Rauschenfels, DianeZintek, Katie2012-12-052017-04-142012-12-052017-04-142010https://hdl.handle.net/11299/187520Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Education Degree in the College of Education and Human Service Professions, University of Minnesota Duluth, 2010Committee names: Diane Rauschenfels (Chair), Randy Hyman. This item has been modified from the original to redact the signatures present.With increasing local tax burden necessary to fully fund local school districts in Minnesota, school budget referenda votes are high-stakes elections. As a result, research regarding the why behind a school levy failure has become increasingly important to districts and communities. While some research looked at marketing strategies (Johnson, 2008; Lode, 1999) that school districts can utilize, other researchers focused on budget-maximization models (Romer & Rosenthal, 1984; Romer, Rosenthal, & Munley, 1992) and median voter models (Husted, 2005; Ehrenberg, Ehrenberg, Smith, & Zhang, 2003). Much of this research concluded that it may be best to leave community members who vote “no” out of the campaign altogether. What do those who organize “vote no” campaigns against school budget referenda or encourage others who vote “no” have to say about the reasons behind a “no” vote? In this study, interviews were conducted with 11 pro-levy participants and seven anti-levy participants across ten Minnesota and Iowa communities to determine their thoughts behind why a school budget referendum passed or failed in their district.enSchool levy failureLocal taxSchool budgetsBudget referendaMinnesota school leviesIowa school leviesMaster of EducationDepartment of EducationCollege of Education and Human Service ProfessionsUniversity of Minnesota DuluthPlan Cs (coursework-based master's degrees)School bonds -- Minnesota.School bonds -- Iowa.School budgets -- Minnesota.School budgets -- Iowa.Scholarly Text or Essay