David Brauer > > We've spent a lot of time - rightly - discussing the costs of the closing plan,
> Dan McGuire: 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. > > DB: 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. > > DM > >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. > > DB: 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. DM: I would like to see the list of the 800 empty classrooms. > DB> > All city schools will have to pitch in to suck up the $2.8 million that > > > would have been saved by the school closings - > > DM > Not so fast, let's try to come up with some other possibilities! > > DB: 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. DM: I was NOT talking about "an efficiencies argument." And the MPS is NOT an example of an organization with waste, fraud and abuse. I spent enough time working for large corporations with 3 letter names to recognize waste, fraud and abuse when I see it and I don't see it at MPS. And my suggestion that there are alternatives is intentionally non-specific. Even if I had the answer all typed up right here in my desk drawer ( I, of course, do not) I would not post it here on the Mpls issues list and expect that the whole city would jump up and say, "Oh, yeah, that the way to do it." This is a large, diverse city; to make changes in our educational system we need deliberate, thoughtful, open, and inclusive discussions. That Mr. Jennings has found it difficult to get to a consensus on how to proceed is not justification for abandoning all efforts at reaching a reasoned and thoroughly detailed consensus. > > 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. And I would like to see the redesign first. If you cut sooner rather than later, if you cut before you have the new design explained and generally accepted by a majority of the community, especially when the cuts don't make sense, you create distrust, bewilderment, anger, and confusion - all of the things that were showing up at the public forums last week > DM> 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. > > DB : 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. > DM: I have not had the math explained to me; I haven't even seen the numbers. I would hope that if I saw the numbers there would not be all that much explanation required. I and a lot of other parents and taxpayers have looked at financial statements, and cost benefit analysis / projections before. School finance has it own special jargon and peculiarities but give us chance. > > 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. DM: I'm not convinced that closing schools makes objective sense even in the short term, let alone the long term. Having already paid for inventory is not a bad thing. If the roofs are leaking so bad that the buildings will crumble soon, well yeah, let's not try to teach kids in there. And if programs need to be merged and staff laid off because there isn't enough kids to fill a classroom, OK. But let's include a few more folks in the decision making process first rather than later. Knowing what the teachers, parents and community think will take time, but it will be time well spent. We can afford it. 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
