To the editor:
This letter is to voice my strong opposition to the School Administration Reorganization Plan proposed by the Governor and to urge those of you that value local control of your community’s affairs to join me. I agree with the main goals of the reorganization plan as stated on the Maine Department of Education’s Web site. They include:
• Increase academic achievement
• Reduce duplicative system administration
• Achieve real savings that result in real tax relief
• Use limited resources effectively – mostly in the classroom
I believe however that the process laid out in this forced consolidation plan does not employ the best methods to achieve these goals and that the plan, in fact, will not achieve them. Let’s look at each goal specifically.
Increase academic achievement
The laudable coal of improving academic programs and outcomes is surely shared by every school in Maine. The fact is that, according to the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress, academic achievement measures for Maine are very good in comparison to national averages. Maine students scored above the national average in Math, Reading, Science, and Writing for both grades 4 and 8. This seems to indicate that the current system is working to increase academic achievement.
There are very few, if any, studies that show how a larger school administration system, spread over a wide geographic area, improves academic achievement. Conversely, nearly every applicable study shows that smaller schools (with the intense community involvement that accompanies them) and smaller class sizes always result in improved academic achievement. The consolidation plan’s aim to wrest control of Maine’s many small, high achieving schools from the very communities in which they reside will effectively kill a vital link that helps to enable such a high level of performance. This is the link between a community’s values and local identity with the education and development of its future – its children.
Reduce duplicative system administration
To reduce unnecessary expense seems an obvious benefit. What the consolidation plan calls ‘duplicative” however, is in most cases a matter of enhanced local capability dictated by community preference. Any Maine community that supports a small school system presently has the ability and option to share administrative costs with neighboring systems if it chooses. All of the small school systems have made this choice already to one degree or another. Some small systems share the services of a superintendent with a larger system, while others are collaborating on vocational education.
There are a myriad of collaborative methods currently in play between school systems that serve to provide mutual benefits within the locally-defined goals and ambitions of each system’s community. Those communities that have chosen to not engage certain collaborative options have done so for their own local reasons. For the Governor and others in the Maine Legislature to presume to know better is offensive, even dictatorial. Maine’s small communities have been competently making decisions that extract the highest level of performance from limited resources for quite some time, thank you.
Even upon full implementation, the forced consolidation plan will not achieve the target of a $36.5 million expense reduction. Many of the cost reduction figures and statistics are arbitrary and do not take new expenses brought on by the plan into account. Just one example is the plan’s requirement that every school have a principal. Presently, many superintendents double as the school’s principal so the salary reduction anticipated by the elimination of the superintendent will mostly be offset by the addition of the principal.
Achieve real savings that result in real tax relief
As stated above, the forced consolidation plan will not achieve the stated savings goals. Moreover, the school consolidation plan is actually an effort to balance the larger state budget on the backs of the schools. Even if the plan did achieve $36.5 million in overall savings, the projected budget shortfall will negate any possibility of lower taxes. All this while simultaneously disenfranchising local school boards and threatening the existence of many of their schools.
Use limited resources effectively – mostly in the classroom
You may be surprised to learn that Maine is already a national leader on the issue of school administrative vs. instruction-related costs. According to fiscal year 2005 data from the U.S. Department of Education, Maine spends 70 percent of total education dollars on instruction and instruction-related expenses compared to the national average of 65.9 percent. Only New York and Tennessee spend a higher percentage. Maine also ranks among the leaders in keeping school administrative costs down, only spending 9.1 percent of total education dollars compared to the national average of 11 percent, making us fourth best in the nation. As I stated earlier, Maine communities have been spending their money wisely for quite some time.
In conclusion, allow me to urge you again to join me in opposing this plan to reorganize the school districts of Maine through forced consolidation. Contact your local Representatives and Senators to let them know that Maine’s small communities should be engaged in a thoughtful discussion to identify opportunities to reduce school expense, not dictated to by Augusta.
Randy Bacon
Easton
