of a plan, including
- Confirm need for master facilities plan.
- Identify key community values that should drive the process.
- Determine what the community will embrace and support regarding several aspects of the plan, including:
- Which buildings are kept open or are closed.
- What is an acceptable price tag for the project, which will drive millage of a bond issue?
- What mix of funding sources will pay for the project?
- What is the best timeline and sequence of any phasing of the project?
For the Board of Education to place a bond issue on the November 2013 ballot, they will need to act next July. Board members asked that the committee provide its report no later than early May, 2013.
Subcommittees and Working Groups
In October 2012, the committee divided its work and the recommendations it will make to the Board of Education in May 2013 into three main areas:
Buildings, Community, and Money.
Their charge:
Buildings: How many school buildings should a facilities plan include? Where should they be? What grade levels will be in each building?
Community: What non-school partnerships in or adjacent to schools make the most sense, and are feasible, affordable, and in the best interest of the community?
Money: What is the price tag of a facilities plan? How will it be paid for?
At the suggestion of committee member Sam Bell, a Sustainability Working Group was established. It will issue its recommendations in conjunction with the Buildings Subcommittee.
Meeting 1, an organizational meeting, was Oct. 3 at Cleveland Heights High School.
Meeting 2 was Oct 24 at Gearity Professional Development School, 2323 Wrenford Road in University Heights.
Meeting 3 was Nov. 14 at Noble Elementary School in Cleveland Heights.
Upcoming meetings as follows (Unless noted, meetings start at 7:00 PM):
12/5/2012 at Fairfax Elementary School
1/9/2013 at Boulevard Elementary School
1/29/2013 at Delisle Options Center
2/13/2013 at Roxboro Elementary School
3/6/2013 at Canterbury Elementary School
3/20/2013 at Oxford Elementary School
4/10/2013 at Wiley Middle School
4/24/2013 at Heights High
4/30/2013 at Heights High
5/7/2013 at Delisle Options Center: Presentation of Final Report to CH-UH Board of Education
Sign up for email updates:
The Subcommittee on Sustainability will be meeting at the Lee Rd/Dellwood Library on Thursday 10/18. Interested members of the public are invited.
Why am I not surprised to see that Schubert, Posch, and Silverman sat all clustered together during the first meeting…. More of the same out of CH-UH.
This comment is not necessary or helpful, we wish to remain civil in our discussions. These people are dedicated to improving our schools and have worked tirelessly to do so. They have put in hours and hours of their own time. They do not “work” for the schools and have had very independent opinions about this whole process. Have you ever had a one on one conversation with any of them?
Actually, yes, as I was a former member of the facilities committee. The continuing challenge for CH-UH is that it is only the voices of a few that continue to be heard while other, perhaps dissenting voices, feel they have no place – despite what the committee and district espouse. You can not expect a different outcome when you’re doing the same thing.
For more information on the current recommendations for grade configurations please see:
Policy Statement on Grade Configurations, from the National Forum to Accelerate Middle-Grades Reform. http://www.mgforum.org
The Impact of Alternative Grade Configurations on Student Outcomes through Middle and High School by Guido Schwerdt and Martin R. West, (Harvard Univeristy) Sept. 13, 2011 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1903669
Both of these documents state that while any transition to a new school can be disruptive, which means students may be absent more and may last for one year for example, transitions to high school in grade nine cause a smaller drop in achievement. Social-emotional disruptions may be more pronounced than academic ones. Either way the few transitions the better. There are other things to focus on that have a much bigger impact on student learning as outlined in Policy Statement. Monticello Middle School was an example of self reported excellence in student learning according to the Forum in 2006 and 2007.