Our report this week on ISD 2142’s teachers’ contract, and how it went from a fairly typical salary schedule to one of the highest-paying in the state in just four years, was as much as shock to me as I’m sure it will be to readers.

I’ve known for some time that the teachers’ contract in ISD 2142 was generous, but I never knew how generous until we began comparing contract data made available by the Minnesota School Boards Association.

With the possible exception of Wall Street executives, I don’t like making an issue of anyone’s pay. I have enormous respect for teachers, particularly the ones who really put their heart and soul into the profession.

Pay for teachers, as is the case with most of us, is rarely a matter of worth. A good teacher is priceless in any community, but their pay must be commensurate with available resources. In the case of ISD 2142, the salary of teachers has clearly been unsustainable for the past five years. We detail how that came about in our story, which is now online, and I would urge readers to examine the report.

It must be noted that teacher salaries are only one component of the district’s financial woes. Declining enrollment and flat state funding have certainly contributed to the problem and we have repeatedly written on both of these issues in the past. But these two factors are faced by almost every school district in outstate Minnesota, yet the vast majority remain financially viable, and many without large operating levies.

To me, the evidence seems clear that the dramatic run-up in teacher salaries in ISD 2142, which occurred from 2001 through 2005, is the biggest single factor in the district’s financial slide— and that is the reason I have been sounding the alarm on this subject for some time.

I know this hasn’t pleased some of the district’s teachers, and I have heard from a couple of them, including from the teachers’ union Local 331 President David Fazio, whose op-ed on the subject appears on page 5.

I realize that no one likes being under the spotlight. But when it comes to a matter of choosing between school closures, devastated communities, and long bus rides for students—or accepting teacher salaries that have become divorced from reality, somebody has to say something. And I long ago grew used to the criticism, so it might as well be me.

Much in our report will likely come as a surprise to district officials and teachers alike. From our discussions with them, it’s pretty clear that they were largely unaware of the unprecedented salary increases contained in the 2001-03 and 2003-05 contracts.

Yet those two contracts have drained millions of dollars from district coffers over the past several years that might otherwise have gone to maintaining or enhancing course offerings, paid for full-time counselors, field trips, new technology, or replacements for all those old, rusty buses. Those two disastrous contracts sowed the seeds of the district’s downfall and now threaten the future of the communities that have depended on ISD 2142 to maintain their educational facilities.

While some have suggested that the district needs to keep pace with other large, high-paying districts, like Virginia or Hibbing, I believe that view runs counter to the founding principle behind the creation of the St. Louis County School District, or ISD 710 as it was known prior to consolidation with Babbitt and Tower-Soudan. The district was formed to allow small, isolated, rural schools to survive by sharing administrative costs under the auspices of a single district. If that combination is now to be used to justify the same pay schedule as some of the largest and highest-paying districts in the state, then the rationale behind the creation of the county schools is utterly defeated.

We know it costs more to run a small school in a city of 500, or a rural township, than in a much bigger community. Districts that serve small towns and rural parts of Minnesota have survived despite this, by balancing their wages with the available resources. ISD 2142 had done this successfully for years. But two unprecendented contracts helped drive the district into the ditch.

It should be noted that these contracts were negotiated by a former superintendent. Some current school board members were there at the time, but the majority of board members today were not, and probably were not even aware of this contract history until our report.

Given the surprise expressed by so many in the district, I can’t help but wonder if these two contracts— which were approved during times of transition and turmoil— were misunderstood by some of the parties involved. I don’t for a minute believe that the school board would have approved either of these contracts had they understood them fully. And I don’t think teachers would have supported them, either, had they understood how much they would cripple the district and undermine education.

In either case, something needs to give— and it should not have to be our communities and Main Streets that will suffer mightily from the loss of schools.

We all know times have changed. State funding is likely to remain flat for years to come. Enrollments are declining all around the region. It’s not unlike the conditions that have forced unionized workers throughout private industry to hold their noses and accept concessions on too many occasions to count.

It can’t just be communities and taxpayers who are forced to sacrifice. Were teachers to stand up and offer to be part of the solution, it would reduce the need for layoffs of less-senior staff and allow the district to keep more schools operating. Keeping small schools operating was the founding principle of this district. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.