Top Banner
 Transformation Study Updated 12/4/2010: Correction to 0.2 Myths and Rumors - Treatment of Teachers and Staff 
39

UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

Apr 07, 2018

Download

Documents

William Felt
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 1/39

 

Transformation Study

pdated 12/4/2010: Correction to 0.2 Myths and Rumors - Treatment of Teachers and Staff 

Page 2: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 2/39

 

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

Introduction 0-0 About the Author 0-0 

About This Study 0-0

Background 0-10.0 Trouble In Paradise 0-1 

0.1 How We Got Here 0-1

0.2 Myths and Rumors 0-4

0.3 Background Summary 0-6

0.4 Conclusions 0-6

1 Population 1-11.1 General Population Data 1-1

1.2 Student Population Data 1-2

1.3 Population Summary 1-2

1.4 Conclusions 1-2

2 Enrollment 2-12.1 Enrollment Data 2-1

2.2 Residents Opting Out 2-2

2.3 Residents Opting In 2-3

2.4 Net Residents Opting In/Out 2-4

2.5 A Glimpse at Where They Have Gone 2-5

2.6 Enrollment Summary 2-6

2.7 Conclusions 2-6

3 Facilities/Capacities 3-1

3.1 Wold Architects and Engineers Facilities Study 3-13.2 Current Capacities 3-3

3.3 Potential Capacities 3-4

3.4 5 Year Facilities Committee 3-4

3.5 Facilities/Capacities Summary 3-5

3.6 Conclusions 3-5

4 Eagles Heights Spanish Immersion 4-14.1 The Plan 4-1

4.2 EHSI Enrollment 4-2

4.3 EHSI District Impact 4-2

4.4 EHSI Summary 4-3

4.5 Conclusions 4-3

5 Demographics/AYP 5-15.1 Demographics/AYP Data 5-1

5.2 Conclusions 5-2

Page 3: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 3/39

 

6 Administration's Proposal 6-16.1 The Proposal 6-1

6.2 The Details 6-2

6.3 The Costs 6-2

6.4 Administration’s Proposal Summary 6-3

6.5 Conclusions 6-3 

7 Alternative Proposal 7-17.1 Alternate Proposal 7-1

7.2 The Details 7-2

7.3 The Costs 7-3

7.4 Capacities 7-5

7.5 Demographics/FRP 7-5

7.6 Results/AYP 7-6

7.7 Alternative Proposal Summary 7-6

7.8 Conclusions 7-6

8 Summary of Findings 8-18.1 Primum Non Nocere 8-1

8.2 Conclusions 8-1

Page 4: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 4/39

 

0-0

Introduction

About the Author

I'm a parent with children in Eden Prairie public schools and long-time resident of this fine city. I'm also an

intensely private person. I will say I'm an average person, with regular dreams of a quality education for my

children—one that will nurture them, and prepare them, for all of life's struggles. I also feel strongly that as a

member of the human race, ALL people should have the same access to a quality education. It's my belief that thecolor of my skin, the income of my household, and the spelling of my name have no bearing on the validity of my

opinions.

There are some people who will dismiss this Study for the sole reason that a name is not on it. That's unfortunate.

If President Barack Obama says, "The sky is falling," that doesn't make it any more or less true than when Chicken

Little says it. I'm truly sorry if you, the reader, are offended that a name isn't attached and would suggest you stop

reading here. If you can't get past the name issue, if data and facts mean nothing to you because they're

unattributable, then please, pass this Study on to someone else.

And for those who are willing and able to listen, I ask only that you educate yourself about the true issues,

underlying causes, and what some possible solutions could and should be. I'm not asking you to agree with me,

but I do ask that you hear me, as I have, and will continue to, listen to you.

About This Study

This study, almost in its entirety, was done by me. Lots of interesting questions were posed by others that inspired

me to look at other items and areas I might not have otherwise. I've also received encouragement from a

multitude of people, for that I'm thankful. With the exception of one part of one chapter, this Study was done by

me. Originally I started my research purely to satisfy my own curiosity about some of the data and issues that

were either inconsistent, worrisome, or just plain shocking to me. During the course of my research, I came to

realize if I had all these questions, maybe others did too. Since finding the answers was quite time consuming, I've

decided to share my findings so that others don't have to do all the legwork involved.

This Study does not look at every minute detail, nor is it to be construed as a thorough examination of everypossible point or issue. What it is, at least I hope, is a jumping-off point to open the door for further dialog and

research into what truly is the best Plan for the Eden Prairie Public School District.

This study compares data to other districts. Plymouth (Wayzata Public Schools) was chosen because, as you'll see,

it shares a very similar population growth rate and median age. Minnetonka Public Schools was chosen as a

contrasting district, with low growth, low new development, and an older median age population.

The majority of the data shown and discussed in this Study was obtained from reports filed by Eden Prairie

Independent School District 272 with the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), unless noted otherwise. If 

you are at all familiar with any of these numbers, you may find like I did, that they don't always match the numbers

the District has shared elsewhere. Rest assured, these numbers are an accurate representation and any

comparison (e.g., from year to year) is based on numbers obtained from the same source. There's been no

attempt to skew the findings or to deceive the reader, and charts are not scaled to make results more dramatic. If 

you disagree with any of the data included, I invite you to "dig a little deeper" and see for yourself. The data is out

there, you just have to look at it. I've tried to present the facts and data, and to keep my opinions to the Chapter

Conclusions. In the event you feel I've failed in any way, I apologize.

The opinions expressed and implied, are solely mine and should not be construed as belonging to any other

person(s) or entity. While not everyone that reads this will agree with my findings and opinions, I do sincerely

appreciate everyone that takes the time to read them. 

Page 5: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 5/39

Page 6: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 6/39

 

0.2

June 4, 2007 – School Board unanimously votes to adopt the Teal (K-4) model. Under this model, Eagle Heights

Spanish Immersion students will attend grades K-2 at the CKC, and then continue on for grades 3-6 at Oak Point

Intermediate School. In the original plan for EHSI, kindergarten through fourth grade were to be at CKC and then

move to Oak Point for grades five through six. However, by allowing higher enrollment than planned for, CKC

could no longer accommodate all those grades.

June 18, 2007 – Coherent Governance, essentially policy governance, model adopted by Board. This model states:"The Board’s job is to represent, lead and serve the owners and to govern the organization by establishing

expectations for student achievement and quality operational performance, and monitoring actual performanceagainst those expectations" (Source: Eden Prairie Schools District #272 School Board Policies – Coherent

Governance). "School Board Chair Carol Bomben said that the change was made from a ‘big, thick book’ with

scattered policies and procedures to ‘coherent governance.’ The School Board’s role has been narrowed to set 

values statements and goals for what the community wants to see, and let staff figure out how that happens, she said.

Then the board monitors results to ensure goals are being met, or reasonable progress is being made toward goals.Parents asked about accountability on specific curriculum decisions. ‘The board seems removed from that 

conversation,’ said former board member Tim Fox.

 Board Member Kim Ross described the operational expectations as the rules of the road, with the results being the

destination. If the board got involved with every curriculum decision, there would be a bottleneck, she said. Instead,

conversations focus on results.” When a parent asked the School Board “Where can we go with these things we

normally would have brought to you [the School Board]?” Board member Mortenson replied, “That’s the same

question the board’s asking” (Source: Eden Prairie News November 26, 2007).

October 2007 – As a Candidate for School Board (currently she serves as Chairperson), Kim Ross said this about theBoard's adoption of the Teal (K-4) model, "‘the decision made was a good one.’ She noted that no research shows

that the K-6 model is more effective in terms of helping the achievement gap. ‘As an Eagle Heights parent, I never 

was under the impression that Eagle Heights was going to be in one location’" (Source: Eden Prairie News October

24, 2007).

November 7, 2007 – Board reverses the boundary decision based on race "in large part because of a U.S. Supreme

Court ruling in June" (Star Tribune – 11/8/2007). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that race cannot be used as

an explicit factor in determining student assignments. At the time, current Board member Carol Bomben was

Chairwoman and said, " Instead of moving kids and families around, we need to support kids where they are, It's a

better focus than boundary adjustments." 

November 2007 – The Eden Prairie School Board okays a proposal to seek bids to remodel the Administrative

Services Center to accommodate four new classrooms for third-grade EHSI students. Total costs for the

renovations to the 8100 School Road facility were estimated at $1,480,000. Jim Anderson, the district’s director of 

facilities, said he expected the renovations to last at least 10 years. Superintendent Melissa Krull went on to saythat the proposal is an immediate solution, but also helps to address long-term space needs in the schools. 

December 12, 2007 – The Eden Prairie News reports a "surprise gift in enrollment numbers,", stating " projections

 for 2007-2008 called for enrollment to go down to 9,661 but, the final count is 9,829," up from 9,771 the previous

year. This is an indication that enrollment may not be declining.

Early 2008 – Automatic looping for all Oak Point students is proposed. Questions by the Board regarding poor

communication with parents prompt Principal Arnette Bell's response "We continue to look at how we can improve

our communication plan."  School Board Member Jill Scholtz went on to say, “ It’s really, really unfortunate that this

type of discussion didn’t happen with parents.... It’s too bad that we can’t do it slowly” (Source: Eden Prairie News

March 6, 2008).

March 2008 – Oak Point Looping is paused. "Superintendent Melissa Krull said... that with the Oak Point decision,

the administration was out of compliance with district policies on treatment of stakeholders and communicating

with the public." One of the 500 petitioners opposed to the Looping proposal, responded "Thank you for realizing

the error that was made" (Source: Eden Prairie News March 20, 2008).

Fall 2008 – Parents continue to complain to the Board about poor District communication. "School Board member 

 Jill Scholtz said that some of the strife and confusion in the district could be addressed with respectful two-way

dialogue. 'I can’t accept this. We have the duty to change the policy to match the value of the community.' School

 Board member Holly Parker agreed, saying she didn’t feel informed about some of the issues at Oak Point. 'That 

tells me we’re not communicating’" (Source: Eden Prairie News November 5, 2008). 

August 31, 2008 – Executive director of educational services Larry Leebens, retires.

November–December 2008 – Eden Prairie parents present the school board with a petition to limit the renewal of 

Superintendent Melissa Krull's contract renewal to one year, instead of the customary three. "The petitioners had 

concerns with (Superintendent Melissa) Krull’s leadership, citing problems with communications policy, the number 

Page 7: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 7/39

 

0-3

of schools not making adequate yearly progress under No Child Left Behind guidelines, lower MCA scores and 

damage to ‘trust and support of the community’” (Eden Prairie News December 3, 2008).

December 17, 2008 – The School Board renews Superintendent Melissa Krull’s contract for 2009–2012. Areas to

improve included “strategic and two-way communications with the board and all stakeholders.” The Sun Current

newspaper had this to say, "The board expressed its "unequivocal support" for Krull in a prepared statement read 

by board chair Carol Bomben. The statement included passing mention of the communication dust-up. ‘Priority

attention in the coming year needs to be paid to improved strategic and two-way communications with the board 

and all stakeholders, including community, parents, staff and students in an effort to build support and 

understanding for the district efforts.’" 

Late December 2008 – EHSI transition plans to Oak Point include "some Oak Point Spanish teachers sharing rooms

with Eagle Heights teachers, more special programs possibly being delivered to students in their classrooms and 

some computer labs being used as classroom space" (Source: Eden Prairie News December 23, 2008).

January 27, 2009 – Public comment, also called “public feedback,” was only allowed after the meeting was

adjourned. School Board Chair Jim Mortenson said "I didn’t feel that the public comment that used to occur was

really serving any real purpose." Mortenson went on to say he "made the change after discussing it with

Superintendent Melissa Krull" (Source: Eden Prairie News January 29, 2009).

February 10, 2009 – Public comment, also called “public feedback,” is now back to being allowed before School

Board meetings, reversing Board Chair Jim Mortenson's format change the month before.

December 2009 – 5-year Facilities Committee discussions have resulted in 11 options (this time without the

colorful names) for the district's facilities. These options focused, almost solely on the elementary schools,

ignoring the needs in other facilities. February 11, 2010 – When discussing free-and-reduced-price lunch, Superintendent Melissa Krull said "the aim

would be for a 10 percent to 30 percent range, which she said could be achieved in the boundary change....

Ultimately, I’d like to see us balanced with a no more than 5 percent differential in five years,” Krull said. “I think 

we should aim for that” (Source: Eden Prairie News February 11, 2010).

February 17, 2010 – Superintendent Krull officially recommends the K-6 option (in June 2007, the Teal (K-4) model

was approved over the Green plan. The Green plan was not adopted back in 2007, but here is essentially the same

plan, this time called the K-6 option. And it's the only one that the Administration is recommending.)  The

boundary change for this option was estimated to affect about 500 to 550 students.

February 23, 2010 – After less than a week, and only allowing for one hour of parental input, the Board approves

what Board Chair Kim Ross has called a “once in a generation” facilities decision.

March 18, 2010 – During a presentation to the Board during a work session, Superintendent Melissa Krull stated

that the fall 2010 class size at EHSI would be increased. 

June 2010 – A survey given to teachers in the Eden Prairie Education Association shows a gap in trust betweenteachers and administration (with approximately half the 700-person EPEA membership responding to the survey):

  • 71.3 percent of the responders expressed that they were “worried or “very worried” about retaliation whensharing a concern regarding school related business with “district administration.”

• 70.4% rated the district administrators as “poor” or “very poor,” when it comes to treatment of stakeholders.

• 66.7% responded they are “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” when asked about sharing theirperspectives with “district administration.

• 59.9 percent believed the School Board is “not well” informed about the perspectives and concerns of EdenPrairie teachers.

June 9, 2010 – The Eden Prairie News quotes Patricia Magnuson, executive director of financial services, when

speaking about the Boundaries & Transition Plan Task Force, "‘The task force follows school board policy in setting

 parameters. One of those parameters is that boundaries, to the best extent possible, will use major streets, and 

natural breaks to create logical geographic grouping.... Parents should not be seeing major surprises in the maps

that come out of this boundary change. Many of the changes should follow contiguous boundaries so we don’t haveislands....’ Those on the task force are looking to share new boundary maps with the community by late summer or 

 fall. The final decision would have to come by late fall. Magnuson said that they are working within their School

 Board policy parameters, which means the process should be ‘timely and open.’... One of the goals is to ensure that the socioeconomic balance of students in Eden Prairie schools is more even, meaning the spread of students who

qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch is at a more even distribution around all the schools."

June 9, 2010 – Superintendent Melissa Krull, in an email to parents and an opinion piece published in Eden Prairie

News, addresses some of the parental concerns. "In the midst of our work to transform our schools... we hear 

dissenting noise. There are angry editorials, ad hoc surveys, divisive petitions, investigative information requests,

contrarian newspaper ads, alarmist flyer drops, websites, blog postings, and more—all intended to distract us from

our primary purpose and our core mission. Surrounded by all this noise I remain unyielding in my commitment to

our students"

Page 8: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 8/39

 

0-4

June 2010 – One of the reasons given for the need to change Boundaries and critical to the work done by the

Facilities Task Force's recommendation to go to a K-6 model is/was that Eden Prairie schools were experiencing

"declining enrollment." However, enrollment is up slightly at Eden Prairie schools. When interviewed by the Eden

Prairie News about this, Patricia Magnuson, executive director of business services, she "‘didn’t want to

characterize this year’s enrollment as a gain but as a stabilizer. It’s not really a gain of a lot of students, Eden

Prairie just isn’t seeing a decline in students at the pace it could have.”... Magnuson said enrollment has been

hovering around 700 kindergarteners for the last four years. Based on birth rates in Hennepin County that could be

a predictable level of enrollment. If the district can sustain that number of kindergarten students at 700, ‘we’ll

 probably stabilize at that point in time,’ said Magnuson" (Eden Prairie News June 29, 2010)

September 15, 2010 – School Board votes (4-3) to delete the phrase “Boundaries will be contiguous” from a policy

interpretation for changing school boundaries. Proposed maps (though none public yet) could get free-and-

reduced-price-lunch student disparity down to 7% difference between all non-immersion elementary schools using

contiguous boundaries, or 2% using non-contiguous boundaries. It was also revealed that with the 2%, non-

contiguous-boundary map, about 1,100 students will be moved due the changing boundaries.

October 5, 2010 – Eden Prairie School District’s boundary map for the 2011–2012 school year is released by email

to parents of kids in the District who have given the District their email addresses. The maps are also up on the

District website, for those savvy enough to check the District website daily. Input sessions about the maps are

scheduled to start just days after this initial email released. Paper copies of the map were scheduled to be mailed

to all city households, with information on the scheduled community input sessions (2 additional sessions were

added because of community demand and are not on the paper copy or the map), however, a month and 2

different excuses later (vendor error and Post Office problem), maps have still not been mailed to all homes. Theprinted maps are available to pick up if you know to ask and where to go, curiously though, as noted above, they

don't list all the Input Sessions, thus leading some to believe the maps were never intended to be in stakeholders

hands before the Input Sessions. 

October 2010 to Current – This time frame is well-documented by local newspapers and news stations. Please see

those for further information.

0.2 Myths and Rumors

During the last few years, a lot of facts have gotten lost amongst rumors. In an attempt to separate the truth from

the rumors, we'll look at some of the more prevalent ones.

TransparencyThere have been a lot of outcries that the District Administration and Board have demonstrated a lack of 

transparency. Task Force meetings have been held behind closed doors. The Sun Current newspaper "has

challenged the school district's interpretation of open meeting laws on several occasions, including forcing the

district to begin distributing material that supports agenda items prior to meeting sessions. The newspaper also has

 protested the district's decision to close meetings of the elementary school boundaries task force to the public and 

has filed numerous requests for information under the Minnesota Data Practices Act." Just weeks ago, the Eden

Prairie School District "threatened to ban employees of the Sun Current from its campuses" (Source: Sun Current

October 22, 2010). Board meetings are held where people are told to leave the room due to the lack of sufficient

chairs (and yet the Board continues to have a lack of seating and doesn’t move all meetings to the available,

appropriately sized room). These are just some of the reasons for the complaint of a lack of transparency. 

Communication with StakeholdersThis has been an ongoing, acknowledged, problem with the District for years. Every time it comes up,

Administration and the Board agree things could be better, but no noticeable improvement has been made. As

evidenced by the Board Chair's horrid judgment in her "Goodbye" email to a parent/resident, and her continued

unacceptable behavior regarding it since, the problem seems to be at the top (See, “Eden Prairie Family Gets

Unflattering Goodbye from Board Chair When It Pulls Children out of Schools,” Sun Current November 4, 2011).

That might explain why the Board has continued to tolerate poor stakeholder communication from the

Administration for years. Certainly, the example set by the Board Chair leaves a lot to be desired.

Page 9: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 9/39

 

0-5

What has not been verified is the rumor that parents voicing their concerns to the media have been confronted by

district staff to express their displeasure in speaking out publicly. Nor has it been verified that district staff has

called Somali families to inform them that if they're going to speak out, it is in their best interest to only speak  for  

the Proposed Plan. 

Treatment of Teachers and Staff Survey results show that there is an unacceptable problem with the teachers’ trust of the Administration.

Teaching is a tough enough job, without having to feel uncomfortable with the District Administration. Teachersare what make Eden Prairie Public Schools great, and before any of the phenomenal teachers leave, this issue

needs to be fixed. There's been some troubling talk about the number of staffers leaving for other, more stable,

districts with a better work environment. It could be normal turn-over, or it might be a sign of internal issues,

either way it does warrant keeping an eye on. Larry Leebens, the district’s Executive Director of Educational

Services, left and as of June 2010 was doing consultant work for Edina Public School District. Oak Point

Intermediate School Principle Arnette Bell retired, shortly after the looping fiasco and during the school year. The

Executive Director of Educational Services , Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard, didn't stay long with this

administration as this past summer, she left the district.  [Note: due to the high district turnover, it's hard to keep

straight all the staff leaving. The original version of this Study incorrectly listed Janet Pladson had left the district.

At this time she has not. Instead it should have read: The Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Jean Lubke, left

for a similar position with St. Paul Public School District in July 2010]. And just recently Ryan Stromberg, Executive

Director of Human Resources, accepted the same job with Spring Lake Park School, a district half the size of Eden

Prairie, and begins in December.

Closing the Gap/AYPThe District claims to be trying to help the Somali population and to close the gap. Why, then, have the numerous

talks between the district and Somali students, parents, leaders, and the non-profit educational advocacy

organization CrossingBarriers, left those that we're supposed to be helping feeling ignored? Why are there so

many verifiable stories of children being kept in ELL/ESL programs when they're not needed?

Governance PolicyClaims of the Board rubberstamping all the Administration's proposals are not totally true. There are a couple of 

Board members who've consistently asked responsible questions and tried to do the duties for which they were

elected. Unfortunately, there aren't enough members doing this, and the few that do are in the minority. The

Governance Model, while successful for corporations with good, ethical leadership, is not necessarily a good model

for school districts. Bobby Chandler has done extensive research into Policy Governance, which is what Coherence

Governance is based upon, across the United States, and so I'll refer you to his website for more information

(http://policygovernancechandlerchimes.blogspot.com). For this form of school-district governance to work, it

requires the right type of Board and Superintendent, neither of which does Eden Prairie currently have. Even if the

Board would prefer to wash their hands of the responsibility they were elected for, they are still accountable to the

electorate, not the organizational model. 

Predetermined Outcomes & Personal InterestsA common complaint is that the Superintendent and Board continue to push for a predetermined outcome and

personal interests. It is readily apparent that the growth of EHSI has led to a lot of inadequately planned for issues,

which has lead to some community perceptions that there is an agenda to grow this program while letting other

elementary programs shrink. Yet, it is not acceptable, in the opinions of Board members and the Administration,

to question whether or not the elected Board and publicly funded Superintendent continue to push and vote for

their own personal interests. It's purely coincidental that the Superintendent and most of the Board "yes" voters

for the K-6 model have kids in the Spanish Immersion program, and, to suggest otherwise is disrespectful. As

elected officials Board members are tasked with representing the residents of Eden Prairie and to do what's best

for all the children in the school district. To suggest that they'd put the few (less than 10% of Eden Prairie students

Page 10: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 10/39

 

0-6

are in the immersion program) before the many is to many on the current School Board pure conjecture. Yet, they

are valid concerns about elected and publicly funded officials. 

While it is true that the district gave different information to different Task Forces, and it could be construed as

steering the process towards a desired outcome, it would be difficult to prove it.

Consultant GroupsThere's been an expressed fear of the motivations behind hiring, some would say divisive, groups such as the

Pacific Educational Group and the Aspen Institute. If nothing else it does beg the question, why do the

Administration and Board continue to spend taxpayers money on hiring consultants to help them do their jobs?

Especially if these groups have an agenda that doesn't necessarily match that of the residents of Eden Prairie.

0.3 Background Summary

Numerous problems plague the Eden Prairie School District, most of which have been around for years. This

chapter attempts to give a brief overview of the prevalent ones, but does not go into all of them. Further research

and study beyond the scope of this chapter would be required to adequately look at all the issues. 

0.4 Conclusions

Eden Prairie has good schools, but arguably no longer great. We can get back to great, but it will take some bold

decisions by the School Board. Eden Prairie's Coherence Governance removes most decision making out of the

Board’s hands and gives it to the Superintendent. What's appalling is the Board's willingness thus far to not do

much about the problems in the District. Rather, they seem more concerned with learning and following the

governance model, even as the District falters. Evaluations of the Superintendent are based on evidence supplied

BY the Superintendent, and the Board still struggles with how to operate within this Governance Policy. It's

common for the Board to find the administration "in compliance... with exception." Most successful companies

don't allow an employee to submit their own evaluation without an accompanying evaluation by the supervisor,

and it's hard to imagine it being acceptable for said employee to continually be in compliance with only part of 

their job responsibilities. Until the Board has the courage to take back the control the voters gave them, I don'texpect things to change or improve. 

Page 11: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 11/39

 

1-1

Chapter 1 Population

1.1 General Population Data

Eden Prairie experienced an incredible growth rate during the 1970s (+134%) and was Minnesota's fastest growing

city from 1980–1990 (population increased 140% during the decade). During the 1990s, the population continued

to increase (+40%). The last decade has seen a population increase of 8,229 (+15%), which is 3 times the average

rate for suburban Hennepin County and double the metropolitan area. The City of Eden Prairie expects the growth

to continue for the next 2 decades with a population of 77,124 by 2030 (Source: City of Eden Prairie, 2008

Comprehensive Plan). As noted in Figure 1.1, over the last two decades, Plymouth (Wayzata Public Schools) has

grown at a comparable rate to Eden Prairie while Minnetonka has experienced only slight growth.

Aging populations can sometimes adversely impact the number of school-age children. The median age of the 3

communities discussed here all went up 3.4–3.6 years from 2000 to 2008. Minnetonka went from 40.8 to 44.2;

Plymouth's 36.1 in 2000 went to 39.5 in 2008, and Eden Prairie's 34.2 climbed to 37.8. An important note about

these median-age numbers is that Eden Prairie is the youngest, and, therefore, there's less impact on the

availability of school age children due to population aging.

Figure 1.1Population Data

Source: US Census *Estimates from each cities' 2008 Comprehensive Plan

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

1980 1990 2000 2010* 2020* 2030*

EP Population

MTKA Population

Plymth Population

   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 12: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 12/39

 

1-2

1.2 Student Population Data

Figure 1.2 shows the potential student populations, under 18 years old, for each of the cities. Minnetonka is

expected to see only a slight increase in this population segment over the next two decades. Plymouth's potential

student population is estimated to grow, but at a slower pace than in the past. Comparatively, Eden Prairie's

continued higher rate of total population growth also results in slightly higher student population growth.

Figure 1.2Population (under 18 Years of Age) Data 

Source: US Census

*Estimated based on total population estimates and allowing for a lower percentage of school-age children due to

the median age increasing

1.3 Population Summary

With the growth of Eden Prairie's total and student populations expected to continue, care must be taken to plan

space needs now and in the future. 

1.4 Conclusions

The District has stated that enrollment is declining and that it's "projected to continue to decline." They go on

to say, "Additional decline over next 5 years is projected at approximately 600 students" (Source: EP Schools 5

Year Facilities Committee Phase 1 - Findings). What are these statements based on? The US Census, the City of Eden Prairie, the Metropolitan Council, and the historic trends shown in Figure 1.1 ALL indicate that Eden

Prairie's population should continue to grow for the next 20 years. The only way for enrollment to decline when

the population continues to grow is for potential students living in Eden Prairie to go elsewhere for their

schooling. The Plan is based on even more residents pulling their children out of our schools? It seems that IS

the plan (see Enrollment Data - Chapter 2), but it begs the question: What happens if they don't?  

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1980 1990 2000 2010*

Eden Prairie

Minnetonka

Plymouth   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 13: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 13/39

 

2-1

Chapter 2 Enrollment

2.1 Enrollment Data

The total enrollment in Eden Prairie public schools (grades 1–6) is shown in Figure 2.1. During the last decade,

enrollment has declined by 431 students, a 10% decline, even though the Eden Prairie's population (under 18 years

old) increased by 1481 (+9%). For the last 5 years, enrollment has been flat (a variance of just 2.2% from the high

in 05–06 to the low in 07–08).

In comparison, Minnetonka's public schools experienced a dramatic enrollment increase (+13%) since 2005 even

though their total student population decreased 440 (-4%) over that same period.

The District has stated that enrollment is expected to "continue to decline" and that prompted a large part of the

K-6 transformation. Looking at the report (ADM and LEP Estimates for 11–12) the District filed with the Minnesota

Department of Education on 10/1/2010, K-6 enrollment is estimated to INCREASE 69 students for next year. The

estimated enrollment for 2012–2013 is also contradictory to the "declining enrollment" statements. For 2012–

2013, K-6 is estimated to INCREASE 5 students over the previous year. The district estimated enrollment for ALL

grades two years from now (the 2012–2013 school year) is 9767, a decrease of .1% (1/10th of 1%).

Figure 2.1

Historical Adjusted Average Daily Membership (1 –6)

Source: Minnesota Department of Education

*District's Estimates Used

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Eden Prairie

Minnetonka

Plymouth   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 14: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 14/39

 

2-2

2.2 Residents Optioning Out

With the population growth in Eden Prairie continuing to outpace both the cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth, the

flat enrollment is alarming. Figure 2.1 shows the number of residents exercising their option to enroll elsewhere.

Figure 2.2 Resident Options OUT

Source: Minnesota Department of Education

It's important to note that the number of residents opting out of the Eden Prairie school district has increased at a

much higher pace than the comparable districts surpassing Minnetonka in 2003 and Plymouth in 2009.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Eden Prairie-Out

Minnetonka-Out

Plymouth-Out   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 15: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 15/39

 

2-3

2.3 Residents Optioning In

The dramatic increase of students opting out over the last decade could be offset if there was an equally dramatic

increase of students opting in to the Eden Prairie school system. Figure 2.3 shows the number of students who

optioned into Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, and Plymouth school systems.

Figure 2.3 

Non-resident Options In

Source: Minnesota Department of EducationNote: Multiple attempts were made to obtain current-year data from the District but it's currently not available. The same

request, made to the comparable districts, yielded the data in one hour (Minnetonka) and 4 hours (Plymouth).

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Eden Prairie-InMinnetonka-InPlymouth-in

   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 16: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 16/39

 

2-4

2.4 Net Residents Optioning In/Out

While Eden Prairie's optioning in students are up slightly over the last decade, the increase in students opting out

far outweighs that. Figure 2.4 shows the total students opting into a district minus those opting out (Net). This

student net gain/loss is very telling as to why the city's population has been able to increase (Figures 1.1 and 1.2)

while the enrollment over the last decade has decreased (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.4 

Net Residents Options Total

Source: Minnesota Department of Education

The last decade has seen the net number of students opting into Eden Prairie schools steadily decline. Conversely,

the comparable districts have seen a steady increase, with a huge spike in both Plymouth and Minnetonka's net

students over the last 3 years. So the number of students leaving the Eden Prairie school district is not only

increasing (Figure 2.2) but they are not being replaced by more students opting into the district (Figures 2.3 and

2.4). 

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000Plymouth Net Opt In/Out

Minnetonka Net Opt In/Out

Eden Prairie Net Opt In/Out

   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 17: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 17/39

 

2-5

2.5 A Glimpse at Where They Have Gone

While this isn't an exhaustive study, a little research revealed that a large portion of Eden Prairie residents choose

to enroll their children in Minnetonka schools. Figure 2.5 shows the number of new students opting into

Minnetonka schools each year. Note that this chart is not a running total of EP residents in Minnetonka schools

but is, instead, the number of students brand new to opting into Minnetonka from EP. The number has more than

doubled in the last 3 years. Figure 2.6 shows the students opting out as a percentage of the total district

enrollment. There's been an increase from 1.34% in 2000–2001 to 6% last year. That's more than 4 times the rate

from only a decade ago. This increase continues unchecked and to accelerate at an alarming pace. 

Figure 2.5 

New Enrollment of Eden Prairie Residents (Options OUT) to Minnetonka

Source: Minnetonka School District - Communications Department

Figure 2.6 

EP Opting Out as Percentage of Total Enrollment

Source: Minnesota Department of Education

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ep % of total opting out   A   d   m   i   n   i   s   t   r   a   t   i   o   n   C    h   a   n   g   e

Page 18: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 18/39

 

2-6

2.6 Enrollment Summary

It's disturbing to see that while Eden Prairie has seen a slight increase in out-of-district students opting to enroll in

EP schools, the number is not increasing at the same rate of the students who are leaving Eden Prairie schools (see

Figure 2.2). Another interesting fact is that the comparable schools have seen dramatic increases in students

opting into their schools. The number of students opting into Minnetonka's schools has increased 3.4 times what it

was 5 years ago and 11.6 times what it was a decade ago. Eden Prairie's increase is less than double what it was a

decade ago.

This loss of enrollment hurts the district financially, providing less revenue for programs that could benefit all

students currently enrolled in the district. This exodus from the district could have a snowball effect for years to

come. The stellar reputation that the Eden Prairie school district had enjoyed for years has been tarnished over

most of the last decade and could continue to degrade to the detriment of all remaining students, residents, and

businesses if steps aren't taken to correct the underlying issues that cause students to opt out.

The District has stated that enrollment is declining. and that it's "projected to continue to decline." They go on to

say, "Additional decline over next 5 years is projected at approximately 600 students" (Source: EP Schools 5 Year

Facilities Committee Phase 1 - Findings). From the same source, the chart on Enrollment Trends shows a decline of 

roughly 600 students over the last 9 years, but enrollment is down a TOTAL of only 53 students in the last 4 years.The population data shows that the enrollment in Eden Prairie schools will potentially increase if steps are taken to

ensure that the optioning out of students is managed in an appropriate way. The "decline" that the district

predicted, has not happened, nor is there any indication that it will happen. 

2.7 Conclusions

As asked in the previous chapter, "Is the Plan based on residents pulling their children out of our schools?" The

data certainly supports that. What's appalling with these numbers is that even though they reflect poorly on

our schools, the Administration is not taking steps to stop the bleeding. Instead, the focus is on how to increase

space for Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion so that enrollment can be increased. We lost 596 residents last year

to other schools, more than the increase that EHSI would have at maximum capacity. Rather than spend our

time and limited budget on trying to get a few out-of-towners to come here, let's start with keeping our family,

friends, neighbors, and community members in EP schools! Then, once we're back to having ecstatic

stakeholders, we can discuss how to entice others to our great schools. 

Page 19: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 19/39

 

3-1

Chapter 3 Facilities 

3.1 Wold Architects and Engineers Facilities Study

The District commissioned Wold Architects and Engineers in February 2009 to assess space usage and compile a

Facilities Study. Their report (dated June 23, 2009) states the following facts: 

Today you have very little excess building capacity Projections indicate you will be declining further, creating some excess capacity

"Some excess capacity"? The future enrollment numbers were given, by the District, to Wold A&E (their report

clearly states "District provided enrollment projections"). Wold did NOT evaluate the numbers, but were

instructed to use the numbers given to them (regardless of accuracy), which, as we've seen in chapters 1 and 2, is

NOT in line with expert estimates nor historic growth trends. Using the District’s projected enrollment numbers,

Wold had this to say:

• District-wide enrollment decline at 11%–12%

• Today things look pretty good, tomorrow is the real challenge.• The District’s buildings are currently close to optimum capacity vs. enrollment.

• For the most part spaces are appropriately assigned to function except Kindergarten and some specialty

functions in former storage areas.

• The District’s approach to large buildings has produced efficiencies that have benefitted the District:

specialists, balancing class sizes, serving special populations, lower administrative costs.

• Enrollment decline will continue to erode efficiencies of existing optimum operations.

• Re-allocation of space, boundaries and/or grade re-organization are likely in the District’s 5- 

year future.

This report was prepared in 2009, and the buildings were "close to optimum capacity vs. enrollment" and 

"produced efficiencies that have benefitted the District." The report lists 2008/2009 enrollment as 9,710 with a

"District projected decline to 9,106 by 2013/2014." This decline is critical to there being capacity and space

issues. Without the decline, the District is "optimum" and "efficient.” Table 3-1 shows the numbers supplied to

Wold A&E upon which to base their study. Also shown is the enrollment estimates from the District as reported to

the Minnesota Department of Education.

Table 3.1 

Enrollment Data (Projected vs. Actual/Estimated)

2008/2009 Enrollment Data

from District*

2013/2014 Projected

Enrollment given to Wold**

2012/2013 Estimated

Enrollment from MDE***

Elementary Schools 3563 3433 3579

Intermediate School (OP) 1433 1370 1507

Central Middle School 1478 1417 1498

High School 3236 2886 3103

TOTAL 9710 9106 9687

Sources: *District Data given to Wold A&E **District Estimates given to Wold A&E***District Estimates filed with MN Dept. of Education

Page 20: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 20/39

 

3-2

In District reports filed with the MDE, enrollment is listed as UP to 9,751 in 2009–2010, up again to 9,776 in 2010-

2011 and is estimated to be 9,703 in 2011-2012 and 9,687 in 2012–2013. These numbers, as well as the District’s

"projections" that the Wold report were based on, are shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3.1 

Enrollment Data (Projected vs. Actual/Estimated)

 Source: Minnesota Department of Education

The District's projected decline in enrollment (loss of 604 students in 5 years) has not happened (2 years into the 5

years, and enrollment is UP 66 students), and, according to the reports filed with the MDE, it's not expected to

happen. Since actual enrollment has remained "flat," and estimates for the coming years are also "flat," it would

appear the there is "very little excess building capacity " and, with very minimal changes, facilities usage will remain"optimum." It also means that if care is taken to not make any drastic changes, we can maintain "efficiencies of 

existing optimum operations" for the coming years.

8600

8800

9000

9200

9400

9600

9800

10000

2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

District Projections Given to Wold A&E

Actual/Estimated Enrollment Filed with MDE

Page 21: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 21/39

 

3-3

3.2 Current Capacities

The Facilities Study done by Wold Architects and Engineers list capacities and "potential" capacities. "Potential"

capacity can be confusing, so here's how Wold defines it: "Potential capacity based upon re-establishing

 additional classrooms."  The gain in Potential capacity is not because there's unused free space (at least not

totally), it's done by repurposing existing space (converting a Gifted & Talented/KEY/ESL/ELL room to a classroom

would be an example of "re-establishing additional classrooms"). It also notes that "Growth of some programs

 such as Special Ed. necessitated ‘claiming’ some former storage and conference space." The emphasis on"claiming" is theirs, not mine. “Primary Project” and “Project Success” are typically in small spaces or hallways

 at the elementary schools. Not all sections of Art and Music are able to be scheduled into the 100% utilized art

 and music rooms, and, therefore, some instructors are on carts in regular classrooms. 

The stated capacity and current enrollment (elementary and OP enrollment numbers from Input Session

Presentation, CMS and HS are from MDE) for the District schools is shown Table 3.2.

Note that the report says that:

• High School Efficiency typically 80–90% before real “pain” (e.g., teaching math in a gym)

• Middle Level Efficiency typically 75%–80% before real “pain” 

No efficiency range is listed in the report for Intermediate or Elementary schools and an attempt to obtain that

data from Wold was referred back to the District's Administration. For the purpose of comparison, "The Chicago

 Public Schools deems elementary school overcrowding as any school that exceeds 80% of its “design capacity”— the term CPS uses to describe the number of students a school can hold if it is packed to the rafters." (Source:

http://www.ncbg.org/schools/design_capacity.htm), and the New York City Department of Education's Enrollment-

Capacity-Utilization Report 2008 –2009 School Year lists Programming Efficiency for K-5 as 75.0%–90.0% depending

 on the size of the school. The Facility Study samples calculate the "Potential" capacities using the upper end of 

these "pain" thresholds for high schools (90%) and middle schools (80%). It's unclear what percentage, if any, of 

this "pain" efficiency was factored into to the elementary calculation. Patricia Magnuson's response to a request

for more information was "There is no percentage reduction based upon efficiency.... In the elementary case,

100% capacity is essentially no pain.”  She went on to say, "I would think his reference to ‘suggested capacity’ is

 already figured into potential capacity." 

Table 3.2 

Capacity & "Potential" Capacity vs. Current Enrollment

2008/2009

Capacity Per Wold

A&E

"Potential"

Capacity Per Wold

A&E

2010-2011

Current

Enrollment

% of Capacity

(Wold A&E)

% of "Potential"

Capacity Per Wold

Cedar

Ridge964 No Change 913 94.7 94.7

Eden

Lake893 No Change 858 96.1 96.1

Forest

Hills730 No Change 593 81.2 81.2 

Prairie

View743 793 580 78.1 73.1

Oak

Point 1456 1764 1592* 109.3 90.2

EHSI

Lower526 526 465 88.4 88.4

Central

Middle1439 1577 1486 103.3 94.2

High

School3267 3402** 3244 99.3 95.4

TOTAL 10,018 10,649 9,731 97.1 91.4

*Includes EHSI Upper Campus **Reflects additional capacity provided by utilization of commons spaces for study hall capacity

Page 22: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 22/39

 

33-5

As evidenced by the current enrollment numbers (Table 3.2), most of the District schools truly are at "optimum"

levels with the exception of Oak Point and Central Middle School. If the "potential" capacities are realized at those

two schools, it would alleviate all the over capacity issues with the current enrollment data. The High School and

Central Middle School, while within the capacity guidelines, are well beyond the "pain" threshold and do/will

experience "pain" due to the capacity being above the typical efficiency level.

These numbers show that currently, with minor changes at Oak Point and CMS, all our schools are maximizing

efficiencies. Only 2 of the 8 buildings are over capacity, with none over the potential capacity.

A big reason given for the currently proposed plan is capacity, that we are currently not using our space efficiently,

and that some schools have extra space (PV and FH) while others are overcrowded (CR and EL). As we saw in Table

3.2, that's untrue.

3.3 Potential Capacities

Table 3.3 shows the Proposed Plan versus the current and potential capacities.

Table 3.3 

Capacity & "Potential" Capacity vs. Proposed Enrollment

2008/2009Capacity Per Wold

A&E

"Potential"Capacity Per Wold

A&E

ProposedEnrollment

(current for

CMS/HS)

% of Capacity

(Wold A&E)

% of "Potential"Capacity Per Wold

Cedar

Ridge964 No Change 909 94.3 94.3

Eden

Lake893 No Change 935 104.7 104.7 

Forest

Hills730 No Change 766 104.9 104.9

Prairie

View743 793 812 109.3 109.3

Oak

Point 1456 1764 2288* 157.1 129.7

EHSI

Lower526 526 0 NA  NA 

Central

Middle1439 1577 1486 103.3 94.2 

High

School3267 3402** 3244 99.3  95.4 

TOTAL 10,018 10,649 10,440 104.2 98.0

*Includes EHSI Upper Campus (243), EHSI Lower Campus (465), New EHSI Kindergartners (capped at 120),

New School (561 from Map Facts Sheet + 140 Kindergartners), and Current District 5th Graders (759 from MDE)

**Reflects additional capacity provided by utilization of commons spaces for study hall capacity

Under the Proposed Plan, 5 of the 7 buildings will be over capacity and 4 of the 7 will be over the potentialcapacity. The facility usage and efficiencies will actually be WORSE than they are currently.

3.4 5 Year Facilities Committee

The Eden Prairie Schools 5 Year Facilities Committee unfortunately also were given the same incorrect "declining

enrollment" numbers to base their study on. Had the Committee had the benefit of working with accurate data,

they most likely would have come to very different conclusions about what's best for the District.

Page 23: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 23/39

 

3-5

3.5 Facilities/Capacities Summary 

The Facilities Study done by Wold Architect and Engineers in 2009 stated that "[t]he District’s buildings are

 currently close to optimum capacity vs. enrollment." The "declining enrollment" projections that they were

instructed to base their report on, were wrong. The Proposed Plan, which is supposed to make better use of our

facilities and capacities, actually makes things worse based on accurate, current, and projected enrollment data.

Figure 2.1 shows that the District's reported enrollment (grades 1 –6) declined 37 students from 2005 –2006 to2009 –2010 (a decline of 0.86%—Less than 1%). The District's General Education Aid Report For Fiscal Year 05 –06

lists enrollment as 9,890 (dated: 2/8/07), while the General Education Aid Report For Fiscal Year 2011 (dated:

10/21/10 - Just weeks ago) lists enrollment of 9,845. That's a total enrollment decline over the three-and-a-half-

year span of just 45 students. That works out to be a total enrollment decline over 3 years of 0.46% (Yes, less than

one HALF of one percent ).

At an April 2007 School Board meeting, Patricia Magnuson said " We need every classroom we have in the district"

(Sun Current 4/11/2004). That was based on the projected enrollment of 9,661 for the 2007 –2008 school year.

Enrollment filed with the MDE for 2008 –2009 was 9,710 and 2009 –2010 was 9,751. The District’s estimated

enrollment for the 2010 –2013 school years are: 9,776; 9,703; and 9,687— ALL over the 2007 –2008 projections that

Mrs. Magnuson spoke of.

3.6 Conclusions 

The District commissioned a highly respected Architectural and Engineering firm that is renowned for their

educational facilities work, to do a comprehensive, detailed study of Eden Prairie school’s facilities and

capacities (at a rumored cost over $34,000.00,) but supplied incorrect "declining enrollment" data on which to

base it on. A year and a half later, we have a Proposed Plan based on those findings and touted as being the 

solution to fix the problems. However, in reality, what the Plan actually does is CAUSE facility/capacity

problems that don't exist today, nor are they predicted to happen in the future. Tens of thousands of dollars

and hundreds of hours of work went into this report and the Facilities Task Force Findings. Even though

inaccurate, the Administration is using the reports' inaccuracies as a reason for the Proposed Plan? That's their

"proof" that we need to make radical changes NOW, when it clearly states that we currently have "existing

 optimum operations" and " optimum capacity vs. enrollment"?

Page 24: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 24/39

 

4-1

Chapter 4 Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion 

4.1 The Plan 

A decade behind other Districts, Eden Prairie decided to begin an immersion school in 2005.

In a March 8, 2006, article, the Sun Current states:

“ Originally, plans called for an enrollment of 75 pupils per year. That number was small enough, Leebens said, to allow the program to occupy CKC for kindergarten through fourth grade, with immersion students in grades

 five and six attending Oak Point Intermediate School. But when the program's initial popularity prompted the

 addition of a fourth 25-pupil section, the program was projected to fill CKC by the time this year's Spanish

immersion kindergartners reached third grade.... Leebens said he believes CKC would still have adequate space for K-3 Spanish immersion if this year's incoming kindergarten class - and only this year's class - is expanded to

140, with subsequent incoming classes remaining at 100.

 But if the board were to decide to allow Spanish immersion enrollment to remain at 140 per year, or grow even

larger, decisions would be needed as to where to put all the students.”  

Then in an August 30,2006, article, the Sun Current states:“Larry Leebens, site administrator at Eagle Heights/CKC, said one section of English-speaking full-day

 kindergarten will be at the building, along with a few other programs such as early childhood special education,Spanish preschool and the YMCA before and after school program.

‘By this time next year,’ he said, ‘we hope the building will be all Eagle Heights.’

The plan was to add a grade level every year until the program includes kindergarten (half-day) through sixth

 grade. And, the original plan was to house the entire school in what is now CKC.

 Demand for the program, however, prompted the Eden Prairie School Board to decide, just for this year, to enroll 

140 kindergartners instead of the 100 that were enrolled in kindergarten for 2005–2006.” 

The Plan for Spanish Immersion appears to have been to wing it with no real consideration or planning of what the

future would hold, not just for the Immersion program, but for the entire District. Since Eden Prairie's Immersion

program was started years (and in some cases a decade) later than other nearby District's, an urgency to play catchup ensued. Unfortunately, the experiences of the more established programs in other District's were not

adequately considered, though the District does cite "lessons learned from Robbinsdale and St. Louis Park

immersion schools."

St. Louis Park's Educational Equity and Excellence Task Force put their findings into the Educational Equity and

Excellence Task Force Summary Report Summary Report (back in 2007), which included:

"the Educational Equity and Excellence Task Force surfaced some issues surrounding any expansion of 

immersion programming at PSI in anticipation of the challenges that were likely to arise. Despite the success of 

 the ‘first ever’ immersion program option in the District, there were unintended outcomes that impacted the St.

 Louis Park school community when space became limited and not all families desiring to enroll their children in

 the program were able to do so. The unique features of the first ever immersion program brought with it unique

 challenges to the District as well. It was the first ‘choice’ school in the District.

 Additionally, the program structure included selection and entrance criteria designed to help students gain

 proficiency in the Spanish language that also inadvertently disrupted the demographic distribution of studentsenrolled across all the elementary schools. Differences of opinion and multiple perspectives gave way to

 misunderstandings among people that continue to be ‘pressure points’ for the District as well as for the families it

 serves."

They went on to recommend,"67 percent agreed that PSI should not expand in its current configuration."

So, what did the EP District learn from these more established immersion programs in other districts?

Page 25: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 25/39

 

4-2

4.2 EHSI Enrollment 

Enrollment guidelines originally set up at the onset of the SI program were quickly changed, multiple times, and

with no plan in place for where to house the students. This unmanaged growth caused the school to grow beyond

its allotted capacity and, thus, the push for District-wide restructuring to handle the problem. Enrollment figures

are shown in Table 4.1 and help demonstrate an inherent problem with any immersion school. It's incredibly hard

to replace students that leave the program, and, thus, each class size gets smaller each year. A traditional school

can have students join at any time, but, for Immersion programs, starting in kindergarten is almost a must.

Table 4.1 

Enrollment Cap vs. Actual Allowed Enrollment

School Year Enrollment

Cap

Enrollment

Allowed

Over/Under

the Cap

Students Still

Attending in

09-10

Students

No Longer

Attending

Attrition

Rate Since

Start

2005 –2006 75 100 +25 87 13 13%

2006 –2007 140 136 -4 124 12 8.8%

2007 –2008 140 133 -7 122 11 8.3%

2008 –2009 Cap? 121 NA 117 4 3.3%

2009 –2010 Cap? 115 NA

2010 –2011 Cap?

Source: MDE School ADM Served Reports - Current year data was unavailable

Another selling point the District has touted for the implementation and continued growth of SI has been that it

brings much needed money into the District. A look at the revenue data filed with the Minnesota Department of 

Education (School Report Card) shows that EHSI brings in $315 per student versus expenditures (not including

Capital Expenditures). By comparison, Eden Lake brings in $354 per student. So, for every student that chooses

EHSI over EL, the District "loses" money. And just how many people does the school bring in? According to the

Wold report, in 2008-2009 there were 69 students from outside the District. The other 402 SI students came from

inside the District.

Another financial consideration, is that the only significant facility expenditures in the last 10 years have been:

• 2007 - Forest Hills kitchen remodel

• 2007 - High School Turf Field remodel

• 2008 - EHSI remodel at OP to Comet atrium

• 2008 - EHSI west wing remodel to CKC for classroom and warehouse

The Proposed Plan calls for spending just over $1,000,000.00 on modifying the current facilities for the new grade

levels that will be placed in them. Costs that would not be incurred with the current configuration. These

financials are pointed out because the Administration has publicly stated, and continues to, the misconception

that EHSI (and it's open enrollment, which is less than half the High School, and only 38 more than Oak Point,

which it's eliminating) is a large revenue source. There certainly are benefits that an immersion program offers,

but they're not financial.

Page 26: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 26/39

 

4-3

4.3 EHSI District Impact 

Parents were told when EHSI first started that it would not impact traditional students. However, within two

years, when the enrollment was increased/cap eliminated, it meant that ALL traditional kindergartners had to be

relocated from the Central KINDERGARTEN Center to the District's elementary schools. The Facilities Study says

"The District’s grade re-organization from a centralized Kindergarten Center and to decentralizing Kindergarten

into existing Elementary buildings (K-4) has resulted in the use of classroom size space which is 35% smaller

 than State Guidelines for Kindergarten."

The original plans were for K-4 at CKC with 5-6 graders attending Oak point, just like the traditional, nonimmersion

elementary schools. That part of the "plan" was soon changed to extend immersion through 6th grade. Currently

CKC houses K-3, and extra K, 4, and 5 are in their own school cut out of Oak Point. The District's Proposed Plan will

take over the majority or Oak Point to turn it into a K-6 SI program. And future plans are hinted here: 

"Spanish Immersion students who complete grade 6 at Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion will then move to the

 middle school (CMS) where they will continue learning new content in the Spanish language, grouped with other

Spanish Immersion students." (From: http://www.epcgt.org/SpanishImmersion.php) Is that like how theyare currently "grouped" at Oak Point? What changes are in store for CMS once the SI students reach 8th grade?

In 2007, Board member Jill Scholtz said " the district was not able to present definitive data showing that a K-6 

 model—and keeping a student in the same school, with the same teachers, longer—would improve achievement."

She went on to say, " [T]here was no clear indication about what might happen to Oak Point's existing programs,

 such as band and orchestra, under a K-6 system." (Sun Current June 6, 2007)

So in order to find space for an unplanned-for, ever-expanding, choice school, the entire District is being revamped

and reconfigured? What has changed since 2007 (when the same Administration agenda was attempted to be

pushed through, with the "color" names)? The only significant change over that span of time has been to the

makeup of the School Board.

Page 27: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 27/39

 

4-4

4.4 EHSI Summary 

The commissioned experts on facilities usage and capacities (Wold Architects and Engineers) had this to say

regarding Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion (in their report from June 2009):

• Spanish Immersion’s population growth, likely adds to non-immersion population decline.• The Growth of Spanish Immersion each year accelerates the decline of K -6 non-immersion population (in

the start-up years 2005-2011).

The effects described above are just like the ones St. Louis Park School District found back in 2007, and St. Louis

Park is a district Eden Prairie is using to learn lessons from but evidentially, not this lesson. Tied to those

statements, the report also says:

• Enrollment decline will continue to erode efficiencies of existing optimum operations.

In other words, the continued expansion of EHSI will negatively impact efficiencies.

• The Growth of Spanish Immersion has led to facility needs and grade organization changes.

The uncontrolled growth of Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion, with inadequate planning of future space needs and

issues led to this. The program had already displaced the District’s kindergartners (into inadequate spaces, see

below), and now it's the fifth and sixth graders turn to be relocated.

• Spanish Immersion Pre-School may be allowed to grow beyond its current space.

So even though the past uncontrolled growth was already causing issues, problems, and necessitated changes, it

was still considered "OK" to continue compounding the underlying cause?

• The District’s grade re-organization from a centralized Kindergarten Center and to decentralizing

Kindergarten into existing Elementary buildings (K -4) has resulted in the use of classroom size space which is

35% smaller than State Guidelines for Kindergarten.

• At Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion the majority of the classrooms are oversized (average 1,000 SF)

• All existing Elementary buildings are short adequate sized spaces for Kindergarten. Kindergarten is

primarily occupying regular classroom size (900 SF) spaces since it has migrated to the K -4 sites.

So the lack of sufficient planning for SI's growth had already led to utilizing spaces that are "inadequate" at ALLelementary schools.

A wealth of other things have been written over the years about immersion programs in general, and Eden

Prairie's in particular, and how they present special challenges and issues that need to be addressed in a well-

thought-out manner. The scope of this study does not allow for a comprehensive look at all the available

immersion program data, but it should be researched and reviewed BEFORE making any FURTHER significant

decisions.

4.5 Conclusions 

This isn't (and shouldn't be) an Immersion vs. Non-Immersion school issue. It's widely agreed that more choices

are good for the District. However, it's also almost universally understood that the Spanish Immersion program

could have, and should have, been better planned out from the start. Rather than continue to repeat the past

ways of making decisions and then trying to figure out how to make them work, let's switch to considering all

options, all potential outcomes, and determine the details to make it all work, beforehand .

Immersion, in general, and EHSI specifically, are great programs for parents making that choice for their

child/children. The District needs to focus on how to best help ALL learners rather than continuing to allow a

small segment negatively impact the entire District.

Page 28: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 28/39

 

5-1

Chapter 5 Demographics/AYP 

5.1 Demographics/AYP Data

One of the stated driving forces behind all the District's Proposed changes is to better balance socioeconomic

status (a more politically correct way of saying "demographics" but was previously called "race" when it was

unsuccessfully tried years ago). Table 5.1 shows the current breakdown of student count per ethnicity, and Table

5.2 shows the breakdown of the Proposed Plan.

Table 5.1

Current AYP Counts - Ethnic Breakdown

AYP testing occurs when the average student population is above 20

AYP participation will be calculated when the average student population is above 40 

Table 5.2

Proposed Plan AYP Counts - Ethnic Breakdown

It's important to note that, under this new "balance," the AYP proficiency and participation will no longer be

counted for ANY minority race. Accountability is eliminated, and the District AYP performance goes up, because

only one segment will count. Instant improvement to reported AYP scores!

5.2 Demographics/AYP Summary

According the Minnesota Department of Education, fourth grade math proficiency at Forest Hills is 82.39%. For

Eden Lake (the only school with the district's desired diversity of roughly 22%) only 81.76% of students are

proficient. Eden Lake has the highest Not Proficient percentage of the four elementary schools. Fourth grade

reading scores also puts Eden Lake near the bottom (though above Forest Hills). The Proposed Plan, with its

shuffling to spread out diversity and make all schools equitable, states that just having a poor child sitting next to a

more affluent child will help the achievement of both. The test scores however tell a different story. Eden lake,

the school with the desired diversity, consistently scores at or near the bottom.

Current Ethnic Breakdown

Amer. In./Alask. Asian/Pac. Isl. Hispanic Black White FRP

School

Enroll

2009Count

Ave.

#/GradeCount

Ave.

#/GradeCount

Ave.

#/GradeCount

Ave.

#/GradeCount

Ave.

#/GradeCount

Ave.

#/Grade

CR 872 1.4 0.3 166.0 33.2 24.2 4.8 63.1 12.6 617.3 123.5 82.8 16.6

EL 896 3.0 0.6 114.6 22.9 32.8 6.6 140.9 28.2 604.8 121.0 206.1 41.2

FH 591 7.3 1.5 44.3 8.9 49.4 9.9 154.1 30.8 335.9 67.2 248.8 49.8

PV 657 0.7 0.1 48.6 9.7 9.0 1.8 47.9 9.6 550.8 110.2 80.8 16.2

EHSI 572 2.3 0.5 29.7 5.9 60.1 12.0 14.9 3.0 465.0 93.0 28.6 5.7

K-4 (5 Grades)

Avg. #

students/grade: 0.6 16.1 7.0 16.8 103.0 25.9 

Proposed Ethnic Breakdown

Amer. In./Alask. Asian/Pac. Isl. Hispanic Black White FRP

School

Enroll

2009 Count

Ave.

#/Grade Count

Ave.

#/Grade Count

Ave.

#/Grade Count

Ave.

#/Grade Count

Ave.

#/Grade Count

Ave.

#/Grade

CR 921 9.1 1.3 107.4 15.3 38.5 5.5 115.5 16.5 650.5 92.9 190.6 27.2

EL 929 3.0 0.4 119.2 17.0 31.8 4.5 124.2 17.7 650.9 93.0 180.2 25.7

FH 747 3.9 0.6 89.7 12.8 29.3 4.2 106.3 15.2 517.8 74.0 162.1 23.2

PV 785 0.0 0.0 65.7 9.4 25.1 3.6 99.5 14.2 594.6 84.9 162.5 23.2

New School 764 1.0 0.1 131.6 18.8 32.9 4.7 108.3 15.5 490.3 70.0 148.2 21.2

EHSI

K-6

(7 Grades)

Avg. #

students/grade: 0.5 14.7 4.5 15.8 83.0

Page 29: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 29/39

 

5-2

5.3 Conclusions

Whether intended or not, the Proposed Plan shuffles students in such a way that AYP testing and participation

will only be reported for white students. The other ethnic groups, and arguably those in need of the most help,

won't be. So rather than fix the problem by closing the achievement gap, the Plan just sweeps those that need

the most help under the rug. Out of sight, out of mind! A more skeptical person might think that when the Plan

is claimed to help all students, what it really means is all WHITE students. 

Page 30: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 30/39

 

6-1

Chapter 6 Administration's Proposal 

6.1 The Proposal

The current proposal involves converting the four K-4 Elementary Schools to K-6, adding a new K-6, and expanding

enrollment at Eagle Height Spanish Immersion (K-6). The reasons stated as behind this change is to "better

balance capacity" and to reduce the disparity in socioeconomic and FRP (Free and Reduced Price lunch)

percentages at all non-immersion elementary schools. 

6.2 The Details

The vision has been painted with broad stokes but little detail. Over the last couple weeks of October, as more

pointed questions have been asked by concerned stakeholders, the few Administration responses have been

worrisome. The original comment that all programs would be in place at all schools and of the same quality or

better was then changed to "it could be a few years until all items are implemented." That's since been changed

back to they will be in place, but it's up to each school principal to make sure they are. Who will take ownership of 

the details? What happens when requests for funds are denied due to budgetary issues (not to mention, possible

cuts)? As evidenced in previous chapters, the District has a history of forging ahead without a clear plan or solid

details, to the detriment of the District’s reputation with residents/stakeholders/teachers/students and those who

might consider opting into the District's schools. There's a pattern to these issues, and repeating it while expecting

a different result is sheer folly.

6.3 The Costs

Very few official costs have been released at this time, even though decisions have been made and others are past

their original time line. The initially supplied range for facility costs to switch to K-6 was $200,000.00 to

$1,070,000.00. Since then, it's been determined that (surprisingly) it's the high number! Under the Proposed Plan,

over $1,000,000.00 will be spent on modifying Oak Point to hold grade levels it was not designed to hold. That's a

million dollars that could be spent in ways that would help all student's achievement and closing the gap (just

because it's a capital expenditure doesn't mean it couldn't be spent on facility improvements instead of facility

reconfigurations).

Other costs have not been calculated fully, but we do know that the costs of orchestra/band being replicated into

all schools is at least $800,000.00. That number does include a little normal, year-to-year repair/replacement costs

that would occur in the current configuration, but there's no indication of how much that is. Also, it would be up

to each school’s principal to request the funding for these programs. If all schools are truly supposed to be equal,

why is it left up to each school individually to request funds? What if one school pushes harder? What happens

when there aren't enough funds to go around? Will current successful programs like Gifted and Talented or

Advanced Math suffer?

What about the Libraries/Media Centers? They will have to shelve books for grades K-6 in the same square

footage that currently only holds K-4. That translates into less selection, which conflicts with the District's stated

goal of increasing achievement for all students.

There are also numerous other unknown costs, potentially even some from unknown issues that could crop up in

the coming years. Where are the funds for those going to come from?

The "economies of scale" that have served the District so well for more than a decade are radically minimized

under the Proposed Plan. Having 6 of each and every program, while serving the same number of total students, is

not cost effective. From an administrative viewpoint, it'll be much harder to ensure that the programming in all 6

elementary schools are equal.

Page 31: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 31/39

 

6-2

In these tough economic times, and with the District's line about "declining enrollment," and, therefore, revenue,

how can any reasonable person agree to proceed forward without knowing the costs-benefits?

In addition to these "hard" costs, there are the human costs. District reputation has already been devalued due to

the Administration's handling of this agenda over the last five years. The emotional costs to the families and

students this upheaval has, and will continue to, cause are (at this time) immeasurable.

One future cost we can estimate is the loss of revenue due to residents optioning OUT of Eden Prairie schools.Since the Administration first put forward this agenda 5 years ago, Eden Prairie's number of students who opt out

has almost doubled (a loss of over $1,500,000.00 in revenue this year alone). During that same five-year span,

Minnetonka school’s opting-in enrollment is up more than 1,100 students for a revenue increase of more than

$6,000,000.00 per year.

2009 Minnesota Superintendent of the Year, Dennis Peterson (Minnetonka School District), has stated that the

revenue generated from open enrollment (students opting IN to Minnetonka schools) for this year is

$8,600,000.00. That's for just ONE YEAR. Granted, Eden Prairie School District has a long way to go to equal

Minnetonka schools optioning-in student totals (their net opt in/out total is currently 1,300 MORE students than

Eden Prairie). A reasonably attainable goal would be to just retain the 600 students who optioned OUT of the

District this year; that alone would increase revenue close to $3,400,000.00.

If we continue to lose students at the current rate, revenue loss due to opting-out students will be over$5,000,000.00 next year alone.

6.4 Administration’s Proposal Summary

The Districts commissioned a capacity study from expert consultants (Wold Architects and Engineers), and even

though the report says the schools are at "optimum efficiency," it's ignored because it's not in line with the desired

outcome.

A choice program (EHSI) was started and mismanaged over the years, which has lead to a need/desire to

reconfigure the entire District to allow it to continue to grow. The statements that the SI program will/do bring

much needed money into the District are grossly overstated. The other "costs" this program has caused theDistrict are immeasurable.

The Plan's costs (though mostly, not publicly known yet) are over 2 million dollars. While the other costs (to

enrollment, reputation, etc.) could well be over 10 million dollars.

Page 32: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 32/39

 

6-3

6.5 Conclusions

For years, the Administration has tried to push this agenda through. Even though the "green" plan was shot

down by the last Board, it is back again. K-6 is the same plan, just with a different, and less colorful, name. The

difference this time around? The number of Board members with a willingness to approve major changes with

little to no details? The number of Board members whose children attend Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion

(with the Superintendent’s children)? Could be both, or maybe it's all just a convenient coincidence? Only the

Board members can answer that question.

Despite the plan having holes you can drive a truck through, the agenda proceeds along unquestioned (until very

recently) by the elected officials who've been entrusted to oversee the education of the District. The

Administration's response to “WHY this plan” is "it's better" and "trust us." Answers to questions about HOW

and HOW MUCH receive the faith inspiring "that has yet to be determined." The Proposed Plan is supposed to

solve 3 issues:

1. Balance Capacity - (even though the capacity issues in reality are nonexistent)

2. Balance Demographics/FRP (which has not been proven to help achievement in a suburban

city/situation like Eden Prairie, and the District’s own test scores show it might actually widen the gap.

(See Chapter 5) The upside is it is guaranteed to hide the gap.

3. Adding a New School (the decision, based on faulty data, is the only way to give EHSI carte blanche

at Oak Point. Due to a complete lack of planning, EHSI won't fit into Oak Point with the traditional fifth

and sixth graders, so they have to go. And the thought of placing Eagle Heights Spanish Immersion program intoa different building such as one of the smaller elementary schools, would require the enrollment to be managed

appropriately and not allow it to be raised whenever administration feels like. The original cap was raised the

first year (from 75 to 100) and most years since, without consideration of what steps need to be taking to

accommodate the larger enrollment. Detailed planning was not done to address these concerns before they

became a problem, with the only proposed solution being to change the very structure of the district.

Throughout this process, stakeholder input has not been adequately considered. Between the incorrect

assumption that "no dissention = consent" or just brushing concerns off as "noise," very little significance has

been given to public outcry against this Plan and public questioning of this Plan. The unprofessional actions by

some of the Board members, and the Administration's attempts to intimidate and/or silence those who dare to

ask questions, makes one wonder if Eden Prairie is located in the United States of America or somewhere in

North Korea.

No details, questionable surveys, conflicting data, lack of significant time for input at Input Sessions, no

community dialog desired, maps that STILL have not been delivered, pushing for a vote with inadequate time for

fact finding and consideration, research cited that compares apples to oranges, non-public meetings, a complete

lack of transparency, the list goes on and on as to why this is such a mess. Unfortunately for the majority of 

students and all stakeholders, if history repeats itself, this Board will continue to wash their hands of their

elected responsibilities and give a rubber stamp of the Administration’s agenda.

Page 33: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 33/39

 

7-1

Chapter 7 Alternative Proposal 

NOTE: This Alternative Proposal is outlined for the sake of comparison and to show that there are other, possibly 

better, ways to address the District's Goals. It is a workable, very cost-effective and flexible, multiphase plan. It 

minimizes the District-wide disruption/upheaval, eliminates "harmful" transitions, increases opportunities for new 

innovations, and offers unique gap closing-options for current and future students.

The original concept of this plan was not mine, but I did spend the time to work out some of the logistics of it. Any errors or omissions are mine and should not reflect on the original concept or people involved. 

7.1 Alternative Proposal

A multi-year, minimally disruptive, fiscally responsible plan that accomplishes the District's stated goals and more

at a lower cost. In a nutshell, Eagles Heights Spanish Immersion would be relocated to the current Forest Hills

facility. By transitioning over multiple years, it allows for all programs to be in place and not missing or rushed.

The planning process was started by evaluating, stating, and prioritizing the goals:

• IMPROVE SUCCESS FOR ALL STUDENTS –This goal was specifically worded as "success" instead of "achievement"

because, while test scores are important, they alone don't measure the preparedness of students to succeed in

life. Secondly, the easiest way to build community support and understanding is to help all students.• CLOSE THE GAP –No parent should have to wait for their child to get help, and, while we can't do everything we

want to right now , we can and should help those most in need immediately.

• CHANGES (OR LACK THEREOF) NEED TO BE DONE IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE MANNER –Budget is always a

limiting factor, and where those dollars go needs to be considered carefully. Promising something when there isn't

money for it, or jumping headfirst into something that might have unknown fiscal ramifications down the road, is a

bad idea. 

• OPTIMIZE SCHOOL-CAPACITY EFFICIENTCIES –This does not necessarily mean fill every space possible, but

instead, to utilize the District spaces in a way that offers the best return on our investment.

• EHSI PROGRAM SUCCESS AND POTENTIAL GROWTH –As Eden Prairie's newest, and only choice school, it's

imperative that EHSI offers the same educational greatness that the traditional schools do. Due to the nature of an

Immersion program, the methods to achieve this may differ; however, the goal is the same as all schools. The

implementation of more large-scale choices in the future largely hinges on the success of the Immersion program.

• REPAIR/RAISE THE DISTRICT'S REPUTATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THE STATE –Long term, this is a veryimportant goal, and its position on the priority lists masks that. The reason for it being at the bottom is because if 

the above priorities are accomplished, this one should be as well.

The first question that is bound to be asked is: "Why not K-6?" 

The research I've seen (but have not studied extensively) doesn't appear to show any evidence that K-6 is better

than our current grade configuration. Most studies I've seen compare putting 6th graders with K-5 or into middle

school (7-8) configurations. Of those two choices, K-6 does appear to be the better choice; however, that's NOT

the same choice we're facing. I understand how putting sixth graders with eighth graders can be problematic due

to some radical emotional, social, and physical changes that occur during these years. I also considered the K-6

Survey (May 2007) done by the District that indicates the overwhelming majority of parents who had experienced

Oak Point, would willingly choose it again. Parents who had no experience of what Oak Point has to offer were in

favor of K-6, but to a lesser degree. Also, in my personal experience, it wasn't until my child experienced OP that Irealized just how great it is, so I weighed the responses, and the experienced group’s selection of a 5-6

configuration won out.

The next question, "Why EHSI to Forest Hills?" has a more complicated, multifaceted answer:

1. Size  – The District's enrollment is such that we can't easily repurpose Eden Lake or Cedar Ridge (their capacities

are needed for non-immersion students). That leaves Prairie View, Forest Hills, or Oak Point. If we are going to

stay with a 5-6 configuration, Oak Point is the only single building large enough to house all fifth and sixth graders

in the District. That left a choice of either Prairie View or Forest Hills.

2. Location  – Forest Hills is geographically in a good location. Since EHSI is the elementary school with the most

out-of-district enrollees, I felt that its relationship to major highways would be important to maintaining/increasing

Page 34: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 34/39

 

7-2

demand. Prairie View is also so close to a District (Minnetonka) that 162 of our residents opt out to, I was

concerned it would increase that problem.

3. Reputation  – Although definitely NOT true or deserved, Forest Hills is perceived by some as a "lesser" school.

That's unfortunate (and I am still surprised to hear that people think that). The quickest and easiest way to

overcome that mistaken viewpoint is to make it no longer even a consideration. EHSI, the reputation it has (and

hopefully can continue to bolster) turns a building considered a "minus" into a "plus" overnight.

4. Diversity   – A goal of the District's Proposed Plan is to even out the FRP population. It does this by moving half 

the students who attend Forest Hills to other schools. Compounding the potential negative impact that has on thestudents, the moving students are being split between 3 other schools, a much more painful transition. Even if it

was possible to get the FRP rate at all schools within 2%, it would be impossible to maintain. A more attainable,

and infinitely more maintainable, goal is achieved with this alternate proposal. 

I'm sure there are other items that could/should be considered, those are just MY major reasons for the

framework of the Alternative Proposal.

7.2 The Details

Below is a time line for the alternate-plan rollout. Enrollment numbers are those given by the District during the

Input Session Presentation on 10-20-2010, and the capacity numbers are from the Proposed Map Facts sheet as

posted on the District website. Boundaries could be slightly "tweaked," at any phase, if desired to further help

balance capacity and diversity at the schools. This is achieved not using a 2% map, or with non-contiguouspockets, but in a more palatable manner that minimizes the impact. I'd assert that the goal of 2% is unreasonable,

unmaintainable, and unnecessary and would prefer to see us use other methods (with a higher success rate) to

close the achievement gap. Before and after school tutoring and study have been shown to be successful, as have

mentoring programs. Let's institute truly innovative programs, rather than just shuffle children around. 

PHASE 1 – Move Starts

Summer 2011

PV  – Current enrollment remains unchanged with the addition of some new kindergartners that would have

entered FH but would now go to PV. This would be accomplished by reboundarying, that affects ONLY new

students. (If a child is currently attending a school, they'd have the option to be "grandfathered in" or to move per

the new boundaries). PV currently has a "declining enrollment" of 580. Add to that most of the newkindergarteners from FH (~95) for a total of 675 students in a facility with the stated capacity of 760.

CR  – Total enrollment remains unchanged (currently 913 enrolled, capacity of 920).

EL  – Current enrollment remains unchanged with the addition of some new kindergartners that would have

entered FH would now go here. Currently has 858 + ~25 for a total of 883 in a building with a capacity of 940.

OP  – Remains unchanged for incoming traditional students grades 5 and 6 (1350). EHSI Upper Campus grades 4-6

(~350) would be relocated to Forest Hills. Forest Hills 4th graders (~120) are moved here (this is NOT an additional

transition, it's just a year earlier than the normal one). That brings OP enrollment to 1470 (capacity 1800)

FH  – Would now serve traditional grades 1-3 (~360), remember there is no incoming kindergarten and fourth

grade was moved to OP. EHSI grades 4-6 (~350) are now here. Current FH enrollment is 593, minus the incoming

traditional K (~120) and 4th grade (~120) being moved to OP, plus the EHSI 4-5-6 (~350) = approximately 710 at a

facility with capacity for 760.

A benefit of moving the FH fourth graders into OP a year early is it would allow for some specialized "close thegap" programming to be rolled out on a manageable scale.

PHASE 2  – Move Completion

Summer 2012

CR, EL, PV (K-4) – If desired, minimal boundary changes to balance diversity and capacity for incoming

kindergartners ONLY. All other grades are "grandfathered in" and, thus, no child is moved away from their

classmates.

FH  – Only has students in grades 2-4, (approximately 360) which would be moved to OP at this time (keep in mind,

Page 35: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 35/39

 

7-3

this is NOT an additional transition, it's just being done early). EHSI would move grades 1-3 into FH (~350) for a

total enrollment at FH of roughly 700. EHSI would now be in one, unshared, facility.

OP  – 5th and 6th graders plus the remaining FH students 2-4 grades (~360) for a total of 1710 in a capacity of 1800.

CKC  – The EHSI Pre-K and K would stay here and the free space could be used for Admin, ECFE, or any other need.  

PHASE 3  – No More Moves

Summer 2013

PV, CR and EL remain unchanged. If there were no boundary changes the previous year, they could be considered

if necessary to balance capacities.

OP is now 5-6 plus the remaining original FH students (in grades 3 and 4). Total students = 1590 with capacity of 

1800. This space, and the space at CKC, would be nicely "flexible," and use could be adjusted as needs dictate.

Having this space at two, fairly centrally located buildings, means adjustments for enrollment "bubbles" can be

accommodated easier than if the space is spread out over 4 or 5 buildings. It'd also make a great way to

rollout/incorporate innovative programs, community services, STEM programming, etc. Or, if preferred, EHSI Pre-

K and K could be moved to OP (depending upon enrollment) to free up all of CKC.

FH remains only EHSI (~745 with a capacity of 760)

2014/2015 and beyond  

EP would have 3 traditional K-4 schools and a 5-6 intermediate school, all that make great use of their capacity—

well-utilized without undue "pain" and the flexibility to deal with enrollment increases/decreases in the years to

come. In addition, EHSI would have its own campus, though Pre-K and K are still at CKC (if enrollment was lower,

those grades could be moved to FH, but wouldn't have to be). The FH building has capacity for EHSI to allow

enrollment of ~140/year (with attrition). FRP would be improved (excluding EHSI) as EL would stay ~23%, PV up to

~16% and CR would be 9-10%. That's a range from of ~14% from the high to the low. It's not a 2% difference, but

it would be easier to maintain as there'd only be 3 boundaried elementary schools instead of the Proposed 5. Oak

Point, of course, is completely diverse from 5th grade on. I realize how hard it might be to follow the phases per

my written description, so see Table 7.1 for the same information in a different format. It lists what the changes

are each year (Summer 20XX) as well as each schools grade configuration for each year.  

Table 7.1

Alternate Plan Timeline Grid

Summer

2011

2011

2012

Summer

2012

2012

2013

Summer

2013

2013

2014

Summer

20142014+

Cedar

Ridge

Minimal

ChangesK-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4

Eden

Lake

Minimal

ChangesK-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4

Prairie

View

Minimal

ChangesK-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4 No Change K-4

Forest

Hills

K Rebound.

4th to OP 1-3 2-4 to OP 1-6 No Change 1-6 No Change 1-6

EHSI

LowerNo Change K-3 1-3 to FH

PreK &

KNo Change

PreK &

KNo Change

PreK &

K

EHSI

UpperTo FH - No Change - No Change - No Change -

Oak

PointNo Change 5-6 2-4 from FH

5-6No Change

5-6No Change

5-6

2-4 3-4 4

There are some Forest Hills students EHSI Students

Page 36: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 36/39

 

7-4

other details of this idea that would need to be worked out (and the time line allows plenty of time to do), but this

is presented as a starting point to consider what other options might look like.

PROS  – NO transitions where students are separated from classmates. The OP programming all stays in one

building (maximizing efficiencies). Improved diversity in all grades at all schools (except EHSI, which isn't

adequately addressed in the Proposed Plan, but with the new location, it could be a big attraction to out-of-district

families; if we want to dream big, have a light-rail stop put in within walking distance!). Huge cost savings! Plenty

of time to make these transitions in a well-thought-out manner. EHSI gets it's very own campus for the 2012school year (instead of having to share with a different school) located within easy access to major

highways/freeways. Property values near FH increase as their proximity to the SI campus becomes a selling point

instead of a negative. We all come together as a community!

CONS  – EHSI potentially would balk due to not getting the building they want. Is getting Administration to

adequately CONSIDER something like this, or any alternate plan, a long shot? Why have a plan that addresses all

the stated goals, with NO separation of classmates, when you can disperse and disrupt MANY to hide some?!?!

Forest Hills would cease to exist as we know it (whereas Oak Point is "closed down" in the Proposed Plan).

If it's deemed desirable, all the student shifts could be done in one year. This would put Oak Point ~20 students

over 100% capacity. 

7.3 The Costs

There'd be no need to modify any facilities! That right there saves over a million dollars. Busing to 3 elementary

schools versus the current 4 or planned-for 5? I can't imagine it would be significantly more, and quite possibly

could be less, but I don't know. All innovations/programs/books/etc. only need to be in place at 3 schools (and

most already are), so one LESS than current and 2 LESS than proposed by Admin. Also, the OP programs wouldn't

need to be duplicated at 6 schools, and that'll save a substantial amount every year over the current

Administrations Proposed Plan. Diversity is increased and will be much easier to maintain at 3 schools instead of 5.

So besides the $1,070,000 saved on not needing to modify facilities, there'd be savings with most, if not all, other

aspects. That's a LOT of money that could, and SHOULD, go to programs like the ones at FH now that are aimed at

closing the achievement gap and helping ALL students!

In addition, while the current plan stops there, this plan wouldn't have to. If EHSI could draw in larger out-of-

district enrollment, because it’s nicely located (proximity to freeways and other districts) and an immersion-only

campus, there could be even MORE net revenue to support all district students! Could a portion of the saved

$1,070,000.00 be spent expanding the program if it's deemed necessary or desirable?

Another HUGE "selling point" to this plan is that it really minimizes the "pain" of transitions. There are NO EXTRA

TRANSITIONS (just some are done sooner), and ALL relocations involve moving a schools' entire grade level as a

group (and nobody feels like an outsider coming into an established school). In contrast, the current Proposed

Plan is moving 17 students from EL to FH and 31 from EL to CR. CR moves 33 to PV and 48 to FH. And those

numbers are the TOTAL count, across ALL GRADE LEVELS. The 31 EL children being displaced to CR amount to

roughly 6 per grade level. And they're going into a school with 903 unfamiliar students. In a best-case scenario,

the 6 would all know each other, which is highly unlikely (what child knows EVERY single child at their school in

their grade level, not just in their class, but in their grade level?), and it's still highly probable they'll be in a class

with no familiar faces. The Alternative Plan moves entire grade levels of students together, all to the same

destination. The Administration's Proposed Plan takes over half the Forest Hills children (the ones claimed to be

the most in need) and scatters them across 4 different schools. That's going to benefit them how? We've seen

how it benefits the test scores the District reports, but not how it actually helps even ONE child's achievement.

Page 37: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 37/39

 

7-5

7.4 Capacities 

A breakdown of estimated capacity utilization is below (once again, using the District's Proposed Map Facts

capacities), and these are without any boundary changes that affect current students. If optional moderate

boundary changes are made, the utilization could be even better:

2011/2012:

CR @ 99.2% (no change)EL @ 93.9% (currently 91.3%)

PV @ 88.8% (currently only 76.3%)

FH @ 93.4% (it's currently at 78.0%)

OP @ 81.7% (this is an anomaly due to the transition process, but could be utilized nicely for programming rollout)

SUMMARY = 90.9% capacity across all elementary buildings with a low of 81.7 and high of 99.2%

2012/2013:

CR, EL, PV would range from 90-99%

FH (now exclusively EHSI) @ 92% but could be higher/lower based on enrollment

OP @ 95%

SUMMARY = 94.2% capacity across all buildings with a low of 90% and high of 99% (except CKC)

2013/2014:

CR, EL & PV all @ 90-99%

OP @ 88.3%

EHSI (in the FH facility) @ 98.0%

SUMMARY = 95.9% capacity across all buildings (with a low of 88% and high of 99%)

2014/2015 and beyond:

CR, EL & PV remain at 90-99%

OP remains at 88.3%

EHSI with 6% attrition, @ 132/grade, will be at 98.7%. If demand slightly outpaces space, it could be addressed asneeded (with additional space added or repurposed). The kindergarten enrollment numbers for EHSI have

declined slightly each of the last 3 years (from a high of 136 in 2006 –2007 to 133, 121, and 115 over the following

years, Source: MDE–SCHOOL ADM SERVED REPORT totals for kindergarten class sizes), most likely due to space

constraints though and not demand.

SUMMARY = 95.9% capacity across all buildings (with a low of 88% and high of 99%)

7.5 Demographics/FRP 

The Proposed Plan is supposed to get the FRP variance between schools down to 2%. It's unclear if it will (and

without knowing how many children will opt out to other, more stable districts, it's impossible to know for sure).

Even if the desired numbers are obtained the first year, how long before another round of shuffling and upheavalis required to maintain it? People are not fixed objects, sometimes they move (and as the District has pointed out,

even more so with the FRP population). Enrollment ebbs and flows year after year, and if each facility doesn't

have flexible rooms/spaces to accommodate this, more changes will be needed. Yearly changes to the boundaries

are unacceptable and avoidable.

Page 38: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 38/39

 

7-6

7.6 Results/AYP 

The Proposed Plan is such that AYP testing and participation is calculated only for WHITE students (due to ethnic-

group counts being too low to be reported per school). Even if the Proposed Plan could promise improvement,

there's no way to measure it, nor would there be the state oversight to ensure students are making Adequate

Yearly Progress.

This Alternative Plan does not avoid the testing, and as a community we should welcome it! We want to close thegap, and if we don't test for it, how can we measure the gains or lack thereof?

7.7 Alternative Proposal Summary 

This Alternative Plan offers a lot of upsides and very little downsides compared to the District's currently Proposed

Plan. A lot of what makes this plan better is that it's based on realistic, manageable, measurable, sustainable goals.

Even if you agree a 2% FRP disparity is better, you'd have to admit it's less sustainable. Even if you think this

Alternative Plan moves too many kids, at least it's less "painful” than the Proposed Plan. Economies of scale are

maximized while allowing the time and budget dollars to be used on improving all children's education.

7.8 Conclusions

This Alternative Plan is not the be all, end all of Plans. It's not intended to be, and I don't pretend to have all the

answers. The purpose of including it in this Study is to show an example of another option and hopefully to get

people thinking and talking about the pros and cons of every option. I'm sure there are a fair amount of people

who will think this Alternative Plan and the priority of the goals that determined the shape of this Plan are less

than ideal, and that's OK. But don't just say, "I don't like it," without saying WHY you don't like it. I suggest as a

community we all have a dialog and share ideas and evaluate possibilities so that whatever is finally decided,

nobody feels like their input wasn't considered—so that there won't be this feeling of busy work done to ensure a

preplanned outcome.

Page 39: UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

8/6/2019 UPDATED - 2010 Transformation Study-Updated 12-4-10

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/updated-2010-transformation-study-updated-12-4-10 39/39

 

Chapter 8 Summary of Findings 

8.1 Primum Non Nocere 

A Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm" is one of the principal precepts of medical ethics that all medical

students are taught in school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world.

Another way to state it is that "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to donothing, than to risk causing more harm than good." (Source: wikipedia.org) 

8.2 Conclusions

During the course of my research, I've had the opportunity to speak with a lot of people (parents, educators,

and citizens) about the Proposed Plan. One thing that's struck me as tremendously worrisome is that not a

single person could tell me why they think this Plan is the best plan. Not a single one! There are people who are

"against" it, people who are indifferent, and some people who are "for" it. But nobody, out of all the people

I've talked to, could point to any piece of the Plan and tell me why they like it. Almost universally, the stated

goals of the Plan are liked, but, just because you have a destination in mind, doesn't mean you'll get there. Evenwith a good, solid plan, there's no guarantee the outcome will be what you hope. So somebody, anybody,

explain what makes this Proposed Plan the right Plan.

Admittedly, I am not the smartest person in the world, and I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do have

a thirst for, and a willingness to work towards, finding them. The currently Proposed Plan leaves a lot to be

answered and even more to be desired. I realize, whatever decision is made, not everyone will agree with it,

and that's OK. There is no perfect plan, but if we all work together, we CAN implement the BEST plan. It's my

hope that this Study will open some eyes and get people thinking and talking about what could be. Every parent

wants the best for their children, and I sincerely hope that whatever path we take, we can all take it together.

Years from now, I hope everyone can look back on these decisions and say, "That's when things got even

better!"

I've said it many times throughout this ordeal and I'll say it again:

I'd rather fight for something, than against it.

So please, give us all something we can fight FOR!