Minneapolis school board reviews new Anishinabe Academy

MinnPost’s Twin Cities Documenters program trains and pays community members to take notes at local government meetings. Below are Documenter Al Zdon’s summary and observations from the May 12 meeting of the Minneapolis Board of Education. You can find Al’s full notes here, which include links to the agenda and video.

Summary:

The board received public comment from about 15 people.
- Several public commenters argued against cutting the music program from grades 1-4 at Bethune Magnet School. They said the music element was key to the school and to the magnet concept.

The board received a report on the proposed new location for Anishinabe Academy.
- The district has hired two architectural firms for the project.
- Two options are being considered at this point: a three-story school that would serve K-8, and a two-story building that would essentially be an elementary school.
- The top cost for K-8 would be $105 million, and the top cost for PK-5 would be $80 million. The construction would be at the site of the closed Cooper School, and would include the demolition of the building. The board could ask as soon as June to move ahead with one of the options, and the school could open in 2027-28. The money will have to come out of the district’s capital budget.

The board received a presentation on student pathways.
- Staff said many of the district’s pathways need to be fixed so that students can stay on the same community or interest pathway throughout their school years. It was noted that the Pre-K program in the district is hit-or-miss, with some schools offering it and others not.
- The presentation includes optimal school sizes for high school, K-8, and K-5 use. The list will likely be used as the district moves ahead with its transformation process.

The board received the first reading of the proposed budget for next school year, with no discussion.
- Senior Executive Officer Ryan Strack said next year’s budget website would include comparisons to this year’s. This year’s site has no comparisons or context.

The board discussed potential updates to its approach for public comment. The proposal would give greater priority to MPS students, staff and parents. One board member called the new policy a “logistical nightmare.”

Observations and follow up questions:

Accessibility: Did you face any challenges that made it harder to document the meeting or that may have made it difficult for others to attend? For example: trouble accessing the location, difficulty hearing the discussion, lack of nameplates for elected officials, or the agenda being unclear, disorganized, or incomplete.

Scene: About how many members of the public attended the meeting? If watching virtually, what was the livestream count (if applicable)? Was anyone protesting outside?

About 50 people attended.

Notable: What stood out to you as interesting or confusing? Is there anything you’d like to see reporters look further into? Were there any particularly memorable quotes?

The change in the policy on who can testify at a meeting seemed aimed at one community member who always testifies, often in a very negative way. This member also leaves the board meetings shouting “No hope” and other negative phrases.

How to get involved:

The next board meeting will be May 19 as a working session with board members splitting into small groups. The next finance and policy meetings will be June. 2.