Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > December > 11 > Entry
What about selling Ludlow II?
The one question (suggested by a GOTB reader) that Stan Lucas didn’t completely answer from his Q&A here Saturday about the Ludlow buildings was about whether the district might consider selling the Ludlow II building, across the street from its main downtown headquarters.
On Thursday, I asked board President Gail Littlejohn about that idea. It sounds like that reader’s question really got her thinking and prompted some research into the question.
This all began with a GOTB reader’s observation that few people seemed to work at Ludlow II. In his answer, Stan Lucas said the building is mostly classrooms as it was used by Reynolds for training. He said only about 24 people actually work in the building.
The reader’s question also raised the possibility of selling Ludlow II, which is a pretty nice downtown building, to raise cash. The reader pointed out that with new schools coming online, the district would have several good facilities to host training. I asked Littlejohn about this and here was her response:
“Any properties we own that are not going to be used directly for instruction are fair game to consider better use for that facility and perhaps even the sale of it.”
She went on to say that this question prompted the board to ask for an assessment of Ludlow II and the percentage of time the building is in use.
“Good ideas come from a lot of places. We will certainly take a look at that,” she said.
Littlejohn pointed to the district’s interest in selling its Jackson Center building as an example of its willingness to consider all options for non-instructional buildings.
Jackson Center has a bit of a sordid history. Once part of a school, it was converted into a “math and science” center at a multi-million dollar cost in the mid-1990s. When I started covering the district in 1999, the board was very frustrated with the ultimate length and cost of the project. But in the end, Jackson Center became a useful training center.
The district now rents part of it to Central State University for its west campus and the building hosts the Dayton Technology Design High School. It also still hosts district meetings and training programs, including board meetings.
The board actually had planned to put DTDHS at Ludlow II until downtown business leaders, who have made it their mission to rid downtown of teens, objected. Still, if the district ever had a buyer for Jackson Center, it could theoretically move DTDHS and perhaps even CSU West to Ludlow II.
Altogether, the district has four non-academic buildings for sale or that it potentially could sell — the old administration building on First Street; the old Patterson High School, also on First Street; Jackson Center; and Ludlow II. (This is not counting Roosevelt High School, which the district plans to demolish and replace with a new school and a city-run recreation complex.)
Meanwhile, the city wants to buy Patterson Career Center for its ball park village project near the riverfront. Of course, that is a rare case. Overall, downtown is a a pretty slow real estate market right now. I’m not sure proceeds from real estate sales is anything the district can count on for revenue, at least not in the short term.
What do you think? Are there other real estate strategies the district could pursue to raise cash in a time of crisis?
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Carol
December 18, 2006 12:22 AM | Link to this
As the general music teacher for both Dayton Boys Prep and Charity Earley Academy, I read the above comments with great interest. It has been fascinating to teach in single gender schools after a career in coed education. Here are my very preliminary observations from teaching in these two schools. First: SEX MATTERS. Well, duh, you say. I have the same set of textbooks and objectives to meet for both schools, but I quickly learned that all-girl and all-boy groups respond differently to the same lesson plan. We as teachers are charged with understanding and taking advantage of those differences and tailoring our delivery of instruction and the types of activities planned to maximize learning - as ANY teacher worth his/her paycheck does for ANY class. We often talk among ourselves that we are surprised when one gender responds positively to an activity or instruction that, in a coed setting, might be less appealing for that group. Sometimes just the absence of the opposite sex allows students to tackle a new challenge uninhibited by the notion that “that’s for boys” or “that’s for girls”. Like all teachers, I have my stories, but I am going to refrain from giving examples because, to anyone outside our classrooms, some of my comments will likely appear sexist. But that really is the point of single gender schools. SEX MATTERS. BOYS AND GIRLS ARE DIFFERENT. GET OVER IT AND DEAL. Second, if you’re interested in the subject, the public library has many books on the subject. The Sax book and Steven Rhoads’ book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” are on my desk as I type. There is much food for thought in these books, particularly the unforseen results of Title IX. The girls school is in its second year, the boys school is in its first. Give them time to develop, see the test scores, and ask the parents and teachers what they’ve observed. I know a four year old girl who can’t wait to go to a school where there are no boys after her experience in pre-school. I know that a boy that I taught in a coed school who was constantly in fights and often suspended is rarely in a conflict at the boys school. I haven’t figured out why, yet. But I am convinced that, for some children, a single gender education meets needs. Can the the Meyers/Briggs/can be a valid instument for K-3 students? Sex is also reasonable way to separate children, and a lot easier and cheaper to identify! Third, concerning individual differences. We see vast differences in temperment, maturity, social skills, learning styles, etc. in single gender schools. We have to deal with them just as you would in coed settings. We are well-aware that gender isn’t the only factor in childhood development. Fourth, concerning resources. The boys and girls are K-3 and share a lot of personnel this year - music, art, PE, coaches, tutor, Title I parent liason. They will add 4th grade next year, and I’m guessing that some of us will eventually be assigned to only one school. There is no attendance clerk, so secretaries are picking up that responsibility. Yes, the schools are smaller for now, but I agree with the notion that we must “grow” them. To open them K-8 would be fruitless. For now, it is worth the smaller school to create a different culture based on gender. Edison and DECA are working with single gender classes in a coed school. Ask your collegaues there what they’ve learned. Finally, as a huge fan of Stivers, I would remind everyone that passionate teachers and administration organized around a valid concept can accomplish more than No Child Left Behind ever dreamed. My fear for Stivers is that it’s fate will be decided by a school board members who have no children in the school, have never seen first hand a performance, read a creative writing publication, or entered a gallery of student artwork - but they do like the test scores! I would hope that the writers of the blogs above would reserve judgement on single gender education until these schools have a chance to mature, teachers have time to develop strategies for educating single gender classes, and statistical evidence and parent support are evaluated. You certainly can’t judge them from the outside, armed only with your opinions. The charters are yapping at our feet. If we do what we’ve always done, we’ll get what we’ve always gotten. Single gender education, done well, provides a valid choice for Dayton families.By Mary
December 15, 2006 7:01 AM | Link to this
Then, Terri, why are you advocating single gender public schools? The real world does not operate that way, either.By Terri
December 14, 2006 9:39 AM | Link to this
Mary - Believe me the teachers at my all girls school were not all touchy feely. If you take this discussion to its logical conclusion every student would have an IEP and teachers and students would be matched like in computer dating. The world doesn’t operate that way. We need to teach students to work/adapt/adjust to the circumstances presented to us - not just look to change the circumstances to fit them.By Mary
December 13, 2006 5:03 PM | Link to this
DPS teacher, I do not think I said that only men would teach at an all boy’s school (will they?)and that men were always better math and science teachers (I know better). Why not also separate students into schools by Myers Briggs personality profiles? Those students who type out as dominate “thinkers” could go to one school and those who type out as dominant “feelers” could go to another school. That could make as much sense as sending girls to one school and boys to another for an academic education. Why does everyone try to use schools for social engineering instead of education. Slightly more percentage wise of boys are “thinkers”, while slightly more percentage wise of girls are “feelers” according to some Myers’ Briggs surveys. As a dominant “thinker”, I would probably go crazy with a touchy feely teacher in an all girls school, but it might suit some girls (and boys)just fine.By Dave
December 13, 2006 4:17 PM | Link to this
dps teacher, you are making George Orwell’s point for him. “Doublespeak” is alive and well. Separate but equal is closer to the concept that all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Dr. Sax’s site says he compiled his book by reviewing 20 years of other people’s published data. Sounds like a good literature search in PREPARATION for research. Out of curiosity, did you actually read Ho Chi Mihn’s writing?By Terri
December 13, 2006 2:08 PM | Link to this
“Separate but equal” is definitely alive in the funding issue. We separate poor urban and rural students from the affluent and don’t even bother to assert it’s equal.By dps teacher
December 13, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
You are making my point for me. These gender specific schools can focus on teaching practices that best reach their students, boys and girls do have different learning skills. Ho Chi Mihn was not basing his treatises on research but personal opinion, which is hardly comparable to Dr. Sax’s research-based work. Again, separate but equal is based upon choice, or lack of choice based upon race. These students and their families have a choice to attend these schools.By Dave
December 13, 2006 8:47 AM | Link to this
I must agree with Mary. As a male in engineering, I saw enough to know that she is not stretching the truth to make a point about sex discrimination. And I recall quite a number of my teachers who blatently treated boys and girls differently. I’m afraid that I am not impressed that someone wrote a convincing book about a social theory. Read Hi Chi Mihn’s works and you’ll find him articulate, convincing, and absolutely wrong. I suggest you read Thurgood Marshall’s brilliant presentation to the US Supreme Court and the majority ruling before you decide that “separate but equal” is acceptable. Teachers are wonderful people, but they are human.By dps teacher
December 12, 2006 6:39 PM | Link to this
Mary, I disagree with your stereotypical assertion that boys will get better math and science instruction because they are in a boys’ school. You are assuming the female teachers are not strong science and math teachers and from my experience, that is just not the case. Most of the best science and math teachers I know are women. I am in a profession that is typically female and I do recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both genders in the education profession. Instruction of all subjects for both genders at these schools is done in a way that best engages that particular population and if an individual child learns best in an atypical environment then that child will probably not do well in a gender specific class. It is a decision that is best left to the parents and to the educators. Generalizations are risky but is it possible that in a society that focuses so much on the individual, we have lost sight of our similarities? Read the book that I suggested above, you might not be so quick to make these judgments. While the Boys’ Academy may not full at this time, Charity Adams is near capacity, so I believe the financial “burden” is minimal, especially if those students currently at both schools would otherwise be at a charter school. DPS has to compete for students now and I think this is a reasonable way of doing it.By Mary
December 12, 2006 3:18 PM | Link to this
The single gender schools issue perplexes me. I ended up going to a college for my engineering degree at what was essentially an all male public university. (Yes, there was outright discrimination on admittance.) I was ususally the only woman in my classes. I ended up during my career ussually being the only woman in the office. As someone pointed out, it is by choice, and not by force, that students attend single gender public schools. What I am concerned about is that the all boys schools might get better science and math teachers and curriculum. While I agree there might be some general gender differences in learning, it is a generalizaton that might not apply to individual students. I think there are some male students that probably learn “like girls” and some female students that learn “like boys”. Generalizations can be risky. As far as single sex middle schools, I think the education system lost itself in the middle school philosophy that those kids’ hormones and social acclimation were more important than their brains. Why do middle schools have dances, proms, etc?By Terri
December 12, 2006 2:53 PM | Link to this
I’m all for single-gender schools. (I think all middle schools should be single-gender.) My concern is with the added cost during a fiscal emergency in the district. I’m also all for investing in things that work - like arts programs for all and paying teachers competitive salaries.By dps teacher
December 12, 2006 2:19 PM | Link to this
The students that attend the single gender schools do so by choice and preference. No one is being discriminated on by these schools or the district. Studies have shown that boys and girls learn differently and excel in different environments, these schools recognize those differences and work to give the students that choose to go these schools the opportunity to learn in the best environments for them. There are several books on the subject that have very convincing arguments. The one that DPS uses is called: “Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences”, by Leonard Sax, MD, PhD. I was leery about his ideas until I heard him speak and read this book, now I am convinced.By Dave
December 12, 2006 1:25 PM | Link to this
I can’t even figure out why we are even considering a single sex school. Haven’t we learned our lesson about “separate but equal” schools by now?By dps teacher
December 12, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this
Whether we like it or not, DPS must compete with the charters to attract students back to its fold. By opening up the Boys Academy, it is attempting to do just that. Charity Adams is the girls’ academy and it is doing quite well and as more grades are added, I think the Boys’ Academy will begin to fill its classrooms, which is an ambitious proposition in of itself. There are many boys in Dayton that do not have positive male role models and this gender specific school helps to provide structure and positive discipline, that so many of our boys desperately need. It gives parents an attractive option. Is it fiscally responsible? If you believe in investment, such as working to bring students back to DPS from the charters, then I believe the answer is yes.By Terri
December 11, 2006 7:49 PM | Link to this
RE the Boys Academy. I question the fisical responsibility of starting single-gender schools. How many students are in each academy? 100? That means a principal, secretary, business manager, nurse, cafeteria manager and workers and custodial staff are being paid to operate a building for just 100 students? Why not fold them back into the regular school. OR as an alternative - why not house them in the same building - just keep the two segregated. That way - one administrative team and support personnel for both schools. OR How about expanding the single-gender concept to include more students to get the most for the money spent. I’m all for single-gender schools - I myself attended an all-girls high school, but the cost needs to be considered. By the way this was generated by an article in the district newletter in which a teacher at the Boys Academy is quoted as saying that teaching just 15 boys in a single class is the same as the 27 co-ed students at his previous school. Looking out over my 36 students I would take his 15 boys (or even his 27)By dps teacher
December 11, 2006 1:13 PM | Link to this
Instead of building a new Boys’ Academy where Roosevelt sits now, why can’t the Boys’ Academy move to Jackson Center? Some of the rooms would need to be retrofitted to accommodate a school but it has to be a lot less expensive than building a new school entirely. Ludlow II would be ideal for a moderate size law firm; it has a new HVAC system, thanks to DPS, and plenty of office space. It seems a lot of assumptions are made when DPS makes it plans, with not a whole lot coming to fruition. I believe that this Baseball Village has a good chance of coming together and DPS needs to step up and make good faith investment in the city by working to solve the Patterson Career Center. Anything that happens there will be many times better than what’s currently there. It’s too bad DPS didn’t buy the Arcade when Danis was practically giving it away, then the circus like atmosphere of the DPS administration and board would not seem so out of place.