But those voices rarely carried outside of the school board meeting rooms. Now, however, the voices are rising loud and clear. Could the state be poised for another “Minnesota Miracle”?

The “Miracle” was essentially a sweeping change in the state’s fiscal policy.

See if this paragraph, taken from an Minnesota Historical Society “History Topics” section on the “Minnesota Miracle,” strikes a cord:

“Rising public discontent with soaring property taxes created the ferment for needed reform of long-established policies: local governments and school districts were financed solely through autonomously levied property taxes; municipalities were forced to compete for commercial-industrial development to boost their tax base; and disparities in the quality of education between property-tax-rich and property-tax-poor districts were egregious.”

As the cliche goes, that paragraph could easily be ripped from today’s headlines.

The “Miracle” survived more than 30 years, until 2002. That’s when things changed, and it’s taken this long to even begin sorting out what happened, why it happened and what it’s wrought.

What school districts, especially those in rural areas, do know for sure is that they are carving into everything to balance their budgets. The Morris Area school district has cut almost $1.5 million in the last few years from a roughly $8 million budget just to keep pace. And its reserves, while improved in recent years, are nowhere near what auditors would like to see in a financially healthy district.

For a detailed view of how the system broke down, read “The Minnesota Miracle Abandoned? Changes in Minnesota School Funding, 2001-2007,” by University of Minnesota, Morris professor Greg Thorson and co-author Jessica Anderson at the Rural Minnesota Journal Web site: www.mnsu.edu/ruralmn/pages/Publications/rmj/rmjindex.html.

At a recent Minnesota House education committee meeting, parents, school board members and administrators made a plea to the state to right the ship.

It’s a quaint notion to believe that letting district residents vote for the quality of education they want. As was noted in a Forum Communications report on the meeting, 42 percent of the districts that put levies on the ballot in 2007 saw them fail. In 2006, 62 percent of levy questions received no votes.

According to the story, one parent testified that “Referendums that used to pay for the extras are now buying my first graders crayons, paper, pencils.”

The House testimony is a great addition to the volume being compiled by districts which don’t see any end to the madness, only a slow, steady decline marked by only modest successes. It’s a sad statement when school districts can feel good about their mission and their balanced books only after cutting teachers and programs.