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

[Paul Murphy]

I'm afraid my contribution to the population has been made and try as I will
my income is what it is...sorry.

Brian I wasn't clear on this, did the committee ever get to increases in
health care premiums as a contributing factor? I'm incredulous that it could
be missed, particularly by Rier, unless of course he was being
disingenuous...nah...

P
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Hubbell" <sparkflashgap at gmail.com>
To: "Local Maine Schools List" <local-maine-schools at lists.svaha.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 5:49 PM
Subject: [Local-Maine-Schools] March 16: notes from Education
Committeesession


> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>