Chuck Holtman wrote: > Pratt School, in SE Mpls, probably has limited interest to > many on the list.
While Pratt Elementary itself maybe of limited interest, I think that the issues related to the school closings and equality of educational opportunity are not. > However, I'd like to comment briefly on Michael Atherton's > post. He states below that Pratt would be highly subsidized > by other schools in the Minneapolis school district, and that > historic preservation is a sham effort to save this "subsidized" > school. I never referred to Pratt as being "highly" subsidized. I had said, that Pratt was "... in effect subsidized by other schools in the District." You have to keep in mind that when educational administrators refer to "small schools" they normally mean in the range of 250-300 students, not 80. I think my skepticism that a school of 80 is financial viable is reasonable and healthy. > Mr. Atherton's criticism is premature at best, and the "other > public school parents in the District" whom Mr. Atherton advises > to keep their wallets at the ready for the benefit of Pratt can > take a deep breath. In accepting at face value the MPS finding > that Pratt is cross-subsidized by the other schools in the > district , Mr. Atherton seems to have abandoned the laudable > skepticism of bureaucratic institutions that typically he > wields with such delectation. I have not abandoned my laudable skepticism! It's only that this time rather than it being focused on a large bureaucratic institution it's focused at the neighborhood level (as it had been many times on this list). One has to question the tactics of people who would claim that Pratt is one of the best schools in the state, when they know that the exam scores were based on non-representative demographics (to his credit, I don't believe that Mr. Holtman was one of these people). I will admit that my opinion that Pratt is subsidized maybe someday be contradicted, but I've been waiting for months for the supporters of Pratt to come up with the numbers to show that it is not. In fact, it maybe their opinion that Pratt is not subsidized that is premature. > In February, when affected communities throughout the city fought > the hastily forwarded school closure plan, we were dismissed by > many as people of selfish interest standing in the way of necessary > steps toward the long-term health of the district. Those who were > roused to action, however, recognized that the plan was rushed forward > by the interim administrator, so much so that it violated very minimal > state laws for public notice, and was based on limited and often > inaccurate data. Many of those with whom I worked to oppose the plan > did not and do not object to the notion of strong steps, even where they > might injure our own interests; what we objected to was that the proposed > plan was random and capricious, seeming to pull its elements out of a hat > and based on unexplained and obscure assumptions, inpart because it did > not even ask affected school communities whether the data and circumstances > ascribed to their schools were correct. I think that Mr. Holtman and I would agree that it is important for the District to provide a rational argument for school closing, backed up with verifiable statistics. > As a Pratt supporter and parent, I do not believe that my > children should be guaranteed the existence of Pratt School > regardless of the economics. But it is not yet known if Pratt > is "cross-subsidized," and if so whether to a significant or > problematic extent. We in the Pratt community have been > working since March to obtain accurate and representative > school financial data and assess them (not a simple task). > In the process we have observed flaws, some substantial, > in the numbers and the analysis on which the MPS > closure proposal was based. I, and I think my compatriots, > recognize that Pratt School has to be financially viable in order > to make the claim that the MPS should commit to sustaining it. > In the coming weeks we will determine what the facts are; but at > present there is no basis for the conclusion that Pratt is subsidized. > (I'll also note that Pratt is not a school of "80 students," as > Mr. Atherton characterizes it; it is a new and growing school with > a most recent year's enrollment of 80-90 students, but that will > accommodate about 120 pupils when full, a fact that changes the > economics considerably.) Okay, so maybe I should have said, "80 students plus or minus 10," but I will believe that Pratt is growing when I see the enrollment figures for next year (the pre-enrollment figures should already be available, if Mr. Holtman would like to cite them). I have been urging the Save Pratt group to come up with the financial numbers for months. If it's cheaper to educate students at Pratt than at other District schools there's no legs for the School Board to stand on. But, given some of the supporters of Pratt's prior selective reporting of statistics I think that we should take a close hard look at whatever they come up with. > Preservation is not a sham issue. The 1896 building is beautiful, > rock-solid and central to our neighborhood. As an important > element of the city's history, it also has value to the community > that the MPS doesn't necessarily take into account when it is just > taking its properties to the pawn shop for short-term cash. > The value of preservation alone would not necessarily support keeping > open a school that is pouring money down a hole, were that the case, > but it certainly is part of the equation and one more reason why these > decisions require care. I never said that preservation was a sham, I said that the continued presence of a public elementary school in the Pratt building in not necessary to the preservation of the building itself and that linking the two is a sham. Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
