[Local-Maine-Schools] Report from Education Subcommittee of Appropriations - March 20

[Brian Hubbell]

Education Subcommittee of Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee
Work Session
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
~3:00-5:00PM

Sub-committee members:
Chair: Representative Cain
Senator Turner
Senator Rotundo
Representative Millet

Invited participants:
David Silvernail
Jim Carrignan
Commissioner Gendron

Chair Cain reported that the Education Committee, which had been
scheduled to present their work to the Sub-committee, has not yet
finished and would instead present tomorrow.

Apparently the Education Committee did convey some sort of brief, in
the form of a yellow flyer, which Representative Millet described as
being "less than helpful", "not productive", and "not a constructive
communication".

So the Sub-committee heard from David Silvernail who was returning to
the sub-committee with some requested tables of showing the breakdown
of different types of school administrative units categorized by size.

Of Maine's 290 school administrative units, 180 have 500 students or
fewer.  122 of these are School Unions. 37 are municipal districts, 10
are Community School Districts, and 7 are School Administrative
Districts.

On a second table, Silvernail presented the different school
administrative units categorized first in relation to size and then
their expenditures as a ratio of EPS.

On the breakdown by size, as above, there were 180 school
administrative units with fewer than 500 students.  Only 13 units have
more than 3000 students.

First, just examining each unit by its expenditures on "system
administration" and comparing that to the EPS formula which allows
$340 per student in this category, Silvernail's table showed that 76%
of the school units with fewer than 500 students were above EPS for
system administration.

While some schools of all sizes were over EPS in this category, a
lower percentage of schools in the range of 2500 were over.

Similarly, in the EPS category of "Facilities Management" (which EPS
figures at $995 per student), 67% of schools with fewer than 500
students are over EPS limits.  Interestingly, all 13 units with
2000-2500 students were also over EPS.  Units in the range of
2500-3000 tended to be lower.  But schools in the 1500-2000 range also
tended to be lower.  To me, this hardly seems conclusive.

Silvernail explained that at every size some units are at or under EPS
and some are over.  Some units at every size are just slightly over
and some at every size are way over, some by as much as 350%.  But the
largest percentage of units that are at all over EPS the small ones.

Silvernail went on to say that in some schools where system
administration is less than EPS overall spending may still be well
above EPS.

Here Silvernail ventured into advocacy and suggested that additional
budget "transparency" about comparable systems and costs could help
contain costs.

Representative Millet asked if it was possible to compare school
efficiency by ratios of students to teachers.

Silvernail responded that such analysis was complex, first requiring
an adjustment by a factor for "free or reduced lunch" to somewhat
balance  expectations.  What such data revealed, he said, was that
different schools ended up dividing their resources differently.  Some
had higher ratios of Ed Techs, some had more teachers, some had more
support staff.  Different schools turn out to be -- well -- different.

Representative Millet asked about how the Governor's proposal
calculated the savings from laying off 650 teachers.

Silvernail said this was just a "global" calculation, not one
calculated through any school model.  They just took the higher ratio,
divided it into the number of students statewide, and subtracted the
difference in average salary.

Representative Cain said, "So, you were just talking numbers, but not
geography -- not the realities around state?"

Representative Millet then wondered: "So what's out there on the
ground?  Is that reflective of what's really going on?"

Silvernail continued with a summary of the numbers.

87% of all school units are above current (ramping-up) EPS levels and
233 (or 80%) of all of Maine's 290 school administrative units were at
or above 100% EPS for 2006-07. Silvernail said this translates into
$132.7 million dollars spent above EPS.

194 (or two-thirds) of Maine's schools are more than 5% over EPS,
which represents $89.8 million spent over EPS

146 (or 56%) are more thna 10% over EPS, at a cost of about $56 million over EPS

Silvernail repeated that, as school size goes smaller, the tendency to
go over EPS increases.  But he added that also wealthier communities
tended to exceed EPS and that communities where mills paid a
substantial part of the property tax tended to exceed EPS as well.

87% of all units are over EPS.

Representative Millet wondered what's driving all these expenditures above EPS.

Silvernail answered that while some part of it is size, EPS was never
designed to be total comprehensive formula.  If a school operates "a
comprehensive program", Silvernail said he expected it would operate
over EPS.  Again Silvernail advocates for "transparency" in budget --
that and perhaps a drive towards limiting expenditures to 10% above
EPS with a regional referendum required beyond that.

Representative Millet asked if EPS was what an "average school might spend"?

Silvernail replied that EPS was built with the Learning Results using
models for "adequacy funding" and based on "exemplary schools", not
averages, although some parts like system administration were
subsequently modified to work on averages.

Representative Millet observed wryly that he was bothered that he
wouldn't be able to explain to a citizen what EPS is and what it's
supposed to do.

Chair Cain at this point headed off more discussion and excused Silvernail.

Next the sub-committee heard from Jim Carrignan, chair of the State
Board of Education.

Senator Turner asked if the State Board can serve as "Convener and
Facilitator" for consolidation.

Carrignan said the Board would assume whatever role the legislature
determine.  But he expressed the hope that it's charge wouldn't be
"formulaic" and that he hoped that "common sense prevails".  Carrignan
hopes for a highly collaborative and highly "consultative" process, He
believes that's the way you get things done, by establishing
relations, by listening, and evoking the best from participants.

Senator Tuner characterized the sub-committee's consensus as wishing
to use the State Board as "convener" to complete work on consolidation
in this calendar year, late summer- late fall.  Board would develop
various configurations for various locations.  At the end of the year,
if people aren't fully mapped in, then the Commissioner would close
any remaining holes in the map.

Senator Turner and Representative Cain both offered some language,
asking Carrignan if, from the Board's perspective, it was too
"prescriptive".  Plans should respect local geography, local culture,
local education, and particular local financial considerations. Whole
SAUs should be aligned so transportation networks work between them.
Their demographics should be close, per capita income should be
relatively close as personal demographics and per capita income would
probably match drive for educational excellence.  Minimum district
size desired is 2500, but recognize that not all area will meet that
minimum. Total consolidated SUAs desired: 55-60.  Would that work for
BOE?

Carrignan said that would be a "good start" as long as the term
"desired" is "broadly construed".  He added that he believes it was
important to end up with some overall equity in education and not to
come out with "haves" and "have-nots".

Senator Rotundo asked about implementation. How would communities take
next step toward consolidated districts?  What would be the Board's
funding needs?  Resources? Support?

Carrignan said he was generally optimistic about the charge, assuming
all parties could be kept focused on common ground of benefiting the
children. Nevertheless will need folks with substantial skills in
mediation and and facilitation.

Senator Turner asked if Carrignan believed that the particular
governance structure of the consolidated districts is important.  Are
School Unions really formed to keep people apart? Is size critical?

Carrignan responded that he doesn't think that it's an accident that
we're 10 years into Maine Learning Results and haven't yet achieved
the goals.  He said that the "fragmentation" that 290 existing units
represent are a "centrifugal force away from achieving learning
results".  This, Carrignan said, is a real impediment to doing what we
need to be doing for the 21st century.

Warming a bit to the task, Carrignan amplified that we need "to take
cognizance of the fact that numerous studies have concluded that
school unions are the most inefficient and least effective in terms of
students".  They are "where school administrators and leaders get
burned out".  Carrignan said that in his "ideal world they would not
be present".

Representative Cain asked if that might not be too prescriptive?
Could this process be a way for communities to reevaluate their
administrative structures?

Carrignan replied that the data is pretty clear: if we're trying to
save the taxpayers' money, that's the direction to move.

Senator Turner observed that he himself was a product of a School
Union and that unions are vestige of the past.

Representative Millet recommends using the word districts but
considering all models that are out there to determine what sort of
organization would evolve.

Carignan said he strongly hoped we would move toward consolidation and
not "just rearranging the chairs".  He said he thinks we get this sort
of a chance only once every 50 years and "need to move in directions
that the data and best judgment" send us.

Representative Millet asked who Carrignan thought would do the actual
work of designing the consolidations

Carrignan said the State Board itself would be in charge.  As they
don't have much staff, they would depend upon the Department of
Education....

Senator Turner observed that he wasn't much interested in creating any
new bureaucracies.

Senator Turner turned the discussion towards "high-end and low-end
populations" and asked particularly for Carrignan's thoughts on
islands and geographically isolated communities as the plans seemed to
be moving toward "carving out" island communities.  Does that cause
special problems?

Carrignan answered that he hasn't thought about that yet in any
detail.  But he thinks we want to bring people together as much as
possible, although he realizes that in certain situations it can't
work that way and there always have to be exceptions.

Chair Cain excused Carrignan and wrapped up a bit: Sub-committee has
talked about differences in size for both collaborations  and
consolidations.  Considers ideal consolidation to be about 2500
students, recognizing that there are areas in state where that "won't
work".  Have not yet talked much about collaborations  -- what you can
do beyond consolidation.  Also need to discuss the role of the DOE. Is
it a supportive role, leadership, role, or a partnership role?

The sub-committee turned to Commissioner Gendron and asked her views
on collaboration. Senator Turner asked if she agreed that
collaboration could continue beyond the consolidation phase, in both
the non-instructional and instructional departments.

The commissioner went straight to the bottom line saying that it
depends how the are funds allocated between consolidation and
collaboration.  If department funds and resources are applied toward
consolidation, the same people can't be used to facilitate
collaboration.  Question is how to prioritize.

Representative Millett observed that collaboration and consolidation
might be sequential in some instances and in some case might be
"either/or".    Given Maine's geographic realities, consolidation is
harder in the east, north, and west than it is in the south.

The Commissioner sees collaboration as a complement to consolidation.
She offered that "Government will begin to collect data to understand
the conversations." and that once "personalized plans" are established
for each area, some might "operationalize" with 18 months.

Chair Cain concluded, reminding the sub-committee that they expect to
hear final plans from the Education Committee tomorrow.  As the
sub-committee expects to move to "decision-making" on Thursday and
Friday, tomorrow they want very much to hear voices from school
management -- superintendents, board members, teachers, and principals
tomorrow.

Senator Rotundo added that participants should "bring a can-do spirit".

Chair Cain agreed.  "We have the momentum, so we need the voices."