[Local-Maine-Schools] Fwd:

[Gail Marshall]

>
>

> This is the M.D.I. Consolidation Study Group's response to the  
> "Critical
> Issues" memorandum recently prepared by (or for) the Rural Caucus  
> of the
> Maine legislature.  In particular, our comments address the so-called
> "Blended Plan" drafted by Rep. David Farrington.  The Farrington plan
> attempts to blend aspects of the Appropriations Committee bill on  
> school
> consolidation with the consolidation proposal prepared by the  
> Education
> Committee.
>
> We preface our response with two observations.  First, we've been
> advised that some members of the caucus are concerned that they not
> appear "obstructionist" on the issue of school consolidation, even
> though consolidation would affect their constituents  
> disproportionately.
>  In our view, unless all issues of concern are resolved to their
> satisfaction, members of the caucus should not hesitate to oppose any
> bill that adversely affects their constituents.  To do so is not
> obstructionist.  Compromise where you can, but oppose where you must.
>
> Second, regarding the Farrington plan, it goes without saying that  
> even
> if all the concerns and reservations expressed below could be  
> resolved,
> any ensuing negotiations with consolidation proponents are likely to
> "pull away" from the Farrington plan.  Accordingly, it makes no  
> sense to
> us to embrace the Farrington plan unreservedly.  To do so only
> establishes---prematurely---one boundary of the debate.
>
> M.D.I. Consolidation Study Group
> May, 12, 2007
>
>
>
> CRITICAL ISSUES
>
>
> Critical issues that must be addressed in order for the Rural  
> Caucus to
> support the school consolidation.
>
> 1. TIMELINE:  Final consolidation by July 1, 2009.  (Early votes  
> can be
> taken if a "district" is ready, with earliest date being November  
> 2007.)
>
> Response: We prefer no timeline and no bill.  Our position is that the
> state has no business forcing consolidation.  Period.  That being  
> said,
> the Farrington plan does establish July 1, 2009, as the final
> consolidation deadline, as you request.
>
> 2. MINIMUM DISTRICT SIZE:  1,200 students would be ideal, but regional
> differentiation is acceptable.
>
> Response: While we on MDI could live with a 1,200-student minimum
> (because we currently exceed that number in Union 98), our position is
> that the number of students in any consolidated school district should
> be determined by the communities involved.  No one else is in a better
> position to know what will work for those towns.  In some communities,
> the right size will be fewer than 1,200 students.  Such communities
> should not have to rely on obtaining a waiver from the commissioner to
> stay in business.
>
> 3. LOCAL VOTE:  A local vote must be taken to approve the new  
> district.
> This might include vote to authorize existing school boards to  
> begin the
> planning process and a second vote to approve the new district.
>
> Response: Under the Farrington plan, the regional planning process
> begins at the county level without any need for local approval.  A  
> town
> that votes not to approve a proposed consolidation plan---that  
> decides,
> in effect, to go it alone---will thereafter lose 50% of Essential
> Programs and Services funding for "system administration" as a penalty
> (and, of course, as an incentive to think twice).  For some towns this
> will be a small price to pay; for others it won't.  We assume that as
> time goes on additional "incentives" will be applied to steer the
> non-cooperating towns toward a consolidated district.  Whether these
> incentives will be carrots or sticks is not clear, but true  
> independence
> from Augusta is certain to be discouraged.
>
> 4. CRITERIA:  Criteria for acceptable consolidation must be delineated
> and not left to the discretion of the DOE or the State Board of  
> education.
>
> Response:  The Farrington plan specifies a 2,500-student minimum in  
> York
> and Cumberland counties and 1,200 students elsewhere.  It further  
> states
> that a consolidation plan may not "displace" teachers or students or
> close any school without a 2/3 vote of the governing board of the new
> school district.  In addition, it lists a number of items to be
> addressed in any plan, but fails to state what responses to those  
> items
> will be deemed acceptable.  Standards for the makeup and governance of
> the new school boards will be developed by the county-wide planning  
> body
> that develops the consolidation plan.  Those standards must conform to
> existing requirements governing SAD's (chapter 103) and CSD's (chapter
> 105).  Oddly, there is no corresponding reference to chapter 107:  
> School
> Unions.  If, as this draft seems to imply, voting is by population,
> smaller towns within a newly consolidated district may be outnumbered
> and out-voted on issues of importance to them.  The Farrington plan
> doesn't clearly indicate whether a consolidation plan not ultimately
> approved by the commissioner may go forward.  The commissioner does  
> not
> appear to have a final veto; instead, she is directed to submit a  
> report
> to the legislature's Education Committee, advising the committee that
> the regional planning committee or the affected municipalities have  
> not
> met the statute's reorganization goals.  What happens after that is
> anyone's guess.
>
> 5. DOE I:  DOE and the commission should act as advisors and
> facilitators for consolidation.  They will not have final approval.
> Disputes will be settled through proposed legislation submitted by the
> district in question.
>
> Response: See above.  Perhaps this would require a Private and Special
> Act for the district in question.
>
> 6. DOE II:  DOE should stop their efforts to lead districts to  
> believe a
> decision has already been made (the Appropriations subcommittee  
> report).
>
> Response: We agree.
>
> 7. SPECIFIC SAVINGS: Concrete and constructive means for reducing  
> costs
> must be recommended to the new districts.  Arbitrary percentages based
> on cuts are not acceptable.
>
> Response: We agree, based on the importance of the word "recommended".
> See below for our discussion on arbitrary cuts.
>
> 8. SADs, UNIONS, ETC.:  All school administrative units will be  
> allowed
> to exist within the consolidation structure.
>
> Response: The Farrington plan purports to preserve unions as an  
> approved
> method of organization, but in our reading unions all but disappear.
> The new consolidated school district is given authority to  
> "request" (a
> euphemism) any existing school buildings, property, and other  
> assets it
> may require for its own operational purposes.  Once title to those
> school buildings is transferred to the new district, it's not clear  
> what
> would remain for local governance---and local governance is the core
> precept of a school union.  Although it is silent on some of these
> issues, the Farrington plan would apparently place responsibility for
> teacher hiring and school policy in the hands of the new governing
> board.  Unless we misread it, school unions are thus hollowed out and
> local school boards are effectively stripped of responsibility.  If
> there is a path to true preservation of school unions in the  
> Farrington
> plan, it isn't immediately obvious.
>
> 9. SCHOOL CHOICE:  Where applicable, school choice will be recognized
> and maintained in the new district. This includes independent and
> private schools.
>
> Response:  We don't see how this works in the Farrington plan, except
> with regard to schools granted an exception by the commissioner due to
> geographic isolation.  All other new consolidated school districts  
> must
> include "at least one publicly supported secondary school."  It  
> strains
> credulity to imagine that a town already taxed to support one high
> school would still elect to tuition its students to another high  
> school.
>  "School choice" would effectively disappear for those towns.
>
> 10. PENALTIES:  Significant penalties will be established for those
> school districts, unions, etc., that do not participate to include
> construction and special education funds.
>
> Response: We're not sure what "participate" means in this context, but
> we fail to understand why members of the Rural Caucus would advocate
> imposing "significant penalties" on towns they represent.  If we
> understand your position, this is forced consolidation by the back
> door---i.e., "Consolidate or be allowed to wither away."
>
> 11. INCENTIVES: Significant incentives will be established for new
> districts that are established by consolidation.
>
> Response:  In our view, "incentives" merely promote consolidation for
> the heck of it.  If, as claimed, consolidation is certain to produce
> real savings, no further incentive should be required.  Like virtue,
> consolidation should be its own reward.
>
> 12. GEOGRAPHY:  Geography needs to be factored into consideration in
> establishing a district.
>
> Response:  We agree.
>
> 13. POPULATION DENSITY: Population density needs to be considered in
> establishing a district.
>
> Response:  The Farrington plan would grant exceptions to geographic
> regions of the state where the population density is less than 30
> inhabitants per square mile.  We don't know where this figure comes  
> from
> or which areas of the state it would necessarily exempt.  Of course,
> defining the boundaries of any such "regions" would be key.   
> Presumably
> the commissioner could define the boundaries in a way that suits her
> purposes.
>
> 14. SCHOOL CLOSING:  A super majority vote will be required before a
> school can be closed.
>
> Response: Obvious question: a super majority of votes in the affected
> community or a super majority of votes in the entire new consolidated
> district?  Under the Farrington plan, it would be a super majority of
> the votes in the new consolidated district.  Thus, residents of the  
> town
> where the vulnerable school is located could be out-voted if the
> remaining towns believed the school should close.  Consider, too, that
> if a super majority could not be obtained, the governing school board
> could simply "starve" the targeted school through lower appropriations
> until closure was the only option.  Is this likely?  Perhaps not.  But
> we see nothing to preclude it.
>
> 15. MANDATES: Mandates need to be revaluated and eliminated where
> applicable.
>
> Response: The Farrington plan includes a "Sec. A-7" that requires the
> Department of Education to conduct a study of unfunded mandates and
> report its recommendations to the legislature no later than Dec.  
> 15, 2008.
>
> 16. BUDGET TRANSPARENCY: The budget should provide a clear and simple
> explanation of how and where money will be spent.
>
> Response: Section 2401 of the Farrington plan addresses budget
> transparency.  Under the proposed language, the school administrative
> unit may include in its annual budget request "related information" it
> deems "appropriate" for the voters.  In our view, this should  
> include a
> discussion of the specific budget and personnel cuts that would be
> required if voters fail to authorize spending over EPS.
>
> 17. HIGH SCHOOLS: it is not necessary for a "new" district to have a
> high school.
>
> Response: As noted above, the Farrington plan disagrees.
>
> 18. EPS/LABOR MARKET:  Provide a guarantee that these issues will be
> addressed in a meaningful way next year.
>
> Response:  In our reading, the Farrington plan contains no such
> guarantee.  Indeed, it leads in the opposite direction.  Section  
> 1452(B)
> states: "The commissioner shall adjust the total cost of the  
> components
> of Essential Programs and Services for transportation, facilities and
> maintenance, and other non-instructional functions in fiscal year
> 2008-09 to achieve a 5% reduction from the Essential Programs and
> Services allocations for those purposes in fiscal year 2007-08 as
> adjusted for inflation."  In addition, the commissioner is directed to
> "adjust" the EPS allocation for system administration (read:
> superintendents) to a legislatively approved rate---presumably a  
> reduced
> rate.  To take only the most obvious example of where this is leading,
> look at transportation.  The single biggest factor in student
> transportation costs is the price of energy, which is not going  
> down by
> 5% (or any other amount).  Consolidation won't change the fact that
> students live where they live and schools are located where they're
> currently located.  Wishing it were otherwise doesn't help.   
> Mandating a
> 5% reduction in transportation expenditures will likely mean reducing
> bus routes, reducing extra-curricular and co-curricular transportation
> (think away games), and shifting at least part of the transportation
> cost to parents.  Similarly, a large component of "facilities and
> maintenance" is the cost of fuel oil and electricity.  Again, these
> costs don't appear to be moving downward.  How the Farrington plan
> squares its call for a 5% reduction in these expenditures with price
> movements in the real world is hard to see.
>
> 19. Additional comment: We take this opportunity to re-emphasize a
> matter of central importance to MDI schools: that we be allowed to
> determine how our school system is structured, governed, and paid for,
> according to our best judgment.  To the extent that the Farrington  
> plan
> transfers decision-making authority in these areas from local school
> boards to new school districts (or, worse, to the DOE), the plan is  
> not
> acceptable to us.  Although the Farrington plan purports to preserve
> existing school unions, it appears to strip them of most authority  
> while
> expropriating town property.  We welcome a different  
> interpretation, but
> if our reading is correct we cannot support this plan.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.svaha.com/pipermail/local-maine-schools/attachments/20070518/fc88bbfd/attachment-0002.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MDI reply to Critical Issues Memo.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 32768 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.svaha.com/pipermail/local-maine-schools/attachments/20070518/fc88bbfd/MDIreplytoCriticalIssuesMemo-0001.doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.svaha.com/pipermail/local-maine-schools/attachments/20070518/fc88bbfd/attachment-0003.html