Overhaul Maine education, but carefully

Events are coming down to the wire on the state budget, and the 45-plus members of the Legislature’s Rural Caucus are growing uneasy. If the current school consolidation blueprint is part of the budget, we’ve got some problems. We have no interest in approving a design to overhaul the schools when so many glaring questions remain. Our schools are too important to be subjected to a plan with numerous loose ends and so much power vested in political appointees in Augusta.

We seem destined to experience some interesting political theater in the coming weeks. The state budget will move out of the Appropriations Committee to the full Legislature in early May. The school administration consolidation plan will likely be embedded in the budget. In the intricate fiscal choreography of budget negotiations, the school plan must produce savings of $36.5 million to keep everything in balance. Therefore, when legislators vote on the budget, they also are voting on the final structure for this massive redesign of our school system, the most sweeping change in half a century.

This is the hard nub of the situation for members of the Rural Caucus. How can we vote for a state budget when it carries a flawed plan for rural schools?

Schools are the heartbeat of rural life. They are our community centers, where people meet for sporting events, social gatherings and many other community activities. Real or perceived threats to our children or these vital community centers get our attention immediately.

We all understand that change is difficult. We all understand that our school system is overly costly, thanks to excessive administration, mandates and other programs. But we also understand that we have a duty, as legislators from rural districts, to protect our schools from a consolidation model that would do more harm than good.

The Legislature’s Education and Cultural Affairs Committee toiled long and hard to come up with a plan to address consolidation after Gov. Baldacci threw down the gauntlet. It was not a job to be envied. The committee followed a public process with good participation and was gearing up for floor debate. It had already jettisoned some of the most controversial components of the governor’s original scheme. Gone was the goal of increasing average class sizes. Gone, too, was the idea of using supposed consolidation savings to buy laptop computers for every public high school student in the state.

As it happened, however, the Appropriations Committee decided that the plan did not go far enough. It appointed a well-respected four-member subcommittee to devise another version that would assure savings of $36.5 million in fiscal 2009.

This new plan directs that schools be organized into about 80 larger districts that will average approximately 2,500 students. The 80-district plan, with a provision that the number of students can vary considerably as long as the 80 districts exist, does allow some flexibility. While numbers serve well to distract attention, why is quality of education never addressed? Just imagine what lessons our schoolchildren will learn if we double or triple their bus-riding times.

The plan also sets a hasty timetable to expedite the changeover. By June 30, 2008, all elected school boards in the city school districts, community school districts, school unions and SADs will be abolished. They will be replaced by Regional School Unit Governing Boards of Directors chosen by the communities. Non-participating school systems will be unilaterally merged into larger school districts by the State Board of Education.

This plan now has prominence. It could very likely be part of the budget bill that will go to the full Legislature, where a two-thirds majority of both chambers will be required for passage. This will pose a difficult issue for the rural legislators.

Unfortunately, we believe these plans (the Education Committee’s, the governor’s and the subcommittee’s) or any other proposed plan need more work. The Rural Caucus’s concerns include the following:

1. The shifting of local control from school boards in each individual community to a much larger regional board of directors or to the politically appointed Department of Education and the State Board of Education. Maine’s rural communities have a long-standing tradition of home rule and community-based decision making, which would be lost.

2. A very aggressive time line. One understands the need to get on with whatever plan emerges, but many aspects of this timeline are very challenging. Included in these challenges are the continuing contracts of employees, school debts, and the question of which areas of consolidation would result in real savings. Other local issues, such as hiring and firing of administrators and how to handle needed building repairs, would still exist. If the deadlines are not met, the State Board of Education will develop the plan.

3. The handling of the unorganized townships and private schools. These two groups of schools are very important to the students and citizens in their respective districts. More discussion and input is needed from these two entities. School choice for some districts is also a very grave concern.

We realize that unnecessary bureaucracy needs to be trimmed and unnecessary spending needs to stop. But all these cuts need not be in education. The state budget is rife with superfluous items.

The Rural Caucus is not trying to be obstinate or difficult. We are openly discussing the consolidation plans before us and will continue to work together in the Legislature to come up with something that is fair to all parts of our state.

Rep. Henry Joy, R-Crystal, a retired educator, and Rep. Jeff Gifford, R-Lincoln, a millwright, are members of the Rural Caucus.