My understanding of the district's meeting was to inform the public of the findings of Wold Architects. It's unfortunate that the administration, which most were in attendance and ran the meeting on the 7th, did not address any of the flurry of concerns addressed by the public. At recent board meetings the administration has told the public that all options are on the table. I noticed on the district website that the facility use committee, comprised of 50% district employees and the rest SLP citizens, will consider public input and make some recommendations by December. All the details and timelines are on the district website for your reference.

At the junior high meeting I felt that the administration should have addressed some of the attendees concerns. It was very frustrating for many of us that the presenter from Wold was put in a position of addressing questions that he was not in a position to answer.

It was also a little troubling because I thought that the rationale behind making better use of our space or selling Eliot Center is to preserve programs and keep the dollars in the classroom. There were some in attendance that were very passionate about dismantling programs or eliminating them all together. These programs are what makes the Park one of the best districts in the state. It is very divisive when we speak negatively of the schools our kids attend. We need to work together to figure this thing out. We are at a point where some bold decisions need to be made to keep the dollars in the classroom, make our enrollment process in all our schools more inclusive, and market all the great things about our community.

While I wasn't in attendance at the Facilities Use meeting, my husband was, and summarized the meeting for me. Bill, I want to address your comments in your last paragraph. I agree with you about the need for all of us in St. Louis Park to have a positive spirit and all of us coming together to make our schools the best that they can be. You do not specify which programs people were "passionate about dismantling programs or eliminating them all together". However, even if not for my husband's summary, I could guess that discussion involved some community members' dissatisfaction with PSI.

One thing that I think would do the entire school district a world of good is if PSI families and the district administration would simply acknowledge the negative impact of having one elementary school in the district that has extremely different student demographics related to percentage of students living in poverty and percentage of students who move in and out (student mobility).

I am unaware of any public conversations even acknowledging these differences, much less discussing the fairness and the impact on student achievement.

I think that both things (the community pulling together and the acknowledgment of the problems inherent with our current elementary situation) need to happen for the overall well being of SLP schools. However, for many, the first cannot happen without the second.

Linda Hammersten