On September 15, the Minneapolis Public Schools district leadership team presented a school closure plan that is, at its best, incoherent and logically-flawed, and at its worst, manipulative and intentionally misleading. Schools potentially affected in District 1 include Pratt Elementary and Webster Elementary. 

The district office’s presentation, despite months of prep time, chose not to include any specific, concrete data about how these school closures would positively affect enrollment, long-term cost savings, or student academic outcomes. If they truly believed in this plan, then they would have included a quantifiable measurement of these three important metrics. 


During the meeting, some board members sounded exasperated about how they have been "having discussions for three years" on this issue and that now is the time for action. If there have been discussions for three years, then why is this board, and the district's leadership team, presenting a plan to the publlc proposing to close schools that lacks any specific, concrete data for how the closures will benefit the district's long-term enrollment, cost-savings, or student test scores in any quantifiable way?


By keeping the plan’s goals murky, district leaders can more easily deflect accountability. When asked at 3:11:50 in last week’s board meeting about how confident they are that this plan will bring long-term financial stability to the district, Deputy Superintendent Ty Thompson said “what we know” about school closures nationally is that “it is not something that is a huge cost savings”, and that is not an “intent” of this district team’s school closure plan.


Given MPS’ financial issues over the past several years, there needs to be changes. But this plan is taking the easy, wrong path. We deserve to see more proposed budget solutions involving growing revenues, not just cutting costs.


Readers may be surprised to learn that MPS student enrollment actually grew almost 5% from 2024 to 2025. We have ~55,000 school aged youth living in the MPS district boundaries. MPS currently enrolls ~55% of those students. Getting that number up to 78% (~43,000 students) would put MPS buildings at full capacity. Former MPS senior chief of finance, Ibrahima Diop, told MPR News (before he was placed on administrative leave in January) that “the number of students the district needs to be at full capacity do not exist in the city”. That is simply incorrect. If he had spent time crunching the numbers, instead of mishandling employee health care accounts, he would have known the proper statistics. A growing pattern from this district office is a lack of care to provide concrete, objective statistics to back up their claims. 


I have personally seen boarded-up school buildings in rural Marshall County that had to close due to demographic shifts and enrollment issues, and this is not the same situation. MPS has the necessary student pool to draw from to successfully operate. We just need leaders who want to invest in it. 


In order to attract the charter/open-enrolled/private school students back to MPS, there needs to be academic improvement. MPS is ~10% behind the statewide average in both reading and math student proficiency rates. At a certain point, that is the core of the recruitment issue. Parents rightfully want to send their children to quality, well-supported schools. By implementing policies that do things like reducing classroom emphasis on Chromebooks/iPads (that scientific research has overwhelmingly shown is hurting, not helping, student math/reading scores across the country and in Europe), and increasing support for reading and math specialists at the elementary and middle school levels, academic outcomes will improve and parents will want to return to MPS. 


State funding is the biggest single factor in all Minnesota K-12 school district budgets, far outpacing federal and local tax contributions. Many assume Minnesota ranks near the top of the country in K-12 spending. But in 2025, Minnesota ranked just 31st nationally in K-12 spending as a percentage of taxpayer income and 24th in overall K-12 per pupil spending. If successful advocacy at the state legislature moved our state up just nine spots, from 24th to 15th, Minnesota schools would receive an additional $3,100 per student. This would generate $93 million annually in additional funding for the 30,000-student MPS (covering the current $40-50 million budget deficit with room to breathe). 


Other potential revenue streams include:


Successful support for these causes could help provide additional long-term financial stability as well. Balancing a tight budget is not just about reducing costs, it can and should also be about growing revenues in creative ways. 


If the district leadership team had spent less time looking at which schools to close and coming up with corporate jargon to use in their presentation (“unprogrammed buildings”, “footprint consolidation”) and more time advocating for better state funding, then maybe they would have seen how growth is the correct strategy. This community wants elected officials who are honest, transparent, and willing to do the hard work required to take the more difficult, but correct, path when encountering tough issues. 


My fear is that the board is starting with 16 schools on the chopping block, so when they “only” close five or six, people are not as upset. Given what I have seen from the current district leaders, I think that is exactly what they are going to try to do. It is up to us to stop it. Contact your state and local elected officials. Volunteer. Knock on doors. Vote. The next school board meeting on Tues Oct 20 will be crucial. Please attend or stream online.