The Pros and Cons of Freeport School Consolidation
I cannot remember being as uncertain about a pending vote as I am about the school consolidation question. Throughout town (and in Pownal and Durham), reasonable and informed people who are deeply committed to high performance schools for our communities are divided on the issue.
I thought the most useful service I could provide using the Future Freeport platform would be to publish the best arguments pro and con.
Peter & Kim Murray, who support a NO vote on consolidation, and John Gleason, who favors a YES vote, agreed to let me post their best thinking here. All three are good friends, very smart, deeply knowledgable and passionately engaged in the school consolidation issue. Thanks very much Pete, Kim, John and everyone else involved, not only for these submissions but also for the extraordinary time and effort you’ve devoted to Freeport’s school future.
The following is a compilation of Pete and Kim’s writings on the Freeport Families for Education website. For those wanting to dig deeper, there is more information there.
Please vote NO on school reorganization on November 4th, by Peter and Kim Murray.
I know that we are all fed up with thinking, debating, and agonizing over school consolidation. But please take a moment to consider this…
The school consolidation plan before us today is not good for any of our residents or our children. The intention of the law is cost savings, however, this plan yields no cost savings. The consolidation plan clearly states that any administrative cost savings will be offset by the costs of leveling up salaries and creating the new bureaucracy to run the consolidated district. In fact, it will cost more to operate as a consolidated district than the way we do today.
The plan before us hinges on the assumption that 180+ students can be added to the High School with only a $4,000 budget increase per student. By doing this, you end up with an average budget of $8,300 per student at the High School. This represents a lower funding per pupil than any comparable school in Maine. You can do the math yourself. The average cost per pupil for schools similar to the proposed consolidated HS is above $10,000.
There are several alternatives to the current consolidation plan, such as consolidating under an equitable cost-sharing arrangement with full disclosure of anticipated increased costs. Another option is the “Alternative Organization Structure” (maybe something like this) that allows towns to retain local flavor (e.g. choice, separate boards) and yet provides structured approach to unifying curriculum and maximizing cost savings.
At one of the last public meetings, members from the Pownal RPC threatened that if this plan was not approved by the Freeport voters, then Pownal might pull all of their children out of Freeport High School. Please, let us try to come up with a plan that is fair and prudent. The current plan, if adopted, will require a renegotiation of the cost sharing system after 3 years of an arbitrary fixed percentage based system. Do you think it will be easier to conceive of and implement a balanced and enduring arrangement after we are irreversibly merged? Let’s come up with a cost sharing arrangement before consolidating that is fair and prudent, and can withstand the test of time.
As working parents of three young children, schools that are both good and efficient are of highest importance. The proposed scheme will both hurt our schools and raise taxes. How is that good for anyone? Please vote NO on school reorganization on November 4th. We have better choices.
Sincerely,
Kim & Peter MurrayThe Case Against School Consolidation in Freeport MaineView SlideShare presentation or Upload your own.
Below is a copy of an email I received from John Gleason.
Why I’m Voting Yes for School Consolidation, by John Gleason.
After a year’s worth of meetings with the Reorganization Planning Committee, and with Election Day finally approaching, I wanted to share my thoughts on the question of consolidating the Freeport, Durham and Pownal school districts. In presenting the RPC’s consolidation plan, we made every effort to do so objectively, outlining the plan’s risks as well its benefits, so that voters could make an informed choice. We tried to not allow our personal views to slant the presentation of the plan to the voters. Now, with the public hearing process behind us, people have asked me whether I intend to vote for the consolidation plan. I am voting to approve the plan.
I was, and remain, very frustrated with the consolidation law, its mandates, and the manner in which it was passed in Augusta. I’ve felt the need, however, to put that frustration aside –the law is on the books until a future Legislature changes it — in order to consider whether this plan makes sense for Freeport students and their families.
For those of us whose primary goal is the advancement of educational opportunities for our students, there is not an obvious right or wrong answer when it comes to consolidation. Ironically, while here in Freeport a great deal of energy is being expended on the consolidation question, both the proponents of the plan and its opponents are by and large committed and active advocates for a strong and high-performing school system. I believe the Freeport schools can move forward under either scenario, provided there is the public will and consensus to commit the resources to do so. In the end, however, I have concluded that a consolidated district provides greater promise of expanded opportunities and more effective expenditures.
I believe the plan we’ve developed is responsible and offers the opportunity to move Freeport and the other districts forward. The governance structure – with six Freeport representatives, three from Durham and two from Pownal –creates a workable board and allows an appropriate voice for each community. With respect to the portion of the overall budget that is determined locally – approximately 15% in additional local monies above the state-mandated portion - that amount is allocated in a manner that represents a compromise between assigning those costs purely on valuation versus assigning them based entirely on student population. Quickly – and for some perspective, given how the financial plan has been characterized by some – a pure valuation approach would assign 75% of this 15% “additional local money” cost figure to Freeport; an approach based entirely on student population would assign Freeport 59% of this 15% figure; our compromise assigns to Freeport 66% of the 15% of additional local money. If, after 3 years, the communities decide this allocation needs to be adjusted, the plan provides mechanisms to do so.
The administrative savings stemming from the consolidation of these three districts are relatively small, if they exist at all. If people are expecting that consolidation will reduce their property taxes, they are bound to be disappointed. All three districts have lean and efficient administrations, so it is not surprising that there would not be substantial savings from the combination. However, even the potential for modest administrative savings cannot be ignored, and it’s possible savings may grow over time. And striving to achieve those administrative savings – spending our education dollars as wisely and responsibly as we can - - is a necessary step before we ask the public to support enhanced educational programs for our students.
There is no question that additional students will enable us to expand educational offerings. That was the conclusion of our education subcommittee. As we look to expand offerings in such areas as upper level language and advanced placement courses, that aim is more easily attained – and explained to a public that is questioning school expenditures – if we have the critical mass of students at the high school who would want to pursue those courses. I’ve also observed with frustration, from the vantage point of the School Committee, the elimination of academic and athletic programs as the student population has dropped in recent years. If we stand alone – and potentially even lose Pownal to another district– it will become very challenging, with a declining student population, to deliver the full menu of academic and extra-curricular offerings our students deserve. Opponents of consolidation have recently asserted that the projected enrollment figures utilized by the RPC are inaccurate and that, according to figures from Augusta, the student population in Freeport will stabilize or moderately increase over the next several years. However, even if we accept the figures of the opponents and project a high school with a Freeport student population in the low 300’s, absent the inclusion of the Pownal and Durham students that will still leave us with a high school enrollment far below our current level of approximately 420. We’ve already had to discontinue freshmen sports teams at our current enrollment level; dropping by another 100 students will pose even greater challenges to the continuation of our current programs, let alone the addition of any new ones.
We’ve anticipated the need for additional teachers in order to maintain current class ratios, and those expenditures are in our financial model. I would not support a consolidation model that purported to save money by increasing class ratios. Our class ratios, in fact, have been a prime factor behind Durham’s desire to join the Freeport system. I believe we’ve been open and above-board in identifying the need for additional teachers as the student population increases. As for the physical plant, despite the conclusions of the facilities consultant, there still could be a need one day to upgrade the physical plant at the high school as more students arrive. However, we may have such a need one day, even aside from consolidation, given the age of the older sections of the high school. In fact, we already have that need when it comes to athletic field space. As we’ve seen from a presentation before the School Committee this fall, Freeport already has a pressing need for additional athletic fields to accommodate our students, and consolidation will add to those demands. In the end, however, I believe the three communities would support those capital expenditures, as the needs arise, in order to enhance the opportunities for the students in all three towns.
Consolidation, as with any merger, takes a certain leap of faith, because you have to trust your neighboring communities (as well as your own) to support the goal of a high performing school district. As I have worked with leaders from Pownal and Durham, not only have I enjoyed them personally, but more importantly, I am impressed and reassured by their strong commitment to high quality schools. I have pestered them – probably too much – that the real promise of consolidation in these three communities lies not in administrative savings but in the ability to enhance educational programs. When it came time to submit the plan to the State, I asked the RPC to commit (granted, a non-binding commitment, as the decision must be made by the new regional board) that savings realized from consolidation would be dedicated primarily to improving educational programs and opportunities. The RPC – every member from all three towns - voted unanimously to do so.
We also would do well to learn from the students, as they often are ahead of us on these things. I was impressed that when the first Durham freshmen arrived at the high school this fall, and class officer elections were held, the freshmen elected as their president and vice president two students from Durham, and a class secretary from Pownal. That told me that despite misgivings in the three towns as to whether this consolidation makes sense, the students were comfortable and confident in welcoming the new students into the high school community.
John Gleason
I’m sure there are many other points of view to be added to this discussion. Please use the comments to chime in. Above all, please be sure to vote.
If you enjoyed this post, please leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I have been following consolidation with interest and great concern. I think this legislation is flawed and ineffectual. It is haphazard, murky, and penalty driven. What is most disappointing to me is its driving force was purely financial. I applaud the Freeport RPC for forming an educational subcommittee. I found it very ironic early on that carefully examining our current educational models and programs was not at the forefront of this state mandate.
I appreciate John Gleason’s point ,”consolidation, as with any merger, takes a certain leap of faith.” Throughout the process, it is clear that there are no administrative savings, but what is evident is the potential for enhancement of educational opportunities for our students. This encourages me and I believe that merging with Pownal and Durham makes good sense, but not not from a financial standpoint. But, as he points out, those savings will come in time. We need to commit our resources now and reap the benefits later. We as towns people and town councilors need to commit our resources whether we have consolidation or not.
What I believe needs to be top priority is the educational opportunities and impact on our students, not how much money we can save by consolidating. While I don’t minimize the need for financial benefits cost savings, and the benefits of shared services, I think this financial driven mandate is very short sighted. It doesn’t fully address some of the larger educational challenges we face in Freeport. We are polarized and have a larger percentage of taxpayers who don’t have children in our schools, than those that do. We have inadequate funding, declining enrollment, competition with area private schools, and program cuts. Our teachers are paid considerably less compared to some of our neighboring towns.
My ambivalence with the plan put forth is not intended to undermine the incredible work from our RPC in any way. They have dedicated endless hours to this year long process. I am grateful to them and appreciate all that they have done. My ambivalence is not about Durham and Pownal. I continue to struggle with the legislation. I have tried to put my frustration aside and be open about the process. I know that the law is in the books, but I do believe we can send a clear message to the state that mandate is flawed.
I am very open to the possibliity of an Alternative Organization Structure, but I am wondering who will be willing to take on that task if the opportunity is presented? My guess is we have exhausted our current RPC members, and they have been very clear that they have carefully examined many scenarios and models and feel confident in the plan they put forth. My hope is that through collaboration we can come up with a creative, holistic plan that supports our students academically, socially, and athletically.
To my Fellow Freeporters,
You may or may not know that for the past year I have been a member of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) for Durham, Freeport and Pownal school consolidation. It has been an intense working effort, with our group having in excess of 40 meetings over that period in order to come up with an acceptable plan. Our plan was submitted and approved for referendum by the Commissioner of Education during this past summer and it is on the ballet this November. You have probably received the mailer our RPC sent describing the plan, the risks and opportunities offered by consolidation.
It is the position of the RPC to present the facts to the community and to not take a position on the question as a committee, and so I am writing to you as a fellow citizen to give you my conclusions on the process and the plan. I am doing this because I believe that others in the community who are making an effort to defeat the referendum have put forth material misstatements of fact, and therefore I would like you to know how I am voting and why. In sharing that information I will attempt to clear up some of that misinformation.
Earlier this past summer I came to the conclusion that consolidation will be good for the students of Durham, Freeport and Pownal. Here’s why I have decided to vote for consolidation.
I think that the State law for consolidation was ill conceived and poorly implemented. It is very hard to get cooperation when you threaten people with penalties, and that is what the state did. I spent a long time thinking that rebellion was the answer and that in the end the state would not penalize us. However, what happened was that our group did a phenomenal job getting beyond the mandate and worked tirelessly to craft a thoughtful and fair plan. As we finalized the plan and sent it forward to the Department of Education, I started to look beyond the process of what the state had mandated to what consolidation will offer the three towns instead.
Unlike most other RPCs in the state, ours created an education sub-committee to evaluate the educational benefits of consolidation. The conclusion of this committee was that the educational benefits could be substantial at all levels. The plan would require curriculum coordination at the elementary and middle schools in order to have consistent preparation of children entering the high school. If the new consolidated school district is committed to implementation of many of the suggestions in the committee’s report, the consolidation will provide many benefits to the students.
Our consolidation plan is different than those plans for other towns around us (like Cumberland and Falmouth for example) because we have only one high school in the three towns. As a result,
There will be no competition among the towns for students since there is only one high school. Each town will treat the one school as its own, and will pour their energies into making that school the best it can be.
The excess capacity we have presently at the high school can be used to accommodate the 200-250 children (phased in over time) that will come from Durham and Pownal. You may have heard that the High School cannot handle that number of additional students. An independent study has stated that our high school can in fact accommodate more than 600 students. Projections show that our enrollment peaks at about 570 students a few years out. If we do determine in the future that we need additional space at the high school, I do not consider that a bad thing. Additional capital improvements to support a thriving population is a much more positive option than dealing with cutting programs and teams at a high school that will result from declining enrollment. Also it is possible that those costs of expansion would be funded by the state.
Student enrollment is declining in Maine. Projections provided by an independent source show our enrollment is decreasing. In 2010-11 the high school enrollment from Freeport alone is projected to be 358 students and that number is projected to be 245 by 2016-7, a decrease of about 30% over that time. Presently Pownal adds about 55-60 students to that total. I personally believe that Pownal will consolidate with another town if we vote no. Paul Schumann, Chair of the Pownal School Board, has publicly posed the question as to whether or not Freeport would be their best option with enrollment below 300 students. Their current contract is up in two years. The choice on November 4th is to consolidate and add 200 students to our high school from Durham over a five year period as well retain the 50-60 students from Pownal, thereby preserving the size needed to have comprehensive programming at the high school.
Cost Sharing is a contentious issue for many. The Governor said that consolidation and reduction of administrative costs would save Maine towns a lot of money. Maybe up North, but certainly not for Southern Maine. For DFP consolidation the administrative savings would be around $100,000 per year. The costs associated with contract negotiations between the bargaining units, called leveling up costs, could cost the consolidated schools about $250,000 per year. If you do the math, consolidation could cost us $150,000. However, unlike other communities, Freeport will be able to experience cost savings with consolidation. The key to this consolidation is once again the high school students to be gained from Pownal and Durham, particularly Durham. Currently Durham pays Brunswick $7,700 per student to send almost 200 students there. It is estimated that it would cost about $4,000 per student to educate those students at to Freeport High School. The $4,000 per student cost was developed by the Freeport Superintendent and her staff. Those monies cover additional teachers required, etc. There has been some dispute about the reasonableness of these estimates, but they were validated by both Greg L’Heureux, the Finance Director for the Town of Freeport, and by Scott Poulin, the Business Manager for the towns of Cumberland and North Yarmouth. Scott is a resident of Freeport. The result of the merger is that there will be about $666,000 of tuition (180 students X $3,700 savings per student) once paid to Brunswick that will now stay in the district.
The final piece is that amount that Freeport pays in this consolidated unit. Remember that 85% of the revenue for each budget is set by the state and that is the same for each town whether we consolidate or stand-alone. 15%, or about $3,000,000 is subject to local funding. The RPC decided to fund this 15% in the same proportional way we pay for it now. This will occur for the first three years of consolidation. After that the new district will have the authority to continue the practice or look at other options. This way no town gets a disproportionate share of the cost.
In summary, for me a viable thriving high school requires more than the 245 students projected for 2016. A thriving high school really requires many more students in order to be able to offer a variety of classes and depth on teams. I am voting for consolidation because:
· Pownal and Durham are great partners. Educational quality in those towns is at least as good as ours.
· The three towns will all support one high school, and each town will pour its energies into that school.
· Consolidation protects our system’s future in the face of statewide declining enrollments.
· The cost sharing is fair and not unduly burdensome to Freeport. We gain tremendously by having 180 new students to our system in avoided costs of out of town tuition.
· If we don’t consolidate with these towns, some one else will. Each of these two towns is highly desirable to others for the same reasons they are to us: good quality kids from towns with no high school.
· If you are worried about your per pupil high school costs with this plan, think of what they will be with a high school of 245 students.
Finally, please vote. I just wanted you to hear my thoughts as someone who has worked hard on this plan for a year and I think understands the short and long term issues. Also I would ask that you forward my thoughts to others you know in the community who are interested in this issue. Thanks.
Fred Palmer

“Improve the product, collaborate, and learn from your neighbors……. So, I will be voting ‘NO’ on this school merger plan”.
I appreciate the posts and this blog for causing us to think about the future of our home and the home of our ‘visiting extended family’ up on Main street. I point readers to the wonderful set of “smart links’ on the blog’s home page. The links on suburban/rural sprawl are very relevant to ‘the plan’ developed to spin-off from the municipality, Freeport Public Schools and its assets.
Not only does it remove levels of oversight from our school budget (2/3 of Freeport’s overall annual spending), but ‘the plan’ also encourages development sprawl.
Our state governement policies subsidize sprawl by artificially lowering the ‘real’ local tax burden of living and builidng in less developed and rural areas of the state. By taking revenue from service centers like Freeport, sending a faction back, and instead redistrbuting it to the less developed areas, it becomes more affordable and feasable to move further away from services.
Why would the RPC set up a consolidation plan that subsidizes Durham (and to a lesser extent Pownal) in realation to student head count? The Vicious Cycle: By taking money from taxpayers and the economy in Freeport (which bears the burdens of sewer, water and road infrastructure, police/fire protection budgets, high schools, libraries, etc, etc.) and sending it to other towns carrying little of that burden, we effectively make a better value to live in inland and more rural towns. It becomes harder to attract/retain new families closer to downtowns and service centers, because of home affodabilty and better deals on land.
This ‘spin-off’ plan the RPC came up with, perpetuates an already broken model Augusta beat Freeport over the head with as it pulls sales revenue out and redistributes it to other towns like Durham and Pownal (who while having higher household median incomes get ~30 and 50% of their school budgets from the Augusta). If the state were to leave just 1% of the ‘economy’ money in Freeport we could invest it into improving our schools, infrastructure, tax relief effort and take some burden off of those that live here.
In the proponents’ argument for consolidation, there is an attempt to set fears of subsidization aside by minimizing it as ‘only’ 15%. This is the part of the budget disproportionally carried by Freeport. We must all try to look past the words on the pages and project out into the future while trying to guess at the unintended consequences.
That 15% of the budget called the additional local share (~$3-4 million) is the communities’ ‘over and above’ the bare minimum the Maine Department of Education tells us it should cost to give basic education to a specified number students. The ALS for short.
What proponents fail to recognize is the ‘only 15%’ portion of the school budget grows very quickly to 20,25,35% as the schools add programs above the bare minimum. Good examples are N. Yarmouth/Cumberland, Yarmouth, Falmouth whose ALS percentage are already double the 15% of where a merged and spun off Pownal, Durham and Freeport school enterprise will start. By the RPC’s own plan one can already see predictions of much higher ALS spending levels in order to meet the full promise of their educational subcommittee plan. A subcommittee plan, by the way, which is nothing more than hopes, dreams and possibilities that could all come true without consolidation if leadership pursued it in a systematic and purposeful manner.
The RPC shouldn’t be given a pass to have it both ways. On one hand saying, ‘don’t worry Freeport you are in fact subsidizing another town, but it is relatively small’ and then promise of the ‘EDUCATIONAL SUBCOMMITTEE’ benefits that will begin growing the 15% in the direction of 30% and beyond.
This entire discussion is just one of many arguments against the direction this plan takes us. There is an entire separate path from a long-term strategic level that asks, why are we taking on an irrevocable partner town twice the size in land area with less than half the population density stretching to Auburn and ~1/7 the property valuation.
If we need students, let Durham stand, keep it’s school choice and have Freeport honestly compete on quality for those students. Are some members of the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) still saying a primary reason for trying to much so aggressivly with Durham, becuase of:‘similarities of cultural values and preservation of our small rural town?’ Hmmm……didn’t catch that on the Future Freeport Blog.
I worry that by taking the easy ‘RPC Plan’ path that and Augusta approved to ‘buy’ additional students through a merger of the three towns’ schools into an independently operating school enterprise with less oversight than now, is treating the symptom, but not the disease. For instance Yarmouth, just to our south is holding its own with half the land area, the same total valuation and close to the same populations Freeport, yet they are one of the most highly recognized systems in the country. When engaged in early talks with Freeport about merging, they said if they had to merge they would look north to Freeport and Pownal (Durham was specifically not named, because of the distance, numbers), but there was real fear we would drag down their performance and the competitiveness for students. Ultimately, they chose to sit on the sidelines for now (all the while watching their student numbers), but it was obvious they need to see more equivalence in potential partner quality.
WHY THEN is Freeport’s RPC so afraid of losing students, claiming it is irreversible?? Notice many on the RPC talk about having changing their opinion toward consolidation as they went through the process… just be wary of that the impartiality of 14 citizens, school administrators and a State of Maine, everpresent overseer might exhibit some symptoms of ‘group think’.
Improve the product, collaborate, and learn from your neighbors……. That is what I say and will be voting ‘NO’ on this plan.
Joe Migliaccio
Prepared by Scott Poulin
The Freeport, Pownal and Durham Regional Planning Committee asked me to provide an independent review of the cost sharing and financial plan for the proposed consolidated school unit. As such, I have confined the parameters of my comments to cost sharing and related financial assumptions, and not to the entire consolidation plan. My qualifications include a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and 18 years of municipal and school finance experience in Maine.
With consolidation of schools there are numerous areas of financial consideration. The most important considered in this summary are; cost sharing, distribution of debt, enrollment trends, administrative savings, salaries, penalties, and financial incentives.
In reviewing cost sharing between communities, it must first be recognized that there is only a very small additional local share that is subject to any local cost sharing arrangement between member municipalities. The State of Maine Legislature has dictated under the Essential Programs and Services funding model that a required local amount based on a uniform state mil rate, must be applied to each municipality’s State Equalized Property Valuation before any further cost sharing can occur. At this stage the majority of funds raised for education are assessed to individual communities in a cost-sharing model with the State of Maine. This is an important fact to recognize when we discuss cost sharing, since whether there is consolidation or not, municipalities will raise these Required Local Funds. In the case of a consolidated Freeport, Durham, and Pownal Regional School Unit, the Required Local Share that is subject to state cost sharing and not subject to a local cost sharing option is $13,267,008 in order to obtain $ 4,340,004 in State Subsidy. Thus, the amount of $17,607,070 is recognized as a State Share and Required Local Contribution Share, prior to any local formula. These Required Local and State amounts are taken from the State of Maine ED 279 State Subsidy reports. To reiterate; The Required Local Funds assessment is applied to the communities before any further cost sharing is subject to a local option. Thus, it makes sense that the Required Local Funds be considered static since they will be raised whether the communities consolidate or not.
Once recognized that valuation is used to calculate the Required Local share, and assess the majority of funds, the remaining amount of Additional Local Funds may then be subject to a local cost sharing option. It should be recognized that this Additional Local amount for the municipalities of $4,813,261, is reduced by allocated debt and tuition to $ 3,055,679, representing a relatively small 14.79%, of the total subject amount. The division of additional local funds has historically been assessed to member communities in School Administrative Districts by valuation, pupil count or a combination of both.
The assessment of funds by these methods has always raised the philosophical discussion of whether the measure of a community’s ability to pay is its property valuation or whether it should pay on a cost for service model based on the number of students.
The proposed model in this consolidation looks at the amount that each municipality pays now as its share of Additional Local Funds (less debt service and tuition) compared to the sum total, and applies that same percentage in the future. I caution the use of this method as it is not attached to any factors that would sustain a long term cost sharing model that recognizes changes in either student counts or valuation. It is rational that the proposed formula be applied in the short term. However, I would recommend that the plan should transition to a permanent cost sharing model tied to some measurable factors for stability in the new RSU. The plan does call for the cost sharing to be revisited by the Regional School Unit in five years. By then, the new Board will have had the opportunity to review the status of the cost sharing and operations. This review is a common practice in reorganization plans. It should be noted that Freeport carries the majority vote on the new RSU Board needed to send any cost sharing arrangement to referendum. Freeport also carries the super majority of registered voters in the proposed RSU needed to pass a revised cost-sharing plan in a referendum. While it envisioned that there would be one unified RSU Board acting for the benefit of all, my experience has led me to exercise caution when it comes to munipal cost sharing pressures and perceived inequities. Pownal and Durham should be cautioned that leaving the cost sharing up to a new RSU Board might provide an inequitable result in the future. There are currently no remedies that allow communities to separate once part of an RSU. The political reality is that until each community is part of the new RSU, they will think of themselves as separate. Over time that perception should diminish. The proposed Formula by the RPC should provide some level of confidence in the short term and recognize that each municipality’s exposure is relatively minor.
The consolidation plan assumes that debt for the high school and administrative office will be shared between the municipalities of the new RSU in the same manner and percentage as Additional Local Funds. Since neither Durham nor Pownal has a high school and the administrative office will be shared by the RSU, this sharing of cost is reasonable and advantageous to Freeport. Three communities will now share those debt costs. It is also understandable that debt voted on by constituent communities would remain there, as there was no referendum involving other communities in approval of the local share of that debt. The assets are also located in that community responsible for the debt. Future debt issued by the RSU would be subject to voter approval by combined majority at referendum. The handling of Debt Service appears sound.
Enrollments are one of the most significant driving factors in school consolidation. While Durham and Pownal have long histories in tuitioning students to various schools, that choice is diminished in the plan so that Freeport benefits by increasing its student population. Durham and Pownal benefits from a permanent high school. This is a natural reorganization that is not complicated by several high schools. The entire new RSU benefits from the savings that Durham and Pownal will not have to expend funds on tuition students. Freeport has had significant enrollment decreases and further declining projections over the next 10 years. Freeport High School with a capacity of 600 students never meets its capacity when consolidated and hence, has room for additional students without adding fixed plant cost. As enrollments decrease, so will state subsidy and a significant spike in cost per pupil for Freeport High School. I would also suggest there is a point at which it could become impractical to operate a competitive high school. With 300 or fewer students that becomes reality. Durham is the only town contiguous to Freeport’s border with increasing enrollments. Brunswick and Yarmouth have decreasing enrollments. In the proposed consolidation Freeport would benefit from this increasing Durham student enrollment. The cost of adding students to the high school is incremental. While Pownal is already attending the Freeport High School, Durham students would sprinkle incrementally across a schedule with little effect on cost. Fixed plant and operating costs would be divided over a larger number of students and municipalities. The result, even if there were some modest staffing added for core classes, would be a decrease in per pupil spending. Since there is the same amount of operating cost and plant cost, the incremental cost of $4000 per student is therefore reasonable. There are economies of scale by adding to those classes that have space available. Much as costs are not reduced on a per pupil basis, they should not be increased on a per pupil basis. It is simply a numerator and denominator calculation of cost.
Administrative savings are necessary in order to meet the requirements of the consolidation plan. There simply is not an excess of administrative overhead in Durham, Pownal, and Freeport. Especially in light of the fact that some town payroll and accounting functions provided to the schools in Freeport will need to become part of the RSU, and a system of this size may very well benefit from a Curriculum Coordinator. Administrative savings are modest and projected at a reasonable $100,000 per year. Over a five-year period $500,000 could be reallocated to direct instruction.
Different school systems have separate collective bargaining agreements for staff salaries and benefits. The largest of these, just by the nature of schools, is teacher salaries and benefits. In school systems that have consolidated, this is a real cost, as staff will seek the higher pay scale when they become one bargaining unit in a new RSU. $250,000 appears to be an accounted for” leveling up” cost. While it is suggested that these cost could be mitigated over several years and master contract negotiations, all staff in the new RSU will eventually want to be on the same pay scale.
While many of us have not particularly liked the forced hand of the consolidation process, it is a statutory requirement and the penalties are real. In order to avoid these penalties the communities of Freeport, Pownal and Durham will need a positive vote at referendum. The penalty for not consolidating is $468,635. This is cumulative year after year. Over five years these penalties will total a minimum of $2,343,175. Penalties are calculated by removing ½ of the Administrative Allocation from the State Subsidy and are further exacerbated by each municipality being required to raise 2% more in its mil rate on the Required Local Share with the State. Rather than 6.55 mils of State equalized property value the penalty will be 6.68 mils. These penalties appear very significant when aligned to each comprising municipal mil rate. The penalties compound and increase over time as each municipality’s property valuation rises.
What is often missed is the financial incentive for those who comply with consolidation. There is a tendency to focus simply on the penalty. What is overlooked is that the legislature required that the penalty money be redirected from those who did not consolidate and be put back into General Purpose Aid. The State does will not get those funds. Conservatively, the Department of Education estimates that $20 million would be redistributed in GPA. In the case of Pownal, Freeport and Durham as a consolidated unit, the financial advantage is lower .2 mils at 6.35 instead of 6.55 mils of state equalized property value on the Required Local Cost sharing. The lower the mil rate a community has to raise as its Required Local Share with the state, the more subsidy provided as the state share. With a combined state equalized property valuation of $1,783,200,000, and Freeport remaining above a minimum receiver of state subsidy, I would estimate that the additional state subsidy to this RSU would be more than $356,640 a year. Over a five-year period, this RSU would gain more than $1,783,200 in State subsidy through this redistribution of GPA.
I will summarize by indicating that I have reviewed the above major cost implications of consolidation for Freeport, Durham and Pownal. It is my professional opinion that the plan developed by the Regional Planning Committee for the proposed consolidated unit captures the relevant points, has reasonable cost assumptions, and makes sound financial sense to lead these three communities forward towards long term sustainability
Peter Thanks for opening this up for discussion.
This plan has been forced by the state and driven by fear of penalties. There are great possibilities to work with Pownal and Durham and they can be good partners for Freeport. I hope we will vote this current plan down and reconvene to work out a better solution that honors education first!
I think that the funding of this plan is not equitable and I also think there are many questionable assumptions regarding budgets, number of projected students and capital requirements of the a future high school.
The communication of this plan has been very limited. Fred Palmer wrote a very good letter as to why he feels it is a good plan and this was the first thing I was able to read from those supporting the plan. A question was asked of the RSU if it were not for penalties would you still support this plan and i think the answer was a split. This plan was voted down by the town council until it was re-voted in. Why did they get a re vote? if I do not like the out come Tuesday can we get a re-vote?
This plan had to be resubmitted to the state a few times to show financial savings and even thought there are none it was finally accepted by Gendron and the department of education.
there are many kids who leave our system and we should work to fix this and more openness and less threats!
OUr school system can be better and this should be the first concern not an afterthought to a plan with no $’s set aside to fund new planning.
Gary Small
Randall road
S. Freeport
Consolidation Concern
First, along with the Freeport community, I appreciate the exhaustive work of the Reorganization Planning Committee over the past two years to develop a plan that will meet the expectations of the Maine Consolidation Law.
My concerns with the Freeport consolidation proposal are based upon different premises about quality education than those of the Baldacci/Gendron plan and thus on different premises than the Regional Planning Committee was required to consider.
The Baldacci/Gendron plan demands that localities throughout Maine will consolidate into districts of 2500 students or more. This equates to 200 students per grade level and consequently high school enrollments of 800 students.
My experience in education is that SMALLER IS ALWAYS BETTER. A precondition for effective education is, I believe, that each student be known, be taught as an individual and be personally supported in school.
A high school of 500 to 800 is frankly too large for each student to be known and supported. What repeatedly happens in high schools of 500 or more is that the school focuses its greatest energies on the top students and on struggling students. “Average students” then often become “unspecial” and fail to receive the high quality curriculum and instruction which average students deserve and can handle.
Another unexamined assumption of the Baldacci/Gendron plan appears to be that enrollments of 500 or more are needed for high schools to offer “comprehensive” college preparatory courses.
When I began in 1996 as high school principal in Freeport, enrollment was 325. When I retired in 2006, FHS enrolled 470 students, an increase of 145 students (45%).
Freeport High School’s program was satisfactorily “comprehensive” at 325 (offering Advanced Placement English and Calculus, advanced Science classes and four years of French, Spanish and Latin). The High School program did not change in any major way as enrollment reached 470. Competitive colleges then and now recognize Freeport’s quality education and have awarded Freeport graduates an enviable admissions record.
For me Freeport High was a laudably personal school for its students with an enrollment of 325. Many students knew (and had studied with) the majority of the school’s teachers. While relationships between teachers and students remained a strength of the school, personalizing relationships became more challenging as enrollment approached 470. The RPC plan projects that Freeport High School will enroll 570 students in five years and perhaps more thereafter.
My concern focuses on the quality of the learning experiences which each child deserves and needs. We know that smaller schools are better for students. Why are we then fatefully drawn to create schools that are just too big?
Tom Edwards
tedwards@usm.maine.edu
865-3642 (h)
I think our students and citizens will be better served with more of a collaborative plan, similar to what our SC was pursing prior to the law. Now we will call it an AOS. To the best of my knowledge, more than likely the law will be “adjusted”, yet again. I emphathize with the RPC members, you worked so hard and I can tell that some of you really believe in the work that you have done, but I just don’t think it is wise to lock ourselves into this reorganization plan. It is not the best that we can do with this law. We have to think of the future. Especially those of us who have just started our children in the school system; this is something we are going to have to deal with for years to come. We should not be so gallant with such a MAJOR decision. PLEASE VOTE NO.
[...] Voters in Freeport, Durham, and Pownal voted to merge their three school administrations into one [read pre-election commentary on Future Freeport]; [...]
I thought it was interesting that voters passed consolidation plans all over the state by fairly overwhelming numbers. The only exception seems to have been in Falmouth, which spurned Cumberland and N. Yarmouth by a nearly 2-to-1 margin.
But in other news, what’s going on with the Freeport train station planning? I read an item in the Forecaster a while ago, but would like to hear from Future Freeport and its commenters. It looks like a “green infrastructure” stimulus might move the Downeaster expansion forward on an accelerated schedule.
My school is in a very similar situation, and while it may suprise you, has anyone ask the students what they’d like to see occur?? This is a big issue in our community and we are finding that most of the student body is opposed to the consolidation between to very nearby schools, with a huge rivalry. They actually looked past the fact that they didn’t like many of the students at the other school {or vise-versa} and saw what their community and school needed was to remain independent. They saw that very few new classes were going to be added onto the cirriculum, and that the new budget wasn’t sufficent for their needs. So, every class president went to all of the board meetings and discussed personally with the board members on what their fellow classmantes want. After all they are the ones who have to cope with your decision.
I think so many of us are still trying to figure out what is truly in the best interest of our children and the future of the Freeport School System. It is difficult to know what to believe? If I vote in favor of the current consolidation plan I would be doing it out of fear, the fear of not having enough students to offer enriching programs and classes when my son enters highschool in 4 years and the fear of penalties from the state. I would rather not vote in fear but vote to keep the educational momentum going, moving forward with Pownal and Durham on our terms, not someone else’s.
As the Freeport, Pownal, Durham RPC members have made clear, there are little to no savings under the current plan. These RPC members have worked tirelessly for the past year, and have put together the best plan they could within the parameters and the time constraints they were given, I appreciate all of their hard work. The RPC has been given inaccurate, constantly changing information from the state and in return have been assigned to make monumental decisions that could change our educational system forever. I think it is time to send the state a message, we will become a consolidated school district if and when it moves us in the direction of educational progress, not because we have been threatened by penalties.
In conclusion, I suggest that we do the following: Work hard to attract the 100+ students living in our town that have chosen private schools instead of our own school system. Find out why they have left or have chosen to go elsewhere and work hard to get them back! We have seen that through adding all day Kindergarten and committing to Everyday Math we have attracted new students already. Next, work with the town council on ways to attract new, young families to Freeport, we have so much to offer but we don’t do a very good job selling our town or our school system. Continue collaboration with Pownal and Durham and maybe even Yarmouth to add programming, athletic teams, and other areas highlighted by the Education Subcommittee.
It is time to take a risk, one that will involve a great deal of participation and determination from all of us. I have finally figured out that voting NO is not a vote against Durham and Pownal or voting against the hard work that the RPC has done, it is a vote to move forward creatively and deliberately and with a plan that will support the future of Freeport’s educational system for years to come.
Julie Coleman