Contact: David Connerty-Marin, Maine Department of Education, February 15, 2008

[see also: Correlation is not causation, MDIschools.net, February 17, 2008]

School Unions, Efficiency and Performance

· Maine spends $24 million more per year than necessary on the education of 26,719 students educated in school unions, and with no added academic benefit.  That’s because school unions as a group spend more per student than in other types of school units with no better test results.

· 62% of the 50 most expensive K-8 school administrative units (SAUs) in the state, regardless of size, are in school unions. Only 28% of the least expensive K-8 SAUs in the state, regardless of size, are in school unions.

· For elementary school units, school unions averaged $8,537 per student – $1,009 more per student than in consolidated units (SADs and CSDs).  For K-12 units, school union expenditures are $1,385 (18%) more per student than in consolidated units.

· More than two thirds of the school units with 500 or fewer pupils are in school unions. These small units accounted for only 25,675 (12.8%) of the state’s students in 2005 and their average per pupil operating expenses were higher than in larger units and than the statewide average. ($8,990 per student, compared to $7,632 for units with 2,501 to 3,000 students, and $8,230 statewide average)

· In any structure that allows a Regional School Unit or regional union board to delegate to local school committees the authority to hire, fire, negotiate, or raise funds, the costs will be higher.  The higher costs in unions are part of the basis of EPS calculations and thus raise the statewide cost of education.

o Because a local municipal school committee has the authority to raise and administer funds, as well as hire and fire, and negotiate collective bargaining it must be viewed both legally and practically as a separate school administrative unit.

o In a union system, citizens cannot see or assess a comprehensive K-12 budget and make educated decisions about prioritizing spending in their district, which also makes finding savings more difficult.

o It is unclear who is responsible for a child’s education – the “super union” board or the local school committee. To whom does a parent turn when their child’s educational needs are not met?

o Decision-making is proliferated among multiple boards which makes impossible clear, consistent K-12 curriculum, budgeting, priorities, etc.

Figures above include all districts for which 2005-06 data was available.

In summary, the school union structure is Maine’s highest cost form

of school governance with only mixed results on performance.

• Too many layers of administration.  In most school unions, a single superintendent and central office reports to multiple school boards, develops and administers multiple budgets and, in many cases, negotiates multiple collective bargaining agreements.  Superintendents in these systems have often complained they spend too much time reporting and don’t have the time they need to focus on educational programs. In some unions, there are multiple central offices, adding to the duplication of functions.

• Lack of K-12 alignment.  In most school unions there is a lack of an aligned K-12 curriculum.  When multiple school boards are deciding curriculum and offerings for elementary school programs, students from those schools do not all come to the high school with the same background?  Are we positioning our children for success or failure?  Can all entering freshman access a rigorous curriculum or will they have to settle for less because they didn’t have comparable experiences?  The data demonstrates that math, language arts and science curriculum vary within unions. Our children deserve a cohesive equitable education.

• More money, mixed results.  As a group, school unions are more expensive than other governance structures.  Not only does this cost local taxpayers more, it contributes to the statewide costs which are born by taxpayers in all communities around the state.  That’s because EPS allocations are based in part on actual spending.