MPCSD survey reveals support for upgrades, but deep divide over solutions and spending

MT. PLEASANT — The numbers are in, and they paint a clear picture: while most residents agree the school district has a facilities problem, far fewer agree on what to do about it — and even fewer are willing to pay for it.

  Buy Photo

During a work session on April 28, the Mt. Pleasant Community School District Board reviewed results from a communitywide survey on the district’s facility master plan. The survey, conducted by the Donovan Group from April 7 to April 20, received 1,021 responses, more than 10% of the town’s population.

“This is a very good saturation point,” Jerry Gallagher of the Donovan Group said. “We feel good that people had an opportunity to share their opinions about the district’s needs and potential solutions to meet those needs.”

Gallagher said 92% of respondents reported being at least somewhat familiar with the facility challenges facing the district. When asked whether the district’s needs should be addressed now, 58% of the weighted respondent group agreed.

But when it came to supporting a bond referendum to fund the proposed projects — likely appearing on the November ballot — only 30% of the weighted group said they would “definitely” or “probably” support it.

“That 30% support is below what we would want to see before moving forward confidently,” Gallagher said, explaining that the weighted group was calculated to reflect likely voter sentiment by assigning more weight (70%) to responses from non-affiliated community members, or those without children in the schools or employment in the district.

Among those who opposed the referendum, the most cited concerns were the potential tax impact, the overall cost, and what many see as a lack of communication and transparency from district leadership.

Open-ended responses echoed those concerns, with repeated criticism of the district’s purchase of the former Iowa Wesleyan University campus and its transition to “grade-alike” buildings, where students are grouped by grade level instead of neighborhood school.

  Buy Photo

“There is strong skepticism regarding the purchase,” Gallagher said, summarizing more than 170 open responses. “Respondents questioned the necessity, cost, and transparency, and many believed that existing schools should be maintained or upgraded instead.”

Only 31.5% of respondents agreed with closing Harlan, Lincoln, and Salem elementary schools once there is enough classroom space at Van Allen and the central campus. Among those opposed to consolidation, 68% expressed support for keeping neighborhood schools. Just 46% said they support transitioning all elementary students into grade-alike buildings in Mt. Pleasant, even if a bond referendum fails.

  Buy Photo

Many expressed concerns and skepticism pertaining to the lack of or late receipt of postcard surveys.

“Those survey results are not going to be accurate, since so many in Salem didn’t get the survey to even be able to do it,” Michelle Boyd commented on a post from Citizens of MPCSD for Change.

Cindy Nichting said she didn’t receive hers until April 26, six days after the survey closed.

“Maybe you should open it back up so you can get [a] more accurate survey,” she said.

Gallagher addressed the delays in postcard notifications about the survey. He noted that while the district’s mailing vendor has long experience with such campaigns, delivery is ultimately out of their hands once the materials are passed to the U.S. Postal Service.

“There are going to be some hits and misses,” Gallagher said. “We view the postcard as one part of a broader effort that included media, social media, and the district website.”

Despite the hiccups, Gallagher said the sample size was more than sufficient for gauging public opinion.

“In a community the size of Mt. Pleasant, your tipping point is about 500 completed surveys. Once you get above that, you're hearing from a representative cross-section,” Gallagher explained.

As for the district’s facility plans, MPCSD Board President Angie Blint acknowledged the board faces difficult decisions ahead.

“We’ve only started to dig into this,” she said at the conclusion of Gallagher’s presentation. “Obviously we are going to need to revisit the timeline and what really our next steps are. This is just a work session no intending to make any decisions, but to start thinking about what we are going to do next.”

Blint shared that she felt the board received good input from the survey overall and stated that some steps would “probably need to change.”

In other business during the April 28 meeting, the board approved the 2025—2026 employee compensation package, including wage and benefit increases for several staff groups. Food service staff received the largest increase at 14.04%, raising starting pay to $14 per hour. Building secretaries received a 5.61% total package increase, setting starting pay at $15.31 per hour. Other increases ranged from 3% to just over 5%, depending on role and classification.

“We looked closely at how our wages compare regionally,” Superintendent John Henriksen said. “These adjustments are part of our effort to remain competitive and retain quality staff.”

The board also voted to maintain the price of afternoon milk at 40 cents per half-pint, limiting the offering to preschool and kindergarten students starting next year.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com