Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate
YWCA Minneapolis generously supports MinnPost’s Education coverage. Learn why.

Headed toward a final vote, the Minneapolis Public Schools redesign plan moves magnet schools and boundaries

Superintendent Ed Graff
MinnPost file photo by Erin Hinrichs
Superintendent Ed Graff: “What’s essentially emerged is a proposal to significantly redesign Minneapolis Public Schools in three areas: academics, equity and sustainability, with the goal of providing every student in MPS access to a well-rounded education.”

In the midst of a pandemic, the Minneapolis Public Schools board sits at a critical crossroads: to take a vote on adopting a new district-wide plan, or to postpone and potentially hit the reset button. 

The planning process began back in December 2017, steadily growing into an entire collection of data-driven studies, community input and drafts, Superintendent Ed Graff reminded listeners during a virtual board meeting Tuesday evening. “What’s essentially emerged is a proposal to significantly redesign Minneapolis Public Schools in three areas: academics, equity and sustainability, with the goal of providing every student in MPS access to a well-rounded education.” 

The meeting began with more than three hours of impassioned public comment, submitted via voicemail. The outpouring of both support and opposition began to intensify in January, once parents and educators had actual blueprints of the Comprehensive District Design (CDD) to review. 

“We’ve completed our part of the plan development. And, working with leadership, there was an agreement for us to ensure better academic opportunities for all students. We have to continue to move this work forward,” Graff said, addressing community demands to delay a vote as many families are preoccupied with COVID-19.

For now, the board is slated to continue its discussion of the final proposal at its next virtual board meeting, on April 28, with a possible vote to follow at the May 12 meeting. That timeline could change, at the board’s discretion. 

In advance, here’s a quick breakdown of the key components included in the final proposal. 

Centralized magnets, new boundaries

The final draft upends the current magnet school structure, centralizing all magnet sites and shuffling a number of magnet programs. This overhaul is, in part, an effort to make access to these programs more equitable.

In the new plan, the district would reduce its magnet school count from 13 to 11. It would eliminate current open education, International Baccalaureate, and environmental magnet options. Instead, new offerings would be added: global studies and humanities; and STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and math). 

The K-8 structure currently offered at four magnet sites and five community schools would be reduced to two school sites: Jefferson and Sullivan. This change had drawn sharp criticism from immigrant families, and their larger school communities, who have voiced a strong preference for the K-8 configuration — having testified in favor of keeping elementary- and middle-school-aged siblings in the same school building and in favor of the sense of community and security at these schools.

At the high-school level, the new plan would also centralize all career and technical education (CTE) programs, offering engineering, computer science, robotics and digital communications at North High; business, law and public safety and agriculture at Edison; and auto, construction, machine tool, welding and health care at Roosevelt. 

School boundaries will also be impacted. Notably, the new plan prioritizes community schools as a way to reduce transportation costs and improve integration levels, district-wide.

Based on enrollment projections, district leaders say the number of racially isolated schools (those with more than 80 percent of students belonging to one group) would be reduced from 20 to eight. 

Enrollment, cost considerations

During its first year of implementation — during the 2021-22 school year— the new plan is estimated to cost about $11.5 million, Graff said Tuesday evening. Moving forward, the costs are estimated to be about $10.6 million. 

“It’s important to note that approximately 75 percent of that cost will be used to increase the academic programming,” he said. 

The affordability of this plan largely depends on the district’s ability to deliver on projected transportation savings of about $6.9 million. He also highlighted $4.6 million in integration aid that would be used to invest in this work. 

According to five-year capital cost estimates, magnet school improvements will total nearly $6.5 million; the creation of three new CTE sites will total nearly $26 million. 

In terms of enrollment, district leaders expect that all of these changes will lead to an initial decline — with a projected loss of 400 students in each of the first two years. Factoring that into current enrollment projections, district leaders forecast an anticipated student loss of about 1,200 students in the 2021-22 school year. But they think that those short-terms losses will eventually level off, then enrollment will actually increase. 

The addition of about 1,000 seats at magnet programs, under the new plan, may help attract back families — many from north and northeast Minneapolis — who have already left the district, opting to open-enroll in neighboring districts or attend charter schools instead. 

With regard to dual-language immersion schools, district officials claim the new plan includes enough seats — albeit at some different sites — for all students currently enrolled in these programs to continue this path of study. 

Likewise, seats will be held for students in current community schools that are being transitioned into magnet schools, and for students in magnets that are being assigned a new focus area. Current high schoolers do not have to change schools for the duration of their high school career, even though new boundaries indicate otherwise for future high-schoolers. 

Division among board members

Those in support of the plan view it as a long-overdue opportunity to redistribute resources and opportunities across the district in a way that’s more equitable. Director Jenny Arneson, representing schools in the northeast part of the district, has been a vocal supporter for these reasons, and more.

Her input at the last board meeting, where she and her colleagues had their first opportunity to publicly discuss the final district redesign proposal, centered on making sure the board maintains diligent oversight during implementation. “Systems change is harder than targeted change — like replicating schools we love, or placing leaders, or rearranging staff,” she said. “We avoid it because it comes with heavy emotions of fear and loss. And those feelings are real. So we want it to be worth the cost.”

On the other end of the spectrum, director Bob Walser, who represents families in District 4 — which includes downtown, the Isles neighborhoods and Bryn Mawr — spent his comment time echoing critiques of the credibility and integrity of the redesign process raised by a many concerned about preserving existing K-8 grade configurations and magnet programs, calling it an attempt to impose “a widely disliked plan on an unwilling public.” 

He also took issue with the push to move forward amidst a pandemic — the latest talking point popular among critics of the plan. “To face disruptive change and the loss of supportive school communities at that time would be, to put it simply, cruel.”

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Betsy Larey on 04/16/2020 - 11:57 am.

    I would like to point out, in case in hasn’t dawned on people, that the government has forced businesses to close. While the school board gets to move on. Hardly fair, but no surprise.
    The writer points out the superintendent states they may lose some students in the first few years. I would like to point out that the students who will be the most impacted live in the neighborhoods mostly likely to permanently opt out. Either moving to private schools or out of the district completely.
    Tone deaf is what these bureaucrats ( lets be honest, they are politicians – most politicians started on school boards ) are. We tried bussing years ago, that didn’t work. We created magnet schools, that didn’t work. Our last shot is to force the kids that live in nice neighborhoods to relocate to the schools in crime infested neighborhoods.
    You can’t see the forest for the trees, can you? Maybe you can ( in all probability you can ) but you don’t care. We get the numbers we want, the way we want them or we go down in flames. Which is exactly where you are going.

  2. Submitted by James Baker on 04/17/2020 - 01:20 pm.

    I have no crystal ball on enrollment prospects for this plan, though clearly top notch academics or job skills training programs building through the grades toward and targeting solid future work opportunities should help retain families and draw back some students whose families have pulled out of the district due to perceived weak academics or simply too much classroom disruption.

    What does appear to be missing, at least from public discussion of the plan, is a vigorous and rigorous emphasis on literacy across the curriculum. Some might think that goes without saying—of course teachers will emphasize literacy, that’s a given in basic education. But where is explicitly taught comprehensive literacy focusing not only on intensive threading of evidence-based reading skills in the early grades (and remedially as needed across the grades)? And also to round out comprehensive literacy development up through the grades, doesn’t there need to be explicit instruction across the curriculum including reading for meaning, and effective writing and speaking skills that emphasize logical argument citing credible sources and how to determine their credibility? This could be guided by rigorous rubrics.

    It cannot be taken for granted that teachers—some of whom may already be modeling these skills—are pedagogically equipped to explicitly teach them to all students, especially during high school’s critical years. Bringing up that capacity can take schooling in a definitively scholarly direction—and as proof of effectiveness begins to surface that would attract back leavers who had given up hope that MPS can lead students to a better future.

    Sound pollyannaish? Fortunately, such a scholarly systemic initiative would not need to be generated from scratch, at least at the high school level. A template developed and proven at an incubator high school in Massachusetts and at the time recognized as a standout case study—and since proven effective elsewhere— refined and demonstrated just how powerful this approach can be at the high school level with all students, across all SES populations.

    Given the high stakes for today’s graduates, don’t we own them the best preparation for whatever path they want to take going forward? The cited articles provide a context for considering what that best preparation could and should look and sound like [1.2]. And, somewhat redundant with 1 & 2, [3]. And this [4]. Other interesting links, and related resources [5].

    Who are the pithy, perspicacious and charismatic leaders in MPS who might drive such an initiative? What are they waiting for?

    1. https://saanys.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Vanguard-FALL2016-Sue-S.pdf

    2. https://edublog.scholastic.com/post/literacy-not-trend-creating-culture-literacy

    3. https://andreagabor.com/2011/09/30/a-school%e2%80%99s-decade-long-literacy-obsession-and-how-it-transformed-brockton-high/

    4. http://handouts.gsltemplate.org/files/upload/2015ModelSchools_Case_Study_Brockton.pdf

    5. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/uncategorized/brockton-high-proves-that-big-schools-can-be-good-schools/6959/

  3. Submitted by Robert Rossi on 04/18/2020 - 04:24 pm.

    Is there an elephant in the room around all this that I don’t understand? I don’t mean the fact the district hasn’t managed to close the achievement gap for years now (I’m not sure that’s even [primarily] on the district), I mean something to do with racially identifiable schools and/or the Cruz-Guzman lawsuit, something nobody will say out loud. Those topics keep getting oblique references in the discussion, but I can’t connect the dots. It feels as though (most of) the school board isn’t even interested in the finer details of the CDD plan: as if they know they have to go with it, like it or not. How can 9 TFA-endorsed school board representatives be so out of step with the union? Does anyone understand the underlying dynamics?

  4. Submitted by Daniel Pinkerton on 04/19/2020 - 03:51 pm.

    Am I misreading this story or is the MPS going to eliminate the International Baccalaureate program at all schools? If that’s true, it would be a disaster.

    • Submitted by Robert Rossi on 04/20/2020 - 06:11 am.

      Yes, that much is clear: they would eliminate the IB magnets, the environmental magnet, and the open schools. In their defense, they want to add STEM, STEAM, and global studies magnets as well as a large technical education program for the upper grades. (I suspect that is because this is what families who are leaving the district say they want.) But they would be excising successful, diverse programs that are consistently over-enrolled, and there’s been no plausible explanation of this from the district – at least not that I’ve encountered.

      • Submitted by Robert Rossi on 04/29/2020 - 05:42 am.

        I should add, it is not clear to me what happens to IB programs that are not at magnet schools, like those in the high schools. The article and I were both writing about the elimination of the elementary IB magnet programs at Bancroft, Hall, and Wittier.

Leave a Reply