All: The "Public School Task Force" of the "Save Pratt" Organization has prepared a position paper urging the school board to continue the operation of the K-5 school at Pratt Community Education Center. The position paper also states that in the event the school board determines that if an elementary school cannot be continued as a Minneapolis public school, that the school board sponsor a charter school, rent the Pratt facility to the charter school, or turn the building over to the neighborhood. The intent is to send the position paper to the Minneapolis Public School administration and to the School Board.
The full text is printed below. I thought that members of this forum might be interested in reading it. There is a second portion, a financial analysis, that I have not included just to keep the bulk down. The whole thing is or will be available at the Save Pratt site of http://44clarence.com/pratt/ and the PPERRIA website of http://www.pperr.org/ The position paper will be presented at the PPERRIA Board/Membership meeting with a motion to approve it for forwarding to the school administration and school board. The meeting will be held tomorrow night, July 26, 7 p.m. at the Prospect Park United Methodist church, which is at the corner of Orlin and Malcolm Avenues Southeast. Steve Cross Prospect Park ---------------------------------- POSITION PAPER REGARDING PRATT COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER I. Pratt Public School A Good Education for All Kids Pratt School is the oldest school in the City. It was built in 1898, and functioned as a school continuously until 1982 when Minneapolis Public Schools, responding to the last cycle of enrollment decline, closed a number of schools. A large Community Education Program, with substantial daytime programming, has been housed in the building since 1984. In 2000, after several years of work and advocacy by the community, the MPS Board agreed to reopen a K-5 school to share the Pratt Building with its Community Education Program. Pratt School was to begin with Kindergarten and 1st grade, and add a grade each year. The vision was of a school that would have the support, co-sponsorship and resources from many outstanding institutions in Southeast Minneapolis. Pratt would support families, individuals, and organizations that promote lifetime learning for people in the community. The school has proceeded accordingly, and this fall will for the first time operate as a full K-5. Pratt¹s full enrollment will amount to about 144 students. The Glendale/Prospect Park neighborhood includes the Glendale Public Housing Community. Prior to the reopening of Pratt in 2000, the children of Glendale attended over 30 different elementary schools (see map). Improving the educational circumstances of the children in Glendale was a major reason that Superintendent Carol Johnson supported the reopening of Pratt School. Pratt School is naturally diverse, with no need of busing. The 2003-04 students at Pratt were approximately 50% children of color and 50% Caucasian. About 51% of the children are eligible for reduced-price lunch. Remarkable Community Support A second reason Pratt was reopened was that Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) recognized the value added to the learning process when strong partnerships exist between families and communities. The Glendale/Prospect Park Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) voted to spend one-third of its allotted money on the refurbishing of the exterior of the Pratt building, the construction of a playground for the youngest members of the community, experimental programs to support learning in neighborhood homes, programs within the school, and building upgrading to make it accessible and appropriate for the classrooms for the K-5 program. In all, the neighborhood NRP investment in the Pratt building and programs has been more than $1,500,000. The present renovation (NRP-financed) is creating a stairway to a third floor which will make it possible to enlarge the usable square footage by 7,500 square feet. The 2004-05 school year will be the first year that the school has had all six grades attending. As part of its program, community participation provides before-school day care and after-school enriched day care for Pratt students and neighborhood children attending other MPS schools. The community has built an outdoor ³performance circle² on the school grounds at which concerts and dancing attract neighborhood residents of all generations throughout the temperate parts of the year. Pratt¹s Financial Viability Pratt School¹s tremendous potential for positive educational and community outcomes means nothing if the financial model for the school is not viable. The ³popular² notion expressed by the MPS in several different ways is that small schools are not financially viable, and a luxury that the district simply cannot afford in this day and age. We cannot speak for other small schools. However, Pratt¹s partnership with Tuttle School, its integration with community education and its status as a walkable community school all create distinct economic advantages that allow for Pratt to operate very cost efficiently. Attachment A to this document is a financial analysis that we have performed using the best numbers that the MPS has been able to provide us. Clearly, a school that is in its early stages will not capture all cost efficiencies. Our analysis, however, shows that once Pratt reaches its planned operating capacity, it will be able to operate with a level of per capita support distinctly below the district average. The analysis indicates that had Pratt been at full capacity during the 2002-03 school year (the most recent year for which figures are available), it would have operated at a level of about $4,300 per student. This, further, does not take into account the substantial transportation savings that Pratt offers as compared with the case where Pratt is closed and its 144 students, or the proportion of those students that remain in the MPS system, again must be bused throughout the system. Unique Partnership With Community Education The multi-generational learning environment at Pratt is unique in the City of Minneapolis. It is the product of the hard work of the community dedicated to the vision MPS put forward to create community schools that would anchor all learners in the neighborhood. At Pratt we have achieved much of that vision. For almost 16 years the building housed only community education. When MPS and the neighborhood worked together to reopen Pratt as an elementary school, everyone wanted to keep community education active and strong in the building. We have succeeded, and in so doing have created a model that is beginning to be implemented in other parts of the city. The Southeast Minneapolis Council on Learning, led by former mayor and congressman Donald Fraser, has endorsed the concept of the multigenerational community school. Earlier MPS analysis mistakenly cited 14 empty classrooms in the Pratt building. The building houses a large community education program and is fully occupied during both the day and the evening. Facility sharing between Pratt school and community education results in further facility cost advantages and the ability to optimize use of space. Attachment B shows the full use of Pratt School building space during the 2003-04 school year. Significant Outcomes - The parents of the children at Pratt School have 100 percent participation in the Parent Teacher Organization. - During the 2002-2003 school year, the last year for which figures are available, Pratt students had no truancy. In 2002-03, Pratt ranked as one of the highest performing schools in the state with a Quality Performance Index of 4.6, the highest in the city. The scores of the third graders at Pratt were the highest in the entire state in English, and the second highest in Math. The scores experienced a measurable decline in 200304, reflecting the variability of small testing populations and the incidence of learning disabilities in the 2003-04 tested class. Nevertheless, with a student body that is half low-income and half students of color, many from non-English-speaking households, early educational outcomes at Pratt are extremely positive. True Community Schools: The Research is In The early accomplishments at Pratt are no accident, but the result of hard work and commitment to establish Pratt as a successful community school. Community schools were recently defined in a brief by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (January 2004, #36) as ³deliberate partnerships that support and strengthen opportunities for students, families, and the surrounding community.² The report proceeds to describe community schools in ways that mirror the Pratt intergenerational concept. Summarizing over twenty reports, ASCD concludes that community schools improve student learning, promote family engagement, and add vitality and trust to communities. In addition, research focusing on family involvement is very clear about the benefits to students and their schools. Anne Henderson and Karen Mapp, national leaders in the field of parent involvement, have issued a new research summary on behalf of the Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory. Citing over 50 studies, Henderson and Mapp conclude: - Programs and interventions that engage families in supporting their children¹s learning at home are linked to improved student achievement; - The more families support their children¹s learning and educational progress, both in quantity and over time, the more their children tend to do well in school and continue their education; - ³Family and community involvement that is linked to Š learning has a greater effect on achievement than more general forms of involvement.² Tuttle/Pratt We urge you to keep Tuttle and Pratt operating as a single school on two campuses within the Minneapolis Public School system. Tuttle/Pratt already is a combined school, operating with one staff and one administration. The MPS overview document (April 8, 2004) states that 375 students allows a full curriculum to be offered in a financially stable manner. The combined student populations of Tuttle and Pratt bring these schools within that range; 2004-05 school year projections for Tuttle are 250, while Pratt, when full, will operate with about 144 students at currently prescribed class sizes. The two schools share resources, programs and staff and enjoy the economies that this provides. Pratt parents and the Prospect Park/Glendale neighborhood have shown, and continue to show, an extensive commitment of energy and material resources to Pratt School. Our simple observation and conversation, as well as partial surveys conducted within the neighborhood, show that the number of pre-kindergarten and elementary-school-age children in our neighborhood has burgeoned over the past several years, not insignificantly due to the existence of Pratt School and its attractiveness to parents. Negative Impact on Tuttle of Closing the Pratt Campus The notion of closing Pratt School and simply directing the Pratt K-5 population to Tuttle School also appears to rest significantly on the thought that this reorganization will strengthen Tuttle School. This is founded on the assumption that parents within the Prospect Park/Glendale neighborhood will send their children to Tuttle for K-5 to the same extent that they otherwise would have enrolled them at Pratt. Pratt parents and the Prospect Park/Glendale neighborhood have shown, and continue to show, an extensive commitment of energy and material resources to Pratt School. In addition, the neighborhood has been within a period of concentrated generational turnover for several years; it is well recognized within the neighborhood that the number of pre-kindergarten and elementary-school-age children in our neighborhood has grown tremendously since 2000, not insignificantly due to the existence of Pratt School. Perhaps MPS officials believe this commitment of energy and resources, and this stream of new students, simply would be redirected to Tuttle and would support that school to the same degree. The parents of Prospect Park/Glendale remain in the MPS because we are committed to the public school system. The reopening of Pratt has proceeded in close partnership with Tuttle. A ³campus² arrangement, with sharing of staff, administration and programs, has allowed for important cost efficiencies. Prospect Park/Glendale parents served on the committee responsible for planning, fundraising and securing community support for the Tuttle middle school. Prospect Park/Glendale parental involvement has been instrumental in reactivating the long-dormant Tuttle parent-teacher organization. Our residents serve on the Southeast Minneapolis Council on Learning, an organization that devotes resources to needy families at both schools to address family issues that interfere with learning. Prospect Park/Glendale, with NRP funds, shares with Tuttle support for a neighborhood education worker. We would like to believe that these efforts have contributed to enhanced academic achievement that recent test results and other indicators suggest for Tuttle School. We have demonstrated beyond doubt that we want Tuttle School to succeed. We believe, however, that the assumption of those proposing to close Pratt -- that Prospect Park/Glendale support will result in a seamless movement of students and energies to Tuttle School, may be very deeply flawed. We believe strongly that supporting Pratt School is the route to a stronger Tuttle School as well. We believe, conversely, that closing Pratt may weaken Tuttle greatly. Those who simply look at a map may think that Tuttle is a natural destination for Prospect Park/Glendale children. It is not. Not too distant as the crow flies, Tuttle nevertheless is on the other side of a +500-acre industrial area replete with large industrial structures, complexes of railroad tracks and hazardous waste sites. Travel to Tuttle School requires either a circuitous 2 _-mile trip west on University Avenue, through the University of Minnesota campus, and around behind the industrial area to Como Avenue, or travel east on University Avenue to Highway 280, followed by significant backtracking in the other direction past the Como Avenue warehouses and industrial operations. Few parents within our neighborhood think of Tuttle as nearby. The great majority of Pratt students walk to school. Pratt is so important to us because we know that our children remain in our neighborhood during the school day, as parent volunteers come and go, under the eye of school and community education staff and volunteers, many of whom are neighbors, and we know our children are safe. We are strong advocates for Pratt because it is at the center of our neighborhood both physically and psychologically. The error is compounded with respect to Glendale families. Encouraging the involvement of many Glendale parents, particularly non-English speaking immigrants, in the school has been a long, steady process. The lack of access to a car is, however, not an impediment with Pratt directly nearby. Were Pratt to close, at best Glendale children would be taken to Tuttle by bus and the parents of these children would simply be absent from their children¹s school. At worst (from the MPS standpoint], these parents would instead choose to bus their children (at MPS cost) to the International Charter School. The social integration of the Prospect Park and Glendale communities, through Pratt as both a school and the community center of gravity, would suffer greatly. The northeast corner of the MPS, which MPS staff have referred to as ³geographically isolated,² presents a challenge in the peculiar discontinuities of the Como and Prospect Park/Glendale neighborhoods, separated from each other and from the rest of the district. The MPS must carefully assess these circumstances to determine now what arrangement of schools and programs will reasonably serve, and maintain the support of, the families in this geographical corner of the district into the foreseeable future. We caution that closing Pratt for possible small short-term cost reductions may introduce long-term instability. Regardless of Tuttle¹s academic success, its distance and the industrial barriers that exist do not permit it to offer Prospect Park/Glendale families what they value in Pratt School as a K-5. Our neighborhood looks to Tuttle School as a middle school destination and would like to continue to work with the Tuttle community to establish and enhance the middle school program. An MPS commitment to the support of Pratt as a neighborhood K-5 respects and rewards the commitment of Prospect Park/Glendale to the Minneapolis public school system and to the mutual success of Pratt and Tuttle as separate but collaborative campuses. A strong middle school program at Tuttle, in turn, strengthens the K-5 draw for both schools. If, conversely, Pratt is closed and Prospect Park/Glendale parents are invited to send their K-5 children to Tuttle, the MPS will have done much to forfeit the involvement and good will of a neighborhood of core public school supporters and greatly weakened an otherwise stable flow of students to Tuttle middle school from an area of favorable K-8 demographics. It is likely that many of these children will be dispersed elsewhere for both K-5 and 6-8. This may be to other schools within the district (with unanticipated transportation costs for the MPS), a charter school within Prospect Park/Glendale, private schools or for those that still wish to support the public schools, in the adjacent St. Paul schools. II. Alternate School Options in the Pratt Building The Prospect Park/Glendale Community firmly believes that it needs a school in its neighborhood for its youngest children. The Prospect Park/Glendale neighborhood is cut off from the Como neighborhood where Tuttle is located by major roads, railroad tracks, and a large undeveloped industrial district. One must drive several miles to get to Tuttle. The Somali and other immigrant parents from the Glendale Public Housing Community are particularly anxious to have their children close to home. A school in the neighborhood allows the parents to keep close track of their children, and even to go to school with them to ELL classes offered in the Pratt building. If the Minneapolis School Board decides that it cannot maintain the Pratt campus of the Tuttle/Pratt program as a Minneapolis Public School, we urge that several alternatives be considered, as described below. A. Minneapolis School District Sponsored Charter School In this model, the Minneapolis School District would retain ownership of the building and sponsor a charter school at Pratt. Current laws regarding conversion from a district school to a charter school would assist in this transition. This model would likely retain the support of the community and the parents, and allow older youth (e.g., 6th-8th grades) to continue the current progression from Pratt to Tuttle. Community Education would be able to continue in the building, and thus preserve the intergenerational learning atmosphere. B. An Independent Charter School (with MPS retaining building ownership) In this model, the Minneapolis School District would retain ownership of the building but would not be the sponsor. By retaining ownership and leasing the building to a charter school, the Minneapolis School District would be eligible to receive leasing fees of up to $1200 per student (based on 94 students, these fees would be $112,880 annually). It would also allow the ongoing transition from Pratt to Tuttle. C. An Educational Center Independent Charter School (with neighborhood have building responsibility) As noted in the following section, the neighborhood is invested in having the building remain as an educational and community center, and is willing to take responsibility for the Pratt building. By having ownership, the community would have the option of continuing to improve the building through financial support, volunteers, and other resources. The Minneapolis School District could potentially leasing space in the building to preserve the Community Education Program at Pratt. It would leave open the possibility of a charter school, which, once again, could maintain the Pratt-Tuttle progression. We who have supported being part of the MPS system for so long are not eager to leave. We would prefer to maintain our connection with Tuttle, Community Education, and MPS. However, it is important that MPS planners understand that the rejection of these partnerships within the community will ultimately lead to the formation of a charter school. Such a school, for which efforts already have begun, is likely to draw heavily from the Glendale/Prospect Park/Marcy-Holmes/Como and other Minneapolis neighborhoods. Consequently, many students may leave the MPS system, with the attendant costs to MPS. III. Future of the Pratt building Should MPS determine that it has no interest in retaining ownership of the Pratt building, this community would like to see that the building continues to function as a community center and elementary school. The Minneapolis City Planning Department is currently undertaking a context study to determine how the schools have contributed to the historical development of the city. Pratt, as the oldest school building in the city, will immediately apply for historic designation when then context study is completed. The 106 year history of this neighborhood with this school, and the fact that the neighborhood has invested its energy and resources in the building (in the past ten years alone over $1.5 million of its NRP funds) gives the neighborhood a strong claim to ownership of the building for use as a life long learning center, and a base for community coordinated educational activity. If necessary, the neighborhood stands ready to relieve MPS of responsibility for the building. 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
