Maine ASCD Weblog

More About District Consolidation Amendments

I just received this information and thought it should be shared:

Media Update from the Maine Department of Education
April 18, 2008

Update on Reorganization Legislation Enacted by the Legislature

The Legislature gave final approval this morning to LD 2323, An Act To Remove Barriers to the Reorganization of School Administrative Units.  The House voted 92-41 on Thursday night and the Senate voted this morning 22-12.

LD 2323 was not a Governor’s bill.  It was sponsored by Sen. Peter Bowman.  It included nearly all of the provisions of the original LD 1932 as written by the Education Committee, including the three non-controversial financial fixes in the original Majority Report adopted by 10 members of the Committee, as well as several technical and other amendments added by the Committee. All these provisions were also in the Minority Report on LD 1932. 

In addition, LD 2323 was amended by House Amendment “G,” presented by Rep. David Farrington. House Amendment “G” included the text of what was a separate bill, LD 2280.  That amendment was added without dissent under the hammer (details below).

The key provisions from LD 1932 that are in the new bill:

• Allows local cost-sharing agreements
• Allows minimum special education subsidy receivers to remain eligible for minimum subsidy if they join a new regional school unit (RSU);
• Removes the 2 mill minimum requirement;
• Allows an exception for some units of 1,000 to 1,200 students (in isolated rural areas);
• Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of local school committees and regional school unit boards and the relationship between the two; and
• Includes other technical corrections and clarifications. 

The bill does NOT include the one-year delay in the budget validation referendum requirement that was in the original LD 1932 (so all units must use the budget validation referendum process this year).  This is the only provision in the Education Committee’s LD 1932 that was not part of the new bill.

LD 2323 also authorizes the Commissioner of Education to approve a plan for an alternative organizational structure if the plan satisfies the purposes of the school administrative reorganization law, including:

• The structure must result in consolidation of system administration;
• The structure must include consolidation of special education administration, transportation administration and administration of business functions;
• Adoption of a core curriculum;
• Adoption of consistent school policies, calendars, and collective bargaining agreements; and
• Requires any alternative organizational structure to conform to the same budget format and referendum approval procedures as regional school units. 

House Amendment “G” incorporated all of LD 2280, passed previously in the House.  Some have referred to this as the “Bucket A” bill drafted by the Education Committee. This amendment contained technical fixes and minor changes largely around deadlines and timing of the budget validation referendum process and a change to the calculation of penalties. 

The bill moves the Nov. 4 deadline for communities to approve reorganization plans by referendum to Jan. 30, 2009 (and adjusts related deadlines accordingly). It extends to 14 days the amount of time municipalities may take before holding a budget validation referendum after the school budget meeting. It reduces the required ballots for the budget referendum from two to one. And it simplifies calculation of the penalty for communities that opt out – units would be subject to a 2 percent higher mill rate expectation.

More detail on key provisions from the original LD 1932 that are included in LD 2323

The following provisions are unchanged from the Education Committee’s original LD 1932:

1.       Cost-sharing agreements. The bill allows school units to negotiate a local cost-sharing agreement to compensate for cost-shifting that occurs as a result of reorganization. The original law set a formula for cost-sharing based on valuation and does not allow for locally crafted cost-sharing agreements. This removes a barrier to almost every potential RSU. One potential RSU has a complete and approved plan that is conditional upon passage of legislation to allow for local cost-sharing agreements and several more are very close to having a complete plan that cannot be implemented without this legislation.

2.       Minimum special education subsidy. The bill allows school units currently eligible for the minimum special education subsidy to keep that eligibility when they join in a new RSU, even if the new RSU is not a minimum subsidy unit. This removes a potential barrier to 63 minimum special education subsidy units.

3.       2 mill minimum. The bill removes the requirement, found in the law as enacted, that every SAU joining an RSU must raise a minimum 2 mills. Roughly two dozen municipalities currently raise less than two mills and could be forced to increase their education mill rate as a result of the existing law as written.

4.       Cost-center format. The original law contained a technical error by referring CSDs and SADs to a different budget format requirement than for RSUs. The bill corrects this error so that all school units will now be required to prepare their annual budgets with 11 cost centers. This is a request of superintendents and others in the field and affects all CSDs and SADs. This does not change any of the requirements surrounding the budget validation referendum process.

5.       Isolated rural units. The bill allows the Commissioner to approve so-called “doughnut hole” school units of between 1,000 and 1,200 students in isolated rural communities.

6.       Ownership of school property. The bill clarifies that municipalities may retain ownership of school property as negotiated in the formation of regional school units.

Note: All items above were part of the original LD 1932 as approved by 10 members of the Education Committee and the minority report endorsed by the remaining three members of the Committee.

Bill text and other info at: http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/sponsors.asp?ID=280028851

Be sure to find the original bill text and the text of House Amendment “G,” the only amendment adopted by the Legislature to LD 2323.

>>

Here is an article from the Saturday, April 19th Portland Press Herald

~John Brandt

Consolidation Moves Forward

In literally the "11th hour," the Maine State Legislature has passed the necessary amendments and refinements to the school district consolidation legislation. With some compromises added to the mix that appear to only help the folks in Mount Desert Island, the amendments were passed in the wee hours of this morning.

I did hear confirmation on the vote on the noontime news today and have just found one print confirmation of this news on the Mount Desert Islander on line news.

The net effect is that the consolidation legislation that was passed last year can/must now move forward. As many districts head into a week of spring vacation, administrators and schools board will now need to scramble to get caught up as many had been waiting for action from the Legislature.

~John Brandt

More consolidation drama

Just when you thought the issue was settled, the Maine House of Representatives pull a big surprise last night. According to an AP wire story, the House last night passed a bill repealing the entire school district consolidation legislation.

The issue now moves to the State Senate.

Don't blink.

~John Brandt

Veto, now what?

As predicted, Gov. John Baldacci vetoed the bill that would have significantly changed the school district consolidation legislation passed last year. The governor noted that the creation of "super unions" would have resulted in an increase to school costs. There was apparently very little effort attempted to override the veto.

The governor has already proposed additional legislation that will "tweak" the current law. According to the Portland Press Herald:

The governor said his new bill is designed to allow school units to negotiate local cost-sharing agreements. It also aims to allow districts that receive a minimum special education subsidy to continue to do so when they join a new school district.

Interestingly, the article in the PPH garnered only two "comments," thus far, and both in support of the governor's action. This is surprising given the amount of time the legislature spent on this topic.

It is assumed that school districts that have been moving forward with their consolidation plans can continue to do so. Those who have been taking a "wait and see" attitude, will have to get things into high gear.

~John Brandt

Where are we now?

I have been away from active blogging for a few weeks partially due to being rather busy, but mostly because I wanted to continue to focus the blog on the upcoming Jim Burke "Tools for Thought" event. Now that Jim is here in Maine, along with the 60+ brave souls who made it here to Portland in our latest snowstorm, we can concentrate on other things.

Last year when we were actively engaged in the day-to-day trials of the school consolidation initiative, I reported here almost daily on what was happening. So where are we now?

As you no doubt know, the Legislature has taken on the school consolidation legislation again this year, ostensibly to refine it and make it work better. But, politics being politics, once the door was open, the cat came out of the bag - just to mix a few metaphors.

The latest hubbub is that the law which was passed last year is about to be rather dramatically altered by this year's Legislature. At the same time, there are several districts - mostly in the southern part of the state - that are well into the consolidation process and have plans approved or close to approval. There are also a number of districts around the state who have halted their consolidation efforts. And just about all districts are taking a wait and see attitude.

There is news that the Governor is planning to veto the bill(s) that come to his desk especially if they increase the number of school districts (one of the current proposals would change the number of permissible districts from 80 to 200) and/or demonstrates no desired savings.

Some have argued that the law in its current form would not bring about the savings that were promised.

It is also evident that the Legislature has enough votes to override the Governor's veto, so politically they can all look like winners.

But the big concern is that the TABOR folks are sharpening their pencils - and swords - and getting ready to do battle again. This time they will be able to report that all of the things they predicted in would happen two years ago have happened. This plus a stagnant or depressed economy will likely push a lot of people in the pro-TABOR direction. Given the decreases in school populations, a TABOR law in Maine would result in some significant and uncontrollable cuts to education. NOTE: For those not familiar with TABOR, please see the following links - pro & con - from this Google search

So where are we now? We may be at the edge of a precipice. Stay tuned.

~John Brandt

Photo: Image by fotologic - Creative Commons

"In Other's Words..."

Ethicist, and fellow Mainer, Rush Kidder has a delightful expose on the recent "kerfuffle" over whether the comments made by Sen. Barack Obama which were later attributed to Gov. Deval Patrick were plagiarism. In the article, Kidder talks about the worst example of plagiarism he had hear of, and without trying to top that story, it reminded me of one of my own experiences of plagiarism on the part of a student. In this particular case, the student was a public school teacher who was taking a continuing education course from the college where I was an administrator. What made the story "worse" was not only did the student submit for grading a xeroxed copy of someone else's words, but he then refuse to admit he had done anything wrong. It was only when I asked him teacher-to-teacher how he would react if one of HIS students pulled something like that that he relented and admitted guilt.

The Obama/Patrick issue is worthy of reflection in classrooms and I encourage teachers to read what Rush has to say and share this issue with their students. One of those "teachable moments" shall we say.

BTW, I've used a number of quotations here in this blog entry which either come from the Kidder article or are commonly used quotes in education. Unlike, Mr. Kidder, I am not providing the source after each quote, but want to make it clear I am using someone else's words. This is a large dilemma in blog writing. So much of what I often put here is from other's words. I (try to) always place the comment in quotes or "blockquotes" and link to the originator. But as Kidder points out, in this computerized world, it is very easy for students - or anybody - to "borrow a line" from someone else. And the question of right and wrong often gets very gray.

~John Brandt

Image from ABC News website

Class Clowns Beware

I read this news teaser and initially thought it was something from Jay Leno. But, seeing it was the The Times of London, I clicked ahead and discovered the follow:

A British teacher who developed a classroom chair that can't be rocked onto its rear legs already has received orders from 18 schools in the three weeks since launching the product. "It seems that it's a problem that touches everyone," inventor Tom Wates said. "For me, this started out as a way of combating the irritation of the children rocking. But at nearly every school I've been to teachers relate a story about an injury. It is a danger issue."

I have vivid memories of one or more of my more colorful classmates rocking in their chairs when I was in seventh and eighth grades. In prior years we had those one-piece "prison desks" that couldn't be turned over without a forklift. The adult versions of those student desks were used in my high school. When I eventually started working in public schools, I was a bit amazed to find the separation of chair and desk. In all my years observing students, I saw quite a few take a tumble. And yes, it just about always the student I was there to observe.

Anyway the problem is now solved by simply arching the legs of the chair. Class clowns on both sides of the Atlantic will now need to find a new way to create a distraction. Read the whole article in the Times

~John Brandt

More Controversy

How much controversy can one school district generate in one school year?

Well if you are Portland, Maine, I guess the sky’s the limit.

Following the very public scourging that took place this summer after it was revealed that the Portland School District had a bit of a financial problem which ultimately resulted in the resignations of the superintendent and the finance manager, now the same district is embroiled in a new brouhaha. This latest comes from a decision made last week by the Portland School Committee to allow the health center located in one of the district’s middle schools to start providing contraceptives to students.

The firestorm that has followed has involved everyone from the Bishop of Portland, to the governor to national cable news outlets. Everyone apparently has a strong opinion.

You may not find consensus on whether this was the right decision or the wrong decision, but you will find consensus that this was, at the very least, bad timing.

The saddest part of this whole story is that these two controversies have very little to do with education. They have distracted all the attention away from the otherwise good work that so many teachers, administrators, students and parents in Portland are doing to educate the children of that community.

There is another lesson to be learned here. We can only hope that folks in Portland learn it real quick.

~John Brandt

Capitol Hill

The New York Times and Education Week report two stories about the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act that should get a lot of educators' attention.

The Times piece reports that during Monday's public testimony on the reauthorization of NCLB, not too many people were happy with the draft of the legislation that has been proposed by the committee. Criticism appears to be coming from all directions. Congressional Republicans are not happy with the draft, and Secretary Spellings has also voiced disapproval. Testimony from several leading civil rights groups including the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights, the National Urban League, the Center for American Progress and Achieve Inc., were all in opposition to portions of the proposal. The Times reports:

"All protested that a proposal in the bill for a pilot program that would allow districts to devise their own measures of student progress, rather than using statewide tests, would gut the law’s intent of demanding that schools teach all children, regardless of poverty, race or other factors, to the same standard."

Also criticizing the draft were representatives of the two major teacher unions. Again from the Times:

"Reg Weaver, president of the National Education Association, and Toni Cortese, executive vice president of the American Federation of Teachers — told the committee that they would not support the bill in its current form and that they objected to a proposal to count student test scores in granting pay bonuses."

In an unrelated story reported in Education Week "...a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report suggests that at least 6 percent of the 2,790 schools facing the severest sanctions under NCLB took none of the law’s prescribed actions to initiate improvements." And apparently the Department of Education isn't checking to see if the states are doing anything about these schools either. In a study conducted last year by the American Enterprise Institute, researchers reported "that most schools in the law’s corrective-action and restructuring phases had chosen to make few changes," according to the Education Week story. Here is a link to a "highlights" review of the GAO report plus links to the whole report.

This weekend, ASCD members from around the country are descending on Capitol Hill as part of the 3rd annual Leadership for Effective Advocacy and Practice (LEAP) Institute. The Institute is "designed to bridge the divide between educational policy and practice through effective advocacy," according to the ASCD website. LEAP prepares leaders to advance ASCD's advocacy goals through its legislative agenda, strengthens the leadership skills of emerging and diverse leaders, deepens knowledge and perspectives about ASCD positions, and enhances understanding of ASCD's positions with policymakers.

Carol Marcotte (immediate past president of Maine ASCD) and Deborah Baker (President Elect) are attending the LEAP conference this year and have scheduled meetings with several members Maine's Congressional delegation while in Washington. I'm sure NCLB will be on top of the discussion list. If you have specific ideas or comments on the NCLB legislation, feel free to comment here and we'll pass that information along to Carol and Deb.

~John Brandt

NCLB Reauthorization

I just finished reading ASCD’s comments to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Labor on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. I guess my reaction is, if the “comments” to the “discussion draft” of the reauthorization legislation are this complicated, I wonder what the draft legislation looks like?

I can remember the good old days when I was able to quote chapter and verse from PL94-142 – the Education of All Handicapped Children Act – the first national special education law. Perhaps I was young and more vigorous, but it did seem simpler in those days.

The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting that Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings thinks the draft of the legislation is “just too darn confusing…” According to this source she states, “To make it more complex, less transparent, more obfuscated I think would be a huge mistake, particularly when we’re on the run, we’re on the move.”

Information about the review process is also reported in eSchool News online which describes how the draft of the law emphasizes the importance of "21st-century skills and the wider use of data."

In ASCD’s comments to the Committee, they note concerns about the addition of several new layers of record keeping, reporting and data collection. The ASCD comments state:

"While it is necessary for school districts to engage in some of the record keeping, especially in view of the extensive new flexibility around multiple measures of assessment, use of growth models, indicators of achievement and more, the new requirements in this draft appear onerous. Each of the prospective changes in the draft include more reporting requirements. These new requirements run the risk of making this new proposed Title I almost unworkable at the local level. What is certain is that more resources will be required to comply with requirements outside the classroom. We urge you to keep this in mind as alterations are made. The overwhelming goal of this proposal is to improve education, not to place undue stress and burdensome record keeping on schools in order to meet numerous state and federal requirements affiliated with this proposal."

So, it appears we have a long way to go before this process will be finished and there is still plenty of time for input. If you are interested in this topic, you are encouraged to get involved and become one of ASCD’s Educator Advocates and if you would like to read the ASCD comments and learn more about the process, visit the ASCD Action Center.

~John Brandt