[Local-Maine-Schools] January 10: report from MDI in Augusta

[lrobbins at midmaine.com]

>Brian,  Thank you for the very detailed update,and for your time
yesterday. I'm glad to see you didn't hit a wall so to speak. It sounds
like Senator Mills may be more supportive of our plan than I thought.
Laurel Robbins



 At the invitation of our local legislators, yesterday a delegation
> from the Mount Desert Island RPC traveled to Augusta to meet with
> Commissioner Gendron.  This meeting was originally suggested last
> November by the RPC in the cover letter that accompanied our plan
> submission in the case the Commissioner found that our plan required
> any clarification.
>
> As the Commissioner instead turned down our plan on the basis of its
> governance structure, the context for the meeting was somewhat
> changed.  Nevertheless, I think all parties approached this meeting
> with a sincere and hopeful interest in finding a way to move Mount
> Desert Island's concept forward successfully.
>
> Plainly, MDI's model now is a central point in any discussion about
> either clarifying the authorities of local school committees within
> new RSUs that the law currently allows or liberalizing the law to
> allow any form of school unions.
>
> This is because MDI has convincingly presented itself as a coherent,
> high-performing regional system of school government which already
> exhibits many of the functional characteristics that advocates of
> state-wide reorganization hope to achieve such as centralized
> administration, uniform curriculum, and common salary scales -- all
> achieved outside of State duress.
>
> But, at the same time, MDI steadfastly insists that this performance,
> coherence and cooperation depends deeply upon (and results essentially
> from) the autonomy of its local elementary school boards and the
> involved local oversight of its municipalities.
>
> While the Commissioner seems willing to allow that this system
> functions effectively on MDI, approving it as a general model for RSUs
> statewide presents her with several problems.
>
> The first is that there is some legal doubt whether local boards can
> have full autonomy without each being established as an independent
> municipal school administrative unit.  This is in essence the current
> school union system.  While this has its attractions to us on MDI and
> elsewhere, if it were adopted statewide, the legs would by cut out
> from under any possibility of Maine's ending up with 80 reorganized
> school administrative units.  This is a substantial obstacle for both
> the Commissioner and the legislature.
>
> The second problem from the State's point of view is that, in places
> without MDI's relative wealth and commitment to education, such
> autonomy could be used to underfund schools and that, in systems with
> complete local autonomy, there would be no mechanism to implement
> coherent regional educational policy.
>
> In this respect, as a general model, the primacy of either regional
> reform or local autonomy are substantially at odds.  Conceptually, the
> best combination requires that one be dependent upon a subordinated
> policy of goodwill toward the other.
>
> MDI presents the case that the regional coherence follows from a local
> policy of cooperation.  To this, the State counters that MDI's local
> boards already have ceded local authority to the board of Union 98 in
> the recognition that regional coherence and efficiency benefit
> everyone and therefore local autonomy need not be absolute.
>
> And there we sit at present, with each side fairly well understanding
> the position of the other.
>
> Yesterday's meeting was valuable in that discussions face-to-face are
> always useful.  If there is a mutually-satisfying resolution, it will
> be found in such a setting.  Our legislators are committed to us as
> their constituents and understand that, in most ways, we are likely to
> be the easiest to accommodate.
>
> Accompanied by Jim Rier, the Commissioner is a realist who can count
> votes as well as anyone.  Our legislators also invited Senator Mills
> from the Education Committee who is known for both his sharp
> intelligence and ability to dig into difficult problems.
>
> Senator Mills and the Commissioner outlined to us a proposal by which
> local school committees could be granted general authorities of 'home
> rule' (Senator Mills' term) if the law assigned certain specific
> authorities to the RSU board -- such as oversight of central
> administration, curriculum, special education, technology, or
> transportation.
>
> Further, they proposed that the requirement that each local board
> could control the spending of its elementary school if the RSU as a
> whole were allowed to set a "base level" of minimum spending and the
> local municipality allowed to supplement that base without
> restriction.
>
> This prompted an interesting side discussion between Rob and Jim Rier
> about whether or not under the present RSU models within an RSU have
> sufficient latitude for minimum receivers with different valuations to
> contain their own RSU assessments within the limits of their own
> elementary school budgets.  (This would seem a good matter for Rob and
> Jim to settle between themselves to their own satisfaction.)
>
> We raised our concern about any mismatch between K-8 budget approval
> and respective municipality in which the money is raised and spent.
> But, while the black-box mechanism that can accomplish this was not
> immediately apparent, that is not proof that it does not exist.
>
> After our meeting, we visited the Education Committee's work session
> which was in progress with the Committee hearing its concluding
> presentation from Department of Education facilitators, all of whom
> seemed to be of the mind that allowing any substantial authority to
> local school committees represented clear and present danger to
> regionalization.
>
> At the conclusion of that, Senator Mills took the opportunity to
> introduce us to the Committee and the Committee chairs graciously
> invited us to present.
>
> And so, really before we had time to breathe, much less prepare some
> bullet points, Gail, Rob, and I found ourselves seated before the
> Committee and being asked by Representative Sutherland to explain "So,
> just what exactly is your issue?"
>
> Senator Mills did a very good job of introducing the general problem
> we face relating to governance and financing.  Representative Edgecomb
> asked if we thought our model could be served through the proposed
> system of Union School Associations.  Co-chair Norton raised the
> general concern about maintaining educational equity across regions
> with different financial capacity.  Representative Finch wanted to
> know if we were expressing anything more than "downeast stubborness".
> Finch added that every school board presenter tells them that their
> own current system is both necessary and high-performing.  Here,
> Senator Mills came to our immediate aid offering his opinion that "the
> difference is that, they're telling the truth."
>
> Last, Representative Farrington reminded the Committee, that the
> current law already grants authority to local school boards within an
> RSU and that the Committee's responsibility is to provide
> clarification about what that authority is.
>
> So, we are grateful to the Education Committee for allowing us to come
> before them, essentially with no notice, at what was probably the very
> tail end of their solicited testimony.  Given the opportunity, we did
> our best frankly to convey the positions and requirements of the
> communities on Mount Desert Island.
>
> Today, the Committee intends to open their real work regarding LD1932
> which appears to become their primary vehicle for improvements to the
> law.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Local-Maine-Schools mailing list
> To send a message to the list, write to:
>  Local-Maine-Schools at mainetalk.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription settings:
>  http://mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/local-maine-schools_mainetalk.org
>
>