Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

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

After hearing praise and pleas to hit pause, Minneapolis Public Schools board OKs district redesign plan

During a virtual meeting Tuesday evening, Minneapolis Public Schools board members listened to more than 100 parents, educators and community members weigh in on the perceived merits and shortcomings of a plan to drastically redesign school grade configurations, program assignments and attendance boundaries before approving the plan by a 6-3 vote.

Those in favor of moving forward with the plan praised how it would redistribute resources and academic opportunities more equitably across the district — specifically building up programming and enrollment in the north and northeast regions of the district, which have historically been underinvested in. 

Those opposed implored the board to hit pause and take time to conduct a financial audit, an independent equity assessment and more public engagement sessions before making any decisions. 

The comprehensive district design — or the CDD, as it’s often referred to — began back in December 2017 as an effort to redistribute academic opportunities, save on transportation costs and close longstanding disparities, based on race and income level, in the state’s third largest school district. 

The board hit reset on that process in the spring of 2018, after a protest at a board meeting in May, where parents demanded more time to digest two new roadmaps the district had just released. 

A drive-by protest at HQ

This time around — with board meetings and public comment taking place virtually, during the COVID-19 pandemic — critics organized a drive-by protest, outside of district headquarters. 

Chair Kim Ellison
MinnPost photo by Craig Lassig
Chair Kim Ellison
The public health crisis has added fuel to both sides of the debate. Those in favor of a district overhaul say the pandemic has exacerbated inequities that already exist within the school system, making the endeavor even more urgent. Those in opposition say it’s reckless to create such major disruptions when students already miss the stability of their school communities and when no one knows yet what school will look like, come fall. 

Teeing up the board’s final discussion of the plan, Chair Kim Ellison reminded everyone that adopting a new district design plan is “just the first step of many” and that the timeline for implementation — with most major changes currently slated for the 2021-2022 school year — could still change.

”It’s important that during this time of uncertainty that we plan for our future,” she said. “I trust the superintendent will tell us if we need to adapt because of complications related to COVID-19.’’

6-3 board vote

The school board voted to adopt the district redesign plan — which centralizes magnet schools and redraws school boundaries, among other changes — in a 6-3 vote, with directors Kerry Jo Felder, Bob Walser and Ira Jourdain (representing District 2, District 4 and District 6, respectively) voting against it. 

Both Felder and Walser led failed attempts to stall the vote, asking their colleagues to run a full equity audit prior to taking any action. 

“I’m hoping that if people really want to talk about race and black people that they’re going to listen to a black woman from the north side who is saying ‘No’ to the CDD because it’s not fair to my constituents and my students,” Felder said, airing concerns that the plan will take “big chunks of [my] district out to support other ones.”

Walser positioned himself as a champion of immigrant families who have felt left out of the process and continued to accuse district leaders of filtering public comments, to give the appearance of a more even split between plan supporters and critics. 

“When these people tell me the CDD does not work for their communities, I believe them,” he said, imploring his colleagues to “open a new chapter that includes and respects all voices.”

Nelson Inz
MinnPost photo by Craig Lassig
Director Nelson Inz
Ellison countered these claims, noting a committee had completed equity assessments on various elements of the redesign plan — including proposed changes to special education services, high school programs and Career and Technical Education programming — and incorporated feedback throughout the planning period.

Director Nelson Inz also pushed back on the calls to postpone a vote to conduct a full equity audit of the plan, calling the motives into question. 

“I think that the only reason that this is being proposed now is to delay the vote and cast the CDD into a bad light,” he said, noting the entire plan was built on the premise of making things more equitable. 

The plan isn’t perfect, he said, noting he’ll be pushing for “crystal clear” implementation details as the various elements of the plan roll out. But his motive to move forward is rooted in hopes of better integrating schools across the district — because, currently, “the neighborhoods where people are located are less segregated than the schools they go to,” he said.

‘We are in a vicious cycle’

For board member Jenny Arneson, the decision to move forward with a district overhaul boiled down to one other simple truth: “Right now we are blatantly giving more opportunities to students in south and southwest Minneapolis than to those in north and northeast,” she said. 

Board member Jenny Arneson
MinnPost photo by Craig Lassig
Board member Jenny Arneson
At this stage, the redesign plan is about centralizing magnets and changing boundaries, she said, adding that lots of important details  — like bell times and staffing — will follow. These are things that require a hard reset in resource allocation, rather than added layers of interventions, she’s advocated, noting pleas from some in the community that to simply replicate successful schools won’t suffice. 

“We are in a vicious cycle. We support some schools and we see their enrollment grow. We use that growth to attract more students — more white students, than students of color — justifying more investment, like staffing, or building improvements,” she said. “And, thus, our enrollment across the district becomes more and more uneven — which then contributes to opportunity gaps. And it makes it appear that the flaw is somehow within the unenrolled school, or worse, with the students themselves.”

Comments (7)

  1. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 05/13/2020 - 10:38 am.

    I wish journalist would stop doing these procedural pieces. The “process” here, and who said what to whom is of little value. What people need to know is what changes are actually being made, not merely who voted for the changes, and who doesn’t like them. One paragraph on the process and 8 paragraphs about the actual changes and rationale behind them would be nice for a change. Any disputes about the process or procedures are incomprehensible unless we know the substance of the changes being proposed.

  2. Submitted by joe smith on 05/13/2020 - 12:14 pm.

    I thought each school was paid the same amount of money per student in the MPSD. Is that not correct? With parents having a choice as to what school in the district their child goes to (open enrollment), what will these new boundaries do?

    • Submitted by Robert Rossi on 05/16/2020 - 07:56 am.

      The DISTRICT gets the same amount of money for each student. But it does not distribute it to the schools based only on how many students attend each school. This makes some sense, since the needs at each school differ, but there is great debate about how much more help the schools with greater needs get, versus what they need. You can calculate per-student-funding by school using public data: https://financeandbudget.mpls.k12.mn.us/department_budget_info , the school allocation spreadsheets.

      The per-school budget totals are in the last column on the last three pages, student counts in the first column on the first three.

      Per-pupil funding roughly scales with poverty at the school, with very high-poverty schools getting more than twice per pupil than very low poverty schools.

  3. Submitted by Lawrence Funderburke on 05/14/2020 - 12:36 pm.

    Imagine thinking people in Linden Hills will actually send their kids to North.

    • Submitted by lisa miller on 05/14/2020 - 05:23 pm.

      It’s more like Kenwood and Bryn Mawr and isn’t that what this is more about? I agree its a messed up plan. But for years southwest has had the advantages. My understanding is that most of south still will have community schools. I agree its unrealistic to think kids can hop city buses all over. Then again remember when the city years ago redid districts and some had to attend further in the city instead of Washburn or Anthony and people made do. If parents can drive to Minnetonka or Edina which is what some are threatening then why can’t they get their kids over north or wherever if they want a magnet school?

Leave a Reply