Parents, work group press Saint Paul board to approve interim option for Tzu Chi (Hmong) schools ahead of Dec. 16 vote

Parents and members of the Tzu Chi facilities work group urged the Saint Paul Board of Education on Dec. 2 to act quickly to secure an interim facilities plan for the district’s Hmong language and culture programs.

Zane Her, speaking for work‑group parents, outlined two years of stakeholder engagement and said community members had accepted a Phase 1 interim plan that restored pre‑K to the lower campus on the understanding the district would build a long‑term home within about five years. He told the committee that a later, 10‑year timeline presented by district staff had been “devastating” to families, educators and principals who had agreed to temporary shifts in grade configuration.

The work group presented three interim options discussed during its meetings and said members voted to recommend Option A‑1: relocate the Hmong studies strand to the vacant Prosperity building so each program (Hmong studies and Hmong dual‑language immersion) could have dedicated space to develop curriculum and grow enrollment. Sai Thao, a parent and work‑group member, said the choice was driven by capacity constraints and was intended to be temporary while the district plans a permanent pre‑K–8 facility.

Superintendent Stanley and Chief Turner explained the district’s hesitancy about a single pre‑K–12 campus, citing district design standards, insufficient available land or square footage in the portfolio, and trade‑offs such as loss of athletic and green space. Chief Turner said a pre‑K–12 design is not the district’s standard and that school facility planning typically follows a multi‑step process that can lengthen timelines.

Board members pressed parents and administrators about the consequences of the district’s timeline change. Parents described practical impacts: last‑minute 2023 relocations of pre‑K classes to the East Hub that isolated students and staff, loss of dual‑language coaching for fifth‑grade teachers moved to the upper campus, and logistical burdens for families juggling students across multiple campuses. Pao Vang, a parent of students on both campuses, told the board that the Dec. 16 vote will materially affect his family’s decisions about whether to remain in the district’s programs.

Work‑group members said their Phase 1 choice — moving fifth graders to the upper campus and restoring pre‑K to the lower campus — was made assuming a five‑year interim horizon; when the district later presented a 10‑year horizon, parents said that changed the cost of the sacrifice and demanded renewed district engagement. The work group said Option A‑1 was recommended to protect program quality and to create space for both strands to grow, while acknowledging limitations at the Prosperity site.

The committee did not vote on the work‑group recommendation; board members and administration agreed the options will be returned to the full Board of Education for action at the Dec. 16 meeting. Several board members asked for clearer guardrails for community engagement, transparency about criteria used to select interim sites, and written explanations when administrative decisions differ from community expectations.

What’s next: the Board of Education will consider the work‑group recommendations — including Option A‑1 (Prosperity) and competing options — at its regular Dec. 16 meeting. Parents and staff who testified asked the board to make a long‑term, stable decision rather than another temporary change.