[Local-Maine-Schools] A summary of what happened yesterday in detail

[Dick Atlee]

We certainly would have been very much better off if the alleged 
"problem" had been addressed in a more functional way.  But the 
situation is not nearly as bad as it would have been without the efforts 
of many people.  Not the least of these are our own (MDI's) Hannah 
Pingree and Ted Koffman in the house.  But everything that happened 
yesterday played out in the context of the showstoppers -- the Rural 
Caucus was huge in this, in proposing changes and being the legislative 
equivalent the Green Monster in Fenway, and Dennis Damon, who put 
himself on the line in a key role on the Senate side.

The high points of what happened yesterday (culminating in the final 
"Amendment T") is as follows, described in detail below with section 
references for those afficiandos who want to dig deeper.  All of this, 
of course, depends on what happens in the Senate and then in conference 
with the two houses.

   1. Local financial control of elementary schools by municipalities
   2. Reduced punishment for non-compliance
   3. Timeline extended (sort of)
   4. Removal of specific budget reductions required in initial plan
   5. Softening of the 80-district maximum

1. LOCAL FINANCIAL CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

This was nailed into place by alterations to two provisions:

Section XXXX-13 section1481: "Notwithstanding any provisions of law to 
the contrary, a municipality within a regional school unit may raise 
money and direct the spending of the funds, to a school serving children 
from kindergarten to no higher than grade 9."

Section XXXX-13 section 1478: "A regional unit board may create local 
school committees and specify their powers and duties." (The key change 
here was to remove a final phrase: "not in conflict with this Title," 
which left open the possibility of attacks on the idea of local control 
through some unexpected loophole.)

These guarantee the right of a municipality to create a budget, 
appropriate the money, and raise it from the town, eliminating the loss 
of control that would have resulted from requiring all this to be done 
on a district-wide basis.  This applies to K-8 schools only; the 
required high school is handled district wide.

The approval of this budget requires a referendum, the downside of which 
is that, unlike a town meeting or council hearing, there is no 
opportunity to explain why the budget is what it is, allowing people 
with no knowledge of education to vote on it (and we've seen what that 
can do in the legislature).  However, the original heavily-skewed 
wording required for the ballot in such a referendum in the case where 
more money was budgeted than the insufficient level defined by the state 
has been removed, so voters are no longer told that said that if they 
vote YES their taxes will go up (not necessarily) while not explaining 
WHY those funds may be essential.  (This is the now famous "apple pie or 
a rock" choice.)

REMAINING CONSIDERATIONS ON LOCAL CONTROL

(a) The Referendum:  One question is whether the referendum itself can 
be held locally.  Commissioner Gendron assured us that yes, that is the 
case for K-8 in this scenario, that a separate vote would be held for 
the high school and central office (presumably this could be on the same 
ballot).  But for anyone whose trust in that source has been frayed, for 
whom the motto "In Legislative Language We Trust" is king, the lack of 
clarity on this point in The Language could be a point of concern.

(b) School Property and Debt: The bizarre language requiring the 
district to take over school property from municipalities, leaving them 
with whatever portion of their debt was not state subsidized, has not 
been removed.  This leaves open the possibility that towns will be 
raising money for schools that they don't own and on which they owe a 
lot of money.

(c) District decides: The existence of local control hinges on the 
granting of those powers by the District Board.  The composition of this 
board is thus absolutely vital to the future of local control.  For 
districts that were previously popular Unions, this wouldn't be a problem.

(d) Finer points of governance: It is true that aspects of K-8 
governance not controlled by a budget will be under the control of the 
district.  Curriculum control is a good example, but given that a high 
school is now required in a district, the idea that all students should 
come to the high-school on an equal footing does make educational sense.

2. REDUCED PUNISHMENT FOR NONCOMPLIANCE (Section XXXX-32)

(a) Loss of minimum state contribution -- now you only lose half.
(b) Loss of state contribution for system administration -- now you only 
lose half
(c) Small schools lose their isolated-school-adjustment -- now they don't
(d) The punitive 5% mil-rate increase has been dropped

3. TIME LINE EXTENSION -- WELL, SORT OF (Section XXXX-35, sub 7-8)

In the initial language, plans had to be submitted before December 15 of 
this year, and voted on by January 15, 2008 (with another vote November 
2008 if the first failed).  The deadline has been moved back in the 
sense that plans can be submitted after December 15 but have to be voted 
on by June 10, 2008.  This amounts to less than a year for planning a 
massive change in how things are done.

4. REDUCTIONS REQUIRED IN INITIAL PLAN REMOVED (Section XXXX-35, sub 6:F)

The original language required the reorganization plan to state 5% cuts 
in transportation, special education, and facilities and maintenance and 
a cut in system administration to 50% of the state's EPS (recommended) 
amount (very severe for anyone already spending more than EPS.  Friday 
hat 50% was increased to 100%; then yesterday both restrictions were 
removed, with a more reasonable:

XXXX-35:6:F. "The plan must address how the school administrative unit 
will reorganize administrative functions, duties and noninstructional 
personnel so that the projected expenditures of the reorganized school 
unit in fiscal year 2008-09 for system administration, transportation, 
special education and facilities and maintenance will not have an 
adverse impact on the instructional program."

And the section invoking this (Section XXXX-35 sub 4:B) now says:  "Each 
SAU shall exercise due diligence and act in good faith in developing a 
plan that meets the requirements of the Part and furthers the intent of 
the Legislature to achieve sustainable, long-term administrative 
efficiencies."

5. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DISTRICTS SOFTENED (Section XXXX-35 sub 7:D)

Although the language still mentions 80 districts, one section appears 
to soften this: "The Commissioner of Education may not find that a plan 
for reorganization does not meet the requirements of the Part solely on 
the ground that a finding that it meets the requirements would cause the 
number of regional school units in the State to exceed  80."