Fate of Iron Range school district hangs in the balance

Education remains one of the top political issues (and largest portion of the state budget) in Minnesota. But on the Iron Range, education takes on special importance. Here’s why:

1) As a blue-collar region with an immigrant history, quality public education has been the #1 priority for the Iron Range for about a century. It has been the reason five generations of poor kids have achieved upward social mobility when that seldom occurs in other similar socioeconomic regions. This place is living proof that public education, when applied aggressively, is the great social equalizer and can sustain a population even during hard economic times. As a region, the Iron Range should have been dead fifty years ago. Don’t get me wrong, we’ve come close. But we’re still here. Education, baby.

2) All but a handful of schools in northern Minnesota suffer from declining enrollment. We have known nothing but budget cuts, reduced extra curricular offerings, reduced electives and advanced courses, and increased class sizes for a generation.

3) As a result of these factors, and some overspending and generous contracts in years past (though I’ll not criticize fair teacher pay or adequate staffing), many Iron Range school districts are now in rough financial shape. In fact, among a list of state local government units in the worst financial shape, Range school districts dominate the top ten … mostly because there is not much property tax base to levy, there are fewer students every year, and the mining revenue that had once boosted us has become sketchy and unpredictable over the years.

Today, an important meeting will shape the future of one Range district. Greenway schools serve Bovey, Coleraine and other small towns on the western edge of the Mesabi Iron Range. The district is in Statutory Operating Debt and faces the expiration of several major bonding levies all within the next few years. Maybe you’ve heard of districts seeking operational levies in your part of the state? Well, Greenway is going to be staging a bond issue that will determine whether or not the district will survive. If this one fails, they will be done for.

From Britta Arendt’s story in the Sunday Grand Rapids Herald-Review (reprinted across the Range in the Hibbing and Mesabi newspapers):

At a meeting with Greenway staff on Thursday, Superintendent Rochelle VanDenHeuvel said that, without referendum dollars, severe budget cuts would be necessary. She said it’s probable that elective courses at the middle and high school would be eliminated; all day/every day kindergarten would be eliminated; all extra-curricular activities would be eliminated; up to 20 staff positions would be eliminated; administration would be reduced; class sizes would rise as high as 45 at the middle and high school and 35 in the elementary school, and; the school board would need to consider cooperation or consolidation with other school districts, or dissolution of the Greenway School District.

There are several special factors that put Greenway in its current condition, among them a labor lawsuit that they lost to their bargaining units and poor management in the past. But their financial state is only a little worse than other districts, and if the state does not address the erosion of Wendell Anderson’s “Minnesota Miracle” that ensured equal, quality education for every Minnesotan regardless of geographic location, there will be more districts facing this fate.

And yes, consolidation is an option, one that I have advocated for other districts in the past. But at some point, transportation costs and community health will be compromised if we don’t draw a line and fight for our local schools.

A community meeting to discuss the referendum further will be held in the Greenway High School Auditorium at 5 p.m. Monday.

Post Views: 11

Comments

Anonymous says

March 24, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Some times I get really tired of the politics of the state and our region. I mean, when was the last time we talked about doing something “for” the Range that didn’t involve economic development or jobs? And why is that bad? It’s bad because the only kind of economic development we seem to be able to talk about is something that rapes our region of it’s resources for the profit of big business. We’re sold a “jobs” rationale for the project, and poverty continues to increase every time big business leaves because the bribe to stay has run out. I look forward to the day we can talk about bringing state resources (i.e. MONEY) to the Range to do something that improves our economy by improving our lives. We don’t have to worry about those “big jobs” projects – those natural resources aren’t going anywhere, and if they are worth plundering, big business will find a way. Rather than reward big business (political contributors?), could we just do something that benefits the PEOPLE of the Range at a level that goes beyond simple economic development bribes in the name of “job creation?”