Message from Commissioner Gendron

In dozens of forums held around the state from January 2007 to June 2008 Mainers asked me to explain the School Administrative Reorganization Law, the changes made by the Legislature in April 2008, why the law was necessary and why I support it.

Since June, I have met in smaller settings with school boards, planning committees, school officials and others who have asked how to implement the law, how to ensure that they can find savings, and most importantly, how they can use reorganization to improve the educational opportunities for their students.

It is now no longer up to me or the Governor, or the Legislature to make the case for reorganization. The case has to be made locally – by planning committees, school boards and officials. And most importantly, the voters must decide for themselves.

On November 4, voters in 18 regions will decide on reorganization plans that were drafted by local people to meet the needs of their local school districts.  Four regions have already held their votes – and in three of those regions voters approved the plans. Another 22 regions will submit their plans by November 15 and vote in December and January.

Denounced by some as a one-size-fits-all solution, the reorganization planning has been shown by others to be anything but. Forty-three groups of communities around the state have developed extremely varied ways to improve educational programming and reduce costs in non-instructional areas. Nine have adopted the Alternative Organizational Structure under an amendment made to the reorganization law by the Legislature in April 2008. The locally-proposed reorganizations vary in size from just over 1,000 students to almost 4,500 students.

One of the reasons the process has been so challenging and time-consuming locally is that the law left to local planning committee members some very important decisions – about cost-sharing, ownership of buildings, how and where to find savings, how the new school unit should be governed, and how changes to the schools and policies should be made in the future. While a uniform statewide mandate would have been far easier to manage locally because it would have made all the decisions for communities, the law that is in place supports local planning and decision-making.

While people have wrestled with this law and how to implement it locally, great things have happened.  This process has revealed how much all Mainers truly care about their schools and their students, about the students in the community next door, and about the importance of quality education.

I’ve also heard the concerns. One parent worried that the excellent music program in her community would somehow disappear or be harmed by consolidating with a nearby community. In some parts of the state parents still operate under the fear that their children will be bussed long distances.  However, new regional school systems will have the opportunity to share more quality programming, and new transportation software will allow for more efficient – and perhaps even shorter – bus routes.

We have seen in school administrative districts for the past 50 years that school board members in their regions see themselves as the stewards for all the students in their charge, not just the students from their town. We should also remember that Maine has a long history of sharing responsibility and caring for each other, regardless of town boundaries. In natural disasters, through mutual aid agreements, with shared services, and, for the past 50 years, in regional school organizations, SADs, CSDs and unions, we have recognized that we are part of a larger community from which we can benefit and for which we have shared responsibilities.

Since the beginning of the reorganization discussion almost two years ago, people have questioned whether there will really be savings. Lately, we have been told that local reorganization plans do not contain savings. The truth is that of the 31 reorganization plans that have been submitted to the Department, almost all show substantial savings – if not in the first year then by year 2 or 3.  Many indicate a belief that additional savings can be found, and – more importantly – a willingness to keep looking for these savings and working to achieve them.

In the communities where the focus was on preserving and enhancing educational opportunities for students, the savings followed. Many planners knew that if they were to protect quality educational programs – especially at a time when the national and state financial situation means shrinking resources for education – they would have to find savings in non-instructional areas to preserve the classroom resources and programs. Unfortunately, in some areas, the assumption was made from the start that there would be no savings.  I believe that even in those areas, as new regional school boards are elected and seated, they will do what’s best for students and find administrative savings that will preserve instructional programs.

Bringing together more teachers for professional development, creation of professional learning communities, and more efficiently, effectively, and consistently sharing best practices with teaching professionals throughout the state will improve the quality of teaching and educational opportunities for all students throughout the state. Every school system has strengths to share, and by bringing them together, we will build stronger schools and create new opportunities.

Money saved in non-instructional areas is money available for educational programming. Saving money is improving education.