Survey finds mixed support for school funding; community divided over closing schools

Peter Leatherman of the survey firm presented results from 500 telephone interviews carried out April 18–30 and told the Little Falls Community School Board that the district faces low public awareness of recent budget cuts and a split community on proposed school closures and a bond.

Leatherman said 75% of respondents rate the district's overall education favorably, teachers receive an 89% favorable rating, but only 41% of residents were aware the district had cut $3,000,000 from its operating budget. "At this point in time, it appears to be a solution to a problem that the community's not aware of," Leatherman said of proposals that rely on closing buildings to save operating money.

The nut graf: the survey indicates the district has the baseline trust metrics that often predict success for funding requests (perceptions of efficient spending, community involvement, and trust), but support for a bond that includes school closings is divided and likely to polarize voters unless the district first raises awareness of the operating shortfall and the specific choices the district would ask voters to make.

Key findings Leatherman presented included: - Sample and margin of error: 500 randomly selected residents; margin of error approximately —.5 percentage points at 95% confidence. - Economic stress: 45% of respondents reported being financially stressed (Leatherman noted that number had been higher in prior years and remains above pre-pandemic levels). - Awareness of cuts: 41% aware of $3,000,000 in budget cuts; among those aware, half said the cuts harmed the quality of education. - Reaction to closures: When asked about closing Dr. Knight and the middle school and renovating the high school into a 7–12 campus, responses were split (approximately 51% support/48% oppose for the middle-school closing and high‑school renovation); Leatherman stressed that school closings historically divide communities. - Persuadables and price point: 55% of respondents said they had already made up their minds on a generic property tax increase; among those willing to accept a property‑tax increase, median acceptable amounts clustered at about $8 per month per household (roughly $5–$15/month bands were reported).

Board members asked follow‑up questions about how to proceed. Several trustees said survey results show the district has not yet communicated the operating shortfall broadly enough to make a facilities‑based bond viable. Leatherman advised that an operating levy that directly asks residents to fund keeping schools and programs open might be less polarizing than a bond framed primarily around school closures.

Board members and the superintendent asked about next steps for community outreach and the timeline for any formal proposal. Leatherman recommended a multi‑month public information campaign that (1) raises awareness of the operating shortfall, (2) ties specific spending needs to student programs and outcomes, and (3) uses mailed materials and the local newspaper along with targeted community events; the survey showed 53% of respondents prefer mailed materials or newsletters for district information and the local newspaper remained a strong source of reach.

The presentation concluded with trustees asking staff to consider options, outreach plans and whether to test an operating levy question in follow‑up polling before placing any bond or referendum on a ballot.