[Local-Maine-Schools] Gendron response

Thu Mar 8 08:42:08 EST 2007

Wow.  What a powerful, well-written piece.  Thank you Paul.  I hope that the legislature reads this BEFORE they vote!!!  I wonder if this piece could be sent to other newspapers across the State?

Tom Burton <jtb3 at adelphia.net> wrote:  I hope Commissioner Gendron reads this...

Paul Murphy wrote:           Below is a piece that will appear in MDI papers today.

  March 5, 2007

  To the editor:

  In Create Solutions to Improve Student Achievement (MDIslander March 1, 2007) Department of Education Commissioner, Susan Gendron, as seems to be her habit, makes several unsubstantiated assertions which in turn lead her to (again sadly and typically) several bogus conclusions. She begins by asking a number of questions about her and Governor Baldacci’s fatally flawed consolidation plan, Local Schools Regional Support (LSRS). These questions have all been conclusively answered, and none of the answers support LSRS. First, will the plan result in closing small schools, even if it doesn’t call for such closure? The answer from experts who, unlike our Governor (“No more studies, no more studies!”) and Ms. Gendron, have studied the likely outcomes, is a resounding YES. Second, does the plan take away from local control? As my kids would say, “well duh!” The very purpose of the plan is to lessen local control. Its idea is that distancing decision making from individual schools
 will make it more difficult for communities to override the Essential Programs and Services (ESP) funding formula, a sham that has been rejected by over 80% of the communities in Maine. Third, does the plan improve or worsen teaching in the classroom? Ms. Gendron claims this should be our “number one priority”. Last week Ms. Gendron herself provided the answer to this one (apparently after she wrote the article) when she pulled off the table the piece of the plan which would increase student to teacher ratios (along with the promises of extending the laptop program to high school and scholarships for Maine students), citing its negative impact on teaching in the classroom. Why has it taken months for her to reach the same conclusion most reached when they first read about LSRS? It is just one of many examples of how poorly this plan was thought out before it was thrown against the wall to see what would stick.

  Ms. Gendron goes on to say that, “most everyone agrees that the current system
is not providing the best use of resources to support student achievement.” She makes no attempt to support this assertion. Overall the current use of resources certainly seems to work in terms of Ms. Gendron’s number one priority- teaching in the classroom, since Maine students perform above national average in nationally standardized assessments. The only thing I can see that most everyone agrees on is that LSRS will do nothing to improve classroom conditions, will usurp local control and probably will not result in the promised savings.

  Ms. Gendron claims that Maine spends $2,000 more per student than the national average. This claim is testament to the old adage that there are liars, damn liars and statistics. I have read numerous claims and studies about how much Maine spends on education in comparison to the national average. While it seems clear that indeed we spend somewhat more our spending ranks sixth out of the seven states within the New England, New York economic region. It is interesting to note that when LSRS was released, the administration’s mantra was that Maine’s educational administrative costs were substantially higher than the national average. Once folks, like University of Maine’s Gordon Donaldson, who are experts on the subject, joined the conversation  and showed that overall non-instructional costs are actually significantly below national average we saw a subtle shift away from the word “administrative”. That being said, no one argues that we should not be looking for
 efficiencies that do not negatively impact the classroom or remove budget and policy control from local communities.

  Ms. Gendron notes that the Union 98 school board, as well as many other boards, has voted to oppose LSRS. She scolds us, saying that, “simply voting against change is not an option
” Ms. Gendron must not be paying attention to the news or to the many meetings she and the Governor have held throughout the state. It is not just school boards who have rejected LSRS. Thousands of people have turned out at public meetings to overwhelmingly “just say no” to this preposterous plan. I have been involved in town government for over 15 years and have never seen the public turn out for any issue as they have for this. When your schools are working well just voting against change that will cause them to work less well, is indeed an option and an obligation. What should not be an option is foisting an ill thought out, badly flawed plan on the people of Maine. What should not be an option is holding a gun to the legislature’s head by making that plan part of the budget and thereby
 enforcing a ridiculously rushed time line. This is a complex matter. It needs time to be studied and considered.

  Ms Gendron claims, and probably rightfully so, that a school unit of 120 students cannot afford the specialized staff and services needed in today’s educational environment. She then jumps to the conclusion that the minimum size for a school unit must be 3,000 to 3,500 students. This from a Commissioner who just a few short weeks ago claimed school units should range in size from 1,800 to 19,000. Well excuse me but
who says so? Union 98 has around 1,500 students and we are doing just fine, thank you very much. We have consolidated, beginning 40 years ago, and continue to innovate and look for efficiencies- the recent common contract for teachers throughout the Union being a case in point. We are open to partnering with other unions and school districts to gain more efficiency. But as far as LSRS is concerned we just say an emphatic NO!

  Ms Gendron claims that creative solutions are needed to improve student achievement in Maine. No one would argue against creative programs and solutions that are well thought out, supported by research and leave our schools in the hands of the communities that attend them. If, however, by “creative” she means plans like LSRS that have no basis in fact, pull numbers and savings out of thin air without support or substantiation and make claims that are misleading at best and patently false at worst  then I respectfully disagree.

  Prior to LSRS Commissioner Gendron and Maine Department of Education had done much to damage their credibility in the educational community of Maine. LSRS has sealed the deal and dragged Governor Baldacci’s credibility down with it. Ms Gendron should stop patting herself on the back and put that hand to better use by picking up her pen to author her resignation along with an apology to the hard working educators, administrators and parents of Maine whose work and dedication she has insulted with this impostor of a plan that is LSRS.

---------------------------------
  _______________________________________________  Local-Maine-Schools mailing list  To send a message to the list, write to:   Local-Maine-Schools at lists.svaha.com  To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:   http://lists.svaha.com/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools   
_______________________________________________
Local-Maine-Schools mailing list
To send a message to the list, write to:
Local-Maine-Schools at lists.svaha.com
To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:
http://lists.svaha.com/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools

---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.svaha.com/pipermail/local-maine-schools/attachments/20070308/4543af84/attachment.html