I am writing in response to the article in the Lewiston-Sun Journal of Friday, February 15th in which Martha Freeman, Director of the State Planning Office, is quoted making some very accusatory, misleading, and inaccurate statements. This is the latest from the “Spin Machine” in Augusta. The focus of the story is a recent report that her office issued that showed how school systems in Maine have squandered all of the “state” money that has been dumped upon them via LD 1 and essential Programs and Services. She says that schools are “0 for 2”, a term describing a poor performance at the plate in baseball, and lays the blame entirely upon local education officials.
Her report points out that 82% of school systems spend more than the state’s Essential Programs and Services model says that they should spend. A check of the facts would show that 82% of the districts budget more than the EPS amount, but that their actual expenditures are often less. This means that several of these districts actually spend less than the state says is the minimum required to achieve the learning results. Several of the districts that do spend more exceed the allowance by only a tiny amount. It is also wise to note the probability that the EPS model does not recognize all required educational components adequately, and is really in it’s infancy.
She is quoted as follows: “Taxpayers unhappy with their property taxes may want to ask why school spending has risen. They should ask their school administration officials, the school budget officials, show us one of those transparent budgets right now, show us
what EPS would require and explain to us why" costs are higher.
Ms. Freeman should be careful when suggesting that taxpayers contact public officials and demand transparency with budget planning and procedures. Her phone may end up ringing right off the hook. I don’t remember hearing of any consolidation plans from her boss’s group prior to the last gubernatorial election. Both planning and transparency were non-existent.
As a Superintendent of one of those districts that currently budgets and spends less than EPS I have at least some small platform of credibility from which to respond to these irresponsible comments. I am growing weary of taking unwarranted and inaccurate public relation hits from Augusta. They are becoming more and more caustic, and are usually followed with “let’s tone down the rhetoric”. I am not alone in my perceptions. Colleagues, regional planning committee members, school board members, municipal officials, and many of the very legislators that passed the consolidation law as part of the state budget have learned what most school superintendents and business managers have said from the very beginning: the numbers are bogus-the imagined savings are simply not there.
“Accountability” is a term that is tossed about a lot in educational and political circles these days. In a system where the Governor, the legislature, the director of state planning, the commissioner of education, the education committee of the legislature, the state board of education are all dominated by, controlled by, or nominated by the same political party, it would make more sense for the same concerned taxpayers that Ms. Freeman mentions to ask these folks “How did all this spending come about under your watch”? and “Didn’t you people have any accountability in allowing all of this spending to take place?” or “Where was THE PLAN?”
Recently many members of that same party have begun to realize what a mistake has been made. Bold leadership exhibited by Senator Damon and Representative Pingree has caused many legislators to think critically, clearly and independently as they look to do what is best for our great state. (Now if I can just get them to agree that if their union system that spends $17,500 per high school student should be allowed to continue to exist, (which it should), then our SAD that spends $6,700 per high school student ought to be left alone as well!)
Just five years ago Maine was touted, rightfully so, as having one of the finest educational systems in the nation. We still do. In those days the Maine Department of Education was first in line to point out the “good stories”. The system was not without fault however, and one of those problems was that it was quite expensive and there was inequity in programming and opportunities for youngsters across the state. The answer was to implement a system based on what schools “need” to operate (hence the term “essential”). The theory was fine – however the implementation of EPS has been bogged down in an endless parade of “adjustments”, often made to appease special interests, that has left us in one heck of a mess. It turns out that everything under the sun is essential! We still have the same caliber of excellent students, teachers, and administrators that we had five years ago. They are still doing the same great things. The only difference is that, under the current administration and leadership, it costs millions more to do so, and there are less students involved.
I don’t have an advanced degree in economics or planning, but let me toss out a few items for consideration:
- Always take a peek at what the last or “bottom” line says. If it is a lot higher than it was before, and you don’t have a lot of extra money around, then cut the budget. If you don’t, taxes are going to increase. It is remarkably simple. Not easy. Leadership never is. However, it is far easier to deny a request in the first place than it is to take something away later.
- When projecting revenue, please be realistic, cautious and yes – that dirty word “conservative” when doing your calculations. Don’t plan on gift card refunds or unsuspecting out-of-staters landing their new airplanes. Plan for the worst; then work hard and hope for the best. When extra revenue comes in, tuck it away.
Why did state officials project 241 million dollars in savings from school consolidation in the first three years? The state-employed facilitators of the consolidation proceedings recently reported back that they are finding zero savings in the first three years. Someone seems to have missed by…let’s see…241 million. Oops…
The governor’s consolidation plan, originally intended to have 26 school systems in the state, would have resulted in the loss of over 600 teaching jobs and had a projected savings in state dollars of $36.5 million dollars for the first two years. This soon moved to 60 school systems, no loss of teaching jobs, and a projected savings in state dollars of $36.5 million. It is now targeted at 80 school systems with a projected savings of $36.5 million. The 36.5 million was removed from the state biennial budget and is gone – whether consolidation takes place or not. How could the calculated savings have been the same each time? Furthermore, how about your revenue projections in the current fiscal year? Seems as though somebody “missed” by a hundred million or so…Oops.
One of the big reasons that there is not enough money to meet the states’ promised obligation toward education next year is due to the state’s miscalculation of how many teachers there would be employed next year. Oops…
(Oh, by the way Ms. Freeman that is “0 for 3”)
- Remember that “state money” is taxpayer money. I know that this is hard to believe, but that “state” money comes from the people and businesses of Maine. It is their money. Some of it is my money. When you increase the rate of our “state” share of education spending by an average of 8.2% a year over a four year period to “reduce property taxes” please attempt to understand that the extra money must come from other fees and taxes. It seems to me that if you spent less state money that local districts would figure out what they must do to make it work. Heck, they might even consolidate if it made sense! In 1896 we had 64 schools in what is now called SAD #4. We now have 4 schools. Not once did the state government demand that we consolidate…until now. The citizens did it because it was the right thing to do.
- Please use logic when looking for areas to reduce expenditures. When we examine the entire state budget for areas in which to find reductions we look at Education and DHHS right? Of course! That is logical. That’s where the largest percentage of the state budget is spent. Why then, when we examine only the education portion of the budget, would we fixate on an area that accounts for 4% of expenditures? (system administration) The notion that broad meaningful savings can be found within such a tiny area of overall expenditures is ludicrous, and yet that is exactly what the flawed consolidation law is attempting to do. (Even if the entire 4% were saved, it would be eaten up with inflation and rising energy costs within a year!) Could it be politics and power taking over where sound judgment and logic don’t fit so well?
Every facet of an organization needs to be scrutinized in order to be certain that things are being done in the most efficient manner that is practical. These savings are not necessarily found in the same departments in every organization, and will vary within an organization over time. Constant vigilance is required.
- Ms. Freeman – Please use accurate information when discussing EPS. You mention that EPS "takes into account how high heating oil prices are now, electricity.” (sic). Heating fuel in our area will cost 40% more than what we budgeted last year. EPS allocations simply do not adjust in that fashion. In fact current legislation requires, at a state aggregate level, reductions in maintenance and transportation by 5% each for 2009. Both of these departments are greatly affected by increases in energy costs. This difference will be directly passed on to local taxpayers.
- Consider the affect of regional salary cost indexing in the EPS formula. This is where millions and millions of “state” dollars have often times been added to allocation rates in more affluent districts in order to cover expenses accumulated through years of local bargaining, resulting in lucrative salaries and benefit packages when compared to other regions.
- Please do not continue to reward the exact behaviors that you are trying to stop. What did the state do when it found out that local systems would “suffer” because they refused to close schools or cut costs to fall in line with EPS? Why they sent them millions of dollars in transition money of course! Why not? It’s just “state” money.
SAD #4 has often been used as an example of efficiency in school operations – a poster child for EPS if you will. Now, we are now no longer deemed to be highly efficient. The criteria calls for a district to spend under 4% on “district administration”. Six school systems in Maine were determined by the legislature to possibly be “highly efficient”. SAD #4 spends less per pupil than any of these units, by an average of $1700 per pupil every year, and spends a higher percentage of the total budget on instruction than four of them. Because our total expenditures are so low our system administration costs are slightly above 4%. If we were to increase spending to average statewide levels we would qualify!
In closing, thank you Ms. Freeman for triggering me to the point of writing this. Now I am going to venture down back and cut a little firewood. I like to do this a year ahead of time, that way it has time to dry and I can get the most efficiency from my stove. You never know what the price of oil will be next year. You see it is always good to plan for the worst, work hard, and hope for the best. By doing this I will not have to find someone to pass the blame onto come next winter.
Paul Stearns
SAD #4 Superintendent of Schools
Guilford, Maine