"Bachelormania" propelled the small town of Herman, Minnesota, (population 474) into the national spotlight during the early 1990s when unmarried farmers in the underpopulated region, facing a shortage of eligible women, sought brides from around the world who would move to the isolated farmland of western Minnesota. The mention of bachelormania still brings smiles to the faces of many Herman residents, yet that word indicates a larger and less amusing crisis that affects many rural communities throughout the United States: declining population. As independent farmers find it harder to earn a living and people leave rural areas for other opportunities, the resulting population decline has significant consequences for schools, teachers, and students.
In spring 1997, Don Andersen, the superintendent of the Herman-Norcross district's K–12 school, recognized that the public was growing increasingly concerned about the continued population erosion in the community and the resulting decline in school enrollment. County population had declined from 8,870 in 1960 to 6,246 in 1990, and school enrollment in Herman-Norcross had dropped from 476 in 1970 to 185 in 1999. Because state funding for schools is based predominately on a per-pupil formula, this decline in enrollment had a significant effect on the school's finances.
Both Andersen and the school board wanted to address this crisis. Andersen also wanted to avoid community divisions like the one that occurred as a result of a failed strategic planning effort in 1992, when controversial school consolidation issues resulted in a failed tax levy. At that time, several largely unsuccessful school meetings focused on divisive issues, such as whether to consolidate with schools 20 to 30 miles away, rather than on the community's vision for the school. As a consequence of the failed levy, some families removed their children from the school. Soon after, the editor of the Herman Review pleaded with the community for reconciliation because the issue had altered friendships and relationships within families.
Planning for Change
Andersen decided to contact the Center for Small Towns, a community outreach program housed at the University of Minnesota, Morris. Together they developed a model process of school-community planning. This broad-based, community-oriented approach was designed to develop consensus, establish a common vision for the school, and create an action plan. A core work group comprising the superintendent, two school board members, two university faculty (a political science professor and an education professor), the Center program specialist, and a university extension educator was formed. Next, the group scheduled a series of town meetings from late November 1998 to March 1999, a time chosen to accommodate the seasonal demands of area farmers.
- Envisioning. Articulate what high-quality rural education looks like.
- Enabling. Identify and document viable ways for the school to adapt to current economic and demographic circumstances.
- Evaluating and decision making. Determine the strengths and weaknesses of each policy alternative for the district and decide which options provide the most benefits for the community.
These items reflected the assumptions that everyone has a stake in community-school decisions (Howley & Eckman, 1997) and that schools and communities are inextricably linked (Haas & Nachtigal, 1998).
Underlying these general goals for the meetings was the work group's recognition that it needed to translate the community's needs into policies that both the community and the school district could implement. There was a shared belief that sustainable change could occur only with significant public involvement (Mathews, 1996). The group also recognized that teacher involvement would be necessary, both to inform the public and to carry out any needed changes. Teachers were at first reluctant to participate in the meetings, fearing that their positions would be at risk; however, with reassurances from the administrator and repeated invitations, the work group established an atmosphere of trust, and teachers became vital participants.
The Town Meetings
At the first town meeting on December 14, 1998, more than 30 community members, from high school students to retirees, listened as the school superintendent described the state of the school district. Participants learned about the demographic trends in the region and the projected impact those trends would have on the district. The meeting concluded with a discussion of the school-community planning process.
The second meeting, held a month later, was the linchpin of the process in Herman. Community members brainstormed individually and in small groups to consider the strengths of the school and to imagine what they wanted the school to be in the future. By the end of this meeting, there was more consensus than disagreement. Members of the community emphasized that students needed skills in critical thinking, inquiry, problem solving, literacy (including technological), and the basics (reading, writing, and arithmetic).
Because the community was able to focus on the vision of the school district rather than be overwhelmed by poor economic forecasts, the discussion identified many benefits that students already enjoyed in the school. The community acknowledged that students in Herman received more individual attention and had more opportunities to actively engage in their own learning than did students in larger schools. Community members recognized that students had numerous opportunities to interact with individuals of all ages both inside and outside the school walls.
Next, the work group arranged for several speakers to help the public consider options for sustaining and improving the Herman-Norcross school. Speakers were invited on the basis of their potential to provide workable alternatives for the Herman area. Experts from throughout Minnesota—teachers, principals, superintendents, and representatives from Minnesota's Department of Children, Families and Learning—spoke about their experiences with charter schools, magnet schools, standards-based education, student entrepreneurial projects, rural education, marketing, and technology. As the residents learned what other schools were doing, they considered the possibilities for their own district. Following each presentation, the community discussed how practical these options would be for the Herman-Norcross school.
During the final town meeting, the superintendent outlined the challenges facing the school and summarized the presentations. Then the meeting participants—teachers, principals, retirees, high school students, and parents—voiced their opinions about what would be best for the school.
Forming Consensus
First and foremost, the members of the community agreed that the school was already successful. The results of standardized test scores and the opinions of the students and parents indicated high levels of student accomplishment. Given the changing population and economic trends, however, community members acknowledged that some change would need to occur.
Curricular innovations. The community hoped to focus on staff development, to institute individualized learning plans for all students, to investigate block scheduling and project-based learning, and to research alternative configurations for kindergarten and before- and after-school child care.
Technology. Although the district had a wealth of computers and other technologies, the citizens of Herman were unsure that the district was using this technology efficiently and effectively. The community determined that the school should analyze the current technology and make decisions to ensure that technology would meet the educational needs of the students.
Marketing. Because Minnesota has an open enrollment policy, the citizens of Herman thought that maintaining or increasing their current student population was important. They believed that close work with the community and local businesses would allow them to develop creative marketing techniques to increase the visibility of the school.
The committees wrote reports on implementation and assessment in each of the three identified areas and distributed them to the public and the school board. For a wide-ranging set of views to be transformed into workable policy, the work group had to establish trust and a sense of responsibility throughout the process. By first presenting the public with the state of the school district, then allowing them to select the issues that they would like to hear more about, the group made the process more informational than divisive.
In fact, focusing on consensus was the primary strength of this planning model. Instead of dividing the town and alienating the school from the community, the process established strong support for the school and helped community members feel ownership in the school. To build on this success, the group identified a community liaison to link the school and the community more closely.
Signs of Success
Numerous signs indicate that the process was a success. Surveys distributed during the final town meeting showed that 81 percent of community members believed that they had an increased knowledge of school issues. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed suggested that as a result of participation in this process, they would be more likely to volunteer in future school-community projects. The strong sense of community ownership in the district's strategic plan set the stage for long-term, sustainable change.
Perhaps even more significant were the changes that came with the beginning of the new school year—changes that have affected students, curriculum and instructional practices, and the financial stability of the school. The September 23, 1999, issue of the Herman Review reported that teachers were working on "life work plans" for all students in accordance with the curricular innovations recommended in the strategic plan. A teacher who was appointed technology specialist received more time to work with the school's computers and other technologies. One result was the introduction of a computer art technology class. At the same time, school enrollment increased from the projected 160 to 169 K–12 students. Eight of these additional nine students lived in other school districts.
On November 2, 1999, the Herman-Norcross community overwhelmingly passed a 10-year levy with a vote of 160 to 24. Although the levy vote was the sole issue on the ballot, 56 percent of voters turned out. This levy will generate approximately $200,000 in additional revenue for the district. Had the levy failed as it did in 1992, severe budget cuts would have threatened the existence of the school.
Sustainable change in public schools needs public support (Mathews, 1996). Although this may be a commonsense notion, the alienation of schools from communities is becoming more pervasive. As rural communities face severe economic conditions, they must adopt strategies that address their unique problems while implementing their visions for their schools. The experiences in Herman lead us to believe that sustainable school change should feature broad public participation, be highly informative, and be constructed to produce consensus within the community.
