22-03-2025
EDITORIAL: Cuts in Dover-Eyota paint a grim picture of the path ahead
Mar. 22—When a school district's leadership starts discussions of fiscal belt-tightening, the potential targets usually include extracurricular activities, after-school programs, the arts, and perhaps delayed tech upgrades. Jazz band and drama club are wonderful, but when push comes to shove, they can be seen as expendable.
Dover-Eyota Public Schools is way past such "easy" financial fixes.
Last November, residents of the district were asked to approve a new school operating levy that would have provided an additional $1 million per year for the next decade. Sixty-four percent of voters said no, leaving the district with few good options for the immediate future.
During a school board meeting on Monday, the public learned the full repercussions of that vote.
This fall, both the middle school and the high school will be under the guidance of just one principal. Sarah Carlson, the current high school principal, will take over middle-school duties, too.
That's a disconcerting change, but it pales in comparison with selling the district's entire bus fleet. That's going to happen, too. D-E will reap a short-term cash windfall from this sale — which one board member described as getting "a little breathing room" — but the district will have to contract with an outside vendor for student transportation.
And finally, there's this troubling development: Starting this fall, Dover-Eyota High School will operate with just 13 teachers across its math, English, science and social studies programs, compared with 18.5 teachers in those same areas in 2022-23. That's a 30% reduction in teachers across core educational areas.
This isn't trimming the fat. This is cutting muscle and bone, and it's almost certainly going to hurt educational outcomes for students at D-E.
Of course, this isn't the final word on Dover-Eyota Public Schools. The district will go to voters again in the very near future, hopefully with a new sales pitch and a better-organized get-out-the-vote campaign. The next referendum might produce a very different outcome without the increased turnout caused by a presidential election. While there are no guarantees, at some point down the road the district likely will squeak out a win at the ballot box — especially if the D-E floats the possibility of an imminent building closure, or even consolidation with another district.
This same process is playing out in communities across the state. Dover-Eyota was among 30 districts last year that asked for additional local per-pupil funding, and voters in 18 of those districts said "No." Byron joined D-E on the list of failed levy proposals, while Lewiston-Altura and Rochester were among the districts where voters approved new levies for the next 10 years.
While of late there have been a few much-talked-about instances of schools' financial mismanagement (including at Byron), the root cause of most funding woes for Minnesota school districts is neither nefarious nor mysterious: State per-pupil funding isn't keeping up with rising costs.
Education funding in Minnesota comes from three primary sources — state, federal and local. Since 1980, the state has covered a majority of costs, and in 2003 the state's share peaked at 75% of the K-12 education tab. By 2020, that number had fallen back to 67%.
While consumers have had some ugly firsthand experience with inflation during the past 18 months, it's been a constant problem for schools for two decades. In Rochester, for example, even the most conservative estimates indicate that if state per-pupil funding had been indexed to inflation for the past 20 years, RPS would have received at least $20 million more for the current school year.
Local taxpayers have had to cover that gap, and it keeps growing.
The immediate future holds little promise of relief. Minnesota has a $6 billion projected budget deficit and a deeply divided Legislature, so don't expect any big pushes to increase state per-pupil funding. Also, while Minnesota currently gets $1.4 billion annually in federal education funding, the apparently imminent dismantling of the Department of Education could reduce or eliminate the flow of federal education dollars.
In other words, we might soon discover the real meaning of "local control" of education. When push comes to shove, and it's local money that must pay an even bigger share of the tab, what will districts keep? What will they cut? Do Minnesotans — especially small-town Minnesotans — truly value their local public schools, or are they ready to consider other, less-expensive options?
Perhaps Minnesota will follow the path that Iowa took in 2023, allowing families to take their child's per-pupil state funding and spend it at an accredited private school. This year, that grant amounts to $7,826 per child, and nearly 28,000 Iowa students exercised that option. Put another way, this year Iowa's coffers are sending $218 million to private schools.
Enrollment trends for our southern neighbor are tracking quite predictably. More private schools are opening every year and are filling quickly, while enrollment in public schools is steadily declining. We would not be surprised to see support for a similar system gain headway in Minnesota — especially if Iowa's educational outcomes show signs of improvement.
Whether you are for or against school "vouchers" (some of us on the editorial board cringe at the idea), you can't deny that Minnesota schools and the taxpayers who support them are nearing a tipping point. Costs are soaring. Many small towns are losing population, leaving fewer homeowners and business owners to carry an ever-larger tax burden. Every viable option needs to be on the table.
We hope that eventually, voters in Dover, Eyota and Byron will see value in supporting their local schools. But we also hope that before Rochester voters are asked to extend (and probably increase) the school levy 10 years from now, the Minnesota Legislature will find a way to provide consistent, reliable, better-than-barely-adequate funding for K-12 public schools.
