School law faces voter report card
10/15/09 | 9 comments
poll

School law faces voter report card


Cost, local control issues in district consolidation
By Rich Hewitt
BDN Staff
For more than two years, school district consolidation has been a contentious issue in Maine.

Opponents argue that it has been an ill-conceived, hastily put together and poorly implemented law that has not achieved its goals. Proponents maintain that it represents much-needed reform and is an effective step toward reducing the cost of education in Maine. Question 3 on the Nov. 3 ballot gives voters a chance to weigh those opposing views and decide whether to repeal the law. The question asks: “Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?”

The law, enacted in 2007, attempted to reduce the number of school districts in Maine from 290 to 80, but as of July 2009, there were still 218 districts remaining in the state.

Voters in more than 100 districts, largely in rural areas, rejected reorganization plans despite the penalty they faced through the loss of state education subsidies.

Today's Poll

Question 3: Do you want to repeal the 2007 law on school district consolidation and restore the laws previously in effect?

Yes
No

View results

Lawrence “Skip” Greenlaw is chairman of the Maine Coalition to Save Schools, which initiated the repeal effort. While reorganization may work for some school districts, Greenlaw said, others should not be forced into mergers that don’t make sense or produce the savings the state projects. Also, he said, they should not be penalized — to the tune of $5 million statewide — for rejecting consolidation.

The law is too rigid to work in Maine’s varied districts, according to Gordon Donaldson, a professor of education at the University of Maine and a coalition member. There is no mechanism in the law for a town or school to withdraw from a reorganized district if it recognized that it was not working for them, Donaldson said. And the heavy-handed approach by the state, he said, discounted voluntary cooperation among districts as an alternative to mandated consolidation.

“The state was not willing to be flexible on anything,” Donaldson said.

According to opponents of repeal, however, the law was a needed measure. It targeted the high number of school districts in the state and their hefty administrative costs, they say. It passed because legislators recognized that the state could not sustain that level of spending, according to state Rep. Emily Ann Cain, D-Orono, a member of the No on 3 campaign, which opposes the repeal effort.

The law, Cain said, provides a way for districts “to work together in a better way and to find savings in a more sustainable way than before.”

The reorganization, which went into effect in July, is creating both financial and educational benefits, benefits that will be lost if the law is repealed, according to No on 3 campaign chairman Newell Augur. The savings and cost estimates for consolidation also have been a bone of contention.

The coalition has argued that reorganization has posted just $1.6 million in identified savings in the 26 reorganized districts, far below projections. Those districts have been faced with one-time startup costs and some have seen unanticipated cost shifts that have resulted in increased property taxes, the coalition says. Voters in a few municipalities have voted to withdraw from the newly created districts, even though the law does not include an escape clause.

Offsetting any savings, opponents of consolidation say, will be cost increases as each district develops a unified or single employment contract among its employees. Those costs, estimated at a total of $18 million statewide during the next several years, would offset any savings in most communities, Greenlaw predicted.

While the No on 3 campaign acknowledged that there will be costs involved in developing those contracts, Augur stressed the bargaining process also could find savings in other areas that would offset those increases.

Although the department has not yet compiled statewide figures, Education Commissioner Susan Gendron said that districts already are reporting savings and that they expect savings to increase by the end of the year.

In one district alone, savings on insurance premiums totaled $600,000, and other districts have reported similar decreases, Augur said. Those savings will continue to grow as the districts continue to operate, and, if the law is left in place, as more districts consolidate. The savings will be lost if the law is repealed, he said.

Coalition members have argued that savings could have been achieved through voluntary local cooperative agreements if that had been allowed under the law.

Repeal of the law would not dismantle the new school districts, Greenlaw said. He has argued that a relatively simple legislative language change would allow a regional school union or alternative organizational structure, known as an RSU or an AOS, to become an SAD or school union.

Gendron agreed that legislative changes would be needed if the law were repealed since the new districts would have no legal authority to exist. But the process would not be simple, she said. For example, she said, the Legislature would have to deal with specific legal actions taken to create the new districts, including the citizen votes required to join a district and the transfer of property to the new school districts.

Likewise, the Legislature also will need to address the $36.5 million that was cut from the state education budget in connection with the consolidation law. No on 3 has argued, backed by the state Office of Fiscal and Program Review, that that money would have to be added back into the budget if the law were repealed. That would remain an ongoing expense, and those savings would be lost, according to Augur.

The coalition has argued, however, that those cuts were a mechanism to balance the budget at the time. They did not represent real savings, Greenlaw said, but were, in fact a cut in state subsidy that shifted costs to local schools. He said the commissioner already has indicated that there is a straightforward method to reinstate those cuts in the budget.

Gendron said the Legislature could put those cuts back on the books for one year, but that those costs would remain an issue because repeal would reinstate previous funding mandates.

“They could rebook it in a different way, but the funding law would revert to its original intent,” Gendron said. “They could fix it for the year, but it would remain a long-term systematic obligation after the first year.”

rhewitt@bangordailynews.net

667-9394

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
9 comments on this item
On 10/15/09 at 5:37 AM, militaryman wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

If a district saved $600,000 on insurance they were obviously paying too much! That is a Superintendent issue, not a consolidation issue. Consolidation may work fine in some instances, and the opportunity should be there. However, it should not be forced on those who would not benefit from it through blackmail and coercion.

"Gendron agreed that legislative changes would be needed if the law were repealed since the new districts would have no legal authority to exist. But the process would not be simple, she said"

Good! If the State of Maine had worked the problem from the beginning it would not be such a mess at this point. It was forced to the communities, with little or no guidance, and the threat of reduced subsidy for those who did not comply! I say send it back to Augusta and let the legislature know that we voted them in to make informed decisions. Not to haphazardly thrust an illgotten whim onto local school boards and communities.

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 8:07 AM, monroe wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

The plan was to reduce 290 districts to 80, they achieved 218 districts. In other words, only 34% of the districts did as the State requested. Needless to say, there was a lot of politics involved in who needed to consolidate. The plug ought to be pulled on the RSU's reflecting the lack of public support. Maintaining the plan does little to cut costs, it's a band-aid.

If the State needs to reduce the cost of education, a state contract would probably be a lot more effective. If it is legally sound, any school receiving State subsidy would have to comply and the contracts offered educators could reflect the state of the State, not the situation town by town on a given year. This would create 100% compliance unless a community could afford to educate its students without State help.

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 8:29 AM, timb0723 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I am voting as soon as my absentee ballot arrives in the mail. I have thought through all 7 questions, done my research, and...

I am voting Yes on 1.

I am voting No on 2.

I am voting Yes on 3.

I am voting Yes on 4.

I am voting No on 5.

I am voting No on 6.

I am voting Yes on 7.

There, that's simple enough!

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 9:31 AM, muguet wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Consolidation has been tried many times, with abyssmal results for children and taxpayers alike. Grueling bus rides for even the youngest children, crippling transportation, construction, and ADMINISTRATIVE cost increases, plunging grades, more discipline problems (with ensuing expenses), towns pitted against each other as the disparate interests of larger communities in a district overwhelm smaller ones...

The declarations from Commissioner Gendron's office warrant a good deal more scrutiny than the BDN has brought to bear -- both are failing Maine citizens.

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 9:40 AM, Gopher wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I'm inclined to vote No on repeal of the school consolidation law. It's saving money already and repeal would cost too much time and money to make it worthwhile, for all concerned. For those districts that haven't consolidated should continue to try to save money without hindering programs, students, and teachers. Further negotiations with the state should prceed. NO On Three (another NOT).

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 10:23 AM, concernsme wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

I would like to see reports from actual school districts about how much money they are saving, or losing. Only numbers tell the real story. Besides, some of the RSU now have more than on superintendent, which was supposed to be where much of the savings came from.

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 10:53 AM, MaineAuntie wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

We ended up losing funding because our RSU is so large. The State is going to take it away from us no matter what. They just don't want to have to pay for the quality of education that they are pushing on the towns. Stop cutting funding to education!!! I think that conceptually this was a good idea, but they didn't thoroughly work it through and did not implement it properly. How about making the school districts by county, like other states? I also think that there should be a statewide pay scale so that teachers are paid according to their education (Bachelors or Masters) and their cumulative time on the job, not paid according to the town/city in which they work. I believe that this is a good idea that needs to go back to the drawing board before being implemented. No on three and tell the DOE and Legislature to do it right next time!!

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 8:53 PM, jbsmy3 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Look at the Waterville, Winslow, Vassalboro district for one consolidation that is in name only. There continues to be separate administration for transportation, and special education with offices in all of the towns that were there before. They tried to move things and combine but the cost was WAY more than the savings. We don't need to consolidate, we need to look at regional services for specialist and stop contracting individually. We need to look at buying regionally. The costs far out way the benefits.

Report abuse
On 10/15/09 at 9:12 PM, bargainhunter wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Regarding school consolidation:

I am voting NO.I do not want to see it repealed. I work in a newly consolidated school district and we ARE finding savings in administration and the business side of education. Just the number of reports that have to be uploaded to the state is enough to pull anyone's hair out. It's all about efficiencies in business and overhead sections of the school budget....believe me I have children who are very talented academically and athletically, and I wouldn't vote to repeal this law because it can only hold this state back on streamlining the overhead side of the school district....(which only takes away from the instructional side of the school budget) Coming from a family of accountants it all adds up...Maine IS handing school districts another curtailment this year...with or w/o consolidation!

There is a lot of misinformation out there. It is NOT about closing schools. It's all about working together with our neighbors to bring down high administrative costs. Consolidation = more money for instruction, less money towards overhead.

These new school districts are legal entities...if we have to undo all the paperwork it took us to get here....and reapply for new Tax ID #'s, Tax Exemption Certificates, rewrite policies, we are just getting to the end of finally getting it all organized. We've seen $$ savings in less positions. One person doing payroll, instead of 3 in separate districts. We buy from most of the same vendors. Less checks to print, less envelopes used. Less postage used...Less equipment needed - photocopiers, computers, servers. Less offices = less heating fuel, less electricity, less insurance........and this is just one consolidated district....

Give it some time....don't repeal what just became effective July 1, 2009...........

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.