[Local-Maine-Schools] MDI Study Group Response to Rural Caucus "Critical Issues" Memo

[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/e40adfab/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/e40adfab/MDIreplytoCriticalIssuesMemo-0001.doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.svaha.com/pipermail/local-maine-schools/attachments/20070518/e40adfab/attachment-0003.html