[Local-Maine-Schools] March 16: notes from Education Committee session

[Brian Hubbell]

Had a late lunch to day to try to squeeze in some of the audio
offerings today from Augusta.  Apologize that I couldn't listen to the
full sessions.  But a man has to work sometimes, otherwise he's
contributing to Maine's stagnation in personal income growth which, as
it turns out, is a significant part of this whole school problem.  But
I get ahead of myself.

What I did hear was a middle section of the Education Committee's work
session.  The audio I heard was from the Education Committee Room.  I
didn't hear any audio from the Committee's separately scheduled
session in the Labor Committee room, nor any explanation of what might
have been going one there.

I tuned in late -- a bit past 1:30 -- and I think I just missed
Senator Mitchell who apparently was summarizing what has occurred in
the interim since the Education Committee made their presentation to
Appropriations last Thursday.  I'm very sorry because I would have
liked very much to hear just that.  If any of you heard any of this,
maybe you can reply with some detail.

What I did catch was a bit of recap from Senator Bowman which he ended
with a request for some more information from Jim Rier about how the
DOE projects its savings from consolidation vs collaboration.

While Jim Rier was being summoned, there was some slack time during
which I -- and perhaps more than a few others -- got to consider how
dependent this process has become on both the exclusive data and the
exclusive assumptions of the DOE, which apparently is considered at
this point to have somewhat of a monopoly on hard facts, despite the
fact that they are also simultaneously advocating for one particular
solution.

Rier appeared, but not with the information Senator Bowman was wishing
for.  Instead he re-presented the scenario for the "unsustainablility"
of education spending in the face of the spending caps mandated under
LD-1.

Having now heard this twice, I feel more confident to summarize.

Originally the DOE based their EPS projections simply by multiplying
by the Consumer Price Index and then reducing it by the percentage
decline in student enrollment.  But the actual costs of education
turned out not to track this.  Rather they nearly followed CPI
unreduced by declining enrollment.  So, noting with some grumbling
that school governments weren't satisfactorily containing cost
increases, the DOE now projects on the actual increases of education
expenses, which in 06-07 in aggregate increased at 2.8%.

So, projecting out for the next three years with 2.8% increases, but
also adding in some known additional expenses -- notably the
anticipated increases in debt ceiling approved by the previous
legislature and increases in Special Ed which are projected to
increase somewhere around 4.3%, Rier has noted that, with the state's
commitment to 100% EPS, overall education spending crashes into the
spending growth caps mandated by LD-1.  This projected collision is
caused because the spending growth limit is tied by law to personal
income growth, which currently in the state is in decline.

So, to summarize, the problems are: Education costs continue to
increase with the cost of living despite declining enrollments, debt
service and special education costs are projected to increase at an
even higher rate, and personal income growth is declining which will
cause overall spending to be capped by law.

So how will this be remedied by consolidation?

Good question.  Representative Farrington, Senator Bowman, and Senator
Mitchell all asked Rier just this.  What's driving the increases in
education costs and how will the governor's plan reduce them.

Rier explained that the DOE's projections result simply from ratios of
potential savings.  Studies of other school systems show that $202 per
student is a representative average cost for system administration.
So $202 per student is what they expect consolidated districts to
expend.  DOE believes that consolidation can realize at least 5%
savings in facility operation, transportation, and Special Ed.
They've made no specific models to demonstrate how these savings would
actually be realized.  The percentages just seem to fit with what
larger districts elsewhere spend.

Pressed on how they think those savings will actually be captured
within the first year, given all the disruption and unknowns, Rier
allowed that the allocation of first year savings might be "a judgment
call."

Bowman and Farrington both were interested in what DOE's data might
show had been driving the steady increases in costs above CPI.

As I'm pretty sure that I (along with anyone else who has either
reviewed a school budget or run a business that pays benefits to its
employees) knew the answer to that one.  But health care insurance
didn't seem to come right off to Rier's mind.  He said he didn't
really know.  He did offer salary scales as a likely component along
with the observation that the increases resulting from the
state-mandated increase in minimum teachers' salaries had not shown up
yet in the projections.

So, let's see:  We have increased costs from the state increasing the
school construction debt limit, increases from the state-mandated
increases in teachers salaries, increases in special ed costs, and a
state-wide decline in personal income contributing to a state budget
crunch.  And the solution proposed is to get rid of local school
administration?

At this point, Dr. Silvernail entered the Committee Room and the
Committee turned their questions eagerly toward him.  Unfortunately he
wasn't miked and so I heard nothing of his answers.  I must say I was
reassured that the Education Committee at this point appears to be
asking the right questions.

I had to go back to work at that point.  Obviously, more of us have
to, otherwise we're all headed for trouble.  The two citizen
imperatives that are emerging is that we need to create greater income
and we need to produce quite a few more babies.

So, get busy, everyone.