Maine School Restructuring A Case Study

1. Maine School RestructuringA Case Study September 2011 Prezentacja przygotowana przez Public Consulting Group

2. Agenda Gov. Baldacci Background Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? Making a Speech into a Law Implementing with Consensus Early Results Lasting Impressions

3. Gov. Baldacci Background • Served in Maine State Senate for 12 years. • Served in US House of Representatives for 8 years. • Served as Governor of Maine for 8 years (term-limits expire after two four-year terms are complete) ending in 2010.

4. Gov. Baldacci Background (Continued)

5. Gov. Baldacci Background (Continued) • Source: Maine.gov

6. Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? • Poland is wrestling with the number of schools currently in the country. • Maine has several types of administrative school units throughout our state: • Single cities or towns with individual supervision (76) • Regional School Units (RSUs)/School Administrative Districts (SADs) (88) • Community School Districts (5) • Alternative Organizational Structure (AOSs) (17) • Unions of towns (7) • Unorganized territories (very rural areas)/Indian reservations

7. Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? (Continued) • Green – Regional School Districts • Pink – Alternative Organizational Structures • Blue – Single Cities and Towns • Orange – Tribal Areas • Grey – Unorganized Territories

8. Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? (Continued) • Maine’s education financing model also involves a mix between state and local funds. • Local tax revenue, mostly from property taxes, is the other major contributor. • Localities exercise a level of autonomy when expending their state appropriations – what to teach, class size, etc.

9. Making a Speech into a Law • Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007): • Goal #1: Turn 300 school districts into 26 regional centers.

10. Making a Speech into a Law (Continued) • Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007): • Goal #2: Proponents suggested bill could cut $250 million of excess administrative costs in 3 years, lowering tax rates along the way. Unsustainable administrative layers/costs given number of students.

11. Making a Speech into a Law (Continued) • Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007): • Goal #3: Proponents also believed that a reduction in the layers of administration across the state would allow a greater focus on student achievement.

12. Making a Speech into a Law (Continued) • Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007): • Common unfounded criticisms were a reduction of local control, layoffs of administrators, and school districts having to close.

13. Making a Speech into a Law (Continued) • Determining What Bill Can Pass the State Legislature (Spring 2007): • Taking the Pulse of the Community – conducted public hearings to hear concerns and answer questions about the proposal. • Kicking the Chicken Coop – ruffled feathers with proposal; upsetting the way things had always been. Spurred the creation of more than half a dozen alternative school restructuring bills by other elected officials. • Finding Legislative Consensus on the Topic – worked with state representatives and senators to find common ground on a bill that could pass and be signed into law in the spirit of the original proposal.

14. Making a Speech into a Law (Continued) • Signing a Bill (June 2007): • Upon passage of the state budget, the school consolidation process became a reality. • Amended by two later bills passed in April 2008 and April 2010. • Started the process but accommodated flexibility along the way to refine it as necessary. • Law removed funding opportunities noted earlier (scholarships, laptops, principals, etc.) and moved to a goal closer to 30% reduction in administrative units and away from the 26 regional centers. • The law is passed – now what?

15. Implementing with Consensus • Regional meetings throughout the summer of 2007 headed by Commissioner of the Department of Education (DOE) to advise cities and towns on the new law. • Cities and towns, through reorganization planning committees, needed to file a notice of intent and reorg plan with the state. Initially given 6 months to find efficiencies through partnership. • State provided direction to focus efficiencies to non-instructional areas: • Administration • Special Ed • Transportation; and • Facilities and Maintenance.

16. Implementing with Consensus (Continued) • Districts meeting minimum size requirements were not required to merge, provided they demonstrated a plan of sustainability and efficiency. • Thresholds for student-size-per-district were set after much give and take and through many legislative sessions. • Data showed the most efficient and effective size for school districts in Maine was 2,500 to 3,500 students. Ultimately a floor of 2,500 students was used. • The plan allowed for flexibility for 1,000 to 2,000 students if a district met certain conditions. • DOE issued a best practices “reorganization template” and set aside funding to offer assistance to cities and towns.

17. Early Results • School administrative units dropped by more than one-third almost immediately. • Districts expanded curricula through partnerships. Honors, higher education, music, drama, art, etc. classes offered in districts where they previously were not. • Increased purchasing power through consolidated districts now able to drive the prices of their vendors downward. • $36 million dollar reduction in annual state commitments. • $30 million dollar reduction in annual local commitments. • All districts have indicated to the state that savings resulted from the law.

18. Lessons Learned #1: No law is perfect until it’s implemented correctly.

19. Lessons Learned (Continued) #2: Consensus is key to successful implementation.

20. Lessons Learned (Continued) #3: It has to be about the students.