Sunday, March 18, 2007
During his first term in office, Gov. Baldacci fought the good fight in favor of regional government.
He said the right things: The duplication of services, town-to-town, school-district-to-school district, contributed much to Maine's high tax burden. He even got behind some measures to coerce local communities into doing more things on a regional basis.
By the time the discussion was over, however, regionalism was de-fanged. Local communities would get encouragement to work together -- and to their credit, some have -- but local control remained largely intact. No town or school district has been forced to merge with another or give up power to county government.
For local school officials wary of state-mandated consolidation, the current momentum behind forcing communities to share school administrators must be puzzling. Just two years ago, it was clear that the cause of regionalism would not trump Mainers' love of local control.
So what changed?
There were a couple of high-profile studies that documented Maine's higher-than-average school administrative costs. And the near miss of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights proposal in the last election has put some urgency around the need to cut the cost of government and lower taxes here.
But there's an audacity to the governor's proposal and the attitude of legislative leaders that wasn't there before.
Let's say for a minute you own shares in a business equal to 45 percent of the stock. Then let's say you invested more and were now controlling 55 percent of the stock.
Wouldn't you think that 55 percent share would entitle you to choose how the company would be run?
As a preemptive move against referendums aimed at capping taxing and/or spending, the Maine Municipal Association came up with a plan to tackle the problem of high property taxes here. The central component was a proposal to raise the state's share of local school costs to 55 percent.
That plan got put on the ballot and was approved by the voters. And while the last Legislature used its authority to modify it to give the state time to come up with the money, progress is being made each year toward the 55 percent goal.
Is it any wonder that now that the state is paying for most of our kids' educations, it wants a greater say in how those services are delivered?
Governments do not give money to other units of government without strings. Ever. If local officials thought they could get the state to give them more money without wanting more control, then they're about to get a very difficult lesson in political science.
Of course, it's not at all a sure thing that the state will mandate school district consolidation.
The governor's aggressive plan of combining approximately 290 districts into 26 is widely believed to be a high opening bid. The joint Education Committee, meanwhile, struck a blow in favor of a tax-cap referendum by recommending a plan that contains no hard mandate for consolidation.
Now it's up to the Appropriations Committee and possibly amendments in a floor fight to put school consolidation back on track.
No one honestly knows how that debate will turn out. Few lawmakers are looking forward to going back to their local districts to explain that they took spending power away from local school boards and gave it to regional ones.
Many teachers and administrators say they support consolidation in principle but are uncomfortable with the state mandating it. (Translation: They don't want to lose their jobs to it.)
Yet, despite all this, the power behind the basic premise remains. Maine's tradition of local control has caught up with it as the demands placed on municipalities and schools have grown. There are millions to be saved by cutting the number of school superintendents in Maine from the current 152.
The wonks who study these things say reducing the number of school districts to 65 or so would be about right. While Baldacci has not yet moved off his demand for 26 districts, it's likely he would accept that kind of reduction.
And cutting the number of school superintendents by more than half within a couple of years is not going to happen with voluntary incentives.
Let's face it, the people who sit on school boards don't want to surrender control of their budgets. The administrators don't want to lose their jobs. If I were on a school board or a superintendent, I'd be opposed to mandatory consolidation.
In gutting the school consolidation plans before it, Education Committee members said they were only being realistic, trying to create a plan that had a chance of winning passage.
That's a nice bit of politicking. It makes them sound reasonable but also sends the message that lawmakers shouldn't be expected to force consolidation on the communities they represent.
But those forces are opposed by other pressures.
For Democrats to vote against mandatory consolidation, they'll have to stand in public opposition to a Democratic governor. Baldacci has raised those stakes with his advocacy. The way it stands now, if Democrats don't deliver a plan he likes, the party will appear unable to get things done.
Republicans are also in a tough spot. They've said for years that the Legislature should attack wasteful government spending. All they can do in the face of the math behind school district consolidation is grumble that cuts can be made elsewhere.
The problem with that argument is that it doesn't make consolidation a bad idea. Republicans would much rather cut funding for Medicaid health insurance for the poor, but it's going to be hard to talk tough on taxes if they pass up a plan that would save many millions in taxpayer dollars.
In the end, what may tip the balance is the fact that the state now has a fair claim over the workings of K-12 education.
Last I checked, 55 percent is a majority position.
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest First | Newest first
The consolidation plan of the Governor goes too far. Towns which now control their own schools would lose any voice or say with large regional boards that would be dominated by the larger towns. The districts are too big in geography in rural Maine and in students in southern Maine.
If a school system is now "efficiently run" and local people are in charge, why should it give up its property to the state or regional school governance authority without compensation? This includes the school building, supplies, computers, and other equipment inside the school.
The existing school governance is also giving up its right to have any say over their school under large regional districts. The Parent Advisory Councils can only recommend decisions and not make them as under the current school board structure.
The regional approach to everything takes away a great deal of our rights in a democracy. The best democracy is local democracy. Any structure such as regional school boards takes away the right of people to to make decisions. As decision making gets farther away from the people and the bueracracy grows bigger, the less responsive it becomes to the needs of the people that it is meant to serve.
Maine had been blessed with a tradition of local control and local democracy. We shouldn't lose this entirely to regionalism. Most school districts are run fairly well financially.
The Education Committee tried to pass a reasonable compromise to consolidation and is at least trying to get schools to lower costs through sharing of services. Incentives for consolidation are not necessarily a bad idea but mandatory consolidation without a clear plan to achieve it or real figures on savings are a stupid idea. We can revisit the 55% of school funding level if Maine can't afford it and lower it.
report abuse
The requirement that schools serve 350 students on the elementary level and 750 students on the secondary level sounds good until one asks the question who is going to pay for the new construction essential to closing small schools and making more cost effective larger ones.
The proposal that high school students be provided with laptops creates another unfunded mandate. The state may find the monies to buy the computers but who supplies the money to pay for the repairs and maintenance, the person(s) necessary to help integrate the computers into the curriculum, or the equipment necessary to keep the charged and safe?
The county system of education in Maryland was used one of the models upon which the governor's plan was based. In that system, there exist personnel supervisors for elementary and secondary teachers as well as supervisors for individual curricular foci on each level. When I was teaching in Anne Arundel County in Annapolis, I was observed by the elementary education personnel supervisor, Dr. Pettigrew and worked with the elementary social studies coordinator. A larger supervisory role requires more assistance. From whence is the money coming? The same studies that showed Maine spends $65 more per pupil on the superintendency showed that Maine spends $290 dollars less per pupil on support services than the national average.
Be careful that the savings on real. Mandates also have hidden costs. Mandating changes in school district configurations will also have hidden costs. Be careful what you wish for!report abuse
"Local control" really existed when local schools were constructed and supported locally. When we expect the State to subsidize local schools, it comes at a price many are hesitant to pay. In some ways, we are selling control of our schools in exchange for more State funding.report abuse
I have learned things by being at a small public school that others couldn't even dream about. I have experienced things that no one would have let me do before.
Closing small schools isn't the solution to our monetary issues. If we need to cut somewhere, don't cut out our chances at a future.
By the way, I am a freshman.report abuse
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.