For all those that missed the Spooktacular Event at the Clewley Farm Restaurant... here is a video, compliments of the video-tographer Pat... and "the clapper" Yvon!!! (They have a great support team helping make the restaurant the "place to be" on weekends!)
DON"T MISS OUT CHRISTMAS EVENT, DECEMBER 20TH- SUNDAY AT THE CLEWLEY FARM RESTAURANT! THE SHOW WILL INCLUDE:
DOLA & COMPANY
THE FAHEY SISTER'S
ALISON AIMES
....AND MORE!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3TfCjO2BzE
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
MONDAY NIGHT WITH BE SCHOOL BOARD TIME - SHOULD BE INTERESTING
Holbrook Middle School at 6:30pm, November 30th will be the time and place for this month's school board meeting. Based on the contents of the Board members packets (in preparation for the meeting) there may be some surprises in store and maybe some fireworks - if any of the Board members will stand up and ask for an accounting from the Chair and the Interim Superintendent.
Seems Mr. Hart is doing his best these days to undermine the efforts of the legal team working on the lawsuit. And the Board Chair seems to prefer to eliminate as much input from the communities as possible. Of course the Chair has avoided having any kind of RSU committee appointed or working on a plan from as far back as last June. Additionally, we've known for a long time Mr. Hart's position has been there would be no local boards/councils or committees regardless of how the people in the communities feel.
Perhaps Eddington and Clifton should look at what Otis is planning on doing - forming an AOS - an Alternative Organized Structure. Might be a good thing for CSD 8 (Airline), too. Might make more sense than what Hart and Varnum are trying to force-feed those of us who are over paying through the tax nose. After all, Eddington already owns the Eddington Elementary School and could handle Eddington and Clifton elementary students. And our two towns own at least half, maybe two-thirds, of the Holbrook Middle School. Wonder why an AOS has never been been presented as an option to our townspeople? I'm told even Kevin Mills, school board rep from Holden who was on the RPC last time, wanted to at least look at that option.
An AOS, as I understand it, just centralizes the central office functions - the superintendent, the business office, operations and maintenance, etc. BUT each town or school district remains as it currently is - with its own budget and schools and school board. That way there is local control over the local schools. That is what most of our communities have wanted all along.
Since the state hasn't paid its portion of the school-year bill as it is (not for the past three years - maybe more) and isn't paying even the new RSUs the portion that was promised, what guarantee or benefit is there in forming an RSU for us? We give up local control and still end up paying the bill. Such a deal.
But for the smaller towns like Clifton, CSD 8 (which is comprised of four small towns), and Eddington - with what would be the lowest portion of students in the proposed RSU and the lower property valuations, there would be a higher ratio of money going toward the total RSU than if we were an AOS. The really bill tax bill would be created by the population and high valuation caused by the larger towns (like Holden and Orrington).
I don't know where Dedham's mindset in this situation but it would seem that the financial impact would not be as beneficial to them to be in an RSU as to be in an AOS.
As was explained to me by a person in Otis, towns that do not have a school - or own a school - still get to educate their students by "tuitioning" their students to those communities that do provide the schools. Some Dedham students already attend Holden and are provided transportation by SAD 63. And SAD 63 students attend high school via the "tuition" process. Seems to this writer those are just another form of the AOS concept.
Do Eddington and Clifton need Holden? Eddington has an elementary school. If we partnered with Otis, Clifton students might be able to attend either Eddington or Otis. Eddington and Clifton own enough of Holbrook to negotiate a no-cost tuition there for our students and a small cuition for Otis students. We already tuition our students into a high school. So why aren't we talking about forming an AOS with Otis. Maybe CSD 8 would like to join.
How many more people are tired of being hog-tied by the current Board Chair and Interim Superintendent who are consistently working against Eddington and Clifton? And who speaks up and says "enough is enough"? Maybe it is time.
At the moment, taxpayers in SAD 63 are paying more per student within the pre-K through grades 8 in the SAD 63 programs than the cost of tuition to any of the three high schools. When we consider that all of the bills do get paid by the end of the school year, even though the state claims a shortfall for most of the last half of the year (this year the shortfall is expected to be $340,000. or more), there can only be one way the SAD 63 schools stay open and everyone gets paid...the portion of the school budget we are being charged locally must have been significantly inflated. (And even that left over $117,000. to pave that second parking lot at the Holden School last year...)
Let Holden form an RSU with Orrington and Dedham. Maybe CSD 8 will want to re-think its position. After all, how much influence will any of its four towns have on the large RSU Board with Orrington, Dedham and Holden if there are no local councils? Something to think about?
And what started this line of thinking? A particular meeting November 17 where the Chairs of those school boards (SAD 63 included) met to consider eliminating the citizen representative in any Regional Planning Committee for the forthcoming RSU - and where they told Otis they should join the RSU with Ellsworth (even though the voters in Otis have voted TWICE not to do so, because Otis intends to form an AOS.) The Town of Otis may be the smartest of us all.
People should read the public documents being written and presented by the various members of the SAD 63 school board. And you trust these people to look out for your best interests and those of your communities? You should attend more of the school board meetings and watch them in action. As I said, Monday night may be interesting.
Seems Mr. Hart is doing his best these days to undermine the efforts of the legal team working on the lawsuit. And the Board Chair seems to prefer to eliminate as much input from the communities as possible. Of course the Chair has avoided having any kind of RSU committee appointed or working on a plan from as far back as last June. Additionally, we've known for a long time Mr. Hart's position has been there would be no local boards/councils or committees regardless of how the people in the communities feel.
Perhaps Eddington and Clifton should look at what Otis is planning on doing - forming an AOS - an Alternative Organized Structure. Might be a good thing for CSD 8 (Airline), too. Might make more sense than what Hart and Varnum are trying to force-feed those of us who are over paying through the tax nose. After all, Eddington already owns the Eddington Elementary School and could handle Eddington and Clifton elementary students. And our two towns own at least half, maybe two-thirds, of the Holbrook Middle School. Wonder why an AOS has never been been presented as an option to our townspeople? I'm told even Kevin Mills, school board rep from Holden who was on the RPC last time, wanted to at least look at that option.
An AOS, as I understand it, just centralizes the central office functions - the superintendent, the business office, operations and maintenance, etc. BUT each town or school district remains as it currently is - with its own budget and schools and school board. That way there is local control over the local schools. That is what most of our communities have wanted all along.
Since the state hasn't paid its portion of the school-year bill as it is (not for the past three years - maybe more) and isn't paying even the new RSUs the portion that was promised, what guarantee or benefit is there in forming an RSU for us? We give up local control and still end up paying the bill. Such a deal.
But for the smaller towns like Clifton, CSD 8 (which is comprised of four small towns), and Eddington - with what would be the lowest portion of students in the proposed RSU and the lower property valuations, there would be a higher ratio of money going toward the total RSU than if we were an AOS. The really bill tax bill would be created by the population and high valuation caused by the larger towns (like Holden and Orrington).
I don't know where Dedham's mindset in this situation but it would seem that the financial impact would not be as beneficial to them to be in an RSU as to be in an AOS.
As was explained to me by a person in Otis, towns that do not have a school - or own a school - still get to educate their students by "tuitioning" their students to those communities that do provide the schools. Some Dedham students already attend Holden and are provided transportation by SAD 63. And SAD 63 students attend high school via the "tuition" process. Seems to this writer those are just another form of the AOS concept.
Do Eddington and Clifton need Holden? Eddington has an elementary school. If we partnered with Otis, Clifton students might be able to attend either Eddington or Otis. Eddington and Clifton own enough of Holbrook to negotiate a no-cost tuition there for our students and a small cuition for Otis students. We already tuition our students into a high school. So why aren't we talking about forming an AOS with Otis. Maybe CSD 8 would like to join.
How many more people are tired of being hog-tied by the current Board Chair and Interim Superintendent who are consistently working against Eddington and Clifton? And who speaks up and says "enough is enough"? Maybe it is time.
At the moment, taxpayers in SAD 63 are paying more per student within the pre-K through grades 8 in the SAD 63 programs than the cost of tuition to any of the three high schools. When we consider that all of the bills do get paid by the end of the school year, even though the state claims a shortfall for most of the last half of the year (this year the shortfall is expected to be $340,000. or more), there can only be one way the SAD 63 schools stay open and everyone gets paid...the portion of the school budget we are being charged locally must have been significantly inflated. (And even that left over $117,000. to pave that second parking lot at the Holden School last year...)
Let Holden form an RSU with Orrington and Dedham. Maybe CSD 8 will want to re-think its position. After all, how much influence will any of its four towns have on the large RSU Board with Orrington, Dedham and Holden if there are no local councils? Something to think about?
And what started this line of thinking? A particular meeting November 17 where the Chairs of those school boards (SAD 63 included) met to consider eliminating the citizen representative in any Regional Planning Committee for the forthcoming RSU - and where they told Otis they should join the RSU with Ellsworth (even though the voters in Otis have voted TWICE not to do so, because Otis intends to form an AOS.) The Town of Otis may be the smartest of us all.
People should read the public documents being written and presented by the various members of the SAD 63 school board. And you trust these people to look out for your best interests and those of your communities? You should attend more of the school board meetings and watch them in action. As I said, Monday night may be interesting.
MORE RE: THE COMMISSIONER'S HEARING
I stand corrected. In the previous positing this writer said the fact that the Commissioner has now scheduled the long sought hearing (re: the SAD 63 Board's termination of the former superintendent) would appear to make a decision from the Maine Supreme Court moot.
First, I meant any court order to the Commissioner to hold the hearing would appear to have been done - or at least scheduled - by the time of the Court's decision, and thereby making it (the court order) moot. But that may not necessarily be a true, or at least a complete statement. A source close to the case points out that "It would be the conduct of the hearing that could moot the law court appeal, not merely scheduling it, and even then it might not be moot under court doctrines that call for cases of importance to be decided, sometimes even when the immediate issue appears to have been resolved by the passage of time or subsequent events. Therefore the District certainly should not be stating the appeal is moot, as it is not yet moot and may never be moot."
This writer appreciates the information provided and the clarification. The correction is noted.
First, I meant any court order to the Commissioner to hold the hearing would appear to have been done - or at least scheduled - by the time of the Court's decision, and thereby making it (the court order) moot. But that may not necessarily be a true, or at least a complete statement. A source close to the case points out that "It would be the conduct of the hearing that could moot the law court appeal, not merely scheduling it, and even then it might not be moot under court doctrines that call for cases of importance to be decided, sometimes even when the immediate issue appears to have been resolved by the passage of time or subsequent events. Therefore the District certainly should not be stating the appeal is moot, as it is not yet moot and may never be moot."
This writer appreciates the information provided and the clarification. The correction is noted.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION SCHEDULES HEARING RE: TERMINATION OF FORMER SAD 63 SUPERINTENDENT
Maine Commissioner of Education, Susan Gendron, has announced she will conduct an official hearing regarding the termination of former SAD 63 school superintendent Louise Regan. Pursuant to the governing statute, 20-A, M.R.S.A. (section 1052 subsection 3), the hearing will be limited to the following issues:
Was the termination
A. For cause;
B. After due notice and investigation; and
C. By a majority vote of the full membership of the school board.
No other issues will be considered.
A prehearing conference will be conducted via telephone on December 15 with certain guidelines and restrictions as have been defined by the Commissioner. At the culmination of the prehearing conference, the Commissioner will make whatever rulings she feels she can at that time.
At the end of the prehearing conference, any issues she believes are unresolved will be set for an evidentiary hearing at the Department of Education in Augusta on December 21st and 22nd. Certain guidelines have been set by the Commissioner for the evidentiary hearing should it be required.
The communication from the Commissioner regarding this hearing was delivered prior to any decision by the Maine Supreme Court which appears to make such a decision moot.
Was the termination
A. For cause;
B. After due notice and investigation; and
C. By a majority vote of the full membership of the school board.
No other issues will be considered.
A prehearing conference will be conducted via telephone on December 15 with certain guidelines and restrictions as have been defined by the Commissioner. At the culmination of the prehearing conference, the Commissioner will make whatever rulings she feels she can at that time.
At the end of the prehearing conference, any issues she believes are unresolved will be set for an evidentiary hearing at the Department of Education in Augusta on December 21st and 22nd. Certain guidelines have been set by the Commissioner for the evidentiary hearing should it be required.
The communication from the Commissioner regarding this hearing was delivered prior to any decision by the Maine Supreme Court which appears to make such a decision moot.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
TEAM CLIFTON NAMED TO RPC
Team Clifton has been finalized for the Regional Planning Committee (RPC) - to work on the proposed Regional School Unit (RSC).
Members are: Chris Fickett, School Board Representative; Penny Peasley, Clifton Board of Selectmen Representative; and Ed Rosenberg, Town Citizen Representative.
Town Eddington was named at last Tuesday's Selectmen's meeting (and posted on an earlier blog).
The next SAD 63 School Board meeting will be Monday, November 30th at the Holbrook Middle School - at 6:30pm. As of this date, the Town Managers in Eddington and Clifton have not been advised by SAD 63 Board Chairman of any proposed first meeting (date, time or place) of the RPC. If Chairman Varnum has not scheduled the first RPC meeting by that time, Teams Eddington and Clifton have decided to initiate communications with the other proposed partners and set the meeting's date, time and place.
Members are: Chris Fickett, School Board Representative; Penny Peasley, Clifton Board of Selectmen Representative; and Ed Rosenberg, Town Citizen Representative.
Town Eddington was named at last Tuesday's Selectmen's meeting (and posted on an earlier blog).
The next SAD 63 School Board meeting will be Monday, November 30th at the Holbrook Middle School - at 6:30pm. As of this date, the Town Managers in Eddington and Clifton have not been advised by SAD 63 Board Chairman of any proposed first meeting (date, time or place) of the RPC. If Chairman Varnum has not scheduled the first RPC meeting by that time, Teams Eddington and Clifton have decided to initiate communications with the other proposed partners and set the meeting's date, time and place.
MAINE EDUCATION - PART 3
The following is a continuation of a series that began following a luncheon I attended a few weeks ago in Bangor presented by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. Part 2 was contained in yesterday's posting (the second half of the posting following the notification of tonight's special meeting between the Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton).
The information being presented, provided by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, relates to Public Education in Maine. It is not specific to Eddington, Clifton or Holden. However, since we will soon be gathering (and voting) to consider consolidating with four potential partners to form a Regional School Union (RSU), the overall state of public education in this state is relevant to what we should be looking at - and what we should consider as we determine the standards under which we will want the RSU to operate and maintain.
PART 3
What are we doing wrong?
Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation
School Management: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
The information being presented, provided by the Maine Heritage Policy Center, relates to Public Education in Maine. It is not specific to Eddington, Clifton or Holden. However, since we will soon be gathering (and voting) to consider consolidating with four potential partners to form a Regional School Union (RSU), the overall state of public education in this state is relevant to what we should be looking at - and what we should consider as we determine the standards under which we will want the RSU to operate and maintain.
PART 3
What are we doing wrong?
Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation
School Management: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
- "Maine does a poor job managing its schools in a way that encourages thoughtful innovation."
- "93% of teachers report that routine duties and paperwork interfere with their teaching."
- Maine does not sanction low-performing schools (32 states do).
- "Maine does not have a charter school law" (40 states do).
School Finance: Maine received a C (42nd in the nation)....because:
- Maine "receives a below-average score for the online accessibility of its financial data."
- Maine does not allow local districts full authority over teacher pay. (25 states do.)
- Maine also "does not have a performance pay program for teachers." (10 states do.)
School staffing: Maine received a B/C....because:
- Maine receives above-average marks for the testing required of new teachers.
- Maine receives an F for the strength of its teacher evaluation systems.
- "74% of Maine principals say that teacher unions or associations are a barrier to the removal of ineffective teachers, 13 percentage points above the national average of 61%"
Educational Data: Maine received a D (45th in the nation)....because:
- "Maine gets a below-average mark for its state data system."
- "The state does not have a teacher-identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students." (21 states do.)
- Maine does not publicly report data such as student remediation rates in college. (18 states do.)
Educational Technology: Maine received a D (38th in the nation).... because:
- "The state does not offer a computer-based assessment and does not require technology testing for teachers."
- "Maine's "D" grade is the result of little research affirming the effectiveness of the state's first-in-the-nation program that equips all seventh- and eighth-grade students and most high school students with laptops."
Summary of Major Findings...
- "Rigid education bureaucracies impede quality."
- "State data systems provide limited information on school operations and outcomes."
- "The teacher pipeline fails to provide a diverse pool of high-quality educators."
- "Teacher evaluations are not based on performance. Major barriers exist to the removal of poor-performing teachers."
More information will follow in Part 4 of this series. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 23, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
