SCHOOL NEWS FOLLOW-UP (TIDBITS AND DATA)

There will be a special meeting at the Eddington Town Office tomorrow night (the 24th) at 6pm between the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton (and possibly John Butts, Holden Town Manager and Eddington resident). The meeting is to discuss the second parcel of land at the Holden School that may be deeded to the Town of Holden from the SAD 63 School Board. The meeting was arranged between the Selectmen because they don't agree with School Board Chairman, Don Varnum, that the wording on the Release Deed can (or should) be worked out as part of the regular agenda at the School Board's November 30 meeting. It is this writer's hope that the Selectmen will reconsider the entire position of deeding the second parcel at this time.

SAD 63 will (hopefully) be sitting down soon with four potential partners for school consolidation: Dedham, Orrington, CSD 8 (Airline) and Otis. Team Eddington has already been named: (Therese Anderson, School Board rep; Ralph Russell, representing the Eddington Board of Selectmen; and this writer as the Eddington citizen representative). Team Clifton is expected to be completed by Tuesday night. Currently that team is: Chris Fickett, School Board rep; Penny Peasley, representing the Clifton Board of Selectmen; and the citizen representative is expected to be finalized by Tuesday).

This writer has been informed that the Town of Otis owns the building in which Otis students attend and Orrington students are still going to school in some temporary buildings. We know that the Eddington school needed to transfer some students to the Holden school this year because of over-crowding. At this point this writer doesn't know the capacity status of the schools in Dedham or Airline; however, if there is any population growth in future years in any of the proposed RSU K-8 schools, there may be a need to expand.

It's always easier to give land away than it is to get it back. If SAD 63 needs to agree to do more maintenance that it already does to the Nature Trails on the land at the Holden School, so be it.

When one sees how much money the voters/taxpayers have spent in (and at the direction and mandate of) the Town of Holden for the paving of the second parking lot at the Holden School and for the former Maintenance Garage, Eddington and Clifton taxpayers may want to re-think how much more we should be "giving" and "trusting" re: this latest land transfer deal.

For instance - let's look at the former Maintenance Garage "deal."

The intent of that agreement (with the Town of Holden) was to share a with Holden so SAD 63 school buses would have a place for storage and maintenance with the Holden's fire and fleet vehicles. EXCEPT that Holden decided that SAD 63 should pay for that portion of the garage used to house the SAD 63 buses. (Seems fair.) Consequently, SAD 63 needed to sign a 10-year lease with Holden to cover the cost of paying for the SAD 63 portion of the garage. And so it was done. HOWEVER, once the 10 years was up, and the cost of construction completed, Holden reportedly came back to the SAD 63 Board (according to this writer's source) and wanted another lease - because there was the ongoing cost of operating the SAD 63 portion of the maintenance garage (electricity, etc.) (Again, seems fair.)

EXCEPT - the amount of the new annual lease was the cost of the original amount (the annual amount paid during the construction of the garage) plus the new annual operating costs. Pretty good deal for Holden - not so good a deal for the Eddington & Clifton taxpayers.

And then there was this past year's parking lot paving project - that came in closer to $100,000. than $40,000. (because of a written order and time deadline from the Town of Holden.) Of course the Town of Holden expects to share the use of the school's parking lot - associated with the ball field. (In exchange, the Town of Holden offers the use of its parking lot when it might be needed, which doesn't appear to be as likely as the Town's use of the school's newly paved parking lot. However, the school parking lot paving was paid for by tax dollars collected via property taxes from Eddington and Clifton taxpayers as well as those from Holden. When was the last time the taxpayers in Clifton or Eddington benefited like that in their towns?). Seems like the Town of Holden has, once again, benefited from the Eddington & Clifton taxpayer dollars.

So back to the question raised months ago. WHY is the Town of Holden so anxious to have the land at the Holden school transferred now that there is no question of consolidation with Brewer - and therefore no question of a Brewer influence trying to shut down any of the SAD 63 schools to fill up the new Brewer elementary school? One wonders if the old switcher-oos we have seen and experienced in the past are not once again in the making, especially since Chairman Varnum, from Holden, has been so quick to overlook (and conveniently forget) agreements to work with the Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton in the matter of these parcels of land.

As the potential partners meet to form an RSU (if we can ever get Chairman Varnum to set a date, time and place for the initial meeting), the most essential element all the potential partners will need to have throughout the process will be Trust in the good and honorable intentions of everyone from every team. Fortunately, Kevin Mills will be the School Board rep from the Town of Holden.

Until such time as there is an approved RSU plan, this writer urges the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton to wait on any approval to transfer the second parcel of land at the Holden school. (Besides, wait until you see how much larger the second parcel is now compared to the originally drawn map when the first parcel was being approved for transfer - and the ball field was decided to hold as part of the school property....)

*****

Follow-up to the Posting re: Maine Education:

In 1992, Maine public education spending per pupil was approximately $5,400.00 per year. In 2007 that public education spending per pupil was $11,387. The inflation rate during that same period of time was 46%; however, the increase in spending per pupil in Maine increased 113%.

During that same period (1992 - 2007) the U.S. average spending increased from $5,000. per pupil to $9,666. So the data shows that Maine is clearly outspending the national average

How Many Maine Resident children were enrolled in Maine Elementary and Secondary Public Schools between 1995 - 2008?

In 1995 there were approximately 217,000 resident children enrolled in Maine public elementary and secondary schools. By 2007, that figure was approximately 197,000. By 2008, the figure was down to less than 195,000.

The Pupil/Teacher Ratio between 1988-2006 has fallen from 14.5:1 in 1988 to 11.5:1 in 2006. This means that the average class size in 1988 was 14.5 per teacher in 1988 whereas the class size had reduced to an average class size of 11.5 per teacher in 2006. This is in Maine.
(The Source of all of the above data is: U.S. Census, Maine Heritage Policy Center)

So - since the pupil enrollment over the last 15-17 years in Maine has decreased and the class size per teacher has become smaller and the cost per pupil has increased significantly above the cost of inflation one would expect Maine's public school pupils would test very well. WRONG.

From 2005 through 2000, our pupils' MEA scores progressively lowered from 2000 to 2005 in Reading going from just above 540 to approximately 538. In Writing the MEA scores went up briefly in 2001 to approximately 538 and then level off at approximately 536. In Math, the scores were consistently low - never scoring above 529. In Science the scores in 2001 were the high point at approximately 532. Every other year was close to 528 at best. With top possible scores being 550, these scores were abominable. (Source: Maine Dept. of Education)

So the test used was changed to the SAT in 2006. In the SAT, the lowest score in a 480. Top score is a 520. Test scores for 11th graders in Maine from 2006 to 2009 were as follows:

Reading: 2006: 550; 2007-510; 2008-510; 2009-505
Math: 2006: 518; 2007-515; 2008-515; 2009-515
Writing: 2006: 496: 2007-494; 2008-494; 2009-493

(Source: College Board, Maine Heritage Policy Center - approximate reading of graphs by this writer provided by Maine Heritage Policy Center)

QUESTIONS: If Mainers are spending more per pupil in recent years AND having smaller classes per teacher, WHY are students testing so poorly? Low scores indicate pupils are not learning. We need to ask why? It's more that what are we getting for the dollars being spent. It has to do with the future of our children and the future of our state - our country.