Legislative Document 1932:

On the Removal of Barriers to School District Consolidation (and more)[1]

 

Policy Objectives of the 2007 Law: The 2007 School District Consolidation Law sought to re-organize local school units statewide into a maximum of 80 school administrative units (SAUs).  The stated objectives of the law were: to provide equitable educational opportunities, rigorous academic programs, uniformity in delivering programs, a greater uniformity in tax rates, more efficient and effective use of limited resources, preservation of school choice and maximum opportunity to deliver services in an efficient manner.  In order to achieve these goals, local school administrative units (SAUs) were required to consolidate and collaborate with other units to form larger, more efficient units and/or otherwise must reorganize to reduce costs.

 

Process: While the Commissioner of Education could suggest alignment of units, local units ultimately had the responsibility to identify their own partners.  Local Reorganization Planning Committees (RPCs) were appointed to decide the structure of the proposed new units including governance, size and composition of the board, and the method of voting.  Existing school units were encouraged to form regional school units (RSUs) of at least 2,500 resident students, except where obstacles made 2,500 impractical.  In such cases, the units could aim for regions with at least 1,200 students.  Other exceptions were possible under the law but all units, whether consolidated or exempted, were required to submit plans for significantly reducing costs.

 

Reactions:  Public, municipal and administrative reactions to the law were widely mixed. People generally were able to identify some possible appeals of the law, notably: potential cost savings, the possibility of creating magnet programs/schools, economies of scale from consolidation, potential efficiencies and potential curricular innovation.  But local opinion seemed to focus more on concerns about the law, specifically: potential loss of local school character and control over local schools, increased costs to some districts as a result of consolidation and for such things as transportation, possible loss of educational and administrative talent, and a general uncertainty about the process described in the law.  In the Kittery-Eliot-York-South Berwick region (no hard data are available), there appeared to be a lack of enthusiasm for the idea of consolidating with neighboring districts.

 

Aftermath: In the legislative inter-session, some sixty-five bills proposing changes to (or repeal of) the law were filed.  The Legislative Council considered and voted to not accept these items and in December instead voted to have the Department of Education develop a bill that would remove financial barriers to consolidation (now known as LD 1932) under the current law while the Joint Committee on Education and Cultural Affairs (EDU) would address the remaining proposed changes (which they have done in separate bills).

 

The Education Committee agreed on all of the key elements of LD 1932.[2]  A significant change in the bill allows the Commissioner of Education to grant a waiver to school systems and allow regional school units of as few as 1,000 students under certain circumstances.  Language in the revised LD1932 also clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of local school boards and regional school units.

 

The bill still contains core provisions that allow local cost-sharing agreements, retain minimum subsidies for units that reorganize, and eliminate the requirement for school units to raise a minimum of $2 per $1,000 of valuation.  The bill also clarifies issues of debt liability and the initial election of board members plus makes other minor changes.

 

The ÒDamon AmendmentÓ. Several floor amendments were made but this one, which is rather controversial[3], authorizes regional school unions as an alternative method of school reorganization. A regional union must perform certain core functions, including employment of a superintendent, performance of all business functions, special education and transportation administration, adoption of a core curriculum and all state and federal reporting. A regional union is formed by means of a reorganization plan prepared by a reorganization planning committee, with approval of the Commissioner of Education and approval at a referendum.  

 

Such unions are subject to the same requirements as regional school units with respect to cost savings, minimum numbers of students, exceptions to minimum numbers of students, timelines for submission of reorganization plans, operational date and applicable penalties. School administrative units that form a regional school union become Òlocal educational unitsÓ with no further responsibility for the administrative functions which are taken over by the regional school union.

 

The Budgetary Context.  The progress of LD1932 through the Legislature must be understood in the context of the StateÕs revenue shortfall.  The Governor has made it clear that he does not favor inclusion of the school union concept in the bill.  If the legislature insists on including this language in the bill, there is a risk that the bill will be vetoed with insufficient votes available for veto override. The Governor has decided to make the key provisions of LD 1932 (Majority Report) part of the overall state budget (as he did last year with the original school district consolidation bill); this may result in a significant impasse and could affect the date of the LegislatureÕs sine die adjournment (April 16, 2008).

 

Future Developments. As of this writing, the House and Senate have been unable to agree on a bill that was acceptable to both bodies, and LD 1932 is headed for a Committee of Conference which will attempt to craft a bill with amendments that would be acceptable to both the House and Senate.  If the Governor should ultimately veto LD 1932, then we would be back to the 2007 statute (including all its imperfections).  Stay tuned.  Developments are occurring on a daily basis.


[1] This summary was compiled by State Senator Peter Bowman of Kittery and Ron McAllister of York, a candidate for the State Legislature in District 150.

 

[2] A Committee ÒMinority ReportÓ agreed with the ÒMajority ReportÓ and added a provision to allow for a school union-like governance structure, called a Òunion school associationÓ (ÒUSAÓ).  A floor amendment later addressed many key points of this issue (see The Damon Amendment). 

 

[3] Data suggest that some school unions may cost more money and produce poorer academic results than competing models.