Minneapolis Public School Building Needs (1963)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CITIZENS LEAGUE REPORT No. 164 Minneapolis Public School System Building Needs October 1963 CITIZENS LEAGUE REPORT AND RECOWNDATIONS MINNEAPOLIS SCHOOL BUILDING NEEDS Approved by Board of Directors OCTOBER 29, 1963 Citizens League of Minneapolis and Hennepin County 545 Mobil Oil Building Minneapolis 2, Minnesota ..TABLE OF CONTENTS PART A .. ABOUT THIS REPORT Purpose ............................. A-1 Background and Recent Developments ............... A-1 Scope of Committee Activity ................... A-2 PART B .. GENERAL WCTIOMS. COIJCLUSIOMS AND RECOPD4EMDATIONS ON THE MICHIGAN STATE SURVEY REPORT General Reactions and Conclusions ................ B-1 Recommendations ......................... B-6 PART C .. DISCUSSION OF GENEXUL REACTIONS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOWIJDATIONS General Reactions to the Survey Team's Report .......... Backlog of School Building Needs ................. Replacement of Obsolescent Schools ............... Rate of Construction ...................... Financing the Program ...................... School Planning Staff ...................... De Facto Segregation ...................... School Attendance Area Boundaries ................ School Organixation ....................... Emerson Elementary-Junior High School ............. Neighborhood Elementary School. ................. Size of Secondary Schools .................... School Sites .......................... Sub.GradeRooms ......................... Construction Costs ....................... PART D .. DISCUSSION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS D-1 Projects hhich Have Not Been Reviewed .. Rehabilitation and Modernization of Facilities in Existing School Buildings Senior Schools 1. Henry Senior-Junior High School ............ D-1 2 . North Senior Highschool ............... D-2 3 . Edison Senior High School ............... D-2 4 . West Senior High School ................ 0-2 5 . Central Senior High School .............. D-2 6 . Roosevelt Senior High School ............. 0-2 7 . Southwest Senior High School ............. D-3 8. Mashburn Senior Highschool ............... D-3 9 .'Vocational Senior High School ............. D-3 Junior .High Schools I>-3 1. Jordan Junior High School ............... D-3 2 . Lincoln Junior High School .............. D-3 3 . Jefferson Junior High School ............. D-4 4 . Bryant Junior High School ............... D-4 5. Folwell Junior High School .............. D-4 6 . Phillips Junior High School .............. 7 . Sanford Junior High School .............. 8 . Ramsey Junfor High School ............... 9 . Nokomis Junior High School .............. Elementam Schools Projects Which Have Been Reviewed by the Committee ....... Senior High Schools 1. North High School ................... 2 . PlarshallHighSchool ................. 3 . Roosevelt High School ................. 4 . South High School ................... 5 . Washburn High School ................. Junior HxSchools 1. Franklin Junior High School .............. 2 . Sheridan Junior High School .............. 3 . Southwest Junior High School ............. Elementary Schools Hamilton Elementary School .............. Grant Elementary School ................ Hawthorne Elementary School .............. Willard Elementary School ............... Holland Elementary School ............... Pierce-Whitney Elementary School ........... Sheridan Elementary School .............. Mebster Elementary School ............... Warrington Elementary School ............. Bancroft Elementary School .............. Greeley Elementary School ............... Lyndale Elementary School ............... Mann Elementary School ................ Seward Elementary School ............... Agassiz Elementary School ............... krmatage Elementary School .............. Audubon Elementary School ............... Fuller Elementary School ............... Fulton Elementary School ............... Removal. Transportation & Placement of Portables ........ Regional Special Education Facilities .............. Construction Contingency .................... PART A. ABOUT THIS REPORT --PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to review the Michigan State University sur- vey tearnos report and recommendations on the building needs of the Minneapolis school system. Our report presents our general reaction to the survey team's report and our specific conclusions and recommendations about the school building projects recommend- ed by the survey team. This is not an easy report to prepare, since it comments on, and in some cases recommends against, the construction of schools which would serve specific parts of the city - construction projects which have the enthusiastic and at times emotional backing of the parents in the neighborhoods which wouzd be served by the new schools. It is not an easy thing to say to the residents of a neighborhood that our organization believes that a new school recommended for that neighborhood should not be included in a bond program in order to avoid jeopardizing the approval by the voters of other more urgent projects, or that the new school should not be built in their immediate neighborhood because of broader educational factors which we consider- ed more important than the neighborhoodqs desire for a new school located close to their homes. However, we believe it is incumbent upon us to give primary considera- tion to the educational needs of Minneapolis and to base our findings and recomenda- tions upon an objective evaluation of what we believe to be in the best interest of the entire city. In a sense, this report is a sequel to previous Citizens League reports on Minneapolisq school building needs. In the spring of 1962, when the Minneapolis school administration proposed a $25,000,000 school building program, the Citizens League undertook an intensive study of the administration's proposal. The Citizens League and other organizations were critical of some of the features of the adminis- tration's proposal and recommended that the proposed building program be deferred and that outside consultants be retained to develop a building program within the context of a long-range school construction program. The Leagueqs criticisms of the proposed program, which were contained in a 50-page report released in May, 1962, were directed not at the cost of the program nor at ats financing but, instead, were concerned with problems such as the need to adhere more closely to the principle of providing a rea- sonably equal educational opportunity to each student %<thin the city of Minneapolis; the manner in which the program was developed; and the need for standard and underly- ing principles upon which to base a program. After much debate, the Board of mucation finally decided to remove the proposed bond issue from the ballot and to follow the recommendation that outside consultants be retained to develop a long-range program. The Board of Education then retained Dr. Donald Leu of Ylchigan State University to survey the Minneapolis schools and develop a long-range school construction program, together with a recommended first phase. Work on the survey commenced early in the fall of 1962 under the part- time direction of Dr. Leu and the full-time supervision of Dr. John McNicholas. In the meantime, the Board of Education had proposed a $5,000,000 bond is- sue to nmeet urgent needs" and this bond issue was -submitted to the voters at the 1962 primary election. The proposed bond issue was supported by the Citizens League and most of the other organizations which previously had been critical of the admin- istration' s earlier proposal. Unfortunately, however, the $5, OOC, 000 bond issue was defeated by the voters when it failed to win the necessary majority of those voting at the election, in spite of receiving the approval of over 60% of those voting on the question. At the 1963 session, the Minnesota State Legislature made extensive amend- ments (supported by the Citizens League, as well as others) in the Minneapolis Inde- pendent School District Act. These amendments included some important changes in the majorities required for bond approval. As a result of the amendments, Minneapolis school bonds will henceforth require the approval of only 53% of those voting on the question, instead of a majority of those voting at the election as had been required. The law also permits the Board of Education to present a bond issue to the voters at one special election which must be held on a date before Play, 1964. (At this special election, approval by 55$ of those voting on the question will be required for approv- al of the bond issue.) In the meantime, the Michigan State University survey team was conducting its survey of the Minneapolis school system and cataloguing the cityes school building needs. On April 16, 1963, the survey team reported its tentative recommendations for a long-term school construction and rehabilitation program. In their tentative recom- mendations, the consultants outlined the school needs in each of ten Minneapolis com- munities as these communities are defined by the Minneapolis City Planning Commission. This was followed, on June 20, 1963, by a stpreliminary Draftn of the :'Recommended First Stepsn of a llinneapolis school construction program. The consultants explained that the recommended first steps would be subject to later modification in their final report, After receiving the consultants' final report on August 27, the Board of Education formally requested Minneapolis citizens groups, including the Citizens League, to review the survey team's report and recommendations and to present their reactions