St. Louis County Schools

The resounding “no” to the St. Louis County School District’s two levy referenda reflects a laundry list of problems that the district needs to address if it has any chance of unwinding its current financial mess.
First, the district seems to have little idea how to pass a referendum in a district that undermined its connections to the communities it served. If there was a parent-led Vote Yes committee out there, no one ever reached out to the largest newspaper in the district to let us know about it. Successful school referenda require community mobilization and the district’s efforts appeared lackluster at best.
The district was also asking far too much of its voters. Seeking an additional $3,160 per pupil may have been enough to close the district’s financial black hole, but it was an enormous lift in a district whose voters have never shown a willingness to dig deep to fund school operations. Adding a separate capital levy request for an additional $1.5 million took an already overstated request and made it worse. It was a combined ask that would have been tough to pass under the best of circumstances. At a time when many households are already struggling with high food costs, high gas prices, and eye-popping bills for fuel oil, it was simply unrealistic.
The Ely school district had a better approach. By asking voters to revoke their authority to levy Local Option Revenue of $347.99 per student— while also approving a new levy of $1,775 that would take advantage of the newly created seasonal recreational school fund— the district increased its revenue without placing any significant additional tax burden on the backs of its voters.
The St. Louis County School Board was looking for a silver bullet that would solve their financial woes in one fell swoop. Their effort proved a misfire.
So, where does the district go from here? Hopefully, it will recognize what voters were trying to tell them… namely that any solution to the district’s current problems will require an approach that combines budget cuts with new revenue. Were the district to come back with a new operating levy request in 2027, that substantially pares down the ask, they are far more likely to win passage. That’s especially true if the district were to spend the next year finding ways to restructure operations at the district’s main office in Virginia.
Meanwhile, the district needs to do more to re-engage with the communities it serves. When the district closed schools in places like Cook, Orr, and Tower-Soudan, the school district inevitably lost some of the community connections that would have helped build support for a referendum. School districts that pass referenda that require taxpayers to dig deeper typically do so through a community mobilization effort that is tougher in a district like ISD 2142.
Yet even if a more modest operating levy could win passage by the district’s voters, cuts are inevitable given the scale of the district’s financial woes. As part of that effort, the school district should revisit multi-aged classes. We recognize that some parents seem to think multi-age classes are detrimental. The district needs to get out the facts, which are that multi-age settings are equal to and, when done thoughtfully, can be superior to the age-based groupings of students that have become the educational norm. Study after study shows that multi-aged groupings can create an excellent learning environment, which should be obvious to anyone aware of how humans have learned from time immemorial. Aged-based groupings of students are a matter of convenience for schools, not a reflection of any inherent educational advantage.
Multi-aged classrooms can provide for more staffing flexibility, particularly in schools where class sizes are diminishing. We’ve urged the district to explore this alternative for decades, as a worthwhile educational approach with clear advantages, rather than as temporary budget savings, implemented only on a case-by-case basis, using teachers who aren’t necessarily experienced with such settings.
Finally, the district needs to do more to make its case. School officials like to complain that this newspaper is overly critical of the district. Yet we have reached out to school officials on multiple occasions, urging them to let us know of positive things happening in their schools. Other than teachers in Tower-Soudan, who have long been responsive to those requests, we mostly hear crickets from the district. The failure there rests with school officials.
The district has also cut way back on its promotion in recent years, and that has tracked closely with the decline in student numbers. In the wake of the restructuring, with the persistent urging of the late board member Troy Swanson, the district made a major marketing push and saw tangible results in new enrollments. Cutting marketing was a foolish way to trim the budget since the district is reliant on enrollment for its revenue.
The bottom is this: There is a path forward for the district. It will, however, require a willingness to change.