The retelling of the school reform saga begins with the observation that a surprising number of our currently elected legislators are of the opinion that state government has every right to abolish existing local units of government and create new units of local government without even allowing the local voters to weigh-in on the question.
This was the thinking of Governor Baldacci’s original school consolidation proposal as presented in the state budget. Abolish all school systems and recreate 26 school districts for the whole state – no local votes necessary. With some modification, that was also the thinking of a special subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that was given the task of reworking the Governor’s proposal after legislative leaders fired the Education Committee. (As a matter of contrast, previous legislatures would have considered the Education Committee as the “committee of jurisdiction” on the issue of school consolidation.)
This notion of knowing better than the local electorate so as to exclude them from the decision-making process was deeply ingrained in the school consolidation debate. It was so ingrained, when MMA and other advocates for local government objected to the top-down, Augusta-based, unilateral decision making, some subcommittee members of the Appropriations Committee and legislative leadership attacked MMA and others for “dispelling misinformation” and “using taxpayers dollars to work against the taxpayers’ interests”.
Horse manure! The local taxpayers’ interests are imperiled as soon as their voting rights are taken away from them by Maine’s Legislature, which both the Governor’s school consolidation proposal and the Appropriations Subcommittee’s proposal would have done. The notion that advocating for local voters’ rights is somehow “working against their interests” is an example of the Orwellian doublespeak that came to characterize the school consolidation debate.
Getting from there to here. It took five months and five rewrites of the school consolidation plan to move it from the state takeover of public education – where the Governor’s proposal began – to the thoroughly imperfect but roughly workable version that was finally enacted on June 6 th. A summary of the final legislation is found in the New Laws article in this edition of the Townsman, under the Appropriations Committee at LD 499.
Despite the histrionics of a few legislators who seemed to want to characterize the school consolidation debate as some sort of epic battle, everyone involved in the development of this legislation was seeking the same approximate result, the differences were largely in style, tone, approach, respect for local government, and seven specific issues: the timeframe for consolidation, the minimum size of the consolidated school unit, the role (if any) of local planning groups, the voting rights (if any) of the local electorate, whether to require mandatory school expenditure reductions, whether to impose a mandatory budget adoption process, and the penalties for “opting out” of a consolidation.
First week in January 2007 – Governor’s proposal unveiled.
Time frame: All existing school systems are abolished and school consolidations completed by July 1, 2008.
Minimum size: The average school district under this proposal would serve 6,800 students. In terms of students served, the smallest school district (in Washington County) would serve 1,800 students. The largest school district (in Cumberland County) would serve 20,000 students.
Role of Local Planning Groups: None.
Local voting rights to ratify consolidated school districts: None.
Mandatory school expenditure reductions: Yes. 90% of all “savings” associated with the mandatory consolidation and 90% of all increases in school aid would have to be somehow demonstrably converted to property tax savings.
Mandatory budget adoption process: Yes. All 26 school districts would have to use the so-called “budget validation process”, which begins with an open meeting to adopt the budget, followed by a mandatory referendum vote within a 10-day period to ratify the adopted budget.
Penalties for “opting out”: Not applicable. There is no ratification voting and therefore no “opt-out” option under this plan.
Interim Activity: February 5, 2007 – Mega public hearing at Augusta Civic Center. Governor’s proposal sharply criticized.
First week in March, 2007 – Education Committee’s response to Governor’s plan reported out of Committee
Time frame: July 1, 2008 for development of collaboration vehicles (“Education Service Collaboratives”), July 1, 2009 for consolidations.
Minimum size: 1,200 students.
Role of Local Planning Groups: Significant.The tasks of analyzing education administrative efficiencies within large geographic regions, getting the “Education Service Collaboratives” up-and-running, and recommending to the affected localities workable school consolidations would fall to Planning Alliances, rather than the Department of Education or State Board of Education. The Planning Alliances would be made up of an equal number of school officials, municipal officials and members of the general public.
Local voting rights: Yes. The local voters would ratify the creation of any new school system.
Mandatory school expenditure reductions: Yes. 10% of the cost of administrative and non-instructional services.
Mandatory budget adoption process: No. The existing system of allowing the local voters to determine the budget adoption process that suits them would be continued.
Penalties for “opting out”: No. Penalties would be created for any school system failing to engage in an Education Service Collaborative, but not for failing to consolidate.
Interim Activity: Education Committee relieved of duties regarding school consolidation. Duties transferred to a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
April 1, 2007 – Appropriations Subcommittee plan
finalizedTime frame: All consolidations completed by July 1, 2008.
Minimum size: 2,500 students.
Role of Local Planning Groups: Insignificant. So-called “Reorganization Planning Committees” are created but given no clear role. Instead, the Department of Education and the State Board of Education would make recommendations regarding the new districts, consider input provided at public hearings, and ultimately decide what the new districts were going to be and certify their existence.
Local voting rights: No.
Mandatory school expenditure reductions: Yes. School systems must expend no more for “system administration” (the superintendent’s office) than allowed under the EPS school funding model. In addition, school systems must implement 5% reductions in their special education, transportation, and facilities and maintenance budgets.
Mandatory budget adoption process: Yes. Like the Governor’s proposal, all school systems would be required to use the so-called “budget validation process”.
Penalties for “opting out”: Not applicable. “Opting-out” is not an option under this plan.
Interim Activity: The so-called “Rural Caucus” within the Legislature gets involved. Working with a legislator from the Education Committee, Rep. David Farrington (Gorham), a “blended plan” is created.
May 1, 2007 – The “blended plan” is finalized
Time frame: July 1, 2008 for development of collaboration vehicles (“Education Service Collaboratives”), July 1, 2009 for consolidations.
Minimum size: 2,500 students for school systems in York and Cumberland counties, 1,200 students in the rest of the state. A population density model is created to define especially rural school systems which would be provided an exception to the minimum size standard.
Role of Local Planning Groups: Very significant. The role of the local planning alliances (now called the “Reorganization Planning Committees”) is emphasized and the decision-making role of the Department of Education de-emphasized.
Local voting rights: Yes.
Mandatory school expenditure reductions: Yes. EPS-based expenditures for “system administration” and 5% reductions for transportation, facilities and maintenance, and other non-instructional expenditures.
Mandatory budget adoption process: The “transparent” school budget formatting system would be required, but the budget adoption process would be left up to the local voters to decide, as is the case with current law.
Penalties for “opting out”: A 50% reduction in the school subsidy allocation for “system administration” (i.e., the superintendent’s office).
Interim Activity: The Appropriations Subcommittee plan is reworked under the label of the “leadership plan” so that the “leadership plan” and Rep. Farrington’s “blended plan” are before the Appropriations Committee as alternative plans that might be bolted into the budget bill. The Appropriations Committee, as might be expected, chooses the “leadership plan”.
End of May, 2007 – Appropriations Committee inserts final school consolidation plan into the proposed state budget
Time frame: Referendum vote to consolidate school systems would have to be held on January 15, 2008, but financial penalties for “opting out” would not be applied until July 1, 2009.
Minimum size: 2,500 students, exceptions granted according to unquantified criteria at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Role of Local Planning Groups: Intermediate. Unlike the “Planning Alliances” as initially conceived, the Reorganization Planning Committees (RPC) are not necessarily involved in determining the initial configuration of the consolidated school unit. Instead, the RPC is created for the purpose of developing the detailed plan to implement the newly configured school system as that reconfiguration has been recommended by the various school administrative units. The RPC is given a three-month period of time to develop that plan, essentially from Labor Day to December 1, 2007.
Local voting rights: Yes. Required referendum on January 15, 2008. The required ballot language identifies the financial penalties for “opting out” of proposed consolidation.
Mandatory school expenditure reductions: Yes. 50% of “system administration” and 5% reductions for special education, transportation and facilities and maintenance.
Mandatory budget adoption process: Yes. Like the Governor’s proposal, all school systems would have to use the so-called “budget validation process”.
Penalties for “opting out”: All non-compliant school systems would be financially penalized as follows: (1) the so-called “minimum receivers” would lose all school subsidy; (2) all other school systems would receive zero state subsidy for “system administration”; (3) all otherwise qualifying rural schools would lose their “isolated small school adjustment” and “transition funds”; (4) the maximum mill rate effort for non-compliant schools would be increased by 5%; and (5) less favorable consideration for school construction projects.
Interim Activity: Upon publication of the budget bill, the “Rural Caucus” insists on amendments to the school consolidation plan. “House Amendment T” is hastily tacked on immediately prior to vote around midnight on June 6 th. Representations are made on the floor of the House about what the amended language accomplishes, but in the light of day…after the budget was enacted…the amended language turns out to be sloppy. As a result of the House amendment, the final legislation contains multiple ambiguities and can be read by different people to require different results.
Finally Enacted School Consolidation Legislation,
June 7, 2007Time frame: July 1, 2009, although the amendment language is ambiguous and the time frame becomes gooey. It could be read one way to still suggest the same January 15, 2008 referendum vote as the Appropriation’s Committee version, but it also expressly allows referendum votes in June of 2008 or even November 2008, by implication. The bottom line is to create a consolidated system by July 1, 2009 to avoid a penalty.
Minimum size: Again, the amendment language creates ambiguities that make the minimum size requirements less than certain. The general rule is to create school systems of 2,500 students, but areas of the state that are able to identify such unquantified issues as “geography”, “demographics”, “economics”, “transportation”, or “population density” may have a minimum size requirement of 1,200 students. In some sections of the legislation it says that the consolidated rural school system should strive to be “as close to 2,500 students as possible”, in other sections of the legislation that particular standard was expressly deleted at the insistence of the Rural Caucus.
Role of Local Planning Groups: As described in the Appropriations Committee’s final plan, immediately above. The Reorganization Planning Committees are created for the purpose of developing the detailed plan to implement the newly configured school system as that reconfiguration has been recommended by the various school administrative units.
Local voting rights: Yes. According to the legislation, the local ratifying vote must be held either on January 15, 2008 or June 10, 2008, although the school system would not be penalized if the ratifying vote was conducted and the new consolidated school system was created at any other time in 2008.
Mandatory school cost reductions: No. Unlike every single previous plan, the mandatory school expenditure reductions in specific areas at the local level are completely removed from the legislation.
Mandatory budget adoption process: Yes. Like the Governor’s proposal, all school systems would have to use the so-called “budget validation process”.
Penalties for “opting out”: A 50% reduction in the school subsidy allocation for “system administration”, a 50% reduction in minimum subsidy for noncompliant “minimum receivers”, ineligibility for so-called “transition” adjustments (which according to current law are no longer available to any school system after FY 2010), an increase in the required local mill rate effort according to a calculation not easily explained, and less favorable consideration for school construction projects.
Sidebars:
Legislative Leadership
Senate President Beth Edmonds ( Cumberland Cty.)
Senator Elizabeth Mitchell ( Kennebec Cty.)
Senator John Martin ( Aroostook Cty.)
Senator Carol Weston (Waldo Cty.)
Senator Richard Rosen (Hancock Cty.)
House Speaker Representative Glenn Cummings ( Portland)
Representative Hannah Pingree ( North Haven)
Representative Sean Faircloth ( Bangor)
Representative Josh Tardy ( Newport)
Representative Bob Crosthwaite (Ellsworth)
Appropriations Committee
*Senate Chair Peggy Rotundo ( Androscoggin Cty.)
Senator John Martin ( Aroostook Cty.)
*Senator Karl Turner ( Cumberland Cty.)
House Chair Representative Jeremy Fischer (Presque Isle)
*Representative Emily Cain (Orono)
Representative Margaret Craven ( Lewiston)
Representative Patrick Flood ( Winthrop)
Representative Jayne Crosby Giles ( Belfast)
*Representative Sawin Millet ( Waterford)
Representative Janet Mills ( Farmington)
Representative John Robinson (Raymond)
Representative Linda Valentino ( Saco)
Representative David Webster ( Freeport)
* Subcommittee that developed the April 1, 2007 (third re-write) of the school consolidation plan.