[Local-Maine-Schools] What to say to legislators?

[Paul Murphy]

I agree that there are lots of efficiencies that can be had with communities
of differing approaches to education BUT the language- like minded
communities- is from the Department of Education and it is key to how they
have sold the governor's plan, the implication being that regional
consolidation would not just maintain but enhance local control. I don't
think it's any secret that different communities approach education
differently and I don't think we should be shy about that. Again, I think we
should offer to embrace any efficiencies that do not policy, budgets or our
ability to affect those issues in the future.

I understand your sensitivity about privilege and exclusivity (though I
don't hear any of that in Brian's tone) but many poorer, rural communities
are hollering about autonomy and local control as loudly or more loudly than
we are. I'm sorry but I cannot see any correlation to school integration.
It's a red herring. Many of the communities that we would be banded with
under the governor's proposal, while perhaps not as advantaged as those on
MDI, are not disadvantaged. Yet they have taken a different approach. They
are welcome to it and it might well be the right approach for that community
every bit as much as our approach is right for our community. The problem
with any regionalization that cedes power over policy or purse, is it
ensures the demise of our approach, an approach we are rightfully proud of
because it works.

I too am shocked by the lack of scrutiny that has or will occur around the
claims of LSRS but I'm not so sure we need to help the legislature find
property tax savings in our recommendations to them. We need to acknowledge
the issue and commit to embracing efficiencies that will help while
maintaining local control. We also need to point out, however, that over 80%
of the communities in the state have rejected EPS funding. If that is not a
referendum on the approach this administration and legislature have taken to
fixing property taxes on the back of education...I don't know. Neither TABOR
nor any of its predecessors garnered much more than half of that 80%. They
need to understand that their baseline- EPS is voo doo economics.

P
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dick Atlee" <atlee at umd.edu>
To: "Local Maine Schools List" <local-maine-schools at lists.svaha.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Local-Maine-Schools] What to say to legislators?


> That's a wonderfully positive and comprehensive list.  There are only
> three aspects -- two educational, one financial -- that concern me about
> it, and I'm not sure how best to address them.
>
> One is the references to "similarly-minded" communities.  That language
> carries the risk of drawing us into the closed-mindedness we claim to
> eschew.  There are probably many collaborations that could be had with
> districts or communities that think along different lines or have less
> ambitious educational goals but are nevertheless advantageous to both
> parties.
>
> Second, and related to this, is the sense of privilege/exclusivity I
> feel in reading the list.  I think if I were a legislator from a poorer,
> more rural district without some of the amazing cultural resources
> available to MDI, that kind of language would be reminiscent of the
> arguments against integrating schools -- the claims that integration
> would diminish the quality of education in those schools, which produced
> the massive white flight to private schools.  I'm assuming that this is
> not what we intend, but it would be easy to see us in that light.
>
> Finally, as I mentioned in the Jan. 22 meeting, I think that a focus on
> education, while it is important in talking to the Education Committee,
> is missing the central point of this mess.  I understand that many
> believe the primary purpose of the plan is for the state to seize
> control of schools.  This may be true, but I still believe that LSRS
> arose out of a desperate and poorly-thought-out attempt to find a way to
> reduce property taxes and avoid another TABOR.  To the extent that this
> is true, the key point is whether this plan, or any plan that gets
> serious attention, actually has a credible, data-wise verifiable claim
> to significant property-tax reduction.
>
> At the Jan 22 meeting, Hannah Pingree said she felt that a serious peer
> review of the finances of the LSRS plan, suggested by Dick Dimond at
> that meeting, would not be done in the legislature.  To me, this was the
> most shocking revelation at that meeting, if the main goal is to
> actually save money.
>
> Jill Goldthwait addressed this excellently in her weekly Op-Ed piece in
> the Mt. Desert Islander this week, readable at
>
>
http://mdislander.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2330&Itemid=40
>
> What doesn't show in the online version of her piece was the
> selected-quote highlight-box, referring to text which really captures
> Jill's wonderfully wry and insightful style:
>
> "The same Brookings Institution report that triggered the school debate
> pointed to the possibility of $60 to $100 million in state government
> savings, but 'Official, consolidate thyself' has never been a popular
> dictum."
>
> We need to deal with the education part of all this, but to the extent
> that the legislature has a fast track interest in funding, we may end up
> with something educationally damaging no matter how good the
> legislature's intentions, unless we can shunt this train off onto
> another, more likely cost-saving track.
>
> Dick
>
> Brian Hubbell wrote:
> > Okay, in case some of you really are cracking your knuckles this
> > morning over your keyboards, but still undecided about what to say,
> > here -- strictly from my own point of view -- are some possible
> > suggestions.  Please reply with your own.
> >
> > 1) Here on MDI at least, the existing local town boards, in regional
> > cooperation as a school union structure, work effectively.  The proof
> > is that are schools, by any measure, are excellent.
> >
> > 2) As our schools are excellent, over many years, the existing
> > relationships between school boards, teachers, administrators and
> > taxpayers have created extraordinary collaborative trust.  This has
> > real value.
> >
> > 3) No one better knows our schools than the people here who are
> > presently committed to them.  For good reasons, we seriously doubt
> > that our schools would be better or more responsibly cared for under
> > any other administrative structure.
> >
> > 4) Therefore, we can not support any legislative directive that
> > dissolves our current school administrative units and replaces it with
> > a larger regional structure.
> >
> > 5) However, our primary interest is always in improving the quality of
> > education in our schools. So, we can state that we will never be
> > close-minded to ideas that might effect that goal.
> >
> > 6) In that spirit, we are open to any opportunities to explore
> > self-directed collaborations among other similarly-minded communities
> > statewide that might effectively improve education.
> >
> > 7) There is nothing to lose and likely much to gain from collaborative
> > discussions with other similarly-minded schools across the state,
> > independent of geographical proximity.
> >
> > 8) And, as long as the local excellence of our schools is not
> > diminished, we would participate willingly in any larger cooperative
> > organizations to realize cost-savings.
> >
> > 9) In this regard, the cost of health care in particular seems
> > appropriate common ground.
> >
> > Okay.  There's an opening for discussion.  Have at it.
> >
> > --Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Local-Maine-Schools mailing list
> Local-Maine-Schools at lists.svaha.com
> http://lists.svaha.com/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools
>