Eli Kaplan wrote:
> I was interested to observe that empty classrooms are not high priority
for
> whomever was at that meeting. I found that interesting, because that
> indicated that it is ok to have empty classrooms and let us taxpayers pay
> for them at the expense of having teachers or staff.
It may be that the people at the meeting recognize that the major expenses
in each building are teachers and not empty classrooms. And maybe the
people at the meeting recognize the disastrous effect that closing buildings
has on communities. And maybe the people at the meeting realized that
closing schools might be more expensive than not using some of the
classrooms in a building. The true cost of an empty classroom has been
blown way out of proportion, especially when compared to the unplanned costs
of moving students and teachers and programs around to other buildings.
Look what happened when the district decided to move 192 teachers; the
school closing plan proposed last winter would have been even worse in terms
of displaced students and staff.
> As far as the time line is concerned, yes there is not enough time to make
> an acceptable decision for everyone in the school district.
At least, Eli and I agree on this, but I would add that there is enough time
if we make enough time. It's our district; we, collectively can set and
reset the time table..
>
> The funding for the consultants did not come out of the general fund, but
> was funded by private sources. Your tax dollars does not pay for these
> people.
I don't really like the idea of private funds being used to redesign the
district. And that is what is actually occurring as a result of the
Community Engagement Process and the Facilities Planning team.
> We need to deal with realities in this whole fiscal process.
Which would indicate to me that we should start with the data that we
have, or should have, like the exact location of all the unused classrooms
in the district - something that has still not been released. The list
released in the spring was so inaccurate that it creates doubt about
anything that might also pertain to facilities usage. Substantiated facts
need to be brought forward as soon as possible.
The process that was used last Thursday indicates that actually getting
input on determining criteria is less important than creating the illusion
that the community is being consulted. I recognize that the job is difficult
but I think that if schools are going to be closed they should meet criteria
similar to the criteria that forced the closing of Morris Park. I think it
was obvious to a majority that Morris Park needed to be closed, even though
I still think the district could have done a much better job supporting
Morris Park in the years preceding the closure.
Therein lies the crux of the problem; if the district isn't really
committed to a school being successful, if it and all of its departments -
facilities, HR, TIS, Food Service, Transportation, the union and the
teachers - aren't committed to the success of a program, then the program
will falter, decline and need to be closed, reconstituted, or merged into
something else. If the Facilities Department is convinced that keeping
schools open is too big of a job, and if the Superintendent is listening to
the Facilities Department rather than parents and teachers, then closing
schools is going to look like the right thing to do, especially if closing
Mpls public schools is politically advantageous from a statewide or larger
point of view, ala Pawlenty's recent comments on MPS.
If Facilities thinks that the optimum school size is at least 400
students, it is reasonable for the Facilities Dept. to advocate for schools
that would be larger than 400 students. But the issues that Facilities are
charged with daily, and they are real and substantial, are not the same
issues that teachers and parents deal with on a daily basis. Likewise, if
Administration finds that assigning a principal to cover two small schools
next to each other is more difficult than having a principal and an A.P
at a school with greater than 400 students, then Administration is going to
advocate for schools that the fit the model of one principal for each
building of more than 400 students.
I think the Community Engagement Process that has been initiated
recognizes the complexity of the issues to be resolved, but I don't think
they are being realistic about the time frame necessary to involve the
larger community in the school system redesign that is currently underway.
And that is what is taking place in Minneapolis. We are not merely trying
to determine which schools would be politically and or economically feasible
to close. The reason that there was such an uproar last winter was that the
community recognized that their school system was being redesigned,
significantly, and they hadn't been included in the redesign.
The consultants currently under contract to the district are working
under contracts that were let after the abrupt and poorly researched closing
plan was thrust upon the community and resoundingly rejected. The job they
have been assigned to do cannot reasonably be completed in the time frame
currently allowed. The work that they are assigned to do is work that
desperately needs doing, and it shouldn't be rushed or done on the cheap or
in a hobgoblin fashion. The structure of the consulting contracts are
fundamentally flawed at the outset - there should be one contract covering
both Community Engagement and Facilities review with subcontracts as
necessary, and clear lines of responsibility for work covered by the
contract with more specific time frame markers and outcome measurability.
Ultimately, this is work that needs to be a regular part of the office of
the Superintendent; I think it has actually always been part of the
Superintendent's job description, it just wasn't getting done, or done well.
If the school system is to be redesigned, it is imperative that a
majority of the larger community is thoroughly and completely informed and
in support of the redesign. To do otherwise invites disaster.
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
