--- ## author: Jesse Sierks date: D:20171017085700-05'00' --- ## Work Session Meeting Tuesday, April 7, 2026 6:00 PM ## Board Assembly Room, 1250 West Broadway Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411 ## 1) Call to Order and Roll Call 2) Topics and Discussions ## 2)a. School Transformation Process Update 3) Adjournment 1 ## April Transformation Update: Projections & ## Parameters Enrollment growth and building alignment ## Transformation Resolutions Timeline 2 2 ## EngagementEnrollmentPhysical SpaceProgramming ## December 2023 Board resolution Initiating school transformation process Data compiled 2024-2025 ●Caregiver Priorities ## Survey ●Community ## Engagement ## Summary Report (review of feedback over the past 10 years) ## ●MPS Data Dashboard ●Supt. 100 Day Plan ## Listening Tour ●June 2025 Enrollment ## Projections ## Presentation ## ●Physical Space Study●Priority-based budgeting ●Spanish Dual ## Language Task Force ## Recommendation ## October 2025 Board resolution Defining next steps & Direction Data compiled Dec. 2025-May 2026 ●Area Budget & ## Transformation Mtgs., 1:1 phone calls & interviews with MPS caregivers ●CityWide student engagement sessions ●Enrollment strategy - lower class sizes ## (2025-27 MFE/MPS ## Collective Bargaining ## Agreement) ●Updated demography report ●Nov. 2025 ## Defining ## Transformation ●Jan. 2026 Transformation & the ## MPS Student Experience “Impacts on Class Sizes & ## Programming” ## Presentation ## Supporting ## Inputs ●Anishinabe ## Academy Facility ## Advisory ## Committee ## Recommendation ●Program Updates: Career and ## Technical ## Education, ## Community Education, and ## Special Education ●Resolution Modifying the ## Grade Level of ## Seward Montessori ## Elementary School ## Transformation Resolutions Timeline 3 3 ## EngagementEnrollmentPhysical SpaceProgramming April 2026 - Planning and analysis ## October 2025 cont’d Board resolution Defining next steps & Direction Data compiled Dec. 2025-May 2026 ## ●Continue Area Budget & Transformation Mtgs., 1:1 phone calls & interviews with MPS caregivers, and Citywide student engagement sessions ●Enrollment & ## Retention opportunities ●Strategies to increase enrollment and attract new families (music, arts, dual language, IB, etc.) ●Cost/ benefit analysis for physical changes ●Repurposing existing buildings ●Feasibility for inclusive special education spaces ●K-8 advantages & challenges ## Context of Minneapolis ## Public Schools 4 ## Minneapolis Schools Evolved with a Changing City 5 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Choice 1990-Present The locations, sizes, attendance areas, and enrollments of Minneapolis schools are a product of urban development and legislation. ## Proximity Era: Neighborhood-Based Schools 6 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Choice 1990-Present ## Minneapolis ContextMinneapolis Public Schools ❏Development centered along the Mississippi River and streetcar lines. ❏Population concentrated in dense neighborhoods. ❏Limited transportation; movement primarily on foot or horse. ❏Small neighborhood schoolhouses develop near residential clusters. ❏Students attend schools within walking distance. ❏Secondary access limited; fewer centralized options. ## Transportation Era: Schools Expand Beyond Neighborhoods 7 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Choice 1990-Present ## Minneapolis ContextMinneapolis Public Schools ❏Southward expansion was focused around parks and grid system. ❏Regional growth extends into suburbs. ❏Baby Boomer generation was school-aged. ❏Attendance boundaries align to transportation networks. ❏Elementary schools remain neighborhood-based. ❏Secondary schools consolidate and draw from larger areas. ## Desegregation Era: Policy Shapes School Access 8 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Choice 1990-Present ## Minneapolis ContextMinneapolis Public Schools ❏Increased racial and economic segregation across neighborhoods. ❏Urban-suburban dynamics intensify as low-income housing is intentionally centralized in urban areas. ❏Continued suburban expansion. ❏School pairing and busing implemented to combat segregation caused by racial covenants and redlining. ❏Students travel across neighborhoods and regions. ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Choice Era: Expanding Options for Students 9 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Choice 1990-Present ## Minneapolis ContextMinneapolis Public Schools ❏Slower population growth and shifting housing patterns. ❏Increased mobility. ❏Enrollment driven by family decision-making. ❏Many more choices: ❏Open enrollment ❏Charter schools ❏Non-public schools ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Where We Are Today: Overlapping Systems = Increasing Complexity 10 ## Proximity 1850-1930 ## Transportation 1930-1970 ## Desegregation 1970-1990 ## Choice 1990-Present The locations, sizes, attendance areas, and enrollments of Minneapolis schools are a product of urban development and legislation. ## Enrollment Projections 11 ## Overview of Enrollment Projection Models 12 ## Most recent K–12 Projection models (Community & Magnet Schools) Model 1 ## ●K-12 ●Community and magnet schools ●2020-21 through 2025-26 Model 2 ## ●K-12 ●Community and magnet schools ●2020-21 through 2025-26 ●Enrollments analyzed by MPLS community ## Building Blocks of Enrollment Projections 13 ## Demographic InputsCitywide PatternsHistorical Enrollment Data FIve-year historical analysis informed by Covid-19 and the ## Comprehensive District Design ## (CDD). School configurations. ●Community schools ●City-wide magnets ●Housing market and types of available housing. ●Aging population. ●Movement of families with children under 18 years. ●Migration & immigration. ~53,000 school‑age children live in Minneapolis. Resident live birth rates declined drastically from 2008 to 2024: ●−14.3% Minnesota ## ●−14.4% Hennepin County ●-21.4% Minneapolis Analyzing demographics, citywide trends, and historical enrollment to forecast future K–12 enrollments. Inputs flow into a statistical model called a “Cohort Survival Model” which follows groups of students (cohorts) over time and estimates how many will remain in the system as they progress through grades. High-end (light blue): Enrollment could grow slightly, increasing by about 950 students (+3.4%) by 2035–36. Low-end (dark blue): Enrollment could decline modestly, decreasing by about 830 students (−3.0%). Most probable outcome: Enrollment will land somewhere between these two paths, resulting in little overall growth or decline. ## Projection Results 14 Projections using K-12 community schools and magnets indicate a range of future enrollments. 2025-262026-272027-282028-292029-302030-312031-322032-332033-342034-352035-36 29,000 28,500 28,000 27,500 27,000 26,500 26,000 25,500 27,504 27,651 27,363 27,811 27,981 28,206 28,457 28,593 28,612 28,681 28,576 28,452 26,671 27,126 27,208 27,340 27,406 27,389 27,153 27,253 26,906 ## Lowest ## Highest How can we increase enrollment long-term? 15 ## Availability Fewer births in Minneapolis mean fewer future students. ## Opportunity More than 20,000 students live within MPS boundaries and are not currently enrolled in MPS. ## Stability ## Several hundred MPS students do not return the following school year. ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” ~49,000 MPS students 16 1988 1991 2005 2015 2025 ~48,000 MPS students ~40,000 MPS students ~35,000 MPS students 2022 ~30,000 MPS students ~30,000 MPS students ## Charter ## School ## Legislation ## Charters: 28 Open 4 Close ## Charters: 51 Open 16 Close ## Charters: 86 Open 29 Close ## Charters: 91 Open 40 Close Note: Enrollment numbers shown here are for grades PreK-12, all schools. Figures have been rounded for readability, though they derive from actual historical enrollment data. *OE means “open enrollment” ## Open ## Enrollment ## Legislation Charter = Charter schools ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” 17 Note: K-12 MPS enrollment, open enrollment, and non-public enrollment can be found in publicly available reports from Minnesota Department of Education’s Data Center under Reports and Analytics. Charter school enrollments are from local MARSS reports. ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” 18 Note: K-12 MPS enrollment, open enrollment, and non-public enrollment can be found in publicly available reports from Minnesota Department of Education’s Data Center under Reports and Analytics. Charter school enrollments are from local MARSS reports. ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” 19 Note: K-12 MPS enrollment, open enrollment, and non-public enrollment can be found in publicly available reports from Minnesota Department of Education’s Data Center under Reports and Analytics. Charter school enrollments are from local MARSS reports. ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” 20 Note: K-12 MPS enrollment, open enrollment, and non-public enrollment can be found in publicly available reports from Minnesota Department of Education’s Data Center under Reports and Analytics. Charter school enrollments are from local MARSS reports. ## Enrollment Trend in “The Choice Era” 21 Note: K-12 MPS enrollment, open enrollment, and non-public enrollment can be found in publicly available reports from Minnesota Department of Education’s Data Center under Reports and Analytics. Charter school enrollments are from local MARSS reports. ## Four Ways to Increase ## Enrollment Now 22 3 ## Stabilize ## Grade‑to‑Grade ## Improve Year‑to‑Year Retention Reduce losses between grade levels 4 ## Enroll ## Residents ## Enroll More Minneapolis Residents Students new to MPS & those returning from charter schools, non-public schools, or other districts 2 ## Areas to Increase Enrollment 23 ## Prioritize ## Early Entry ## Increase Kindergarten Enrollment Enroll more Minneapolis families at entry point 1 ## Bridge ## Transitions ## Strengthen Elem. → Middle Transition Address the largest loss point in the system ## Increase Kindergarten Enrollment 24 Enrollment analyses indicate one of the best opportunities to increase enrollment is to start in kindergarten. 45% Proposed kindergarten entry rate A modest increase at entry point has a great impact on future enrollment. 44% Kindergarten entry rate Current share of Minneapolis resident kindergarten students enrolled in MPS. +1,865 Students added over 10 years Predicted enrollment with increasing kindergarten entry rate to 45%. Gains carry forward across grades. 1 ## Example Scenario: ## Cumulative Impact of Increased Kindergarten Enrollment 25 27,504 28,452 (+950) 26,671 (-830) 29,379 (+1,865) Blue represents high and low status‑quo enrollment projections over a 10‑year time span based on current K–12 community school and magnet patterns. Orange represents our target enrollment from a 1% increase in kindergarten enrollment, demonstrating the long‑term impact of a small shift at entry. 2025-262026-272027-282028-292029-302030-312031-322032-332033-342034-352035-36 30,000 29,000 28,500 28,000 27,500 27,000 26,500 26,000 25,500 27,504 ## Enroll More Minneapolis Resident Students 26 2 ~25,000 MPS resident students enrolled elsewhere Current number of K-12 MPS resident students enrolled in charter schools, non-public schools, or other districts. +10’s ## Proposed additional MPS resident students enrolled Estimated interest based on enrollment requests. +100’s Students added over 10 years Predicted enrollment with increasing MPS resident enrollments. Gains are driven by charter and open‑enrolled students. Potential enrollment gain is most likely driven by charter and open‑enrolled students, not non-public enrollment. Enrollment analyses indicate opportunity to enroll students attending charter schools and open enrolling elsewhere. ## Example Scenario: +956 Students added over 10 years Predicted enrollment with increasing retention rate to 94%. ## Strengthen Elementary → Middle Transition 27 3 Enrollment analyses indicate one of the best ways to stabilize enrollment is to increase retention between grades 5 and 6. 94% Proposed elementary to middle school retention rate Increased share of Grade 5 MPS students who continue into Grade 6. 88% Current elementary to middle school retention rate Current share of Grade 5 MPS students who continue into Grade 6. Figures are calculated using enrollment transition data from 2021–22 to 2025–26. ## Example Scenario: ~240 Students leave during grade transitions annually Average number of K-12 enrollments lost each year as students transition grade levels. +10’s Proposed increase in students retained during transitions Increased share of students who continue grade to grade. ## Improve Year‑to‑Year Retention 28 Averages are calculated using enrollment transition data from 2021–22 to 2025–26. 4 Enrollment analyses indicate increasing retention between grades could increase enrollment. +100’s Students added over 10 years Predicted enrollment with increasing retention at all grade levels. ## Example Scenario: 3 ## Stabilize ## Grade‑to‑Grade ## Improve Year‑to‑Year Retention Reduce losses between grade levels 4 ## Enroll ## Residents ## Enroll More Minneapolis Residents Students new to MPS & those returning from charter schools, non-public schools, or other districts 2 ## Areas to Increase Enrollment 29 ## Prioritize ## Early Entry ## Increase Kindergarten Enrollment Enroll more Minneapolis families at entry point 1 ## Bridge ## Transitions ## Strengthen Elem. → Middle Transition Address the largest loss point in the system ## Stable ## Student ## Supports ## The MPS Experience Our Students Deserve 30 ## Small ## Class Sizes ## Strong School ## Pathways ## Academic Enrichment & ## Support ## Parameters for Physical ## Space Alignment 31 Transformation gives key guiding input on how the built environment can better support our mission. ## Transformation’s Input Into Physical Space 32 The transformation process defines the student experience and program model for ## Minneapolis Public Schools. ## Transformation ●the educational experience we seek for students ## Program ## Decisions ●program needs across the district ●school size and configuration ●program locations ## Facilities ## Planning ●Align buildings and programs at a large scale ●Targets capital investments to support program decisions Large scale demography patterns (e.g. birth rate) ## Housing patterns across neighborhoods ## Transportation ## Network ## Educational marketplace competition (e.g. capture rate) ## City Context ## Considerations ## Board Decisions For Transformation 33 Definition of holistic student experience model School size needed to support programs ## Programmatic changes or expansions New, merged, or adjusted program locations ## Strategic Direction on ## Student Experience The orange parameters define and quantify the district’s proposed enrollment and program strategy. The purple parameters ensure that strategy is consistently assessed in relation to our buildings and neighborhoods. 34 ## Defining Parameters Board decisions ## Enrollment Targets ## Program Size Standards ## Program Types & Mix Parameter /pəˈramədər/, noun A chosen value that sets the conditions for a system. ## Definition from Oxford Languages dictionary 1 2 3 Administration planning ## Building Utilization ## Community Alignment 4 5 ## Parameter 1: Districtwide Enrollment Target 35 Purpose: To determine the 10-year districtwide enrollment growth targets we will plan for ## Givens: •The 10-year demographic projections from the baseline •The community-level demographic analysis breaks that down by area of the city ## Board Decisions: 1.Five and ten-year targets for increasing kindergarten enrollment capture rate 2.Five and ten-year targets for increasing overall K-12 market capture rate 3.Five and ten-year targets for increasing overall grade-to-grade retention 4.Five and ten-year targets for increasing 5th to 6th grade retention 1 ## Parameter 2: Program Size for Holistic Education 36 Purpose: To determine the minimum enrollment that all programs must achieve and maintain in order to provide the opportunities MPS believes are necessary ## Givens: •The January 20, 2026 presentation on holistic education ## Board Decisions: 1.The minimum enrollment needed, broken down by school type: a.Grade level bands (K-5, K-8, 6-8, 9-12) b.Programmatic model (e.g. community school, magnet, etc) c.Inclusive special education throughout 2 ## Parameter 3: Program Types & Quantities 37 Purpose: To determine the types of programs MPS will invest in, in order to offer students a holistic education in their chosen model ## Givens: •Current MPS magnet programming and enrollment trends •Caregiver & student input from survey, community listening sessions, Dual Language ## Task Force ## Board Decisions: 1.The number and type of regional and city-wide magnet schools, based on holistic school size parameter ## a.Magnets (e.g. Immersion, Montessori, Creative & Performing Arts, etc.) ## b.Specialty programming (e.g. Alternative Learning Centers, Special Education programming) 3 ## Parameter 4: Building Size & Utilization Target 38 Purpose: To determine the 10-year districtwide enrollment growth targets we will plan for ## Givens: ## •The 2024 Transformation Physical Space Study ## •Parameter #2: Program Size for Holistic Education •MPS Special Education programming and philosophy ## Recommendation: 1.Planning targets for 10-year building enrollment and utilization. Examples could include: a.Minimum: no building has less than minimum holistic size determined by Parameter #2 by SY2030-2031 (5-year) b.Target: Building utilization to be at 80% - 90% of operating capacity c.Maximum: No building to be projected to operate above capacity in the 10-year horizon 4 ## Parameter 5: Community School Alignment 39 Purpose: Establish consistent and understandable measures to demonstrate a reasonable alignment between district programming and neighborhood patterns. ## Givens: ## •Parameter #2: Program Size for Holistic Education •Parameter #3: Program Types and Quantities ## Recommendation: 1.Determine the characteristics of school attendance areas that will inform boundary adjustments and be reported on publicly. Likely to include: a.Current MPS student residences b.The number of housing units (weighted by housing type for students generated) c.Census data on school-aged children d.Transportation access (motorized and non-motorized) 5 ## Timeline 40 ## Transformation Phase 1 ## Transformation Phase 2 ## Finalize ## Transformation Plan ## Transformation Implementation ## ●Physical Space Study ●Community ## Engagement ●Central Office ## Efficiencies ●Dual Language ●Initial Information on 13 areas ●Board explores parameters for program changes to align with ## Transformation learnings ●Board receives proposed options from Administration on ways to implement those changes ●Program and site changes Dec. 2023Oct. 2025May. 2026Fall 2026Fall 2027 ## Proposed ## Inclusive Special ## Education Feasibility 41 ## Flexible Learning ## Environments ## Specialized Support ## Spaces ## Least Restrictive ## Environment ## Connections to Adults and Peers Spaces that support multiple learning styles and group sizes. Sensory rooms, therapy spaces, and areas for individualized learning. Spaces that allow students to learn alongside peers whenever possible. Design that supports relationship building and a culture of belonging. ## SEAC Input to Transformation 42 The district engaged the Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) in order to ●share information and perspective gathered during the physical space study ●gather initial feedback on key themes about inclusivity in the built environment ●share how school environments can better support inclusive learning, both in the short- and long-term. The resulting conversation yielded insights both grand and granular. These changes may include: ●classroom reconfiguration ●creation of sensory or support spaces ●accessibility improvements ●relocating programs to buildings with appropriate space When programs change or move locations, the district will: ●evaluate how specialized programs fit within existing buildings ●align program placement with buildings that best support those needs ●identify small construction or space adjustments required for implementation ## Short-Term Implementation Approach 43 Program changes resulting from the transformation process may require short-term facility adjustments. Last year’s physical space study provides a baseline for understanding how specialized learning programs affect building space and usage. Where facility adjustments are needed, they will be incorporated into the district’s capital plan and implemented when construction opportunities arise. The approved capital plan already includes $5 million over the next three years to support implementation of transformation-related program changes. ## Long-Term Inclusive Design Strategy 44 Long-term facilities planning supports inclusive education by designing school environments that accommodate the full range of student learning needs. Inclusive design recognizes that special education is a service, not simply a space. Future facilities planning will consider: ## Universal Design for Learning principles, allowing flexibility for different learning styles learning environments that support collaboration, small-group learning, and individualized instruction support spaces integrated throughout the building rather than isolated in one location ## Flexible Design (UDL) ## Purposeful Learning ## Environments ## Integrated Student ## Supports ## Cost / Benefit Context 45 ## Cost Indicators 46 $4.3 Billion portfolio $110-145 Million ## Annual Capital Replacement The cost to construct all MPS facilities is approximately $4.3 billion. An industry benchmarks indicates we should expect to invest $110–$145 million annually simply to replace buildings systems as they reach the end of their life with 8.5 million square feet of buildings. This does not factor in anything new, like air conditioning or other capital improvements. ## Carrying Costs It is expensive to have more properties that you need. It is also expensive to sell a building only to have to buy a new one when a new need arises in the future. ## Background: Unprogrammed Buildings 47 ## Financial ## Impact Revenue potential and ongoing costs. ## Future ## Flexibility Ability to respond to future enrollment or program needs. ## Community ## Impact Neighborhood and stakeholder considerations. No option is entirely without risk or tradeoffs. As part of the requested cost / benefit analysis and general background , we have put together a white paper on strategies for a school district to manage its unprogrammed (i.e. vacant) buildings in its property portfolio. ## Background: Unprogrammed Buildings 48 ## OptionCost / RevenueTimeline ## Future ## Flexibility ## Risk ## Category ## Disposition / Sale The property is sold and is permanently removed from the school district’s property portfolio. Revenue quickly, but it largely goes into paying down existing debt 2-5 yearsNoneHigh ## Strategic Hold The property sits vacant or has minimal use for a period of years until new programming is identified, with the school district expending resources to maintain the building and grounds in order to preserve the opportunity to reuse them in future. Expensive to maintain, but avoids potential future acquisition costs <15 yearsHighMedium ## Co-Development The property is developed into a new use, with the school district maintaining interest or control of the property in some manner in order to preserve the opportunity to revert it back to a school district purpose at some point in the distant future. Possibly revenue neutral or positive 50+ yearsLowHigh ## Physical Space Planning ## After Transformation 49 ## Taking the Spirit of Transformation to Scale 50 A Long-Range Facilities Master Plan (LRFMP) is the means to take Transformation and several other strategic inputs to the their fullest impact across all MPS sites. ## Planning Data 1.Transformation decisions 2.MPS strategic plan 3.Holistic education model 4.Enrollment projections 5.Housing and demographic studies 6.Facility condition assessment 7.Sustainability / decarbonization goals 8.District debt policy ## Engagement ## Using the Planning Data, gather broad, inclusive input from students, families, staff, and community partners to shape districtwide insights and tailor vision for each school. ## Outcome ## Long Range Facility Master Plan. A comprehensive facilities strategy structure for the next decade. that aligns programs, buildings, and investments and is implemented through the district’s annual capital plan. What is a Long‑Range Facility Master Plan? 51 ## Students Speaks to the whole student experience in our buildings ## Programs Aligns facilities with district strategy and incorporates community engagement ## Facilities Provides a consistent framework to guide capital investment decisions ## LRFMP After initial implementation of Transformation’s directions, a ## Long-Range Facility Master Plan (LRFMP) turns the direction set by Transformation into a sequenced, districtwide facilities strategy to realize a truly holistic impact. This defines a comprehensive vision for how MPS facilities will support a holistic education for students into the future by way of a data- and community‑centered process It’s the tool that determines what, where, and when we invest in our buildings for years to come. 3 ## Stabilize ## Grade‑to‑Grade ## Improve Year‑to‑Year Retention Reduce losses between grade levels 4 ## Enroll ## Residents ## Enroll More Minneapolis Residents Students new to MPS & those returning from charter schools, non-public schools, or other districts 2 ## Areas to Increase Enrollment 52 ## Prioritize ## Early Entry ## Increase Kindergarten Enrollment Enroll more Minneapolis families at entry point 1 ## Bridge ## Transitions ## Strengthen Elem. → Middle Transition Address the largest loss point in the system ## The MPS Experience Our Students Deserve 53 As we plan for future enrollments, our next steps will depend on both budget realities and the physical space available across buildings. ## Stable ## Student ## Supports ## Small ## Class Sizes ## Strong School ## Pathways ## Academic Enrichment & ## Support ## Questions and Discussion 54 ## Appendix 55 Proximity - 1850-1930 56 Transportation - 1930-1970 57 Desegregation - 1970-1990 58 Choice - 1990-Present