Skip Maine state header navigation
Welcome to the new format of the Reorganization Updates. In phase two our focus shifts to implementation. A number of districts are nearing completion of their reorganization plans and others are still moving toward solutions that work for them locally. In addition to continued legislative and other updates, we will bring you informational articles written by superintendents and others in the field about the work they have been doing and tools or approaches they have found successful (or unsuccessful). We’ve also asked some of our facilitators to share hands-on tools with you, such as the cost-sharing factors developed by a working group of facilitators, and soon-to-come updates on tools to help consolidating units look at how to merge educational philosophies and create new educational opportunities.
We hope you find the new format useful, and we welcome your suggestions for articles that would help you with your work locally as you prepare to reorganize. Please contact us at communications.doe@maine.gov.
Message from the Commissioner
Susan A. Gendron
Through the many challenges we are all facing in the current phase of the reorganization implementation process, excellent work is being done by school systems all around the state. And those efforts are beginning to pay off. The purpose of this revised newsletter format is not just to be cheerleaders for the positive work going on in the field. We will use these virtual pages also to share information about challenges, and even more importantly, potential solutions. That said, we’re very pleased with some of the great progress being made and here are some of the activities of note:
The Falmouth and SAD 51 (Cumberland/North Yarmouth) school systems were the first to file a completed reorganization plan with the Department and I was thrilled to give my conditional approval to their plan in February (read below for more on the legislative action necessary to give final approval to the plan). I joined them at a ceremony at Falmouth Middle School to congratulate them on their excellent work. The plan they developed is exemplary, and one I have suggested that other districts consider as a model. (Find the Falmouth/SAD 51 reorganization plan on the Department’s reorganization website.)
Another group of communities already has a new Regional School Unit board and is working on the final preparations for the start of its operations on July 1. RSU #1, made up of Bath, West Bath, Arrowsic, Phippsburg, and Woolwich reorganized into a single school unit under separate legislation that set forth a plan they developed before the passage of the reorganization law. Their efforts show a deep commitment to the students in their communities. They were a step ahead of the rest of us, and we are grateful for the lead they took. Read Superintendent William Shuttleworth's description of RSU #1's journey.
We also held a meeting recently of the superintendents from the six to eight, possibly a few more, regional planning committees that have a goal to vote on their reorganization plans in June. Ray Poulin and Norm Higgins, the project managers for the Reorganization Team, asked the superintendents to come together, share their stories, identify the challenges, brainstorm possible solutions, and tell us how the Department might assist their work.
The most common theme was the need for a provision in the law to allow for local cost-sharing agreements. You may have noted above that I gave “conditional” approval to the Falmouth/SAD 51 plan – that’s because the plan includes a cost-sharing agreement that is not yet allowed by law. At the very beginning of the current legislative session, the Governor introduced legislation to allow cost-sharing agreements to account for cost-shifting that occurs in some proposed mergers. The bill also included two other non-controversial “financial fixes” and legislative leaders anticipated the bill would move quickly to the floor of the House and Senate. The more controversial items were to be taken up separately.
As many things in the political system, things did not work out that way. The highly publicized LD 1932 is still working its way through the legislative process, and now has been amended so that it is controversial. While it includes the financial fixes, it also includes other elements, including some that I cannot support. In the end, I am confident that the necessary financial fixes will find their way into the law before the Legislature adjourns in mid-April. In the meantime, superintendents at our first meeting of likely June vote communities said they will not be able to move forward until the cost-sharing provisions become law. (More on this situation in Legislative Update.)
It was good for the superintendents to meet with each other, and we will continue to convene groups of superintendents as their school systems move closer to referendum dates. In the meantime, we are working to develop templates for materials that school systems may choose to tailor to their own reorganization processes and share with the public so they can make informed decisions about reorganization. One example of excellent informational materials is the work done by the schools in Fayette, Manchester, Mt. Vernon, Readfield, Wayne and Winthrop. Read Superintendent Richard Abramson’s description of how they developed that communications piece.
Most importantly, I want to thank superintendents, RPC chairs and members, school board members, and the many many others who are working diligently in their communities to develop plans that will work best for their students. This is an extremely challenging process and the vast majority of those involved, and I recognize that each of you is doing what you can to make reorganization for your communities.
In order to alleviate the deadline pressures on some RPCs and school boards, Commissioner Gendron sent a letter to superintendents and RPC chairs on March 7 to let them know about an option that allows some of them to file a letter in place of a formal reorganization plan.
RPCs that have not taken formal action (votes to add, delete or change their plans) since their last submission may, in place of a formal submission, write a letter informing the Commissioner of the lack of formal votes and may file the letter without a vote of the member SAU boards.
RPCs that have taken action and units filing alternative plans must still submit a revised plan by the March 28 deadline.
RPC chairs or superintendents with questions about the requirements of the March 28 deadline are encouraged to contact Ray Poulin or Norm Higgins on the Reorganization Team at 624-6802.
Consolidation from the perspective of RSU #1
By William Shuttleworth, Superintendent, RSU #1
RSU #1 combines Bath Public Schools and the School Union #47 communities of Phippsburg, West Bath, Arrowsic and Woolwich. We created our own RPC, which we called the Regional Task Force, which was made up of representatives of each community and worked hard on a plan with improving education as the major platform for the new district. We attempted to weigh all major decisions through the lens of whether or not it was good for children. Certainly costs, representation, property transfer, and closing school were important matters before the committee, but we truly wanted to create a world class school system that meets the needs of all students facing the incredible challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century. Our referendum to unite into RSU #1 passed by a 2-to-1 margin. Unfortunately, the town of Georgetown voted not to join and they are now actively pursuing alternatives for consolidation.
We accomplished so much. We devised our own cost sharing formula that apportions costs by one-third property valuation, one-third student census and one-third community census. We have a very unique governance structure. We have seven board directors, each of them representing portions of either two or three towns. We wanted to move away from the old geopolitical representation and our model assures that board members represent kids, not towns. In the recent election of new officers it is so exciting that two of the seven board members are citizens of Arrowsic, the smallest town in the RSU, with only 477 people. Another feature of our model is that students have school choice of any school within the region; e.g., a student in Bath could choose to go to Woolwich, and parents have already filled out applications to reserve a school of their choice for next year.
Though the RSU doesn't officially take full responsibility for the new region until July 1, 2008, the newly elected board has hired a superintendent, has worked on transferring property and tangible assets, and is fast at work on creating a budget for the new region. Though the financial troubles at the state level affect our subsidy, as it does most districts, the energy to create this new system is palpable. The communities are excited about the prospects of the new unit.
The creation of this new RSU was not without struggles. Anytime you attempt to come together you have competing interests, traditions and some natural rivalries, it is not always easy to move forward. We addressed much of this old baggage and kept the good of the region, the good of the children, first and foremost. In the end, we recognized that not every pitfall or future challenge could be predicted. So, we agreed to address all future challenges in good faith and in the same spirit that created the new RSU.
Regionalization can be effective and can produce great outcomes. It takes the vision, the will and the goodwill to accomplish this hard, but effective work. We are proud of our new RSU and we believe it will truly help create a world class school system. When the focus is all about kids, great things can happen.
School District Consolidation Communications
By Richard A. Abramson,
Superintendent, Union #42/CSD #10
School district consolidation is looming on the horizon for most school districts in Maine. The importance of communicating with the public is paramount as our towns approach the referendum approving or rejecting the work that has been underway since this summer. Regional School Unit #30 (Maranacook Area Schools, Winthrop Schools, and Fayette Schools) attempted to gather objective information that might help the citizens understand the process and work that has been on-going.
"The Ramblin' Chalkboard" was the first attempt by the three superintendents in RSU #30 to provide this information. "Ramblin'" was taken from the "Ramblings" newsletter that Winthrop Schools has used for its school district. "Chalkboard" has been the vehicle that Maranacook Area Schools has employed for many years to promote the activities and issues facing their school district. Fayette Schools incorporated many of their highlights in their town newsletter. Thus, the birth of "The Ramblin' Chalkboard"!
The editorial committee of the "Chalkboard" met several times to scope out the issues and the plan for providing objective and comprehensive information about each school district. The editors hoped to provide a format that was informative, enjoyable to read, and a mechanism to share stories about the players involved in school district consolidation. Each school was asked to write a profile article that commented on the many positive qualities and programs that are currently underway. We wanted the communities to know something about the state facilitator who was helping to guide the process. The editorial board felt that a comparison of key pieces of information about each district and school would be helpful to the citizens in deciding whether or not to vote in favor of school consolidation for this RSU. Staff gathered this information and put it into spreadsheet format that allowed for easy comparison. Lastly, each superintendent was asked to write about the challenges and opportunities facing their district as they moved toward school district consolidation.
The result was a professionally produced document that was mailed to every household in the combining school districts. Copies were shared with each town office in all six towns. Additional copies were distributed to the schools and select post offices and businesses. The district received many positive comments from readers thanking us for this collaborative effort and telling us how helpful the information was to their understanding the daunting task facing the Reorganization Planning Committee, the school boards, and the staff and administrators of each district.
For more information on this joint communications effort contact Superintendent Richard Abramson, Union #42/CSD #10, rich_abramson@maranacook.org, 207-685-3336, Superintendent Mark Laroach, Winthrop Schools, sflynn@winthropschools.org, 207-377-2296 or Superintendent Briane Coulthard, Fayette Schools, 207-685-4770, bcoulthard@cs.fayette.k12.me.us.
Question: The Legislature is considering a bill that would delay the requirement for a budget validation referendum this year – should our school unit go through with the requirement, or wait to see what the Legislature does?
Answer: Unless and until altered by the Legislature, current law requires the budget referendum this year for 2008-09 school budgets. Also, the most current version of LD 1932 under consideration no longer includes the delay. So if it passes in its current form, school units will still be required to hold budget validation referenda this year. Units that don’t go through the process would be in violation of the law, and the budget itself could be ruled invalid if challenged by taxpayers.
While the Department supported a move to delay the requirement by one year, we are big supporters of the referendum requirement. For the first time voters in every school unit around the state will see their local school budget presented in the same manner, and will be able to vote on the budget with a more complete understanding of what they are voting on.
Question: As the law now stands, will the funding for programs in local schools be determined solely by a regional school board?
Answer: No. LD 499, which is now Public Law 2007, Chapter 240, allows for the creation of local school boards which have the authority to raise additional funds for K-8 programming beyond whatever the regional school board designates for the local K-8 school. So if the local school committee is worried about the fate of a cherished after-school music program, for example, and worried that the regional school board might not opt to fund it, the local municipality can raise the additional funds for that K-8 program.
The much-watched LD 1932 continues to work its way through the legislative process. This is the bill that started as the “non-controversial financial fixes” to the reorganization law. The bill was expected to hit the floor of the Senate and House in early January, leaving the more controversial issues to lengthier debate.
The key provisions in the original bill were designed to remove barriers to reorganization and included: 1) allowing reorganizing school systems to come up with their own local cost-sharing agreements to compensate for any cost-shifting; 2) allowing minimum subsidy receivers to remain eligible for their minimum subsidy when they join with another unit; and 3) removing the requirement that all school units raise a minimum $2 per $1,000 valuation for education. In committee deliberations, language was added to allow for a one-year delay in the requirement that school budgets go to a public ballot vote. And the committee also added an allowance for units of between 1,000 and 1,200 students in some limited circumstances.
On the floor of the Senate and House, amendments were added to allow “Regional School Unions”, informally called “super unions” by some. The Department opposes unions because they cannot achieve the efficiencies of an RSU – Regional School Unit – and their multiple layers of administration stand in the way of comprehensive K-12 educational programming, best practices and equity in education. To have a superintendent reporting to half a dozen or more school boards and administering multiple budgets does not provide for a system that can focus effectively on educational programming. And it does not allow for a comprehensive overview of the budget so that school officials or taxpayers can make decisions about how best to allocate resources.
The Senate and House versions differed somewhat. The most significant difference was that the House included an amendment that would allow the commissioner to waive the 1,200 student minimum for districts with a population density of less than 50 people per square mile. That would open up the possibility of exemptions to over 250 municipalities.
When the Senate and House could not agree on a single version of the bill, they appointed a Committee of Conference, which does not happen often in Maine’s Legislature. The Committee of Conference included three Senators and three Representatives.
The Conference Committee agreed unanimously on two changes: one, to remove the one-year delay in the budget validation referendum requirement; that is, to require all SAUs to hold budget validation referenda this year. While the Department strongly supports the transparency of this referendum requirement, Commissioner Gendron had agreed to the one-year delay, given the other demands on school units this year. But a number of legislators feel strongly that the requirement should not be delayed.
The second change amends the language in the population density exception by saying that the Commissioner must lower the 1,200 student minimum in low-population-density units when that minimum is impractical.
The Senate accepted the Committee of Conference version of LD 1932 on Thursday and it is likely to hit the floor of the House this week, before coming back to the Senate for a final vote. The Department continues to oppose the bill because of the addition of the union option for school systems – an option that could encourage the creation of 200 or more school units, and superintendents reporting to a dozen or more school boards, defeating the purpose of the reorganization law.
 |
In the meantime, Governor John Baldacci inserted the key provisions – the “non-controversial fixes” – into his supplemental budget “change package.” Regardless of what happens to LD 1932, that backup plan would allow for the necessary financial fixes to make their way into the law. This is crucial because a number of regional planning committees are prepared to submit reorganization plans soon, but need provisions in the law that will allow the local cost-sharing agreements they have negotiated. However, the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee removed that language from the supplemental budget, which is expected to go to the full House and Senate next week for final votes. We remain hopeful that the tools that reorganization planning committees have been asking for make it into legislation before the Legislature adjourns in mid-April.
Stay tuned…
Reorganization Team Contacts
Melissa Padgett, Administrative Assistant
Jennifer Pooler, Coordinator
Ray Poulin, Project Manager
Norm Higgins, Project Manager
All four can be reached at 207-624-6802
Jim Rier, Director of School Finance,
207-624-6794
David Connerty-Marin, Director of Communications ,
207-624-6880