1. Maine School Restructuring A Case Study September 2011 Prezentacja przygotowana przez Public Consulting Group

2. Page 2 Public Consulting Group Agenda  Gov. Baldacci Background  Why Does Maine’s Story Matter?  Making a Speech into a Law  Implementing with Consensus  Early Results  Lasting Impressions

3. Page 3 Public Consulting Group Gov. Baldacci Background  Served in Maine State Senate for 12 years.  Served in US House of Representatives for 8 years.  Served as Governor of Maine for 8 years (term-limits expire after two four-year terms are complete) ending in 2010.

4. Page 4 Public Consulting Group Gov. Baldacci Background (Continued)

5. Page 5 Public Consulting Group Gov. Baldacci Background (Continued)  Source: Maine.gov

6. Page 6 Public Consulting Group Why Does Maine’s Story Matter?  Poland is wrestling with the number of schools currently in the country.  Maine has several types of administrative school units throughout our state:  Single cities or towns with individual supervision (76)  Regional School Units (RSUs)/School Administrative Districts (SADs) (88)  Community School Districts (5)  Alternative Organizational Structure (AOSs) (17)  Unions of towns (7)  Unorganized territories (very rural areas)/Indian reservations

7. Page 7 Public Consulting Group Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? (Continued)  Green – Regional School Districts  Pink – Alternative Organizational Structures  Blue – Single Cities and Towns  Orange – Tribal Areas  Grey – Unorganized Territories

8. Page 8 Public Consulting Group Why Does Maine’s Story Matter? (Continued)  Maine’s education financing model also involves a mix between state and local funds.  Local tax revenue, mostly from property taxes, is the other major contributor.  Localities exercise a level of autonomy when expending their state appropriations – what to teach, class size, etc.

9. Page 9 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law  Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007):  Goal #1: Turn 300 school districts into 26 regional centers.

10. Page 10 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law (Continued)  Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007):  Goal #2: Proponents suggested bill could cut $250 million of excess administrative costs in 3 years, lowering tax rates along the way. Unsustainable administrative layers/costs given number of students.

11. Page 11 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law (Continued)  Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007):  Goal #3: Proponents also believed that a reduction in the layers of administration across the state would allow a greater focus on student achievement.

12. Page 12 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law (Continued)  Broad Far-Reaching Initial Goals Set Forth in Inaugural Address (Jan 2007):  Common unfounded criticisms were a reduction of local control, layoffs of administrators, and school districts having to close.

13. Page 13 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law (Continued)  Determining What Bill Can Pass the State Legislature (Spring 2007):  Taking the Pulse of the Community – conducted public hearings to hear concerns and answer questions about the proposal.  Kicking the Chicken Coop – ruffled feathers with proposal; upsetting the way things had always been. Spurred the creation of more than half a dozen alternative school restructuring bills by other elected officials.  Finding Legislative Consensus on the Topic – worked with state representatives and senators to find common ground on a bill that could pass and be signed into law in the spirit of the original proposal.

14. Page 14 Public Consulting Group Making a Speech into a Law (Continued)  Signing a Bill (June 2007):  Upon passage of the state budget, the school consolidation process became a reality.  Amended by two later bills passed in April 2008 and April 2010.  Started the process but accommodated flexibility along the way to refine it as necessary.  Law removed funding opportunities noted earlier (scholarships, laptops, principals, etc.) and moved to a goal closer to 30% reduction in administrative units and away from the 26 regional centers.  The law is passed – now what?

15. Page 15 Public Consulting Group Implementing with Consensus  Regional meetings throughout the summer of 2007 headed by Commissioner of the Department of Education (DOE) to advise cities and towns on the new law.  Cities and towns, through reorganization planning committees, needed to file a notice of intent and reorg plan with the state. Initially given 6 months to find efficiencies through partnership.  State provided direction to focus efficiencies to non-instructional areas:  Administration  Special Ed  Transportation; and  Facilities and Maintenance.

16. Page 16 Public Consulting Group Implementing with Consensus (Continued)  Districts meeting minimum size requirements were not required to merge, provided they demonstrated a plan of sustainability and efficiency.  Thresholds for student-size-per-district were set after much give and take and through many legislative sessions.  Data showed the most efficient and effective size for school districts in Maine was 2,500 to 3,500 students. Ultimately a floor of 2,500 students was used.  The plan allowed for flexibility for 1,000 to 2,000 students if a district met certain conditions.  DOE issued a best practices “reorganization template” and set aside funding to offer assistance to cities and towns.

17. Page 17 Public Consulting Group Early Results  School administrative units dropped by more than one-third almost immediately.  Districts expanded curricula through partnerships. Honors, higher education, music, drama, art, etc. classes offered in districts where they previously were not.  Increased purchasing power through consolidated districts now able to drive the prices of their vendors downward.  $36 million dollar reduction in annual state commitments.  $30 million dollar reduction in annual local commitments.  All districts have indicated to the state that savings resulted from the law.

18. Page 18 Public Consulting Group Lessons Learned #1: No law is perfect until it’s implemented correctly.

19. Page 19 Public Consulting Group Lessons Learned (Continued) #2: Consensus is key to successful implementation.

20. Page 20 Public Consulting Group Lessons Learned (Continued) #3: It has to be about the students.