Politics and economics drove the school plan, not the best interests of students

I write in response to the editorial “Local districts have ownership of school plan.” (June 8). I live in Mount Vernon, and serve upon the Mount Vernon School Board. I am also principal of Buckfield Junior-Senior High School, but will be moving onto the principalship of Waterville Senior High School next month.

I am not writing in my official capacities, but rather as someone knowledgeable about education and who cares deeply about Maine students. As such, I was disappointed by the editorial.

It could not have been further off the mark.

The school consolidation plan contained in the recently approved state budget does indeed allow for local approval of consolidation at the polls, but it also enacts punitive and draconian penalties if such approval is not given. The majority of Maine communities cannot afford to run their schools with these penalties in place and, consequently, have no real choice when it comes time to vote. To suggest they do is politics at its worst.

Unfortunately, the consolidation process has been driven by politics, emotion, and economics rather than reason and the best interests of students. This was made clear throughout the process. When I recently shared my concerns with a legislator, the response was, “It is difficult to talk about the consolidation plan, as logic soon evaporates.”

Additionally, school board members and administrators were increasingly marginalized in the legislative process around consolidation. If we were opposed to a certain consolidation plan, we were told we were looking out for our self-interest, we supported the status quo, and we were against progress. Having valid reservations does not mean we are against the idea of consolidation or progress, but rather we are concerned about details of implementation.

Given the defeat of a bill to reduce the Legislature’s size (Maine’s is the sixth-largest in the country, despite ranking 40th in population), the argument could be made we are not the only, or most, self-interested group in the state.

Economics was the primary driving force behind consolidation. Essential Programs and Services – the state funding formula for public schools – has recently been transformed from a reimbursement formula to a spending cap.

This occurred even as some members of the Legislature agree that EPS woefully underfunds certain areas, extracurricular activities being only one example. It also appears the reduction of funds available to schools through EPS is being used to lessen the state’s statutory responsibility to pay 55 percent of the cost of public education.

I am left to wonder from where savings will come when all contracts – including those of superintendents – will be honored for their full duration after consolidation, while at the same time central office funding is cut in half. When businesses merge, there is generally an increase in short-term costs, so a possible outcome is a decrease in school services with a corresponding increase in property taxes.

This may result in another Palesky or Taxpayer Bill of Rights-like initiative, a cruel irony given this is exactly what the Legislature is trying to avoid.

Furthermore, the general public will vote on the district or regional budgets. I taught and worked in New Hampshire, where this is the practice. Not only does it allow uninformed citizens who do not attend the district meeting to vote on the school budget, it also leads to acrimonious relations between districts and towns.

If legislators felt this was truly the most effective method of approving budgets, they would have applied it to the entire state budget, not just the educational portion. As it stands, the method is clearly intended to make any school budget exceeding EPS extremely difficult to pass.

If the Baldacci administration’s record of implementing large-scale change were better, consolidation would be slightly less worrisome. This is not the case. The Local Assessment System and Maine Education Data Management System are two examples of severely botched educational programs that resulted in large amounts of wasted time and money. The MaineCare computerized billing system is an example outside education.

Local districts did not seek the responsibility they have been given, as the editorial implied. Certainly the Baldacci administration will take credit for any success that may come out of consolidation.

The editorial reinforces my feeling that any failure will be laid at the feet of school and town officials.

Donald J. Reiter is principal at Buckfield Junior-Senior High School.