[Mpls] Ostrows: we should have closed schools now

[Mark Snyder]

On 3/1/04 8:22 PM, "David Brauer" <david at tcq.net> wrote:

> Again, while I think it's appropriate to debate Jennings' and the
> district's approach, their numbers don't seem wildly off in this
> particularly case. If I'm missing additional details, please add to the
> record.

I generally agree with what the Ostrows wrote. It is pretty apparent that
the MPS has a surplus of facility space when you have a district that has
space for 50,000 students but enrollment is only 38,000. But I do think the
Ostrows let the school board and Jennings off the hook too much as far as
how this was presented.

The school board and Jennings should have learned from Jennings' own failed
appointment last year that parents and other stakeholders in the MPS are not
going to stand to be force-fed anything. If they're going to propose
anything of this kind of magnitude, they'd better have the details prepared
to back up the recommendations being made and they'd better make those
details public. 

When Joe or Jane Parent asks why their kid's school was recommended for
closing, they deserve a better answer than "We'll have staff get that for
you" and if Jim McGuire's suspicion is right about the school board not even
having all the details in front of them, then that's even worse. Especially
since if I recall correctly, one of the reasons for the short notice on this
was that it took longer than expected for staff to flesh out Jennings'
proposal. So what exactly was fleshed out if nobody seems to have any
details?

No elected official should be making a decision with the kinds of impact
that a school closing has, let alone 10, without actually taking the time to
study the issues and options involved and fully understand why the proposed
recommendation is needed. It's a shame that it took a vocal response from a
bunch of parents and other stakeholders to get the school board to see that.

Of course, I'm assuming that they do actually get it now.

Mark Snyder
Windom Park