THIS WEEK'S IMPORTANT MEETINGS

Tonight is School Board meeting - Holbrook School @ 6:30.

Items on the agenda will include:

1. the decision from the combined Boards of Selectmen from Eddington and Clifton re: parcel #2 at the Holden School re: transference to the Town of Holden.
2. the Chairman's report re: a meeting he attended November 17th with the Chairs from the School Boards from Orrington, Dedham, CSD 8, and Otis re: joining SAD 63 in forming an RSU - and various question that were addressed to the Commissioner's representative who attended the meeting (including a discussion regarding eliminating the citizen representative member from each town's team on the RPC). (This should be interesting since the Eddington and Clifton Boards of Selectmen have already appointed their citizen representative...)
3. the state's fiscal deficit and it's projected impact on SAD 63 state subsidy this year and next.

Tomorrow, Tuesday - December 1 - will be Eddington Board of Selectmen's Meeting and a Public Hearing @ 6pm

The subject for the Public Hearing will be in accordance with the amendment to Article 11 passed at last March's Town Meeting...regarding the application for a rather significant grant for a firefighter position which will require the town's obligation for a "long-term commitment" - a third year's funding for salary and benefits of the position. The estimated amount for this obligation was thought by the Fire Chief to be $50,000.

The explanation of the grant and the terms of the obligation will be the subject of the Public Hearing at the Town Office Tuesday Night. The Special Town Meeting to vote on this matter is scheduled for December 15 at 6pm.

This will be the second such event this year in accordance with Article 11. The attendance at the first event (the voting - Town Meeting) was 9, in addition to members of the Board and those individuals required to be in attendance. If more people do not attend this Special Town Meeting, there will be plenty of reason to cancel such requirements for future years. Such Special Town Meetings do carry additional costs (printing of notices and posting, electricity, etc.) Even though 25 people voted to pass the amendment, there haven't been anywhere close to that number or even half of the same people showing up to vote. Therefore, one has to wonder why they were so in favor of the amendment if they were not going to follow through.

PART IV - PUBLIC EDUCATION IN MAINE

Between 2003 and 2009, 8th grade students took the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) tests in Math and Reading. They also took the U.S. Department of Education (D.O.E.) National Assessment of Educational Progress tests (NAEP) in those same subjects.

The MEA test was to determine the percentage of students who "Meet or Exceeds Standards..."
The NAEP test was to determine the percentage of student "At or Above Proficient..."

Look at How Maine compared to National Standards:

MEA: in Math NAEP: in Math
2005 - 28% 30% (Maine did better on the NAEP, but not great overall at only 30%)
2007 - 51% 35% (Maine students lost 16% points using the national exam)
2009 - 53% 35% (Maine students lost 18% points using the national exam)

MEA: in Reading NAEP: in Reading
2003 - 45% 2003 - 37% (Maine lost 8% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2005 - 56% 2005 - 38% (Maine lost 18% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)
2007 - 65% 2007 - 37% (Maine lost 27% points using the national exam/poor NAEP)

(Source: Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007)

If you read these comparative scores, it means that the MEA tests "dummy down" the standards for students in Maine as compared to the NAEP tests. Even using the lowered MEA tests, almost half of Maine 8th grade students in public schools were not "meetings or exceeding Maine state standards" in Math as recently as 2009.

Using the national standards, only slightly more than one-third of Maine's 8th graders were considered "at or proficient" standards in reading in any one of the three testing years. It should make Maine parents of 8th graders wonder if they can trust how well their student/children are learning in Maine's public schools when there is such disparity between the scoring of MEA and NAEP learning tests.

Even the 2009 U.S. D.O.E. reported that Maine appears to be lowering its proficiency standards to make it seem as though our schools are doing better than they are.

According to Education Week, October 29, 2009, a federal study finds "State standards for what constitutes 'proficient' performance on 8th grade mathematics exams dropped in 16 states between 2005 and 2007. The proficiency bar was raised over the same period in four other states." Maine was one of the 16 states where proficient performance dropped. The four states where the bar was raised were Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

In the 2009 report entitled, "Diplomas Count, Broader Horizons," Maine was noted as having a high school graduation rate of 76.3%; it ranks 13th overall in the country. The state ranks 25th in the nation for the rate of white students graduating, and 30th for rate gains since 1996. However,

• Maine has not defined college or work readiness in its diploma requirements.
• Maine's 16-credit requirement for a high school diploma is less than 39 other states.

Maine has NO HIGH SCHOOL EXIT EXAM (whereas 24 other states do). What does this mean?

It means that all a student has to do to receive a high school diploma is show up enough hours - and get passed from one grade to another and that's enough. He/she doesn't have to show any proficiency for any of the basic educational skill sets - the ability to read or write or speak English or to do any basic math. And what about basic science? And yet we expect these students to be able to go on to school or to get (and keep) a job that will pay enough to support them and their families and the babies they WILL produce so that they can and will stay off welfare (not withstanding the current recession). But will they have the basic education to go on to college or a vocational training program and succeed?

With no exit exam, we also have no true way of knowing if their teachers have really taught them (on a comparative national level) what they need to know to go out into the world. We have no way of really knowing if their teachers have earned the salaries and benefits and retirement packages we, the taxpayers, have been paying (and will continue to be paying them) for years to come. Without exit exams, there is no accountability for either the students or the teachers.

As an example, California only started using exit exams around 2006. It was amazing how many students could not pass the English, math or science exams - and yet they had been passed from class to class all the way through high school. They were afforded tutor classes on weekends in preparation to take the exams a second time before graduation, and some passed. Some didn't. There was a huge "to-do" about whether they'd get to march in their graduation exercises. Parents were up in arms. Why couldn't their kids pass these exams? Some had to go to summer school in order to take the exit exams a third time. Bottom Line: Kids start studying better and teachers are held accountable for teaching and better tests when they know there will be no diploma without first passing the exit exams (and parents hold up their end at home re: homework, too). The end results are more accountable teachers, better educated students and a smarter work-force. Exit Exams are a true test of how well our schools are working - or not.

The New Teacher Project (TNTP) produced a paper entitled "Interpreting Race to the Top", TNTP Summary & Analysis of USDE Draft Guidelines - September 2009 (updated and revised 9/7/09) in which it stated that Maine was identified as being one of 14 states that "does not meet one or more criteria" for federal Race to the Top funding. (NOTE: Race to the Top is a federal funding project which would allow states to receive significant federal dollars for education providing the state meets the required federal education guidelines. This program has been frequently discussed on national television programs such as Meet the Press.)

Criteria that Maine lacks to qualify for Race to the Top funding include:

• Maine "does not have charter school legislation."
• Maine "has not implemented essential elements of state data systems."
• Maine does not have elements in place to "ensure the effectiveness of teachers and administrators."

The 2009 report, "Portrait of a Population - How English Language Learners Are Putting Schools to the Test", produced by Quality Counts, reports:

Maine scores a C+ overall, but a D for "The Teaching Profession" because it ...

• Does not tie teacher evaluations to student outcomes.
• Does not reward teachers for improving student outcomes using performance-based pay.
• Does not incentivize teachers to take on teaching assignments in high-need schools or fields.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO BRING MAINE PUBLIC EDUCATION UP TO ACCEPTABLE STANDARDS?

• We need to decide what a high school diploma should signify.
• We need an assessment system to ensure a mastery of state standards (and have state standards equal to no less than national standards).
• We need a system in place to assess the effectiveness of education spending. (If we are spending more per pupil and the test scores are lower than the national average, something is clearly wrong.)
• We need data systems that track teacher and school quality and we need to make that data public.
• We need performance-based pay to be a component of any teacher contract.
• We need charter schools to be a part of school choice.

PREDICTIONS RE: THE COMING MAINE LEGISLATIVE SESSION (BEGINNING JANUARY 2010)

The Education Committee's time this session will be dominated by budget cuts and "fixes" to the district consolidation law. (Locally we are already hearing the state will cut $146,600 from the current 2009-2010 state allocation to SAD 63 - and more than $350,000 in 2010-2011, in addition to any "penalty" if the district fails to form an RSU. We can expect an even greater financial cut in state subsidy with the way the state deficit is mounting.-That only means higher property taxes if we don't force the district to CUT line items in the existing and projected school budget...something this writer and others urged last May at the Public Hearing for the current school budget. We were ignored.)

An effort will be made to ELIMINATE the school budget referendum process to "save money." (This means that local communities will be stripped of their voting right to review and approve proposed school budgets for any RSU for which they will be paying via their property taxes. The only place money will be "saved" is in Augusta since, I believe, the state pays for the voting at local levels.) If you don't like this idea, this writer suggests you start writing and emailing your Legislative representatives (Senator Richard Rosen and Representative Ben Pratt)

An effort will be made to adopt a statewide teacher contract to "save money." (Who's money? Any statewide contract will be higher than the rural and small communities like Eddington, Clifton, Orrington, etc. currently pay. You can be sure the teacher unions are behind this.) Another reason to start writing/emailing to your legislative representatives.

Charter schools will remain off the table despite the loss of federal funding that will result. (Because charter schools require higher performance from both their teachers and more discipline from their students - and there is pay-for-performance in their contracts so poor performing teachers are not "protected". Consequently the teacher unions do not support charter schools.)

Little else in the way of real reform will happen from Augusta. What else is new?

SOME VIDEO ENTERTAINMENT FROM CLEWLEY FARM RESTAURANT

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 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.

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.

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.

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.