3 to 2 is not a ringing endorsement for a controversial plan.

What about Bellefaire? Is that part of the ringing endorsement for upgrading some of the schools? Reconsider what you are doing here. I am a parent who has a child who attends the school. Is Bellfaire not worthy enough to stay open. I am surprised you only gave the parents one year to help the children who are there get adjusted to a much bigger class attendance in the regular schools. The one good thing about Bellefaire is the smaller class sizes so the teachers can be more attentive to the children who are needing that structure. Will this benefit the children at all. I would like to know more about why the closing is goin to happen? Does anyone else want to know? Are their other parents who are upset about the closing? Is there a way to make sure the children who go there will get the proper treatment at the schools they are gonig to be attending? I have been that route and some of the teachers in Cleveland Heights did not have the right training for my child's behavior troubles. From what I have heard PEP schools have the structure, but they are for more severe individuals. My child deserves to have an education and he is smart, but he has behavior troubles. It is a fact that he is being given the opportunity to shine educationally at Bellefaire. Will he be given consideration for his disability at the high school he is going to attend? It is not his fault for being disabled. Will the schools these kids need to go to be able to handle how special they are?

Putting this on the ballot will be a waste of time and money.

Explain why you think this. Just saying what you said tend to make me think you think my son getting an education is a waste of time.

Anything other than unanimous board support tells us this is not the right plan. Let the board know that they should delay the bond for a year to create a plan that unites rather than divides. I am organizing against this issue and PACs will be registered in the coming days. Literature and yard signs will be available for back to school canvassing. Anyone interested in working to defeat this plan can contact me via FB.

I attended the board meeting last night and find it interesting to note that not one community member spoke up in favor of the plan. After the students who were honored by the board left, the district employees and consultants outnumbered the public and I could not identify a single supporter in the audience, while it was clear that at least three of us were opposed. It will cost money and goodwill to move forward and the district cannot afford to waste either one.

There is always a contingent of school district employees at the meetings. Many of them are people who work t the BOE vs people who work directly with children.

There is no doubt that the District needs to consolidate and re-organize for a smaller group of students. That said, 3-2 vote is telling. I predict this levy will go down in flames.

Meanwhile, I would like to remind people here that even if the district doesn't get the money for school make-overs, they could still consolidate the schools and close your local elementary school- levy or no.

The sad part about this entire process is the enthusiasm that began with this project has been ground out with fewer and fewer people attending meetings and the only public comment at the last two Board meetings in regard to the project has been in opposition. I know of no one who likes Plan C, with most appreciating the need for renovations and understanding the need for "consolidation". The tepid support from residents seems to be disappointed resignation instead of true excitement which one should expect for a 200MM project. I am so glad I have wasted two years attending meetings for a plan that has as many holes in it as a sieve.

I feel that the school board would get more support for any of it's plans if they would have their meetings in the neighborhood schools. I have suggested this in the past and the response has always been that it would be too expensive to open the buildings. If you took a poll, I would be willing to bet that most people do not even know where the BOE is.

Saying expense is an odd excuse for not holding meetings in the buildings. I know we did a number of meetings in the schools in the 90s but the biggest negative was while we thought it would increase public attendance, it didn't. The sad fact is unless there is an issue that will get people to come out, meetings are sparsely attended, particularly in the summer. Streaming the meetings online, while potentially expanding who watches them, has the counter effect of meaning people do not have to be there, diminishing their impact on the Board. A crowded room is more impressive than a lot of hits online. The only negative about BOE meetings in the schools is if you spend a lot of time and effort to have the meeting there and then no one shows up. Building support for this projects has not appeared to be a priority for the ringleaders for they appear to think that school supporters will back it like lemmings and that a successful campaign is just about money and hiring a consultant. The success of the last two levy victories masks just how difficult it is to run school issues in this community. In addition to all of the flaws of Plan C, the lack of outreach to civic entities and the assumption of blind campaign support are two more reasons why distilling the plan and going to the ballot in 2013 makes far more sense. While the turnout in 2012 on paper favors passage, this is negated by all of the negatives.

Why not? While employing a consultant has assisted with work that in the past was the result of a number of volunteers, the ground game has always been key. An uninspiring plan of dubious merit has a lot of school supporters either sitting this one out or opposed. We have never had that happen before. I think the assumption is that worst case, the fence sitters, while not campaigning, will still vote yes. This ignores the impact of efforts of schools supporters campaigning no. I think there is also the feeling that if it fails, they'll just come back to the ballot next year. That is extreme folly. Better to have an inspiring plan in 2013, than a lame one in 2012 that loses. 2012 or 2013, we really only have one shot at this. I rather swing for the fences that go for a sacrificial fly.

Running multiple campaigns to pass the same issue would seem counterproductive and actual support the idea of segmenting the issue, lowering the millage for the individual segments. The only problem with that is our window for increasing our debt ceiling may close soon, but we are still stuck with a plan no one likes. Operating levies can have multiple tries, as you then cut teachers, services, etc. and show people the severity of the need. Facilities are a different animal and what works in one community may not work in another. If the expectation is defeat in November, we are better to wait till '13 after building support, as our current process has had the opposite impact, reducing support for the needed work. Urgh!

Also, I find it telling that Heuer was telling me Plan C was the plan they would put on the ballot multiple times clear back on April 4 and then Talbert, Shergalis, the architects and everyone else involved kept saying they were continuing to listen to community input and feedback throughout the rest of April and May. The only thing that has changed is pushing the high school first. The rest of the plan is the exact same folly it was 4 to 5 months ago. That is almost half of a year wasted trying to sell a bad plan instead using that precious time working to create one our community would want to support. Also makes me wonder WHY he wants THiS plan so much. I understand and support the need to improve facilities and downsize. I will support that when it's the right plan. This one is not the right one.

It is clear that our school buildings have suffered from the District administration’s continued and pervasive pattern of neglecting maintenance in favor of stretching current operating levy levels. This looks like good management only if you are very short-sighted. It is time to stop pretending that we can have our cake and eat it too. Nevertheless, while I strongly support the idea of renovating, repairing, or replacing our school facilities, I do not believe the current plan is the right one to pursue.

What’s wrong with this plan?

It is by no means comprehensive nor complete: it fails to address the needs of students pursuing vocational technical education while essentially maxing out the District’s borrowing power, thus ensuring that those students will be left behind. It also fails to address the needs of those Bellfaire students who are not able to return to normal mainstream classrooms. (Continued)...

As even a little independent research reveals, the Fielding Nair architectural firm has left a wake of unhappy schools behind it. (For example, the Duke School project featured on their website required major rework to remedy a total lack of storage space, closets, and cupboards. Additionally, the newly renovated buildings were found to be totally unsuitable for the school’s small group project-based learning style because there was no effective noise control. If this sounds familiar to you, you probably remember the ‘open schools’ our system built in the 1970’s.)
The heavy-handed top-down planning process has consistently failed to elicit or incorporate real community input. (This is the basis for the admitted “communications” missteps.) Many members of the community have offered real help, only to be rebuffed or ignored. When so many traditionally strong supporters of the system, including former a School Board member and a member of the Reaching Heights Board, openly announce that they will actively organize opposition to the plan, you know it’s a stinker. (Continued)...

It alienates our University Heights constituency and ignores their very real concerns. (I sympathize with the district administrators who find themselves confronted by the reality of low enrollment rates coupled with minimal population densities in the Gearity district. UH residents could, of course, help by utilizing the schools at higher rates. Nonetheless, this particular issue could and should have been avoided through a real and transparent community engagement effort. Instead, the UH Mayor and City Council see the school district as an enemy.)

(Patch space limits necessitate multiple posts, sorry.)

Please consider signing this petition essentially asking the CH-UH Board of Ed to allow a year of honest community dialog before asking our community for $130 Million.
http://www.change.org/petitions/cleveland-heights-university-heights-board-of-education-remove-plan-c-from-consideration-for-the-november-2012-ballot