Those who have not been involved in this issue on behalf of a school (I have
a daughter at Pratt School) may not be aware of the following:
1. The communities affected by the proposed school "reorganization" action
were noticed of the proposed action on the evening of February 9 (by an
innocuous flyer in our childrens' homework folders), 9-10 days before the
two public hearings and two weeks before the school board was to act on the
proposal. We had no prior sense that any such action was being considered,
particularly while we are in the middle of a cooperative (indeed,
contractual) effort with the school district to expand our school building
and ramp up our educational program.
2. The notice was not accompanied by any information -- other than the most
general and rhetorical -- on the reasons for the proposed action, the
methodology used to select the schools for closure/reorganization, the data
about the schools used in the analysis, or how the proposed actions would
achieve the urgent goals of the school district. Our neighborhood
endeavored each day leading up to the public hearings, almost entirely
unsuccessfully, to get some information. For example, we are told that the
combined actions are needed to save $2.8 million over the next year, but we
have been unable to obtain any numbers showing what would be saved by
closing Pratt; indeed, we have no evidence that the district even has done
this calculation. At the public hearing last Wednesday evening, Interim
Sup't Jennings stated that the information was withheld purposefully to, if
I understood correctly, keep individual communities from advocating for
their schools against other communities. I don't think I need to observe
how patently absurd this is from a process viewpoint, a legal viewpoint and
a viewpoint that input from parents and communities may help improve
decisions.
3. The bits of information we have succeeded in plying from the school
district up to and since the public hearings appear to be inaccurate and
outdated in a variety of ways. The information we have gained as to the
methodology suggests that there are many, many objections that could be
raised as to whether it accurately and reliably operationalizes the criteria
that the district has identified as relevant to making closing/reorganizing
decisions (wholly leaving aside whether those criteria are appropriate).
I would hope that all agree that "change is needed" is not synonomous with
"any change, by fiat, without any showing of what it would accomplish, is
good."
>From the little I have learned in the past two weeks (not being previously
knowledgeable in this area), the proposed actions, although they would cause
great harm to a number of communities and decapitate programs that the
school district concedes are among the "Great Things" the school district
exhorts us to "Expect," would not do anything to address the systemic
problems that appear, by the urgency that Mr. Jennings invokes, to have
brought the Minneapolis school system to the point of collapse (and that are
creating increasingly great problems for outstate districts as well) --
including, to no little extent, policy and funding decisions made at federal
and state levels (perhaps some of you will lay this entirely at the feet of
the teachers' unions -- I plead ignorance and leave others to slug that
out).
The answer to this crisis is not a drastic, unconsidered action taken in the
dead of night, but the involvement of all -- whether your school is
threatened this year or not, whether you have children or might in the
future have children or not -- in facing and demanding action on a very
fundamental problem that threatens to undermine the vitality and
sustainability of the entire state. I have no independent basis to say
whether my language is alarmist, but Mr. Jennings seems to assure me that it
is not.
Chuck Holtman
Prospect Park
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:49:10 -0600
From: Dan McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] "my way or no way" - Jennings on change
To: mpls list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Mr. Jennings' stated today , "Does the district close and merge schools
for next fall and risk alienating those unhappy with the decision, or in
the alternative, do we attempt to maintain a status quo that just
clearly isn't working for enough kids?" The reality is no one has
suggested that maintaining the "status quo" is the only alternative to
the proposed plan. Framing it as such is patently unfair to all of the
many suggestions that have already been presented in the few days
allotted, not to mention the alternatives that would emerge if they were
seriously sought.
Dan McGuire
Ericsson
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
