Elementary Schools

Overview

Minneapolis Public Schools currently has a total of 41 elementary schools across the city. The buildings range in age from 21 to 126 years old and have a total size of approximately 3,690,664 square feet. 30 schools have their own kitchen, 31 have air conditioning, and 32 schools have a Safe and Welcoming Entrance as defined by Capital Planning, Construction, and Maintenance.

According to a Facilities Condition Assessment performed in 2017, 30 elementary schools were considered to be in “Fair” or “Good” condition. A new Facilities Condition Assessment is underway at the time of this report and will be completed by the end of calendar year 2025. See Table 1 below for more detail.

Across all elementary schools in the district, there is room for approximately 24,001 students based on how the buildings are being used. For information on how building capacity is calculated, please see the School Transformation website which has links to school-level reports. A link is included at the end of this report. As of 01 October, 2024, Minneapolis Public Schools enrolled approximately 15,358 students in elementary schools. Please see Table 2 below for more detail on school enrollment capacities and school enrollment.

Building Information

School Name	Size	Year Built	SWE*	Air Con	Kitchen	Condition**
Anishinabe	60,073 sq ft	1950	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Armatage	86,488 sq ft	1952	NO	YES	YES	Poor
Bancroft	79,267 sq ft	1912	YES	YES	YES	Good
Barton	83,752 sq ft	1915	YES	YES	NO	Good
Bethune Arts	75,615 sq ft	1968	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Bryn Mawr	102,658 sq ft	1959	YES	NO	NO	Fair
Burroughs	100,367 sq ft	2003	NO	YES	YES	Good
Cityview	121,588 sq ft	1999	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Dowling	88,608 sq ft	1924	NO	YES	YES	Fair
Ella Baker	156,450 sq ft	1923	YES	YES	YES	Good
Emerson	57,061 sq ft	1926	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Field	81,171 sq ft	1921	YES	NO	YES	Good
Folwell	140,629 sq ft	1931	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Green Central	117,773 sq ft	1977	YES	YES	NO	Good
Hale	81,807 sq ft	1930	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Hall	81,030 sq ft	1960	YES	YES	YES	Good
Hiawatha	40,888 sq ft	1916	NO	NO	YES	Poor
Hmong International	123,293 sq ft	1999	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Howe	36,161 sq ft	1927	NO	YES	YES	Good
Jenny Lind	96,693 sq ft	1995	YES	YES	NO	Poor
Kenny	60,104 sq ft	1954	YES	NO	NO	Poor
Kenwood	65,699 sq ft	1908	NO	NO	NO	Fair
Lake Harriet Lower	63,646 sq ft	1924	YES	NO	YES	Poor
Lake Harriet Upper	85,874 sq ft	1915	YES	NO	NO	Good
Lake Nokomis Keewaydin	86,050 sq ft	1928	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Lake Nokomis Wenonah	44,827 sq ft	1952	YES	YES	NO	Fair
Las Estrellas	148,005 sq ft	1932	NO	NO	NO	Poor
Loring	59,896 sq ft	1928	YES	YES	YES	Poor
Lucy Craft Laney	109,026 sq ft	2000	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Lyndale	97,506 sq ft	1968	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Marcy Arts	78,957 sq ft	1992	YES	YES	YES	Good
Nellie Stone Johnson	125,150 sq ft	2001	YES	YES	YES	Good
Northrop	33,698 sq ft	1916	YES	NO	YES	Poor
Pillsbury	87,705 sq ft	1991	NO	YES	NO	Poor
Pratt	42,437 sq ft	1898	YES	NO	YES	Poor
Seward	126,726 sq ft	1966	YES	YES	YES	Good
Sullivan	214,421 sq ft	1949	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Waite Park	60,073 sq ft	1950	YES	YES	YES	Fair
Webster	73,414 sq ft	1974	YES	YES	YES	Good
Whittier	142,460 sq ft	1997	NO	YES	NO	Fair
Windom	73,618 sq ft	1920	YES	YES	YES	Fair

*SWE refers to whether the building has a Safe and Welcoming Entrance as defined by Capital Planning, Construction, and Maintenance.

**Condition refers to the results of a Facility Condition Assessment performed in 2017. MPS is conducting another assessment with expected completion in 2025.

Table 1. Size, Build Year, Safe and Welcome Entrance, Air Conditioning, Kitchen, and 2017 Condition by building

Enrollment and Utilization Information

School Name	Grades	Design Enrollment	Enrollment	Pct of Design Enrollment	Usage*
Anishinabe**	K - 8	1,136	209	18%	Efficient
Armatage	K - 5	539	378	70%	Efficient
Bancroft	K - 5	706	503	71%	Efficient
Barton	K - 5	550	511	93%	Highly Efficient
Bethune Arts	K - 5	532	244	46%	Underutilized
Bryn Mawr	K - 5	594	448	75%	Efficient
Burroughs	K - 5	700	481	69%	Underutilized
Cityview	K - 5	632	244	39%	Underutilized
Dowling	K - 5	470	399	85%	Efficient
Ella Baker	K - 8	739	545	74%	Efficient
Emerson	K - 5	505	507	100%	Highly Efficient
Field	3 - 5	466	288	62%	Underutilized
Folwell	K - 5	783	496	63%	Underutilized
Green Central	K - 5	670	596	89%	Highly Efficient
Hale	K - 2	535	330	62%	Underutilized
Hall	K - 5	524	240	46%	Underutilized
Hiawatha	K - 2	284	202	71%	Efficient
Hmong International	K - 5	797	260	33%	Underutilized
Howe	3 - 5	293	232	79%	Efficient
Jenny Lind	K - 5	529	254	48%	Underutilized
Kenny	K - 5	389	295	76%	Efficient
Kenwood	K - 5	507	391	77%	Efficient
Lake Harriet Lower	K - 2	509	309	61%	Underutilized
Lake Harriet Upper	3 - 5	581	285	49%	Underutilized
Lake Nokomis Keewaydin	2 - 5	552	349	63%	Underutilized
Lake Nokomis Wenonah	K - 1	298	152	51%	Underutilized
Las Estrellas	K - 5	724	443	61%	Underutilized
Loring	K - 5	396	335	85%	Efficient
Lucy Craft Laney	K - 5	708	418	59%	Underutilized
Lyndale	K - 5	629	494	79%	Efficient
Marcy Arts	K - 5	567	432	76%	Efficient
Nellie Stone Johnson	K - 5	738	306	41%	Underutilized
Northrop	K - 5	444	384	86%	Efficient
Pillsbury	K - 5	648	464	72%	Efficient
Pratt	K - 5	249	211	85%	Efficient
Seward	K - 5	912	611	67%	Underutilized
Sullivan**	K - 8	1,136	646	57%	Efficient
Waite Park	K - 5	481	273	57%	Underutilized
Webster	K - 5	382	299	78%	Efficient
Whittier	K - 5	668	525	79%	Efficient
Windom	K - 5	499	369	74%	Efficient

*Usage is defined in Table 3 below.

**Anishinabe and Sullivan share a building, and their enrollments are combined to determine whether the school building is efficiently utilized or not.

Table 2. Enrollment, capacity, and utilization by school

Usage	Definition
Underutilized	< 70% Enrollment to Design Enrollment
Efficient	70% to 90% Enrollment to Design Enrollment
Highly Efficient	90% to 105% Enrollment to Design Enrollment
Overutilitized	> 105% Enrollment to Design Enrollment

Table 3. Definitions of the utilization categories

Building Use

At the direction of the Board of Education, district staff performed a physical space study of all district schools. This included an October 2024 walkthrough of buildings alongside many different stakeholders - Board directors, principals, teachers, central office staff, custodians, and others. For information on how each building individually is being used, please see the individual school-level reports found on the MPS School Transformation website (link available at the end of this report).

Predictable Spaces

As part of the walkthroughs conducted at each building, data was collected on certain types of “predictable” spaces, or spaces that we want each school to have as part of their programming. These spaces include space for counselors/therapists/mental health support and social-emotional learning [SEL] spaces or calming rooms. Of the 41 elementary schools in the district, 26 schools have a dedicated space for a counselor or mental health specialist and 35 schools have a dedicated SEL space or calming room for students.

Other important spaces to note are dedicated art labs and a space for Occupational or Physical Therapy. 36 schools have dedicated spaces for art classes [spaces where the room set up itself designates it as an art space, such as extra sinks, a kiln, or other equipment]. 28 schools have a space dedicated to Occupational or Physical Therapy. See Table 4 below for school-by-school information.

School Name	Counselor	SEL / Calming	Art Lab	OT/PT
Anishinabe	NO	YES	YES	NO
Armatage	YES	YES	YES	YES
Bancroft	YES	YES	YES	YES
Barton	NO	NO	YES	YES
Bethune	YES	YES	YES	YES
Bryn Mawr	YES	YES	YES	YES
Burroughs	NO	YES	YES	YES
Cityview	YES	YES	YES	YES
Dowling	YES	YES	YES	YES
Ella Baker	NO	YES	YES	YES
Emerson	NO	YES	YES	YES
Field	YES	YES	YES	YES
Folwell	YES	YES	YES	YES
Green Central	YES	YES	YES	YES
Hale	NO	YES	YES	YES
Hall	YES	YES	NO	YES
Hiawatha	NO	NO	YES	YES
Hmong International	YES	YES	YES	NO
Howe	YES	NO	YES	YES
Jenny Lind	YES	NO	YES	YES
Kenny	YES	YES	YES	NO
Kenwood	NO	YES	YES	NO
Lake Harriet Lower	YES	YES	YES	NO
Lake Harriet Upper	NO	YES	YES	NO
Lake Nokomis - Keewaydin	YES	YES	YES	YES
Lake Nokomis - Wenonah	YES	YES	NO	YES
Las Estrellas	NO	NO	YES	NO
Loring	YES	YES	YES	NO
Lucy Laney	NO	YES	NO	NO
Lyndale	NO	YES	YES	NO
Marcy	NO	YES	YES	YES
Nellie Stone Johnson	YES	YES	NO	YES
Northrop	YES	NO	YES	YES
Pillsbury	NO	YES	YES	NO
Pratt	NO	YES	YES	NO
Seward	YES	YES	YES	YES
Sullivan	YES	YES	YES	YES
Waite Park	YES	YES	NO	YES
Webster	YES	YES	YES	YES
Whittier	YES	YES	YES	YES
Windom	YES	YES	YES	NO

Table 4. Predictable spaces by school

Guided Discussion

A guided discussion consisting of three questions was held with those who participated in the walkthrough. The major themes are included below, as are more detailed summaries of walkthrough participants’ answers.

Overall Discussion Themes

Emphasis on flexible, inclusive, and accessible learning space
Outdoor play and learning spaces are highly valued
Appreciate having space for family and community engagement
Some buildings struggle with temperature control and storage space
Safe and welcoming entrances are highly valued, and highly anticipated in buildings that have not been completed yet.

Question 1: In what ways does the physical environment in this building best support learning?

The elementary schools in MPS generally prioritize creating flexible, inclusive, and community- oriented learning environments that support a wide range of student needs. Common design features include classrooms with ample natural light, built-in storage, and accessibility elements like bathrooms within classrooms, ramps, and gender-neutral restrooms, all of which help minimize disruptions and foster a comfortable learning atmosphere. Many schools incorporate specialized spaces for student support, such as sensory rooms, therapy areas, and dedicated spaces for social-emotional learning (SEL), small group work, and special education services.

Outdoor spaces, including playgrounds, gardens, and nearby parks, are frequently integrated into the design to provide students with opportunities for physical activity, nature-based learning, and community engagement. The schools often feature areas for family involvement, such as meeting spaces, kitchens, and community gathering areas, which strengthen connections between families, staff, and local organizations. Cultural relevance is also emphasized in some schools, with dedicated spaces for arts, music, and performances that celebrate creativity and community identity.

Question 2: In what way does the physical environment in this building interfere with how we would like learning to happen today and in the future?

Elementary schools in MPS face a range of challenges related to outdated infrastructure, overcrowding, safety, and accessibility. Classrooms, originally designed for smaller student populations, are now often too small to accommodate larger class sizes. Temperature control is a frequent issue, with some buildings lacking air conditioning in key areas, making classrooms uncomfortable, especially during warmer months. Storage space is often inadequate, resulting in overcrowded classrooms and the repurposing of spaces for storage rather than instructional use. Some schools struggle with a lack of dedicated spaces for specialized activities, such as music, physical education, or mental health services, compounds the space constraints. Some schools also struggle with outdated cafeteria facilities and limited bathrooms, especially for students with special needs or mobility challenges.

Safety concerns such as entrances that have not been updated to be secure and welcoming yet, insecure points of entry, and playgrounds with inadequate fencing are problematic at some elementary schools. Many schools lack designated areas for family engagement, community activities, or staff meetings, often repurposing classrooms or conference rooms for these purposes. The absence of appropriate spaces for larger gatherings, such as school performances or assemblies, creates logistical challenges, and some outdoor areas require significant improvements due to unsafe surfaces or inadequate play spaces.

Question 3: What should the district know or appreciate about the physical environment of this building?

Elementary buildings in Minneapolis Public Schools feature a diverse range of educational environments, each fostering strong community ties and providing positive learning atmospheres. Many schools benefit from active local engagement, with families, businesses, and community organizations playing a key role in supporting students and events. These connections help create a sense of belonging, with some schools offering activities like walking field trips, gardening programs, and family engagement events that strengthen the relationship between schools and their neighborhoods.

The physical spaces of MPS schools are designed to create welcoming and flexible environments. Many schools prioritize fostering calm, supportive atmospheres that enhance learning, often incorporating creative or outdoor learning spaces, like gardens or performance areas, to enrich the educational experience.

However, some schools face challenges related to space, accessibility, and security. Some buildings struggle with outdated layouts or lack the necessary facilities to support specific programs, while others encounter difficulties with heating, cooling, or maintaining inclusivity in playgrounds. Security concerns and limited accessibility, particularly for individuals with mobility challenges, are also common across various schools. Additionally, while many schools have made strides in improving safety measures, some still require upgrades to entrances and other security features.

Survey Results

In addition to observing the usage of the buildings, the walkthrough participants were asked fourteen questions at the end of the building walkthrough. There were 324 respondents to the survey across the elementary schools. The results of this survey are included in the following plots.

Important: Percentages below are rounded to the nearest whole percent. As such, totals may not add up to exactly 100%.

Question 1: The main entry is welcoming and able to be used by all students and visitors.

Question 2: Generally, the design of the learning spaces in the building supports the way we teach and learn (e.g. classrooms are large enough to fit student desks, small group work space, etc.; there is storage for necessary curriculum, tools, manipulatives; all students can hear when the teacher is talking).

Question 3: The building has enough classrooms to support the number of students enrolled in the program.

Question 4: The school has a space large enough for the entire student body to be together.

Question 5: The school has sufficient pull-out space to support instructional needs.

Question 6: The school has sufficient pull-out space to respond to student behaviors.

Question 7: There are sufficient spaces to meet the needs of the school’s Special Education programming.

Question 8: There are sufficient spaces to meet the mental health needs of students.

Question 9: The cafeteria can accommodate the entire student body in three lunch services.

Question 10: The gyms are large enough to meet the needs of the program.

Question 11: There is enough administrative space to meet the needs of the program.

Question 12: Generally, the design of the learning spaces in the building supports the way we teach and learn (e.g. classrooms are large enough to fit student desks, small group work space, etc.; there is storage for necessary curriculum, tools, manipulatives; all students can hear when the teacher is talking).

Question 13: The restrooms in the building meet the needs of the student body in terms of location, quantity, and inclusion.

Question 14: The building feels bright, welcoming, and efficient.

Select a School

Early Childhood

Elementary

Middle Schools

High Schools

Alternative Schools

Popular Pages