Last year the Baldacci administration insisted on a school consolidation plan mandating no more than 80 school units in Maine. The administration predicted approximately $241 million would be saved in the first three years of implementation. During consolidation discussions, the Maine School Boards Association and the Maine School Superintendents Association expressed serious concerns regarding the proposed legislation and the process employed to pass it. Unfortunately, our concerns were portrayed as an attempt to preserve the status quo and undermine or derail the consolidation process.

The fact is, both organizations supported the concepts of regionalization and consolidation. However, we expressed the opinion that student education should not be adversely affected, decisions should be made final at the local level, and the savings predicted by the Maine Department of Education should be independently validated. We also insisted that the enormous logistical and political challenges be taken into account.

As the process unfolded, we noted that the timeline was unreasonable and claims of $241 million in savings were unsubstantiated. We expressed concerns regarding the costly and cumbersome budget approval process and noted that cost shifting would put some communities at a severe disadvantage.

As lawmakers grapple with huge budget problems, they find themselves trying to correct the flaws in last year’s law. Most notably, the Education Committee had to sift through more than 60 bills seeking to revise the consolidation law. Predictably, the issues under consideration by the Legislature this session match the concerns we expressed a year ago. For instance, the consolidation facilitators and Department of Education staff tell us that instead of savings, we will experience increased startup costs at a time when General Purpose Aid is essentially being flat-funded.

The heavy-handed approach employed by the Baldacci administration produced an ill-conceived law. Great frustration has emerged from communities attempting to implement the law, especially when they find they will need to pay more for education, not less.

Even the newspaper editorial boards that consistently backed the initial legislation have begun to recognize existing issues. “In some cases, the funding formulas work out to penalize communities for merging,” notes the Portland Press Herald, which also recently acknowledged that “the school savings achieved through mergers are not as dramatic as” would be “those achieved by raising Maine’s lower than average class sizes to national norms.” The Kennebec Journal editorial staff offers, “We have sympathy for the confused school administrator or school board official who just doesn’t see where the savings are yet in the state’s consolidation plan.”

Unfortunately, any criticism of the one-size-fits-all approach of supersized regional school administrative units is considered an attempt to weaken the law. Such is the viewpoint directed at LD 1932 and the so-called “Damon Amendment.” The proposal allows a school union governance structure within the new law and thus restores at least some measure of local control. However, this proposal conflicts with the Baldacci administration’s opposition to school unions. Continuing the uncompromising approach that has marked this process, the governor appears ready to veto the bill with the Damon Amendment despite strong legislative support for the concept.

In January 2004, the Task Force on Increasing Efficiency and Equity in the Use of K-12 Education Resources released a report with 10 recommendations. Its No. 1 recommendation was the creation of regional cooperatives, or service centers. This recommendation sought a different approach – one that could be used in conjunction with consolidation. The report stated, “We believe that several strategies are needed to address our challenges.”

The Maine School Boards Association and the Maine School Superintendents Association recognize the diversity within our state demands more than just one option for creating collaborative structures. Given that regional collaboratives offer more opportunities for real savings, we strongly believe it is time to revisit that construct. We also believe the Damon Amendment offers at least one option worthy of consideration.

Unfortunately, from the timelines to the unsubstantiated claims of cost savings, from the cost-shifting concerns to the cumbersome budget validation process, we seem no closer today to resolving the major issues relative to forced consolidation than we were one year ago.

In conclusion, we understand that some will cast our efforts as a continued attempt to derail consolidation. However, locally elected school boards and their superintendents will be the ones held accountable to ensure that consolidation delivers efficiencies and, more importantly, produces a better education for Maine students.

It is not too late for the governor, the commissioner and the Legislature to begin talking directly with those on the firing line to craft real options, workable timelines, and pass legislation that solves problems rather than mask or delay their appearance. The school board association and superintendents association stand ready to participate in these discussions. We hope that we’re invited to the table to do so.

Barry McLaughlin is president of the Maine School Superintendents Association. Kristin Malin is president of the Maine School Boards Association.