While the rejection of school consolidation plans in some communities is troubling, the move toward centralized — and hence less expensive — administration is moving forward. Last week, 12 of 16 consolidation plans were approved. In those communities where they were rejected, alternatives are already being sought.
This is not to suggest that consolidation doesn’t have problems, but the widespread approval shows that the message of spending less on administration so that more can go to classroom education is being heard.
If there is a pattern in Nov. 4’s votes, it is that reorganization is a harder sell in rural areas. The merger of SAD 34 and SAD 56 was strongly supported by voters in Belfast and Searsport, but rejected by residents of Morrill and Frankfort, for example. Overall, combining the two districts was approved by a nearly 1,400-vote margin.
Reorganization plans were also approved for Saco, Old Orchard Beach and Dayton; Etna and Newport, Mount Desert Island and Trenton; and Freeport, Pownal and Durham.
Plans were rejected for the St. John Valley; SAD 1 and SAD 32 in Presque Isle and Ashland; and southern Aroostook County, including Houlton. In southern Maine, Falmouth soundly rejected its plan, while its partner, SAD 51 in Cumberland, overwhelmingly supported it.
The question school district officials must now sort out is why these plans were rejected. Did voters object to consolidation in general? Did they favor a different arrangement? Different partners?
This is a shortcoming of requiring referendum votes on reorganization plans. While public approval is helpful, rejection leaves many unanswered questions.
It is encouraging that in communities where plans were rejected, work is already underway to find acceptable alternatives. In the St. John Valley, for example, different, smaller partnerships are being considered.
The bottom line is that, because of duplication and inefficiency, school administration in Maine is too expensive. Reducing these costs should free up resources that can be devoted to classroom instruction. This is especially important as school districts are likely to see flat funding from Augusta due to the economic downturn and the governor’s directive that spending be reduced.
On 11/17/08 at 12:08 PM,
George wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Other factors need to be looked at when looking at the voting records of towns on consolidation. One is that it if you didn't vote in favor of consolidation then your town would have to get a penalty in its state school subsidy. Losing several hundred thousand dollars or millions for big districts is a big bite of their budget. Would the towns have voted to consolidate the governance of their schools without a penalty? If we ahd to vote for a candidate for an office with a penalty if we didn't elect a certain one would we? Would we call it a democracy? School districts also are forced to give up local control of their schools in big district such as an RSU. Whether in an AOS or an RSU communities also are grappling with how to divide up subsidy. In either form of a district, the subsidy is given as one big chunk of money. In a school union each town used to get their own subsidy check and share a central office. Under the new system , the districts are forced to give this up and to get their share of the subsidy by a complicated cost sharing formula developed by the RPCs. You may not get what you got before and this is a difficult aprt of consolidation. At first only an RSU form of government was allowed until rural legislators and school boards fought hard for Super Unions and we ended up with the AOS or Alternate Organizational Structure. These are okay but the dividing of subsidy is hard in these. The law also was pushed hard by the Department of Education and many questions that were raised during its passing and or during its implementation haven't been answered in a straightforward way. The DOE still speaks with a lot of unclear points and will not give straight answers to questions. The purported savings of consolidation are all theoretical. Most plans call for savings down the road in two or three years. You may get this or chance are you may not. Remember in the 1990s with record surpluses in the Federal Budget they were debating about how to spend the surplus in 2008, 2009, and 2010? We don't have those today. The consolidation savings will probably be like this. When a state government only gives one way of consolidation originally, takes out public input while passing the law, and said that if you don't vote for it you must pay a penalty it is not a democracy. It also leaves the State Department of Education with too big of a role over education in Maine and the governance of schools less responsive to the needs of local citizens. The governance is being taken from the people and given to the state. Maine doesn't need this. The law needs to be repealed. Local school boards can better determine what is best for schools in Maine and where to cut. The Maine DOE tends to take on too many tasks and too many initiatives that don't pan out such as the Learning Results or Comprehensive Assessment System then go on to the next initiative. Maine doesn't need this level of control by the state. The Consolidiation law needs to be repealed and local control preserved.
On 11/17/08 at 4:06 PM,
Mainecommenter wrote:
Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden
Again, the "local control" canard. However, George has one thing right: unless the State had stepped in, the school districts would NEVER have voluntarily engaged in true long term, cost reducing agreements that would have cost administrative jobs or parochial turf . Remember, education is a constitutional prerogative of the State, not its municipal units.
Post a comment about this story
You must be logged in to post a comment.
click here to log in.
