I wrote, then Dan McGuire writes, of the successful effort to postpone a school-closing decision:
> > Like anything in politics, a highly motivated minority worked hard over the > > past 3 weeks and carried the day. > > Why do you think it was a minority? You're right, Dan. I don't know how the bulk of Minneapolitans feel. My comment was in the context of Steve Cross's - that the minority of parents directly affected by the closings were involved, but most people stood on the sidelines because they didn't perceive they were affected. Still, your point is a necessary clarification of mine. Me, then Dan again: > > We've spent a lot of time - rightly - discussing the costs of the closing > > plan, > > There were many costs that were only superficially touched on. The hidden costs of the > staff movement alone was/is > staggering. Closing schools on the time frame proposed would likely have cost much more > than the projected savings. This is where we part company a bit. There are 800 empty classrooms - 800! Despite all of our best efforts, they won't be filled. Schools WILL be closed. Staff WILL be moved. If not this year, next. There might even be initial costs - but it defies logic that cutting empty space and removing excess capacity won't save money in the long term. The biggest upside of postponement is that, in six months, we can come up with a MORE EFFICIENT closing plan. But it's also fair to say the clearest downside is that we have merely delayed paying those costs one year - which delays whatever savings the district will get. > And not nearly enough time yet on all of the possible alternatives that will enhance the > programs. Please, folks, let's > get out of this mind set that there is not enough to go around. That is simply not true. We > do need to change how we are > doing the budget, how we get funds, how we spend the money, and how we account for all > of what we do, but we do not lack > for resources. I don't understand this point (and apologize for not bringing it up sooner - Dan has made it before). Whatever efficiencies you find - and I am happy this has inflamed the search - you still have 800 empty spaces! To me, that's the elephant in the room...if you're looking for savings and efficiencies, 800 empty classrooms is hard to ignore. > > All city schools will have to pitch in to suck up the $2.8 million that > > would have been saved by the school closings - > > Not so fast, let's try to come up with some other possibilities! Remember, closing buildings is only ONE component of closing a $20 million debt. School spending is primarily due to costs of staff, instruction, bureaucracy (management) and buildings. Building closing only gets us $2.8 million (at best) toward the $20 million hole. Pardon my skepticism, but the efficiencies argument reminds me of the politicians who say they will close the deficit by combating "waste, fraud and abuse." It's tempting and often blisteringly hard to do. Again, I hope I'm wrong. But even if you close a $20 million hole with efficiencies, you still have 800 empty classrooms - an inefficiency that's hard to ignore! I acknowledge that reforms could improve the education for Minneapolis kids, and attract them back to the system - I know that's another "prong" of Jennings' plan (not just cuts). I know this is also a point RT and school board members and closing critics have made, too. Let's not just cut, let's redesign to attract new students. It's well worth doing, but I think cuts still have to be made, sooner rather than later. > One of the first things that needs to happen, and soon, is a very specific public accounting, > a weighing, of all the > dollars that are spent at each site in one column and then all of the dollars that are income > for each site. These > amounts need to be actual, not district averages and everything needs to be included, > including the soap. From there, we > can start listing the available assets at each site presently and potentially and assigning > dollar values. Oy. Good luck! This strikes me as a very murky exercise (especially when you are "assigning dollar values.") That said, it's great for the public to check the district's work. The district folks I've talked to have explained their math well, though it takes lots of times because it's complex. Any involved citizen deserves such an explanation - and that is a big upside in the postponement. Again, I am not saying Dan is wrong and I am right. I posted initially mostly because I think it's easy to demonize closing schools when it makes objective sense. How it's done and where it's done is up for debate - and that's fair. But I don't think we're going to reinvent our way out of the short-term problem - and it will hurt our chance for a long-term solution if we proceed otherwise. David Brauer Kingfield 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
