Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > January > 24 > Entry
Is it too late to revive the Roosevelt debate?
(Roosevelt High School in its glory days in an undated DDN file photo.)
We’ve had some discussions here at GOTB about when the appropriate time is for a community to object to the school board’s plans for demolishing schools to make way for new construction and when it is simply too late to change course.
The latest example is Roosevelt High School. In today’s paper, I wrote about the internal debate at the NAACP about whether that group has formally endorsed a last ditch effort to save the school or not. That’s still unclear. The NAACP’s leaders need to get on the same page.
But near the end of today’s story, a bigger question emerged — is it too late to save Roosevelt?
Remember, this issue is more than four years old. The question of what to do with Roosevelt has been up in the air since school administrators moved out and left the building empty in the summer of 2003.
In May 2006 — 18 months ago — the board announced its final decision to raze the school and replace it with a new elementary school and a city-owned recreation center at the site.
That last serious discussion about the issue came in late 2006, when developer Beth Duke asked the city to block demolition. Nothing came from that.
But for today’s story, school construction chief John Carr said the school’s boilers already have been removed (they will be re-used in newly constructed schools), asbestos removal is underway and bids already were received for demolition last week. He said school officials believe they have an acceptable low bidder, although they are researching the company, and if that bid is accepted, demolition would likely begin by April 1.
At this stage of the game, the decision appears all but irreversable. Now, there is a new school board, so attitudes about the school could have changed. Two board members — Joe Lacey and Shelia Taylor — have expressed clear support for preservation of historic schools and a third, Nancy Nerny, expressed some support for preservation during the fall election campaign.
We don’t know for sure where two other new board members — Jeff Mims and Ronald Lee — stand. I am presuming Yvonne Isaacs and Stacy Thompson remain supportive of the direction set by the prior board.
Reversing field on Roosevelt now would be a tough call. Some of the work at the school may have already damaged the integrity of the building. It may be too late for a new direction.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, School Construction
Comments
By Oldprof
February 1, 2008 3:53 PM | Link to this
Joe, let’s take a hard look at your contradictions. You insist Roosevelt has historic value, and you’re more than willing to demolish all of its interior? Surely you’re aware that incorporating elements of the current Roosevelt facade into the exterior of a new building could be done much more cheaply than a gut-and-rehab job—and at much lower cost, since it requires less labor to build from the ground up than it does to retrofit. At any rate, your comment proves that your insistence on historicity is little more than more of your political rhetoric, rather than an informed and deeply held opinion.By Riverdale Ghost
January 28, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Oldprof oldboy, you are going to have to start reading the newspaper a little better. Just a couple of months ago a whole bunch of people showed up to “save” Julienne/Dayton Christian after everything was all decided. Now, if you don’t even pay enough attention to things to know that, then it is you who is the one who is babbling. As for Elliott’s comment to me on the other posting, I’m not taking his attitude to be the same as yours. He’s looking for what people think as an outsider and I’m not about to take the time to write an involved dissertation.By Oldprof
January 28, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
Joe, if Annie Bonaparte thought the board led her on a wild goose chase, perhaps she’d be willing to come on here and post it herself. You were not a party to those proceedings; do you have anything more than hearsay and personal bias to support these allegations? I suspect they’re as baseless as your strategic lawsuits.By TB
January 28, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this
New buildings do not equal better education. Especially if you have the same old administrators, teachers, and curriculum. A good teacher can teach a good curriculum to students anywhere. Old buildings only become old by poor maintenance and upkeep over the years. Oldprof, what is your solution to education in 10 years when these new buildings aren’t new anymore? Build again?By Oldprof
January 27, 2008 10:57 PM | Link to this
Ghost, would you consider re-writing that comment? Perhaps get someone to help you with it? It’s almost incoherent. DPS is not committed to saving Julienne any more than they were to saving Roosevelt—they did permit costly delays (perhaps running into the millions) in order to permit responsible community members like Ms. Bonaparte to try to come up with financing; that seems to me to be the reasonable extent to which they’re willing to go on Julienne or any other building—unless Joe Lacey gets his way and devotes the school district to rehabbing old buildings rather than designing the education facilities of the 21st century.By Joe Lacey
January 27, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this
Annie Bonaparte was led by the Board on a wild goose chase. She was led to believe that the only way that the building could be saved is if she came up with millions to do it. She worked heroically on that task while the Board looked for a good reason to bring in a wrecking ball. When the city finally suggested Roosevelt as a site for a new rec plex the board jumped on it despite plans for a similar facility up the street. All the while the Ohio School Facilities Commission was co-funding renovations all over the state. And as for Old Prof, you clearly don’t have reasons why the building can�t be used as I described. I haven’t heard any reasoning. Indeed when I debated against Roosevelt’s demolition in July, 2006, my colleagues had little or no response. Ms. Isaacs only response was that the issue had previously been decided by the board.By Riverdale Ghost
January 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
Okay, now, what is the point of saving “Julienne”/Julienne (note the quotes)? Perhaps girls’ high schools are rare. Well, let me take you on a limited tour of Cincinnati if you think they are rare. Perhaps it’s because a half-dozen Stangs went there. Never mind telling me it wasn’t six — I don’t care how many it was — is the case of Dorothy Stang that different from Maria Lauterbach? Tell — TELL, not ask — the Archdiocese it has a civic responsibility to buy the building and turn it into something like a retreat house (if they bleat that there are no funds, hit up the alumnae). The city can show it’s approval by creating a variance or something to allow for another flock of sheep if they can find the space. And, if the Dayton School board absolutely has to have a patch of ground on top of that hill rather than at the foot of it, if they look a little farther, they might find something workable. There, problem solved. Roosevelt is another matter entirely. And, for a start, since this is getting long, let me just point out that in 1900 there was an empire in Europe that was GREATER than the British Empire; home office, Vienna. If you want to talk about the likes of integration, do a complete job of it. Chew on that for a while.By mario
January 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
The reason why, Joe, is because it is only you and a few other people who want to do it. The vast majority of voters in this city want new schools. I know you don�t like the decision, but it does not change the fact that DPS is not a private entity and does not have the luxury of devoting millions of dollars to try and put a square peg, i.e. current educational practices, into a round hole. The paper today had an article regarding the new school and the fact that Annie Bonaparte, an ardent champion for reuse of Roosevelt, had come to realize that the community support to save the building was not there. She is excited about the possibilities of the new school and the new recreation center. It will revitalize that entire quadrant.By Oldprof
January 26, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this
Joe, there are several reasons why the building can’t be used as you describe. You’ve heard them all before, and you’ve chosen to ignore them—just as you chose to ignore the actual history of the decision-making when you filed your lawsuit against DPS. But hey, maybe the voters will forget all your bad decision-making and needless litigiousness when you run for re-election next year.By Joe Lacey
January 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this
Old prof is making up stories about the interior. Based on what Mr. Carr has told me much of the interior has been gutted in the asbestos abatement process. The facade looks good however and, if it is sound, there is no reason why we couldn’t put a new preK-8 school in part of it with co-funding from the state and let the city put a rec plex into the rest of it.By Oldprof
January 25, 2008 8:04 PM | Link to this
Very nice, Ghost. Now, does your home contain plaster walls that have been damaged by so much inadequate roof mainenance that they crumble when you look at them cross-eyed? OK, now wire not just for your own use, but for 30 fully-networked computers, an overhead projector, and full media resources. Can’t be done. This is why those who make the comparison between their homes and public schools are wrong—two words: FALSE ANALOGY.By Riverdale Ghost
January 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Link to this
My computer works just fine in this sort of historic building in it’s officially historic district. The OS is Windows XP Pro running mostly on IE7 but a couple of other browsers, too…. The lights operate with electricity. The microwave does, too.By Oldprof
January 24, 2008 7:46 PM | Link to this
My attitude remains unchanged. I want schools with contemporary architecture that will support 21st century technology. I think Dayton already has plenty of historical preservation, what with the excellent Carillon historical park and the flight memorials and the old courthouse. Tear the derilect down please and let’s get on with the future; living in the past is just a Jethro Tull song.By David Esrati
January 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Removing the asbestos is good- and realistically, the boiler removal isn’t bad, since it’s unlikely that the next tenant would be single use. What would people give to have the old Steele HS still here? Or the old public library? Or the 6 other classic theaters that used to be downtown- most nicer than the Victoria? Once it’s gone- it’s gone. They don’t build new buildings like that. Unless someone has something truly better to put on the site, I’d say leave it up.