|
The legislature is in the final stages of agreeing on a plan for school consolidation for the state. For those of you who have not closely followed the many ebbs and flows of consolidation over the past five months, a brief recap may be helpful.
In January, the Governor proposed to consolidate Maine school districts from 265 to 16. This plan was viewed by many as too drastic a reduction. The Education Committee then managed to miss the opportunity to contribute by proposing a weak voluntary plan that quickly was declared dead on arrival.
Enter a four person sub-committee of the Appropriations Committee which came up with a reasonable proposal for about 80 districts under conditions similar to those proposed the Governor. The sub-committee’s plan gained wide initial support, including that of the Governor. Recently, however, the plan has come under fire from a group called the Rural Caucus which, in practice, has become a stalking horse for those groups with vested interests (i.e. current school employees), the MSMA and the teachers’ union (MEA).
The substance of this group’s objections is that towns will not have authority to make decisions on the closing of the schools or the laying off of teachers. Never mind that neither of these actions are part of the consolidation plan. In addition the Caucus is concerned that the timeline of the Sub Committee’s proposal is too aggressive.
But let’s go back to basics and discuss the real nature of the problem school consolidation means to address: the high cost of Maine’s K-12 education system.
Over the past ten years, Maine’s K-12 spending has increased by 54 %, well ahead of inflation at a time when student enrollment has decreased by 7.5%. Moreover, enrollment is projected to decline a total of 12% by 2015. Meanwhile, Maine’s education employees per capita is the 4th highest in the country, 29% higher than the U.S. average.
Clearly, Maine can deliver quality education in a more cost-effective way. School consolidation is a good first step in this process. Most agree. According to state-wide poll by Growsmart, a majority of Maine’s citizens also agree that they would give up some local control if that would reduce their property tax burden.
This then is the current state of play: a compelling, well-documented need to reduce costs, a reasonable plan proposed by Appropriations, and a majority of Mainers ready to support such an initiative. The proposal should be a sure thing, but it isn’t.
At this writing, it seems likely that legislative leadership will “fudge” the solution in a bow to the interest groups. A local vote will probably be added that will allow any locale to opt out under conditions still to be determined. In practice, this will effectively torpedo a meaningful consolidation plan, all in the name of local control.
In truth, local control is a red herring. Federal and state regulation appropriately set requirements for learning standards and have done so at least since the Sinclair act back in 1957. Would you want each town to offer its view of what should be taught? That notion hardly fits with the global demands of the knowledge economy.
Moreover, local interests are well represented through school boards. They will continue to be well represented in the proposed regional school boards in much the same way that current MSAD boards function, but with the beneficial addition of local school advisory councils.
In short, arguments based on local control have little credibility except in the (unusual) instance of a local school closing. Even though the Governor has made it clear that school closings are not part of the savings anticipated in this plan, the new districts could consider school closings in the future, particularly as enrollments continue to decline. The Governor’s original proposal dealt with this by allowing local towns to vote on any proposed school closing in their jurisdiction. Should the town vote to keep the school open, it would have to bear the full costs, forgoing any state funding. This seems reasonable as a provision going forward.
There is every reason to move forward with the plan proposed by Appropriations. Should leadership water down the proposal, I would hope the Governor will exercise his veto.
|
