Chuck Holtman wrote: > As someone contributing to the fiscal analysis, I appreciate > Steve Cross' enthusiasm but am a bit more circumspect myself. > As noted, we have done our best to try to get from the MPS the > data necessary to do a careful analysis, but the comprehensive > and current data have not been at hand and we have been forced > to make the most sound assumptions that we can. Also, we who > have done the analysis are not trained in the fiscal analysis of K-5 > schools. So while at this point we have done the most responsible > analysis we can, my view is that what the analysis primarily > accomplishes is to force the MPS, if it is in good faith, to engage > its knowledgeable staff in a serious review of Pratt's fiscal viability. > Perhaps our analysis will be found to be deeply flawed. Or perhaps it > will stand up to scrutiny, in which case it will help the MPS move > away from the easy position that "schools of fewer than 400 students > are not viable" and offer hope for creative small-school models within > the MPS and elsewhere (the Pratt concept rests on close integration with > a "sister" school and with community education, both of which bring fiscal > advantages, and the walkability of this neighborhood school also can result > in tremendous transportation cost savings). > > In short, I was surprised, when the analysis was completed, at the apparent > positive results, but objective peer review awaits. If our analysis stands, > I certainly would hope that the MPS would be willing and indeed eager to > support Pratt despite its earlier, perhaps hasty pronouncement that Pratt is > not financially viable and therefore must be closed.
Given that Mr. Holtman is an attorney, I can understand him wanted to distance himself from this "fiscal analysis." I certainly wouldn't want it to blowup in my face. In line with Mr. Holtman's decision, I will also refrain from taking a strong stand on this analysis; finance is not my area. However, I would mention one thing. Given that their defense of Pratt is based on its relationship with its sister school, Tuttle, any financial analysis of Pratt must include Tuttle. For example, even if classrooms are fully utilized at Pratt, they maybe under utilized at Tuttle, and much as the supporters of Pratt would like to ignore it, while Pratt students can be moved to Tuttle, students from Tuttle cannot be moved to Pratt (there's no room). In support of the Pratt Group I do want to say that I believe that the onus is now on the District to show why this financial analysis is incorrect. 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
