[Local-Maine-Schools] Fwd: Reply to James Carignan/Editorial

[Gail Marshall]

For your information
This is an exchange I have had with James Carignan during the course  
of the school consolidation debate.
In the recent mail I am referring to Carignan's letter, which was  
echoed by Gov. Baldacci's statements in his weekly radio address.
For those of you who don't recall, Carignan is the chair of the State  
Board of Education. You wouldn't know that from reading the letter.  
He doesn't identify himself.
See his letter at:
http://www.sunjournal.com/story/215058-3/LetterstotheEditor/ 
Stand_up_for_the_children/
Gail Marshall

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Gail Marshall <gmarshall at wildmoo.net>
> Date: June 3, 2007 8:26:03 AM EDT
> To: James Carignan <carignans at suscom-maine.net>
> Subject: Re: Reply to James Carignan/BDN editorial
>
> Hello Mr. Carignan,
>
> It's a special interest calling in.
> Your public characterization of those of us who oppose your  
> misguided proposals as "special interests" only concerned in  
> maintaining "adult" power is repugnant slander. Does your  
> blackberry talk to Karl Rove's blackberry by any chance? It's a now  
> familiar, democratically-destructive tactic: leaders set out to  
> acquire more power and do so, in part, by accusing any who oppose  
> it as having impure motives. It is an attempt to make reality  
> subservient to rhetoric. I don't mind a frank e-mail exchange, but  
> a pubic official printing it in the newspaper is a descent into  
> policy trash-talk. Tell me please what that teaches our children.
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
> Gail Marshall
>
> On May 18, 2007, at 4:28 PM, James Carignan wrote:
>
>> Gail:
>> Thanks for your thoughtful letter.  I will try to respond--and I  
>> am not trying to be antagonistic!
>>
>> I agree that there needs to be a reorientation of the DOE and the  
>> people in the field.  One of the positive results of  
>> reorganization could be that more manageable units would allow the  
>> Commissioner to meet regularly--once a month even--to share her  
>> ideas and create a real dialog.  At this time there is so much  
>> time spent putting out fires that we can't get to that level.  I  
>> agree with your identification of this as a problem.
>>
>> I disagree with your assertion that these ideas "from Augusta" are  
>> not well reasoned and based on analysis.  Some are more so than  
>> others, but there are significant efforts made to assess the   
>> situation.  LAS was a mistake in the way it was burdened down with  
>> too much bureaucracy.  The idea was never to start a whole new  
>> level of testing--that is what happened because it was an idea,  
>> ironically, high-jacked by the analysts!  EPS was well-researched  
>> and analyzed, and it continues to be.  It will evolve, but its  
>> strength is that it takes into consideration some realities that  
>> we need to face up to--e.g., declining enrollment and increasing  
>> costs!  This is an example of one effort that is being improved.
>>
>> I want to tell you that I was on the road when the Select panel  
>> made it report.  We adjusted our recommendation as a result of  
>> those hearing we had across the state.  I know that the  
>> Commissioner has been out to talk about these things endlessly.   
>> Incidentally, the State Board did start its study two years ago-- 
>> and that informed the Commissioner who was a member of the Select  
>> Panel.
>>
>> The Iraq invasion and regionalization?  I think we are back to  
>> apples and cumquats.  You are simply wrong if you think this is  
>> about disenfranchising local folks.  Ask the residents of the MSAD  
>> towns--they do not feel disenfranchised!  Indeed, if we want local  
>> schools to be the "heart and soul" of the local community, then we  
>> need to integrate them more intimately into the life of the  
>> community.  They need to serve all members of the community--not  
>> just students in k-8 or k-12 grades.
>>
>> All that you say about Union 98 can be applied to a larger  
>> administrative entity--it is really not impossible.
>>
>> Thanks, again.  I must run.  Hope you have a good weekend.
>> Jim
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Gail Marshall
>> To: James Carignan
>> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:36 PM
>> Subject: Re: Reply to James Carignan/BDN editorial
>>
>> Jim,
>> I appreciate that you have responded to my concerns. I am taking  
>> the liberty of continuing the discussion.  I realize that may  
>> reach beyond your interests in the matter.  If so, I will be  
>> guided by your preferences.
>> One of the chronic and critical problems with education in this  
>> state emanates from Augusta. Let me be clear at the outset: I have  
>> no desire to be antagonistic. I have long wished our schools could  
>> have a collaborative relationship with DOE. Our school union is  
>> not the ne plus ultra of education. We could learn a lot from  
>> people tasked with looking at a bigger picture and vice versa. It  
>> pains me that we never get that sort of counsel. We could be  
>> greater than the sum of our parts. Instead, we have to try to  
>> flourish despite DOE.
>> It may be difficult to see this from your vantage point, but “out  
>> here” we are tired of top-down decisions from Augusta that show  
>> little evidence of analysis beyond “Grow Smart” talking points.  
>> Time and again “bold new initiatives” (some of which we might  
>> agree with in theory) appear to not be planned, piloted or  
>> developed with any regard for the real world. Local Area  
>> Assessments, Essential Programs and Services and imposition of  
>> SATs are but three of the endless stream of dicta dumped upon our  
>> schools, often without even a warning, let alone consultation.  
>> Failure of these “bold initiatives” are never an occasion for  
>> apparent reflection, accountability or improvement in the method  
>> of operation. Reading DOE press releases and directives in the  
>> wake of these wrecks is an Orwellian experience. The  
>> Commissioner’s recent politicized smear of our schools regarding  
>> the internally illogical AYP listings is the latest salt in the  
>> wound.
>> The current school funding dilemma is not new. Yet when in the  
>> past few years has the Commissioner, Board, or any staff hit the  
>> road? Why didn’t we seen DOE undertake a real world consolidation  
>> study at least two years ago, when the budget problem was already  
>> apparent? Why didn’t the Commissioner spend a year meeting with  
>> and listening to people at the local level?  Why haven’t we seen  
>> her try in real time to model efficiency in one or more school  
>> systems? Where is the evidence that local taxpayers would not  
>> rejoice if they could be shown a better way to meet their  
>> communities’ needs for less money? How could you expect anything  
>> but outrage when big chunks of sky suddenly fell on our schools  
>> from Governor Baldacci’s rash    proposal?
>> One night a young Israeli student sat at my dinner table. The  
>> invasion of Iraq had commenced and it was the topic of discussion.  
>> When asked for her opinion, she said, “No one likes to be  
>> occupied.” And no one likes a remote authority threatening to  
>> disenfranchise local authority. No one likes someone from outside  
>> so cavalierly threatening the heart and soul of their community  
>> all the while implausibly denying that will happen.
>> That we are in this position of pitched battle over what should be  
>> a commonly held set of objectives represents a massive failure of  
>> leadership. Do not blame the subjects of these behaviors.  
>> Addressing this failure where it has occurred is an unfortunate  
>> but essential prerequisite to healing the great riff between DOE  
>> and schools all over this state.
>> Now I will address specifics of your letter concerning the  
>> administrative requirements of our schools. I am a school board  
>> member on Mount Desert Island, served by Union 98. I will not  
>> trumpet our accomplishments, in part because I will never be  
>> satisfied with them. But I believe we are regarded as one of the  
>> more successful school systems in the state. We have approximately  
>> 1600 students in our Union. We serve four towns, three outer  
>> islands and tuition students from several nearby towns.
>> Over time, perhaps encouraged by the success of our combined high  
>> school, our elementary schools are evolving into far more  
>> integrated facilities, even as our towns continue to enjoy the  
>> benefits of in-town schools with fiscal autonomy and local board  
>> oversight. We now have one terrific special education director and  
>> a great curriculum director. We collaborate to provide an  
>> experienced teacher leader whose sole job it is to mentor  
>> probationary teachers. Each year our elementary schools improve as  
>> they do a better job coordinating policies curricula and services.
>> Union 98 administrators meet, plan, share, retreat, and work  
>> together. They are led by one superintendent (no assistants). His  
>> work, his leadership, his frequent presence in each of our  
>> elementary schools is critical to the ongoing success of our  
>> schools, and to ongoing improvements in effectiveness and  
>> efficiency. For example, it is largely as a result of his work  
>> that we have jointly negotiated the same teacher’s association  
>> contract for each of our schools.
>> I know how hard our central office administrators work for us.  
>> Under no circumstances do I want our superintendent or either of  
>> the other directors spreading themselves thinner in a district  
>> that tacks on a few more schools just to reach some arbitrary  
>> number, whether the geography is vast or not.
>> Further, we unalterably oppose the Appropriation Committee’s bill  
>> provisions that destroy the union form of school organization.  
>> Over a year ago we asked our superintendent to examine the wisdom  
>> of becoming a SAD. Many of us presumed that would be a logical  
>> next step. To our surprise we concluded that our schools and towns  
>> would not be better served by a different structure. Where is your  
>> evidence that we are wrong?
>> What about principals? I have great confidence in my elementary  
>> school’s principal and I know that our other schools are well  
>> served too. Surely, they are the front line of educational  
>> leadership, But we need HQ too. No single building administrator  
>> can provide the vision and leadership necessary to make it all  
>> hang together. And despite my great satisfaction with our  
>> principal, no school is always so fortunate. There is nothing  
>> quite as toxic as a bad building administrator. And there is no  
>> one who sees that faster or deals with that better than a hands-on  
>> superintendent.  Even great principals need consequential  
>> evaluations, consultations and professional support. And for the  
>> sake of the harmony in the school there are many issues that are  
>> better handled by an administrator off campus, but not so far away  
>> that they can not respond in a timely manner.
>> I can’t speak to what happens in other schools. I can’t tell you  
>> exactly where their opportunities for efficiencies are. The sad  
>> thing is that your Commissioner can’t either. And nobody wants to  
>> buy a pig in a poke. I can tell you that in Union 98 we know that  
>> we have nowhere to go but down under any of the proposals for  
>> regionalization now on the table. And we are not going to go  
>> quietly. That would be a betrayal of our students and our  
>> communities.
>> I look hopefully for the time when we can work together as  
>> partners to improve the quality of the education of our children.  
>> I am sure that’s what most people engaged in this debate want. But  
>> I am also sure we are not going to get there this way.
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Gail
>>
>> On May 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, James Carignan wrote:
>>
>>> Gail:
>>> Thanks for sending your letter to the BDN to me.  Do you mind if  
>>> I respond a bit?
>>>
>>> Your reference to Bates, Bowdoin and Colby are really most  
>>> inappropriate.  It is like comparing apples and cumquats!  They  
>>> are simply different realities with a different legal and  
>>> structural system.  However, I would very much support greater  
>>> cooperation among those three schools--to become more efficient  
>>> and save on costs for the benefit of students.  Also, they are  
>>> hardly      unsustainable at this time--Bowdoin had over 6500  
>>> applications for their entering class, and Colby and Bates had  
>>> significant numbers.
>>>
>>> You paint a picture of administrations that will be responsible  
>>> for vast geographic areas.  That will not be the case for the  
>>> most part.  In those areas with sparse population and large areas  
>>> the Appropriations Subcommittee report makes it clear that  
>>> something less than 2500 students would be appropriate.  Also,  
>>> in  this day of instantaneous communication through multiple  
>>> media, distance does not mean what it use to mean.  Also, we can  
>>> imagine, can't we, that principals working with staff and the  
>>> community will have significant decision making authority within  
>>> a broad district framework--it is on the ground at the school  
>>> where the real action will be, and I believe it will be enhanced  
>>> in a new arrangement.  Administration simply will not be all that  
>>> remote!  Please, stop creating these myths and straw men and women!
>>>
>>>     The date is pretty clear that we cannot sustain the current  
>>> system, continue to invest strategically in our children's  
>>> future, and provide some tax relief to Maine citizens.  Increased  
>>> efficiency without compromising quality is the only answer I can  
>>> see.
>>>
>>>     Again, thanks for engaging my remarks.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Gail Marshall
>>> To: Hannah Pingree ; dsdamon ; Ted KOFFMAN ; carignans at suscom- 
>>> maine.net ; drtom16 at hotmail.com ; Emily Cain ; Governor
>>> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 1:12 PM
>>> Subject: Fwd: Reply to James Carignan/BDN editorial
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For your consideration.
>>> Thank you.
>>> Gail Marshall
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Gail Marshall <gmarshall at wildmoo.net>
>>>> Date: May 16, 2007 10:41:27 AM EDT
>>>> To: Local Maine Schools List <local-maine-schools at lists.svaha.com>
>>>> Subject: Reply to James Carignan/BDN editorial
>>>>
>>>> James Carignan, the chair of the State Board of Education writes  
>>>> in the Bangor Daily News on May 16, 2007, http:// 
>>>> bangordailynews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx? 
>>>> articleid=149875&zoneid=35 that we have but two choices: cut  
>>>> school administrators drastically or cut general purpose aid to  
>>>> education.
>>>>
>>>> He asserts that our relatively high per-pupil support for  
>>>> education is unsustainable even though it has bought one of us  
>>>> one of the highest performing school systems in the country, and  
>>>> even while he asserts that we must do ever-so-much more for our  
>>>> students from kindergarten through college to help them be ready  
>>>> to meet the challenges they will confront.
>>>> Mr Carignan claims, as all who have gone before him, in a manner  
>>>> devoid of substantiation, that increasing the size and  
>>>> remoteness of administrations will make them superior and much  
>>>> more cost efficient than the current configuration that has  
>>>> fewer administrators per school system located closer to the  
>>>> educational action. Really?
>>>> Since he is a former Dean at Bates, I would like to see Mr.  
>>>> Carignan have run Bates from offices in Colby or Bowdoin. As the  
>>>> parent of a college-aged child I can assure you that the wild  
>>>> rise in costs at schools such as his former facility is pretty  
>>>> darned unsustainable too. Maybe having a weakened college  
>>>> leadership system would help with that, and improve my child’s  
>>>> college experience to boot? In fact, maybe we could outsource  
>>>> all administrators?
>>>> Mr. Carignan repeats the inherently inconsistent argument that  
>>>> more remote school boards with few if any representatives from  
>>>> your town, will be just as responsive as the one that now serves  
>>>> in your neighborhood. To those of us on the ground that argument  
>>>> does not pass the straight face test.
>>>> He rounds his piece out with a lovely apples and oranges still  
>>>> life. He points to those already voluntarily consolidated  
>>>> districts that have more than 2500 students located  
>>>> demographically and geographically in areas that allow that to  
>>>> happen by combining just a few towns. He tells us there is no  
>>>> meaningful difference between that and a shotgun consolidation  
>>>> that would require many more towns covering much greater  
>>>> distances to reach the magic 2500 number.
>>>> He concludes: “The choice is simple.” That assertion distills  
>>>> into four “simple” words the huge failure of leadership, from  
>>>> the Governor’s office down through the entire state educational  
>>>> leadership team that our schools are suffering under. The  
>>>> “choice” is only simple if you don’t have to live with the  
>>>> consequences. If the state government wants to improve education  
>>>> and do it as efficiently as possible, they will stop issuing  
>>>> vague pronouncements sprinkled with occasional threats and  
>>>> insults from Augusta. They will go to schools and communities  
>>>> throughout this state. They will collaborate on the real,  
>>>> unavoidable, work necessary to help each community define their  
>>>> problems and their opportunities and create the solutions that  
>>>> best meets their individualized needs.
>>>> Until then, Mr. Carignan, please spare us because just like in  
>>>> the rest of life, there are fixes, but rarely are the good ones  
>>>> “simple.”
>>>>
>>>> Gail Marshall
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mainetalk.org/pipermail/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org/attachments/20070603/93a4ffe6/attachment.htm>