in favor of school consolidation!

This may be a season of surprises, but this particular declaration, released on Friday, isn’t one of them.  Excerpts follow:

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.
…
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.
…
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.
…
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.

All of this raises questions.

Will the Commissioner, Governor, and Legislature let the voters “decide for themselves”? The law created a coercive situation designed to force the locals to do the “right” thing and stipulated that the referenda be worded in such a way as to forcefully remind voters of possible financial penalties from the State. Some voters may be willing, nevertheless, to have their local school organizational structure remain the same and take the penalty.  Given the Soviet-style election setup, will such a “wrong” answer be allowed?  Stay tuned.

The bit about “almost all [plans] show substantial savings” is disingenuous, to put it mildly.  Plans without savings were bounced back to the locals.  They were forced to come up with something that looked like “savings” in order to get the fershlugginer plan approved. The fact that the plans show savings as a result of this process hardly validates the Commissioner’s position!  Here’s the language that was used in the “Commissioner’s response letters” when she bounced the plans back:

As for this statement — “Saving money is improving education” — that will remain to be seen.

We’ve been told for years that more money means better education.  We’ll keep an eye out for the promised savings.  And we’ll watch for “improved” education!