[Local-Maine-Schools] 3/23: Education Subcommittee of Appropriations

[Brian Hubbell]

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Education just concluded its
morning work session.

In the session, they first discussed ways in which having
consolidation plans subject to approval by local vote could keep them
from booking the anticipated state budget savings.  This will be
discussed further and could be resolved either by not having local
approval be part of the process or by modifying the budget legislation
in such a way as to have state funds "dis-appropriated" to units which
vote down their plans.

Senator Turner doesn't see the latter as a problem, as long as voters
are clear on the consequences, as what's at issue is administrative
costs and not academic excellence.  Senator Rotundo has reservations
about "allowing wealthy communities to opt out and do whatever they
want."

Chair Representative Cain reviewed the pieces of proposals that the
subcommittee needs to "chunk" and reassemble into legislation.

They are:

1) The "launch pad" -- how the process is started and who, as
"convener" is responsible for directing and developing the process of
consolidation planning.  Is this the State Board of Education?  The
Department of Education?

2) What resources are necessary for this facilitation?

3) What is the target for district size?  What are the allowable exceptions?

4) Timetable

5) Approval process of consolidation

6) Authority and governance of consolidated districts

7) Savings: both savings both achieved through initial consolidation
and savings from ongoing collaboration

8) Tax relief and discouraging future citizen initiatives like TABOR

9) Transparency in budget approvals

10) Transition and implementation

11) School choice and relations with independent schools

12) Long term goals for education

Senator Rotundo and Representative Millet both concerned that goals
have been primarily cost savings, predicatability and sustainability
of school funding.  But not sure how to articulate educational goals.

Chair Cain observed that goal is to put more financial resources into
classroom rather than non-instructional components.  Goal is to
improve educational experience for students.

Senator Turner said goal should be uniform delivery of Maine Learning
Results.  System across state is broken -- and this is not related
either to size or financial demographics.

Senator Turner summarized the subcommittee's consensus from a week
ago.  Arrived at consensus about using the Board of Education as
convener.  July 2008 as deadline for having new consolidated districts
in place.  2500 students as minimum --desired but not mandatory.
50-60 districts -- also desired but not mandatory.

Representative Cain: had also agreed on time line -- now through Dec 1
to pull together the units of 2500.  Districts based up geography,
culture, finance.  DOE should be the one to "close the door" on
consolidation plans.

Representative Milett: still comfortable on time lines.  Want to
revisit State Board vs. DOE roles.  Also want to discuss reservations
about hard and fast number of units and 2500 minimum.  Sate already
has 21 units which are larger than 2500 pupils.  Keeping these in
place would require squeezing the rest of Maine into 30 units --a hard
squeeze.  Personally like the Mills language of /average/ size of 2500
for units.  Total number of units would be 65-70 as opposed to having
450 towns squeezed into 30 units.

Representative Millet also was concerned about policy vs leadership.
State Board is a better backstop for final policy rather than an
initiator of complex work of planning.

Senator Turner: Could use Mills report of up to 80 units for state's
200,000 students. With respect to convener mechanism, can work wither
way.  DOE could be convener.  BOE could be used to approve.  As for
objection that Board is about to have large turnover -- this is a
short-term assignment, so not a problem.

Representative Cain: Regarding size piece,  2500 could be either and
average or minimum.   Range of consolidated units can be from 55-80.
Idea is that it doesn't matter whether you're small or large - it's
what's in the schools that matters.    Need to encourage larger units
to be more efficient also, even those already over 2500.

Mills plan talked about presenting models for consolidation. Someone
--a convener --- needs to sit down with particular plans with
districts.

Representative Millet observed that a mandatory minimum of 2500 will
scare some people, particularly in rural areas who might otherwise
come on board.

Senator Turner: Should stick with 2500 but make people comfortable
through language about exceptions.

Representative Cain: so consensus is DOE will be convener.  BOE will
be "closer".

Millett said he has received some "push-back" regarding the State
Board. Asked Commissioner if she saw DOE being convener as acceptable
role.  Commissioner said she does.

Senator Rotundo asked what sort of additional resources DOE would
need. Commissioner answered that the critical component would be the
$1.7 million in the governor's proposal to create "data teams" to work
with department and local school boards.  "Still doable"

Subcommittee briefly talked about collaboration, but concluded that
all plans seemed to have more consensus on how to set this up.
Returned to more difficult and pressing matter of consolidation
Subcommittee agrees that, unlike the 'Edgecomb, Farrington' original
Education Committee plan, consolidation needs to precede
collaboration.  But, notes that collaboration, especially existing
collaborations, can be concurrent with consolidation.

Several subcommittee members observed that 26 now is a number with a
lot of strong feelings.  May not be productive to use it to define a
starting point as a number for either collaborative alliance or
planning units for consolidation

Representative Millet agrees that 26 has to come out. But is very
interested in having some sort of local, regional group to review
consolidation plans from DOE and to give feedback.  Also interested in
discussing the makeup of these groups.

Commissioner Gendron said DOE can build on 26 to reach perhaps,  There
are currently 36-40 different groups engaged collaborative
relationships.  Regarding consolidation, DOE would try to maximize
participation as opposed to limit.  Need a few more "conversations" on
how to build.  Would make sure no one is left out.

Representative Millett: asked the Commissioner to draft a very simple
outline of the pre-consolidation phase along with some backing in of
time lines as necessary.

Senator Rotundo would like to see some data from DOE about exceptions.
 Are there things that we think need exceptions that perhaps don't?

Representative Cain: currently suggested categories for exemption of
geography, demographics, finances, and education.

After some discussion about their reservations about seeming to create
or support "educational ghettos", the subcommittee decided to remove
any recommendation for basing consolidated districts on demographics,
per capita income, or educational results.

Regrading the governance component, the subcommittee concluded that
new consolidated districts should not be unions of existing SADs, but
rather new consolidated single SADs with a single governing board of
directors.  They stated that each consolidated district should contain
at least one secondary school.

The was some discussion about minimum size of the board of directors
for new districts.  Senator Turner made a strong argument favoring
compact boards of 9-13 directors instead of having boards that are
"inflated" by small towns

Millet disagreed.  Can't cut out small towns.  Have to have weighted
votes based on one-man; one-vote.

Subcommittee agreed that boards need to be of a reasonable size --
with a maximum number somewhere from 15 to 25.

Representative Woodbury  from the Taxation Committee will report to
full Appropriations committee later this morning.

Still on the Subcommittee's plate is discussing what the approval
process at local level would be.  Representative Millet wants to have
local voters approve per the Mills plan, ideally at this November's
election.

Senator Turner supports a local approval vote as long as the
incentives and penalties are made clear to voters.

Senator Rotundo is concerned that if there is a local vote allowing an
opt-out that other communities will be unfairly orphaned.  This could
also through off the predictability (and bookability) of savings.

Sub-committee will meet again tomorrow (Saturday) 8:00-10:00 before
the meeting of the full Appropriations Committee.

Audio for the meeting will be available at:
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/audio/EDU_subcmte_AFA-228.html