Maine Policy Review Volume 21 | Issue 2 2012 School District Reorganization in Maine: Lessons Learned for Policy and Process Janet C. Fairman University of Maine, [email protected] Christine Donis-Keller Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr Part of the Education Policy Commons Recommended Citation Fairman, Janet C. , and Christine Donis-Keller. "School District Reorganization in Maine: Lessons Learned for Policy and Process." Maine Policy Review 21.2 (2012) : 24 -40, https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/vol21/iss2/6. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION School District Reorganization In 2007, Maine’s legislature enacted a law mandat- ing school district consolidation with the goal of reduc- in Maine: ing the state’s 290 districts to approximately 80. Five Lessons Learned for years later the success of this policy is open to debate. Policy and Process Janet Fairman and Christine Donis-Keller examine by Janet Fairman what worked and what didn’t work in this effort to Christine Donis-Keller consolidate school districts and provide a list of “lessons learned,” with clear implications for the design and implementation of state educational policy. 24 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012 View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/ MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION The “lessons aine embarked on a bold education policy initia- demand for tax relief, and flat Mtive in 2007 when Governor Baldacci proposed trends in student academic learned” from and the legislature enacted a law mandating school performance. At the same district consolidation with the goal of reducing the time, numerous studies and Maine’s experi- state’s 290 districts to approximately 80 (Maine State reports recommended increased Legislature 2007). This was the first major effort to efficiency in the delivery of ence ... have clear consolidate school districts since the Sinclair Act of Maine’s K-12 education, both 1957 (Maine State Legislature 1957). Five years later, for the purpose of directing implications for the success of this policy is still open to debate. While a larger portion of funding the total number of school districts did decline from to classroom instruction as the design and 290 units in 2007–08 to 164 in 2011–12, many school opposed to administration districts were not required to reorganize, and several and to increase coherence in implementation that reluctantly consolidated to avoid fiscal penalties educational goals, learning now seek to separate from their regional partnerships opportunity, and quality across of state education (e.g., Gagnon 2012; Moretto 2012; Steeves 2012). the state (e.g., The Brookings Substantial revision of the law each year, a delay in Institution 2006; Children’s policy and the hard, enforcing the penalties until 2010–11, and the elimina- Alliance 2006; Donaldson tion of the fiscal penalties for 2012–13 diminished the 2006). But the problem of how messy work of authority of the policy and returned Maine to a system to coax districts to consolidate of voluntary consolidation and regional collaboration. remained. reorganizing school This paper focuses on the implementation of Historically, communities Maine’s reorganization policy from 2007 to 2009. in Maine have vehemently districts…. We discuss what worked and what didn’t work in the defended the notion of “local state’s most recent effort to consolidate school districts. control” in governance and Research findings on the fiscal and educational impacts education. While the Sinclair of the policy will be reported separately. The “lessons Act of 1957 enticed some learned” from Maine’s experience provide insights for districts to voluntarily consolidate through fiscal incen- state and local education leaders and have clear impli- tives (Donaldson 2007), the overall trend was steady cations for the design and implementation of state growth in the number of districts, superintendents, and education policy and the hard, messy work of reorga- amount of educational spending. From 1950 to 2000, nizing school districts at the local level. the number of districts increased by 68 percent, the number of superintendents increased by 33 percent, THE POLICY CONTEXT and K-12 spending per pupil increased by 461 percent (excluding transportation, construction, and debt he school district reorganization law of 2007 service and without adjustment for inflation) Temerged from a context of declining state fiscal (Donaldson 2006). resources and increasing education costs. During The 2007 district reorganization law outlined two his first year in office in 2004, Governor Baldacci broad goals: (1) to improve educational opportunities pursued reform through a task force and legisla- and equity for Maine students; and (2) to reduce the tion that proposed regionalization and collaboration cost of providing education and to increase efficiency in with incentives (Task Force on Increasing Efficiency education delivery (Maine State Legislature 2007). To and Equity 2004). However, the bill was defeated achieve these goals, the law required districts with fewer in the legislature. Several factors then converged to than 2,500 students to join with other districts and open what Kingdon (2002) has termed a “policy outlined a process for communities to select partners window” of opportunity, including severe state fiscal through regional planning committees. Larger districts, constraints, a decline in K-12 enrollment, public high-performing districts, and isolated districts were View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/ Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 25 MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION allowed to stand alone, but were asked to improve their reducing the total number of school districts, and also administrative structure and efficiency. had the positive effect of engaging communities in The law departed from earlier efforts to consolidate serious conversation to explore or expand collaboration districts in that it mandated consolidation, set a strict and improvement of K-12 education. timeline, and imposed substantial fiscal fines for noncompliance. Yet, the law did include some financial RESEARCH METHODS supports to help defray regional planning and start- up costs, and provided facilitators to guide districts espite the flurry of school district consolidation through the process of developing a reorganization Defforts across the country, empirical research plan. With the exception of the financial supports, remains limited. A few studies have examined the other aspects of this policy approach are markedly fiscal aspects of consolidation (Cox and Cox 2010; different from the way other states have pursued Duncombe and Yinger 2012), equity (Berry 2007), consolidation (e.g., Plucker et al. 2007; Spradlin et al. educational impacts (Berry and West 2010; Johnson 2010). Other states have typically encouraged volun- 2006), and the process of reorganization (Nybladh tary consolidation through fiscal incentives or a combi- 1999; Ward and Rink 1992). We developed a study to nation of fiscal incentives and disincentives, such as address gaps in the research literature and to examine reduced subsidy for small schools or more favorable this phenomenon in a more comprehensive way, subsidy or priority for construction of larger, regional looking at how the process of reorganization unfolds schools. Other states have often focused on school along with the impacts of district consolidation. consolidation rather than district consolidation. The findings reported here are drawn from a larger, multiyear investigation of consolidation of Maine school districts conducted by research teams …the policy and the process of from the University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine. In 2007–08, the University of Maine deliberation at the local level were studied a sample of 29 districts (school administrative units) engaged in five regional planning groups for successful in reducing the total consolidation using a case-study approach. We collected the data through confidential interviews, a number of school districts, and also survey of regional planning committee members, observation of meetings, and collection of documents had the positive effect of engaging from state and local levels. We analyzed the data both within cases and across cases, identifying recurring communities in serious conversation themes and patterns. Our research followed these five regional planning groups as they struggled to under- to explore or expand collaboration stand the requirements of the 2007 reorganization law, select partners, and form a reorganization plan and improvement of K-12 education. (Fairman et al. 2008). In 2008, the University of Maine partnered with the University of Southern Maine to follow the The decision to approach district reorganization reorganization progress for an expanded sample that in Maine through a mandated policy, rapid timeline, included a total of 98 districts (school administrative and fiscal penalties had some negative consequences units) attempting to form 15 regional planning groups. both for the survival of the policy itself and for Cases were selected to reflect variation in district size, outcomes of the policy. Yet, the policy and the process governance structures, geographic location, and other of deliberation at the local level were successful in variables,