Despite months of public protest, the Iowa City School Board voted unanimously during their June 9 meeting to close Roosevelt Elementary and build a new school on the west edge of town.
But many in the community never accepted the administration’s premise, much less conclusion, if that meant ignoring the “how” and “why” questions behind the conditions at Roosevelt. Why wasn’t the school better maintained over the years? If socio-economic and racial isolation at Roosevelt was a serious concern, then why has there been no serious consideration paid to re-drawing gerrymandered school enrollment boundaries that produced de facto segregation district-wide? If the school was well over full enrollment for years, while several other schools in more affluent areas had room to spare, was overcrowding a fault of the school or the administration?
About a dozen people addressed the school board before a final decision was made at the June 9 meeting. All but one pleaded against closing Roosevelt Elementary. Several parents spoke of mistrust and the administration’s “shifting rationale” for closing the school. A few speakers reminded the audience that there would be a school board election in September.
Helene Donta, parent of a Roosevelt student and member of the Facilities Advisory Committee, was dismayed about the whole thing was handled, with the administration spending nearly a year researching closing Roosevelt before making the idea public. “Their minds were made up already,” she said. “What an insurmountable task they have placed on the Roosevelt community.”
Pauline Taylor, a member of the committee that looked into the local option sales tax that brought around $104 million into the administration’s coffers, wondered why money wasn’t put toward fixing problems at Roosevelt. Taylor, along with several others, called for redrawing school boundaries district-wide before voting to close Roosevelt.
April Armstrong, a member of the Facilities Improvement advisory board, spoke in favor of closing Roosevelt and building the new school, and she took issue with the notion that the district’s rationale had been disproved. She also disagreed with the tenor of the earlier public speakers. “Just because the board doesn’t vote the way you want,” she said, “doesn’t mean they didn’t hear you.”
Armstrong’s words were echoed by several school board members, many of whom prefaced their vote by explaining the lengths they went to listen to the community and facilities advisory board, the forums they attended, the emails they read.
Board President Toni Cilek said voting to close Roosevelt was the hardest decision she has faced in her seven years on the school board. Fiscal responsibility and educational equity for children were the prime criteria behind her vote. Cilek hoped the community could join the board in looking at “the bigger picture,” including the current $5 million projected budgetary shortfall. “We’ve been living and breathing a lot of the financial concerns a lot of the neighborhood people here have not had to address.”
Jan Leff cited the “very compelling” concerns Roosevelt teachers enumerated in a packet presented to the district called “Barriers to Learning.” A former teacher herself, Leff sympathized with lack of space for group learning activities and a media center not up to par with district standards.
Mike Cooper gave credence to the feedback he received from Roosevelt teachers in support of the administration’s plan. He rejected the criticism that teachers could not speak freely on the subject without fear of losing their job. One the few board members to address the issue before casting his vote, Cooper agreed with the suggestion to redraw boundaries for the whole district.
“I just wish the former board members had done it when it was on their watch,” Cooper said. “We’ve been busing kids from Pheasant Ridge [Section 8 housing] past Horn to Roosevelt for almost 20 years. There have been many opportunities to fix this before today. Finally, the board is taking action on the obvious. This proposal is addressing one quadrant of the city. There will still be three quadrants left for anyone that wants to run for the board this fall. It’s just the beginning. We’re throwing one starfish back in the ocean.”
Patti Fields said it was “hard to hear” some of the community say that they didn’t trust the board’s intentions. She hoped that trust could be built again. She disagreed with a suggestion that someone from the “outside” come in and redraw school boundaries district-wide. But Fields was heartened by the level of community interest in the future of the school district and increased attendance at board meetings. “Many nights before we pulled the plan out, we might have had four or five people here, and now look at this room,” said Fields. “I hope you stay involved, because our issues aren’t done. At each step we need you.”
