The Mesabi Daily News editorial on October 23rd hit the nail on the head regarding ANY school levy referendum: A positive vote shouldn’t be automatic but “only if earned.”
I agree whole-heartedly with Eveleth-Gilbert referendum supporters that the education of our children is of primary importance and that our schools are the lifeblood of our communities. But I think they’ve missed the point when they criticize those who may base their vote on accountability and sound educational decisions rather than on carte blanche school loyalty and blind trust in school leadership. I don’t know anyone who is against good education or good schools for our kids. But more money doesn't automatically equate to a quality education or quality schools. They depend upon sound, just decisions and a positive environment.
I agree whole-heartedly with Eveleth-Gilbert referendum supporters that the education of our children is of primary importance and that our schools are the lifeblood of our communities. But I think they’ve missed the point when they criticize those who may base their vote on accountability and sound educational decisions rather than on carte blanche school loyalty and blind trust in school leadership. I don’t know anyone who is against good education or good schools for our kids. But more money doesn't automatically equate to a quality education or quality schools. They depend upon sound, just decisions and a positive environment.
Taxpayers shouldn’t assume that their educational hopes will be automatically fulfilled by a positive referendum vote. Who could seriously argue that accountability doesn’t matter? Past actions are a good prediction of future ones. What past evidence or future assurance of sound decision-making has the public received?
I realize that district leadership has varied since the last referendum vote ten years ago and that the shoe will fit some and not others. That said, I feel that the E-G school district as a whole has not demonstrated fiscal or educational responsibility since that time. The district has subsidized Chicagami Children’s Center, charging them substantially less than what it costs the district for the Center to reside in its facilities. In no way am I critical of Chicagami’s child care services to the community. The point is that tens-of-thousands (or more?) of district/public dollars (exact figure unknown) were spent over a number of years to support a non-district/non-public entity. At a school board meeting this summer a Chicagami official openly stated that it is no secret that the Center has been subsidized for years by the district. I give credit to the current superintendent and maintenance foreman for bringing to the attention of the school board that the district was losing money leasing to the Center, but the Board still signed an additional three-year, money-losing agreement. Also, how fair was it to other child care providers in the area that another provider received special, publically-funded treatment? I believe that this action qualifies as irresponsible and unfair and may even border on misappropriation of public funds.
The district, also, paid tens-of-thousands of dollars (exact figure unknown) to the Avert Center for Safer Schools for a security study that it didn’t need. An internal group of staff and other district stakeholders could have, independently, identified any district safety shortcomings and, in fact, were a part of Avert's security evaluation. What mainly resulted from the study were two major remodeling projects, funny numbers on the school windows, and a lot of wasted administrative and others' time. Hundreds-of-thousands of dollars were spent remodeling the entrances of an Eveleth and a Gilbert school building but a more reasonable “buzz-in” camera/computer monitoring system (as is used in the Virginia school district and even at the State Department of Education) would have been a less expensive but effective alternative. Virginia school personnel responsible for secure entry into district buildings told me when I visited there that the system works effectively without undue burden on front-office staff. The difference between the cost of the major remodeling and the buzz-in system could have been used or reserved for other qualifying projects.
In the not-so-distant past the district, also, spent an unnecessarily large amount for consulting services regarding block scheduling – an experimental scheduling method that was eventually scrapped. In addition to the consulting cost, I couldn’t begin to calculate the implementation and running costs of block scheduling.
Academically, the district needs to improve. It is in the Corrective Action stage for not meeting federal Adequate Yearly Progress four years in a row. The next and final stage, the Reconstitution or Restructuring stage, carries the severest sanctions that could result in extreme measures such as the replacement of administrators, staff, and school boards or even school abolishment.
On the 2011 MCA-III state test in Math, district students scored below the State proficiency average for all tested grades (Grades 3-8). The district has scored below the State average consistently from 2006 to 2011 in the Math MCA-II’s (Grades 3-8 and 11) with a sharper decline in recent years. District 2006-2011 Reading MCA-II scores trended at the State average. District Science MCA-II scores, though, have nicely trended equal to or higher than the State average.
The district 2008-2011 GRAD scores (formerly the BST’s) in Writing (Grade 9) trended slightly above the State average consistently, but the Reading (Grade 10) scores started well above the State average, leveled to the average score, but has now dropped well below the State average. The Math (Grade 11) GRAD scores trended basically equal to the State average but have, also, dropped well below the State average. See charts below.
The State average is only mediocre performance and not acceptable but scoring below the State average is especially un-acceptable. There are schools that consistently score well. Why not investigate what they are doing? (Isn’t that a novel idea?)
Much to-do was made about the Franklin School of Excellence award but, as I learned in visiting the sponsor’s website, it basically consisted of filling out paperwork and agreeing to an educational action plan. It had nothing to do with excellence in E-G student test scores or their academic achievement.
Other district actions are pertinent to accountability. For instance, the school board jeopardized state funding when it hired a superintendent who was not yet licensed (but who, subsequently, became licensed) and then had to secure a licensed superintendent in the interim. In addition, the board refused to include an evaluation clause in the new superintendent’s contract even though it’s a common administrative, contractual clause, the Minnesota School Board Association’s recommended superintendent contract includes it, and the district-hired consultant strongly recommended it. I do give the current superintendent credit for insisting (after a period of time as superintendent) that the Board evaluate her performance, although it’s disappointing that, as far as I know, the evaluation only included school board member input.
In its yearly curriculum report to the state Department of Education, the district reported that it had formed a planning committee that identified school and community communication as a primary district goal. The district hired an outside facilitator; the community members of the committee were hand-picked by school board members and administrators – so much for open community opportunity for participation. At least two of the community members quit the committee in disgust at the treatment they received and the attitudes they witnessed. The committee was supposed to meet monthly after its goal-setting was complete, but there have been no meetings or follow-through as far as I know.
This school board, so seemingly concerned about positive communication, is the same board that has, for years, refused to broadcast its school board meetings for public view and information, still will not broadcast them, and is the only public entity in the area that doesn't broadcast. It’s the same board whose Chair, at a school board meeting this year, accused an employee of blind-sighting the board and spreading misinformation to the community when the issue at hand was an item openly on the meeting’s agenda with the same timeframe as the other agenda items, and the supposed misinformation came directly from an official school district document. Ironically, earlier in the meeting a school counselor had given a report to the board on the merits of a bullying presentation that students had attended. This is the same school board whose same Chair, at a subsequent school board budget meeting, insulted another district employee saying that, perhaps, the employee should find another job if he wasn’t happy with the district. The employee had offered some ways he thought the district might be wasting resources but how it could, instead, save money. (Similar incidences of rudeness to individuals at meetings have occurred in the past by other school officials.) And, still, it was the same board Chair who, at a more recent referendum planning meeting, wondered out loud how a certain piece of information could be stated in referendum informational material in order to sway the public [toward a positive vote].
Again in regard to public relations and community involvement, the state-mandated, curriculum advisory committee (a majority of whom are supposed to be community members) is non-existent in the district, as is the inclusion of community membership on various curriculum review committees.
District publications have been an embarrassment of inexcusable errors – not a great example of where parents would want to send their children. There have been ongoing technology problems with little or no apparent expectations of accountability.
One of the proposed uses of new referendum dollars is the purchase of textbooks, presumably for Social Studies, which was postponed because a second Math curriculum was purchased out-of-sync in its seven-year curriculum review cycle because the first curriculum was producing poor results. The school board is accountable for the extra money spent on the replacement curriculum. They did not taking leadership in establishing a strong, traditional math curriculum as the standard so then the curriculum committee could choose the particular materials that best fit the district. Many believe that the district could effectively operate with one principal at each school site (Eveleth and Gilbert). The campuses could be made manageable by equalizing the student populations. Substantial savings over time would be realized.
District leadership took measures to try to prevent the establishment of the local charter school (possibly another misappropriation of public funds?) and refused to work with it before and after its establishment. A charter school is a public school just like others that E-G cooperates with in programs such as industrial technology, music, family living, sports, etc. The district may have retained or even gained revenues or programs by cooperating with the charter school but it only had animosity toward it. (Funny, though, that the Residential Learning Academy was welcomed with open arms and even promoted by the administration and other district leaders. Could it have anything to do with control?)
By statute, the school board could have run the referendum vote one or two years prior to the increased levy authority. That means that they could have scheduled the vote for last year, during a general election, when more people usually come out to vote (and the election costs could have been shared) but they chose an off-year when less voters typically turn out. They also had the option by statute to run a vote by mail so that ALL referendum-eligible voters would have had a direct opportunity to vote (which may have even been less expensive) but, again, that option was not chosen. Also, the choice of a vote scheduled the last year that the district will receive funds from the previous referendum only adds to the “dire” and “critical” rhetoric for a positive vote. District referendum material contains scare-tactics of all the terrible things that are supposed to happen if one or both questions fail. I guess I can understand why certain people are supportive of the referendum. The material preys on the fears of employees – for their jobs, income sustainability, health care affordability, etc.; the fears of teachers – of increased class sizes (and, of course, the same employee fears); and the fears of parents and the community – of program cuts and/or building closings.
The underlying assumption is that district leaders made all the right financial decisions and that the district is only in such, supposedly, critical need because of factors independent of its leaders’ actions. The issue shouldn’t be an assumption that deep cuts are inevitable without almost a million dollars more per year in school levy money. It should, first, be an examination of how district money was spent and the reasons why. If the district is in such a dire financial state some time should be spent analyzing its cause before new money is dished out.
My vote isn’t only about the money, although I’m still concerned about the 13% or more city tax increase and the 6% or more county increase, in addition to the 10 year school portion. My vote is also about other factors such as accountability, ethics, and trust. Although I may not fully agree with all of the messages on the vote “no” signs around town I do agree with their general sentiment of accountability. I may be willing to vote yes to the first question in order to maintain the current funding but I’ll only support an additional increase when earned by more responsible, sincere, and in some cases changed actions and attitudes. 
