While you may disagree with him, Eliot Cutler has been open with his various initiatives for Maine.  Cutler has released plans on government reform, healthcare, and energy.  Early in the campaign, Cutler made education policy a priority.  The candidate stumped for charter schools last November.  Cutler took swipes at what he sees as the status quo recently.  The Cutler campaign has now released a blueprint for education reform in the state.  The reform outline consists of boosting pre-school, allowing charter schools, increasing magnet schools, addressing teacher compensation, and the length of Maine’s school days and years.  What may the cost of these reforms be?  Are they worth the cost?

“We need to reform public education in Maine from top to bottom,” Cutler recently told the Waterville Rotary Club.  “We need to kick open the doors, throw open the windows and welcome a fresh wind of innovation and reform.   We need a No Excuses policy for education in Maine.”  Parents, teachers, and taxpayers should be in charge of Maine’s education system according to Cutler.  The candidate also said decisions should be based on what is best for children, not “the union contract”.  How does he hope to achieve those goals?

Pre-School

First Cutler advocates great support for pre-school learning.  Developmental screening programs will assess children and provide support when needed.  The state will measure success by how many children are reading proficiently at the end of third grade.

During the primary, Steve Rowe spoke about the importance of early education.  The idea was that the earlier children are exposed to reading, math, etc. the benefits will be exponential as they progress through school.  Much of this exposure should happen at home, but that doesn’t mean it will.  Even though it only takes twenty minutes of reading a day to provide substantial benefit a child, many children aren’t read to at all.  A past study from the National Institute of Health showed children who received quality pre-K care fared better on vocabulary examinations than fifth graders who received low-quality care.  This could be due to other socio-economic factors that led to some children obtaining better pre-K care than others.  If the state provided quality care to all, that would negate some of those economic gaps.

What are the costs associated with universal pre-school?  The Rand Institute conducted a study in 2005 of a universal pre-K system proposed in California.  Rand said that while the potential system could have cost the state $4,339 per child, the return on that investment could be between $8,477 and $18,257 per child.  California would see the return through reduced welfare need in adulthood, lower crime, increased health.  Rand also said such academic programs could be framed as economic development, given benefits it provides toward an educated workforce.  The Reason Foundation’s assessment stated the Rand Institute’s cost-benefit analysis is flawed.  Reason said, using the same criteria as Rand, universal pre-K could have cost California 25-30 cents for every dollar spent.  Rand’s study also ignored the cost of setting up a new bureaucracy, teacher shortages, and taxes increases, according to Reason.

Currently, Maine’s Head Start program serves low-income from birth to age five.  Qualifying families can also receive tax credits for childcare or DHHS vouchers.  You can read more about Maine’s Early Childhood guidelines here. (PDF warning)

Charter Schools

“Many charter schools have fostered dramatic innovations in the quality and delivery of cost effective education, and Maine can learn from these experiences,” Cutler said in his campaign release.  Charter schools have the potential to be great.  Anyone who says they, or any single reform is the cure for our educational system is selling you snake oil.  Currently, the average charter school fares no better than the average public school.  This can be a misleading statistic.  Many charter schools are in their infancy.  Is it fair to expect them to do something in perhaps two or three years the public school system hasn’t been able to do in almost 30 (based on when “A Nation At Risk” was released)?  A study (PDF warning)conducted by the Fordham Institute and Public Impact states that while the spotlight has been on the results of charter schools, reformers pay little attention to the lack of autonomy most charter schools actually have.

As this study makes plain, though the situation varies greatly by state and by authorizer, charter schools as a whole do not have the autonomy they need to succeed. That represents a major policy failure in Ameri­can education reform, one that needs to be understood by those who are closely inspecting charter school results, and by policy makers who want this bold experiment to have a fair chance to show what it can do.

Charters need a chance to become established.  The movement should not be about completely privatizing education and it should certainly not be about turning a profit(eg. Edison Schools, Mosaica Education).  Generally that isn’t the case, though a few bad apples have tainted the charter system’s image.  Given the right guidance, over time charters can become an excellent enhancement to our public school system.

There are myths surrounding charter schools.  Those have been addressed numerous times on this blog and at The Maine View.  If there are any questions as to what a charter school is or isn’t, check there.  Also, plenty of other writers have addressed some of these myths as well.  Excellent Education for Everyone, the Nonprofits Assistance Fund, the grio, Eduwonk, Charter School Insights (sounds biased, but CSI is highly critical of the movement)and Jay Mathews (specifically KIPP) are just a few of those.  On the left, there is much more resistance to charter schools in this state than from the right.  There is a wedge in the Democratic Party between those who would advocate reforms such as charters, as is part of President Obama’s ed reform, and those who would reject them completely.  This divide seems less evident in Maine, which is not surprising given the lackluster reform climate.

Magnet Schools

Maine’s only magnet school, Maine School of Science and Mathematics, is one of the state’s best schools.  The U.S. News & World Report ranked MSSM 56 out of the country’s 100 best high schools in 2009.  “I’ve visited with the students at the Maine School of Science and Mathematics in Limestone, an exciting learning community that is consistently rated one of the top high schools in the nation,” said Cutler.  “Let’s find the resources for magnet schools in foreign languages, agriculture, marine sciences and creative arts.”

Similar to charter schools, magnet schools can focus on a specific content area such as math or art.  Magnet schools are part of the public system.  Teaching methods explored in Magnet schools are often shared with other surrounding schools.  The specialization of the schools leads to more qualified teachers as they can receive targeted professional development.  Magnet schools boast higher rates of parental and community involvement on average as well.  Magnet schools don’t seem to face the same opposition in this state as charters do, though the systems are similar and Magnets have been hit with criticisms used against charter schools.

The high quality of MSSM makes admissions competitive.  MSSM requires applicants to present teacher/counselor recommendations, PSAT/SAT scores, multiple essays, a complete academic history, hold an admissions interview, and complete an IQ test.  Some college admissions are not as strict.  Students do not pay tuition to attend MSSM.  The school may raise private funds to “support an educational enhancement fund to enrich the educational experience of students”.  MSSM must also raise funds for a scholarship fund in accordance with state law(PDF warning).

The cost to fund a new magnet program is questionable.  A student’s per-pupil allotment does not follow them from their previous school.  Tuition for the MSSM is paid by the State and Federal government.  No local funds are spent educating these students.  What would the cost be for new buildings?  Could unused buildings be found and renovated?  How many new magnets, if any at this time, the state would be able fund?  Would current public schools be able to reform as magnets?

In part 2 we will examine Cutler’s plans for teacher compensation, extending the school day/year, skills training, technology, professional development, and schools as community centers.

The first segment is on Maine’s failure in the Race to the Top program, and Eliot Cutler’s education reform plan.  Look for updates twice a week.

Something is happening over here.

It appears that some one out there has decided it is time to target Independent Eliot Cutler with an attack site and oppo dump.

Cutlerfiles.com was brought to my attention yesterday by a high level staffer in the Maine Democratic Party, and buzz about the site has been circulating since then. It rather mercilessly attacks Cutler on three main issues:  his residency in Maine, Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., and some supposed campaign lipstick which they are offering a rather humorous reward in response to.

I have reached out to a number of sources to see if anyone has the facts on who is responsible for the site, but so far no one has claimed credit or has any leads that have gone anywhere.

For its part, the site itself describes the people behind the venture:

We are a group of researchers, writers and journalists – unaffiliated with any candidate or political party – who are frustrated that Maine’s mainstream media is either unwilling or incapable of investigating the background and business connections of Eliot Cutler. The information provided here comes from a variety of reputable and public sources, including news articles, court and municipal records and other documents. While there is some opinion expressed here, the opinion is based on documented fact. Links are provided throughout this site so a reader can obtain most of the source material and decide for themselves. Contact us at cutlerfiles@yahoo.com

A very vague and cryptic description for a group so singularly focused on attacking Cutler.  Researchers, writers and journalists?  Sounds academic in nature from the description, but this site is not academic.  This is a professional attack site.  I should know – I make dozens of sites just like this.

The reason this site is important is because it is very obvious it is not just some disgruntled voter slapping together a site attacking Cutler.  This is very obviously backed by a lot of time and work, including sourcing and research.  This says to me that the people behind it are part of a group or campaign of consequence.

My initial suspicions were that it came from one of the party committees – either the RGA/DGA or RNC/DNC.  Typically, however, due to the tricky nature of campaign finance and reporting disclosures, sites such as these include disclosures that reveal who paid for the site.  There really would be no reason to hide this if it was one of the committees – no one would really care if they were the originators of this material.

Which means it is probably a professional job from seasoned campaign operative or group of operatives.  The usual suspects who I know have done this before are directly claiming they have not done it this time (and indeed, one even suggested to me that some of the information contained in the attack site is false) – so our search will have to continue.

When I contacted the Cutler campaign for comment, Ted O’Meara provided me with the following statement:

So far in this campaign, Eliot has been repeatedly attacked from both the left and right because he is a true centrist in a state that has always valued moderation and common sense over political ideology. He brings a broad range of experiences and a record of achievement and competence to this race that cannot be matched by any other candidate running.

Eliot’s campaign is based on bold ideas and a solid plan to change the economic conditions in Maine so that our state can attract the investment — both from within and outside of Maine — that will create jobs and grow our economy. No other candidate in this race has put forth such specific ideas to lower the cost of living and doing business in Maine, to restructure state government and to reform education.

One party candidate doesn’t think anything needs to change, while the other party candidate just makes stuff up and doesn’t have any plan or strategy for Maine’s future.

The Left is afraid of Eliot because he will change the status quo in Augusta that has benefited a few special interests while bringing our economy to a standstill. The Right is afraid of Eliot because he is the only candidate who can keep a radical Tea Party agenda out of the Blaine House.

The latest attack is different, and even uglier than what has come before. We don’t know who is behind it. All we know is that the people behind it are gutless cowards who have neither the personal nor professional integrity to put their names on the site or reveal whose agenda they are promoting.  The content is full of untruths and half-truths, libel and slander.

Last December, Eliot put on his website, for everyone to see, the answers to a variety of questions about his time away from Maine, his legal and business career, and his time in Beijing, China  (http://www.cutler2010.com/about-eliot/faq/). No one asked him to do it. No was attacking him then. He simply knew that these were questions that people might have and so he addressed them honestly and openly, and he has added to the FAQ since then.

That is the way that we will continue to conduct this campaign. As Eliot’s support grows, we fully expect that the attacks, the lies and the twisting of facts will only increase. That is the price you pay for having accomplished something in your life. That is the price you pay for putting big ideas on the table instead of just big talk. That is the price you pay for offering Maine people candor instead of candy.

Eliot believes that above all else, Maine people value integrity and fairness.  This website has neither.  It is much more a reflection of the creeps and cowards who created it than it is of Eliot Cutler.

Prior to receiving that statement, O’Meara sent me another missive in which he suggested in some rather strong words that former Rosa Scarcelli Communications Director and current Moody for Governor consultant Dennis Bailey was behind this.  This suggestion of course, reminds us all of the bad blood between Bailey and the Cutler folks – namely the so called “Eliot Cutler called me a whore” incident.  Obviously there is no love lost here.

Personally, I still have no idea who is behind it.  I will keep digging into it (I already have the IP address they sent an email to me with) and will report back when I find more.

But the point here is that there is a large scale coordinated attack on Eliot Cuter coming from somebody out there who has the time, energy and interest to put together a professional (if simple) attack website on Cuter.  This is more than just a disgruntled voter starting an attack blog on wordpress or blogger, and likely represents an uptick in the attacks on Cutler going forward.

Congress may have ended their session before they were able to pass job-killing energy regulations, but the EPA is taking up the slack, gearing up to begin enforcing it’s “tailoring rule” starting in January, the EPA will begin issuing “permits” designed to “allow” carbon emitters like power plants. In return for receiving this gift from the EPA, “emitters” will be forced to comply with a host of ridiculous regulations, a burden which will, of course, in turn be passed on to consumers through higher energy prices, or worse, job cuts.

As the Daily Caller pointed out a week ago, Maine’s biomass industry is on the hit list:

A troubling example of the potential job loss likely to result from these regulations is the woody biomass industry. In many states throughout the country, biomass is the only domestic renewable energy source available to provide any meaningful supply of baseload power. Many of these states even count this sustainable power source as a clean and sustainable energy source that helps them comply with their own renewable energy mandates. But as part of their effort to “tailor” their regulations, the EPA has arbitrarily determined that these sources will also be lumped in with their carbon regulations.

That’s right: the EPA placed Maine’s most prominent source of power – and one of only a handful of large-scale, environmentally-conscious energy projects in the country – on its list of carbon-causing industries in need of reform. And although the EPA issued this list back in May, they still haven’t carved out any exemptions for biomass or biogenic sources of energy, leaving them to be treated exactly the same as any other producer of greenhouse gasses – even ones who operate exclusively in a carbon neutral manner. Obviously, this comes as a bit of a shock to the biomass industry, who are afraid that biomass producers will just turn right back to fossil fuels.

This would not only mean the potential end of what the industry claims is a clean and renewable form of energy production, refusing to allow this exemption could be disastrous to Maine.  Senator Susan Collins noted that Maine’s biomass plans, paper mills and industry facilities could face closures, leading to major job losses and a disastrous economic impact. She noted in June that at least 14 facilities in Maine alone would be on the chopping block, to say nothing for the national impact.

It seems particularly counter-intuitive for a country in dire economic straits to not only put an industry out of business, but one that seems to represent the future of renewable energy production.

By most objective analysis, we are headed for what is known in politics as a “wave” election.

The concept shouldn’t be too unfamiliar to us, as we just experienced two successive wave years.

In 2006, largely in response to voter dissatisfaction with the Iraq War as well as a Congress seemingly plagued with ethical problems, the Democrats swept back to the majority in Congress by capturing 31 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate.

In 2008 during the sweeping election of President Obama, the Democrats took 21 House seats and 8 Senate seats.  These both represented “waves” (even though 2008 didn’t see a change in Congressional control, it is still widely thought of as a wave) – or large scale election results tilted toward one party as part of a large national trend.

In 1994 we experienced one of our most famous wave elections, popularly called today the Republican Revolution.  In that year, Republicans captured a whopping 54 seats from the Democrats in the House and 8 seats in the Senate.  Prior to 1994 there was a mini-wave in 1980 (and backlash in 1982) with the election of President Reagan – though this is hard to really call a wave, given that control of the House did not change hands.  Then there was the 49 seat post-Watergate slaughterfest of 1974 that saw the virtual destruction of the Republican Party – but again, no control changed hands.

The point here really is that most Congressional elections see changes of only a small handful of seats, and do not represent wholesale change.  1994, 2006 and 2008 are just the three most recent and glaring examples of extremely one sided wave elections.

So since we are in all liklihood about to witness the third consecutive seismic election (!!!), and since both of Maine’s Congressional seats are considered Democrat leaning and “safe” for the incumbents by most national observers, it is only fair to ask, “have seats like this fallen in past wave elections?”

In other words, do elections like this typically sweep in challengers that were not on anyone’s radar?  Are either of Maine’s two districts (Cook PVI of D+3 (ME-2) and D+8 (ME-1), respectively) potentially going to give us an election night surprise?

The short answer to the above questions is, “yes” and “possibly”.  Seats that no one thought would fall invariably do fall in every single wave election.  Seats that were on no one’s radar become the stories of the election which highlight the strength of the wave.  Maine has two credible – if a bit underfunded – Republican challengers who could very well shock conventional wisdom.

Let’s take a quick look at what seats fell in the last two big waves:

2008

First, some vital statistics on what happened in 2008 with the Democrats.  The average Cook PVI (a quick rating of the partisan lean of a district) for each seat the Democrats took over (not counting the few seats they lost) was R+4.63.  They took 19 seats that were in districts which favored Republicans, and they also took eight seats that leaned Democrat.

Thirteen of those seats leaned as much or more Republican than Maine’s 2nd Congressional District leans Democrat.  Three of those seats leaned more Republican than Maine’s 1st Congressional District leans Democrat.

Additionally, the Republicans took five seats even amongst that wave.  Those seats, however were all strong Republican districts, with the exception of Louisiana 2 (D+25), which was a rather unique situation to say the least.

Here is a list of the Democratic takeovers:

• R + 18 – Idaho 1
• R + 16 – Alabama 2
• R + 13 – Maryland 1
• R + 6 – Colorado 4
• R + 6 – Arizona 1st
• R + 6 – New Mexico 2
• R + 5 – New York 29
• R + 5 – Virginia 2nd
• R + 5 – Virginia 5
• R + 4 – Florida 24
• R + 4 – New York 13
• R + 4 – Ohio 16th
• R + 3 – Pennsylvania 3
• R + 2 – Florida 8
• R + 2 – Michigan 7
• R + 2 – North Carolina 8
• R + 1 – Illinois 11
• R + 1 – Maryland 1
• R + 1 – New Jersey 3
• D + 1 – Ohio 1
• D + 1 – Ohio 15
• D + 2 – Michigan 9
• D + 2 – Nevada 3
• D + 2 – Virginia 11
• D + 3 – New York 25
• D + 5 – Connecticut 4
• D + 5 – New Mexico 1

2006

Now, some vital statistics on what happened in 2006 with the Democrats.  The average Cook PVI for each seat the Democrats took over (the Republicans took none) was R+1.48.  They took nineteen seats that were in districts which favored Republicans, one that was split, and they also took eleven seats that leaned Democrat.

Thirteen of those seats leaned as much or more Republican than Maine’s 2nd Congressional District leans Democrat.  Four of those seats leaned as much or more Republican than Maine’s 1st Congressional District leans Democrat.

Interestingly, this year the Republicans took zero Democrat held seats.  None.

Here is a list of the Democratic takeovers:

• R + 13 – Texas 22
• R + 9 – Kansas 2
• R + 8 – Indiana 8
• R + 8 – Pennsylvania 10
• R + 7 – Ohio 18
• R + 6 – Indiana 9
• R + 6 – North Carolina 11
• R + 6 – Pennsylvania 4
• R + 5 – Arizona 1
• R + 5 – Florida 16
• R + 4 – Arizona 8
• R + 4 – Texas 23
• R + 3 – New York 19
• R + 2 – Indiana 2
• R + 2 – New York 20
• R + 2 – New York 24
• R + 2 – Wisconsin 8
• R + 1 – California 11
• R + 1 – Minnesota 1
• EVEN – New Hampshire 1
• D + 1 – Florida 22
• D + 2 – Connecticut 5
• D + 2 – Kentucky 3
• D + 2 – Pennsylvania 8
• D + 3 – New Hampshire 2
• D + 3 – Pennsylvania 7
• D + 4 – Colorado 7
• D + 5 – Iowa 1
• D + 6 – Connecticut 2
• D + 7 – Iowa 2
• D + 13 – Vermont At large

Back To Some Analysis

So what does this mean?  Well, basically it means that when the Democrats retook Congress in 2006 and wiped out Republicans in 2008, they fed on seats that were marginally in control of the Republican Party.

In totality, twenty-six (out of fifty-two) of the seats taken by Democrats leaned as much toward the Republicans as Maine’s second district leans Democratic.  That is exactly half of the House seats taken over.  Seven of the seats taken by Democrats leaned as much toward the Republicans as Maine’s first district leans Democratic.  That is roughly 13% of the House seats taken over.

For the record, the previous wave elections in 1994 and before have very similar statistics.

So what does this mean for Jason Levesque and Dean Scontras?

Essentially it means that a very healthy dose of seats taken over by Democrats in the preceding two election cycles have been in districts exactly like they find themselves running in.  Many of those seats were not on the DCCC’s radar, any national analyst’s radar, or really even within range of anyone’s radar.  Many of those candidates were underfunded, and several of them weren’t even taken seriously until a couple weeks before the election.

That most certainly does not mean that either will win – indeed,  a huge number of candidates in districts exactly like these went down in defeat.  Still, it should be clear that neither of these districts presents some kind of impossible challenge given the right campaign, message, and the size of the wave.

We will see just how strong the wave is – and if these two candidates can ride it to Washington D.C. – this November.

—-

Editor’s Note:  In the interests of full disclosure, I am working to help the campaigns of both Jason Levesque and Dean Scontras.  The contents of this article, however, are my own analysis of the general prospects of the race in comparison to large national trends in previous elections.  This article was not from, nor authorized by, either candidate or campaign, but I wanted to disclose the relationship none the less.

Now that we have the comments from Maine’s Race to the Top application why we did so poorly is clear.  In the coming weeks there will surely be some finger pointing and “It wasn’t me” going around.  Some of it has begun already.  So who deserves to wear the dunce cap?

I wasn’t impressed by the Race, or at least as much as I had hoped to be.   Of course I hoped Maine would win some cash.  We could really use the money, but realistically Maine’s chances were slim.  Many states perused reforms far more aggressive than Maine’s.  Do I agree 100% with the Obama Administration’s idea of education reform?  Absolutely not.  In some cases there is an emphasis on things that aren’t effective and a lack of effort on things that are.  The are some questions as to the long term cost of pursuing the short term gain of the Race cropping up and bias against rural states as well.

Stephen Bowen has reported on the RttT reviewers’ comments.  According to Bowen reviewers discussed a few overall issues with Maine’s application. The application lacked any hard details on implementation, the plan itself was weak, and the lack of stake-holder buy-in tainted the whole effort. ““Key support from the state’s principal and teacher associations and parent constituencies is not included and considered a significant weakness,” said one reviewer.

Bowen believes three groups should share the blame for Maine’s RttT failure; the DOE, local districts, the state teachers and principals unions.

1. The Department, for putting together a plan that lacked boldness and, though heavy on platitudes, was far too light on details with regard to implementation. More and better is what we needed.

2. The 133 local school districts who failed to support the plan.  What, the status quo is really working so well for you districts that you couldn’t buy into a plan so benign that every reviewer criticized it for its lack of ambition?  That absence of support, detailed in the very first section of the plan, hurt the state’s chances from the get-go.

3. The education special interests in Augusta, namely the Maine Principal’s Association and the Maine Education Association.  Look around you, gentle reader, the system of schooling you see is their creation, and they would rather turn down $70 million in funding from Washington than change it in any way that threatens their stranglehold on power. Oh, they’ll take the money without the strings attached. You won’t see any of them turning their noses up at the $39 million in “edujobs” money coming from Washington. But ask them to reform, ask them to be more transparent and more accountable, and ask them to give up even one iota of their monopoly power (through the creation of charter schools, for instance), and you get nothing but howls of protest about “federal blackmail.”

Union president Chris Galgay said the MEA wasn’t entirely at fault for how Maine’s RttT attempt turned out.  He’s right.  The DOE was holding the reins here.  This happened on their watch and they put forth a weak application, plain and simple. Although there were a few words of praise, Maine put forward an uninspiring plan.  The plan did not convince reviewers that any meaningful reforms the U.S. DOE was looking for would be implemented.  The vague nature of much of the application could point to one of three things.  Perhaps the DOE did not put their best foot forward on the RttT effort because they just didn’t care.  The DOE may have realized the lack of quality in the state’s reform efforts, attempting to mask it in generalities.  Lastly, and in my mind least likely, the DOE may not have realized how poor their effort was.

Who is to blame for the unambitious mess that was Maine’s RttT application?  The MEA could take some responsibility for parts of the application.  Their fingerprints are all over “innovative schools”.  The MEA worked on LD 1799.  Ultimately the DOE was in charge of painting this picture.  Yes the MEA had influence on what colors to use where, but the DOE is the one who presented a Velvet Elvis and passed it off as something fresh and inspired.

Failure to garner stake-holder support hampered Maine’s chances.  Take an already lackluster application and couple that with no support.  Can you see how we were doomed from the start?  With no buy-in, reviewers questioned if any of these tepid reforms would ever become implemented.  Maine has a history of reforms never leaving the starting gate as well.  Just like the first round, with no community support there was no hope.

Here the MEA deserves a little more chiding than they received with the application.  Chris Galgay said that “every local association made their own decision on it.”  While that is true, one cannot discount the influence of the parent organization.  The MEA did provide some releases on the Race to the Top.  In “Race to the Top – or Bottom?” the MEA wrote in opposition of linking student performance to teacher evaluations, expressed skepticism for Common Core standards, and supported innovative schools.  The MEA stated they were concerned the RttT sought to alter programs that had been working well for the past twenty years in another release.  They also said here that none of the three bills enacted to meet RttT requirements were popular with educators.  That is an odd thing to say given the MEA worked with the DOE to develop one of those bills, LD 1801 “Innovative Schools”.  Here (pdf warning) the MEA calls the RttT a “federal lottery”.  The MEA also sent out a FAQ answering a number of questions and included two other advisory attachments.  One of those questions was the following: “Should local association presidents now sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on RttT?”  The answer at the time?

Maybe.If your local association leadership has met with your Superintendent and had an opportunity to review and discuss your SAU’s “Preliminary Scope of Work”; and if your local association is willing to commit to engage in the implementation of that draft work plan; then the MEA would recommend that your local association president consider signing the [Memorandum of Agreement].

If your local SAU has checked “Yes” on D(2)(iv)(b) that it intends to use evaluations to inform compensation, promotion and retention, MEA recommends that local associations NOT sign the MOU.

Not really a glowing recommendation.

Certainly these releases were influenced local affiliates’ thoughts on the RttT.  Yes, it was their own decision to support it or not, but it would be hard to believe that local unions don’t take at least some advice and direction from their state level entity’s opinions.  It would also be safe to assume that some of the information from the MEA trickled down to local district administration as well.

So when Galgay says, “I think [local affiliates] didn’t have enough information, didn’t know what they were signing on to,” one has to wonder how that can be.  As shown, there are a number of MEA sources local affiliates could have consulted.  The DOE also invited superintendents, along with at least one school board member and one union representative, to attend informational conversations on RttT.  The MEA alerted members of this here (pdf warning).  Galgay did say that many district were not represented for at least one meeting because they were “just too busy and have too much on their plate”.  There were also numerous reports from the Kennebec Journal’s Matt Stone and other papers.  At the national level many major news outlets covered the Race.  A variety of opinions could be obtained from blogs.  Rick Hess, Jay Matthews, Anderson Russo, Tom Vander Ark, and the many bloggers of Education Week are just a tiny selection of online resources on RttT.  It is possible affiliate presidents had the information, saw the poor effort the DOE had made and said no thanks.  It is also possible that affiliate presidents assumed the MEA HQ had done its homework and was giving them all the facts they needed on the RttT effort, when they were really only getting one side of the story from the top.  If that is the case, then the MEA HQ failed to properly inform its members on this issue.

It is important to note that we do not know this to be true.  These speculations are based on what is public.  Since the MEA HQ will not return my requests for information – I have given up submitting them – it is likely we won’t be able to say which scenario is the correct one.  The HQ or local members are of course welcome to provide us with more information here.

It may sound like I’ve characterized the MEA as some cartoon villain, twisting their mustache as they tie the hapless RttT application to the tracks.  That is not so.  The MEA does have considerable pull on state education matters.  They are not an inconsequential union.  However, the MEA’s thoughts on RttT should have been no secret to the DOE.  The burden was on the DOE to convince local affiliates to sign on.  This is necessarily the way things should be, just the way the are.  The DOE should have known the MEA had strong reservations about teacher evaluations based on student performance and other areas, prepared accordingly, and reached out to local affiliates more aggressively.  Of course local unions may have rejected any RttT application no matter what was in it or how it was presented.  This is likely not the case at all.  It really boils down to the DOE not making an argument to the affiliates that was more convincing than what the MEA HQ was telling them.

Local school districts who did not sign on likely fall into three categories.  Some may have read the application, realized it was DOA, and decided to reject it with the hope of something more substantial coming in the future.  Others likely disagreed with the idea of a competition for education money.  Finally, there is a possibility district leaders who rejected the application were happy with the way things are going.  There are surely as many reasons as there are superintendents, it’s anyone’s which scenario is more prevalent.

Reflecting on the outcome, Stephen Bowen said mediocrity was defended.  He believes the state will miss the learning opportunity presented.  “So, like the Ark of the Covenant at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the state’s Race to the Top application will likely be carted off to sit in some repository for government documents deep in the bowels of the state library and will never be heard from again,” said Bowen.

What is the takeaway here?  Let’s stop playing lip-service to transparency.  Decisions best when those making them have as much information as possible.  Not to mention, Maine’s parents and students deserve that.  The biggest, however is the lack of communication and collaboration.  There is the possibility the DOE failed to properly express itself to Maine’s school districts, local union affiliates, and the MEA.  It is a fact they failed to do so with the U.S. Department of Education.  There is a possibility the MEA did not provide its affiliates with other sides of the issues besides their own.

We all love a good debate.  Honest debate brings about the best sorts of change.  That is not what we see at the top of Maine’s education system.  There is a lot of arm-crossed huffing from the MEA, but to give credit where credit is due they performed admirably during the stakeholder meetings, which were their idea in the first place.  The DOE at times seems to not know how to haggle.  It’s easy to imagine these players as a train with engines on opposite ends, both each conductor wanting to go different ways at once.  A little more openness and collaboration between parties couldn’t hurt.

I just spent over 1,500 words placing blame for Maine’s Race to the Top failure. The intent of this article was not to find someone to scold or make a scapegoat.  As I mentioned before, I am going to hold out hope that someone will see this is a teachable moment.  Those in power, at the DOE, MEA, the Legislature, and other parts of the Maine’s education community, may not see it, though I sincerely hope that they do.  It may, however, be taken notice of by someone waiting in the wings, with vision and strong determination.

If we want to move forward we must do the hard, sometimes uncomfortable, examinations of our failures.  An engineer who is not critical of possibly safety hazards in a bridge could end up killing others.  The individual that does not self-critique can slip into a dull pattern of mediocrity, missing out on one of the best aspects of life; discovery and growth.  Life-long learning.  Imagine that.

The Memorial and Sarah Long bridges that connect Kittery to Portsmouth, New Hampshire are crumbling, and need to be repaired or replaced.  The lifespan of the two bridges has ended at the same time, creating an unusually expensive problem. Libby Mitchell and her fellow Democrats in Augusta have ignored critical infrastructure like this for decades, choosing instead to spend millions on every social program and anti-business, nanny-state dalliance they could dream up.  Now Maine is broke, and the bridges are literally falling apart.

These bridges are critical to businesses in Southern Maine, including Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. Maine has had plenty of time to address this issue, and in fact balked at the opportunity to fix the bridges ten years ago. For a party that loves to spend by the million, Democrats have been conspicuously frugal when it comes to infrastructure. Why? Well, for one – bridges don’t vote. Democrats in Augusta have spent decades throwing millions at every left-wing special interest group they could find, and it’s paid off at the ballot box.

Even so, you’d think something as important as the bridges between Maine and the rest of the world would receive some attention. The negligence of Mitchell and Governor John Baldacci on this issue is astounding, and now they’ve added insult to injury.

Maine recently had the opportunity to apply for $20 million in federal funding to help with repair or replacement of these two bridges, but Democrats in Augusta decided to keep ignoring the issue. They refused to sign on to a joint grant application with the state of New Hampshire, and allowed the deadline for the grant to pass on Monday.

US DOT representatives have made it clear that New Hampshire and Maine need to join forces on this issue if they are going to grant funding.  To put it plainly, Libby Mitchell and her Democrat state government turned their backs on the people of Southern Maine by failing to join the effort.

The spin machine is now in full action mode, though. To quell the uproar from local citizens’ groups over his lack of support, Governor Baldacci tried to pull a fast one. Instead of signing on to the grant application, Baldacci offered a tepid letter of support to New Hampshire’s Governor Lynch. His representatives then tried to pass off this meaningless ‘Letter to Nowhere’ as if it meant Maine had joined the grant effort.

Well, Maine has not signed on to the grant application. In fact, Baldacci’s ‘Letter to Nowhere’ wasn’t even sent to the department offering the grant, the US Department of Transportation.  Instead, Baldacci merely sent the letter to Governor Lynch, and basically wished him ‘good luck’ with his application.

As Monday’s grant application deadline passed, Maine Democrats upped the ante – Libby Mitchell decided to pay a visit to the area and hold a ‘Transit Summit’ to listen to concerns about the bridges. Imagine that- standing by and watching the deadline pass without acting, and then trying to score political points at the foot of the bridges the very next day. This was an act of unparalleled audacity. Libby Mitchell, Senate President and former Speaker of the House, spent more than 3 decades in Augusta ignoring this issue. This was a crass act of pure politics, an attempt to ‘feel the pain’ of Southern Mainers, and escape blame for her negligence.

This is typical of the political games Libby Mitchell has been playing in Augusta for years. Unfortunately for her and the rest of her free-spending Democrat friends, the word has gotten out on this. Local businesses and civic groups are incensed at the gall of both Mitchell and Baldacci, and the impact of this lame attempt to snow the public will be felt for some time.

To learn more about local efforts to address this issue, visit http://www.portsmouthbridges.com/

Lance Dutson is the Communications Director for the Maine Republican Victory Campaign.

In the reverberating corridors of Portland’s City Hall this morning, the Maine Heritage Policy Center (MHPC) and Matthew Rand, a summer resident of Peaks Island, threatened litigation if the City Council chooses not to annul a recently enacted amendment to the City’s Transportation Ordinance.

The amendment in question would require Rand, a 19-year-old college sophomore with entrepreneurial aspirations, to obtain a taxi license and carrier insurance for a family-owned golf cart he uses to ferry tourists around on Peaks Island.

Before the measure was adopted by a 5-3 vote on Monday, Rand was not subject to the same licensing provisions that apply to regular taxis because he did not charge fares – he only accepted tips. The new amendment clarified that the definition of “vehicle for hire” is one where a driver is compensated by either fares or tips.

Tarren Bragdon, Chief Executive Officer of MHPC, alleged that a government-subsidized non-profit corporation, “Island Transportation System,” which commenced operations on Peaks Island in July 2009 but struggled to compete with Rand, petitioned Council members to expand the provisions in the taxi ordinance to include golf cart services, thereby driving up Rand’s costs and pushing him out of business.

Bragdon argued that the City Council trampled on Matt’s constitutional right to earn a living in an environment where 31% of 15-19 year-old males are unemployed: “The Portland City Council is redefining the rules to say if they can’t win then they will cheat.”

Councilor Kevin Donoghue, who sponsored the measure, said the decision is about “fairness and public safety.” He said he introduced the measure because the city ordinance was “unclear on the question of what constitutes compensation.”

However, David Crocker, Director of the Center for Constitutional Government at MHPC and Rand’s legal counsel, disagrees: “The City’s action in changing the taxi ordinance had nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with destroying a competitor to its subsidized service.”

He said: “If there ever was a case of unreasonable government and an arbitrary use of power, this is it.”

The City Council will hold their next regular meeting on Monday, September 6.

Editors note:  Stephan Burklin is a reporter for Maine Watchdog

The second round results of the federal Race to the Top are in.  We knew Maine wasn’t a finalist.  It was unclear until now, exactly how Maine compared to other applicants.  So, after all of the work put into Maine’s RttT application where did we finish?  33rd out of 36.

Matt Stone is reporting that Maine scored 283.4 out of 500.  Maine was soundly pummeled by two other New England states.  Massachusetts finished first with 471 points and Rhode Island finished fifth with 451.  Stone points out that Maine’s application did not gain much support from Maine’s school districts or local teachers unions.  States that finished high in the first round had high levels of district and union buy-in.  It is also embarrassing to learn that Maine’s application contained “a number of typographical errors”.  Grammatical errors do slip past me occasionally.  However, I’m not submitting my pieces to the federal government to vie for money for the state.  It will be interesting to see what comments are attached to Maine’s application once those are released.

It should have been no surprise that Maine was not an RttT finalist.  However, even before the list of finalists was released, I had doubts as early as January and March.  Waiting for the finalist list, news from Matt Stone and critiques from Stephen Bowen didn’t leave much hope that Maine would grab any cash.  Still, finishing almost dead last is a shock to the system.  Many of us figured our race car was busted, but it’s jarring to realize it was actually rusted out…And that someone had stolen the wheels.

What does Maine’s abysmal finish mean about our Race to the Top reforms?  Perhaps our application just wasn’t that good.  Given the fact there were grammatical errors couldn’t have helped.  Also, Stone showed there was some questionable phrasing used in the application as well.  This was the second round of RttT.  Surely the judges had seen some similar positive spins already.  They likely saw through such creative wording and the tactic may have hurt Maine’s chances.  We wont know for sure until we see the comments.

The 33rd place finish could mean the reforms Maine proposed just weren’t that good.  In certain areas that is true.  In his final analysis, Stephen Bowen argued the DOE’s reforms on data systems, lack of alternative routs to teacher and principal certification, absence of charter schools, few hard facts to back up claims made by the DOE, and a poor track record for implementing reforms.  Add in the previously mentioned problems with buy-in from the eduction community and you have a recipe for failure.

Does our score mean we should abandon reforms already established?  The scores for RttT were based on the Obama Administration’s idea of what good education reform is.  They are not the be all end all of education reform.  There are multiple avenues to an excellent education system.  It is worth exploring many approaches and incorporating what works for Maine children.  This is also a good time for reflection on what the DOE has done so far.  What reforms should be scraped, if any?  Perhaps there are some that should be modified or strengthened to provide a better system for Maine’s students.  Certainly Maine’s data systems and use of technology should be reexamined.

You would be hard pressed to find a person who didn’t want Maine to receive an injection of  funds for education.  We surely need it.  Let’s not get so down about this.  Now is not the time to lose our enthusiasm, sit on our hands, or point fingers.  John Dewy said “Failure is instructive. The person who really thinks learns quite as much from his failures as from his successes.”  This is a teachable moment.  There is a lot to learn from our failure.  We know what not to do.  We have a moment to rally the troops, examine ourselves, and move forward toward a better education system.

Eliot Cutler has spoken a lot about regulations in the state during his campaign, and it has increased over the past month.  Cutler now has a new proposal to address Maine’s regulatory environment.  Could this proposal be just thing to get Maine’s economy going again?

In conjunction with the release of his proposal, Cutler has been discussing reforming regulations and the functions of Maine’s government.  At the recent Rockland forum Cutler called for leaner government and smarter regulations.  While visiting Pratt & Whitney the candidate took a moment to address the Board of Environmental Protection, one agency he would do away with if elected.  Cutler said the citizen volunteers of the BEP were generally not experts in the field.  Cutler also worried these volunteers approached their task with “an agenda”, which could hurt businesses.

In an interview last October, Cutler said the following on how regulations can impact business:

Too often we are inconsistent in how we apply laws and regulations. Too often we change the rules in the middle of the game. Too often we give prospective employers the impression of playing “gotcha,” rather than asking – and demonstrating – how we can work with them.

Cutler has not sought to portray himself as an anti-regulatory crusader however.  Speaking at the Penobscot East Resource Center, Cutler said that “rules and regulations are not the problem”, citing their use in protecting Maine’s environment.  Cutler then echoed a similar sentiment as the one he expressed last October saying “such regulations are currently untimely, unpredictable, and subject to political whim.”

The Proposal

Cutler would create a new office that would review current regulations to see if they are working.  The office would also examine any new regulations before they are implemented.  The aim, according to the candidate, is to ensure that all state regulations are performing what they set out to do in a cost-effective and fair manner.  “We’re going look at every rule and regulation that’s on the books, and we’re going to ask Maine businesses to tell us about the unnecessary, unfair, unintelligible rules that are keeping them from growing and investing,” Cutler said. “Then we are going to change or repeal them. It’s time for some house cleaning.”

At this point, any major changes are reviewed by the Legislature before being implemented .  If the Legislature has concerns an agency is not carrying out regulations as intended, they may use the previously mentioned process to address those issues.

Next Cutler suggested abolishing the Board of Environmental Protection.  “I care deeply about protecting our natural environment, but we don’t need both a professional department and a citizen board anymore,” Cutler said. “The Board is redundant, costly, confusing, and one of the reasons why people just don’t want to invest here in Maine anymore.”  The board would be replaced by a three-judge Court of Appellate Review.

Currently the BEP consists of ten volunteers nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature.  According to the statute that created the BEP, the Board’s purpose is “to provide informed, independent and timely decisions on the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the laws relating to environmental protection and to provide for credible, fair, and responsible public participation in Department decisions. The Board shall fulfill its purpose through rulemaking decisions, decisions on selected permit applications, review of the Commissioner’s licensing and enforcement actions and recommending changes in the law to the Legislature”

Cutler believes that dropping the BEP would save businesses undue hassle.  In the current configuration, businesses can make major investments in Maine trying to get a projected approved by the Department of Environmental Protection, only to have that work appealed by the Board of Environmental Protection.

Changing the Department of Economic and Community Development into the Department of Commerce is also in Cutler’s plan.  The Department of Commerce would include the Office of Tourism, State Planning Office, Maine Technology Institute, Maine International Trade Center, Maine and Company, the Finance Authority of Maine, Small Enterprise Growth Fund, Maine Rural Development Authority. Cutler would also create the offices of the Small Business Advocate, and the Grants Assistance Team under the Department of Commerce  “Putting all of these programs under one roof with a strong and experienced leader from the private sector at the helm will be an important first step in bringing a more focused and cost-effective approach to our state’s business development efforts,” said Cutler.

The Department of Economic and Community Development currently houses the Office of Business Development, Office of Community Development, Maine Film Office, Office of Innovation and Science, Maine International Trade Center, the Office of Tourism, and Maine Made.

Cutler also said he would consolidate the State Controller, Budget Office and Purchasing Division into the Office of Financial Management.

Reactions

One of Cutler’s opponents does not agree with at least part of his proposal.  Libby Mitchell spoke in support of the BEP before a Board hearing.  “I believe it’s a very important piece of our democracy,” Mitchell said. “Our Board of Environmental Protection gives everyday people the right to approach their government.”  Mitchell also said the three-judge appellate court could not fill the shoes of the BEP.  “I think a good corporation is not going to be discouraged about a public process where the issues can be discussed by ordinary citizens,” said Mitchell. “To totally eliminate this opportunity for public input is unacceptable.”

Christopher St. John, Executive Director for the Maine Center for Economic Policy, said that while the MCEP does not take positions on the candidates, they are interested in policy issues surrounding the gubernatorial campaign.  St. John said that it is too early to judge whether Cutler’s proposal will benefit Maine’s economy.  At this point we are looking at a skeleton.  St. John hopes we will receive further information during the campaign to flesh out the proposal.

St. John said there were a few important questions surrounding the proposal from Cutler.  What is the aim of Cutler’s reorganizations and new programs?  Does he aim to provide better services, reduce costs, or both?  This, said St. John, must be explained by Cutler before one can assess the program fully.

There are questions surrounding the costs of these programs.  Abolishing the BEP is not likely to save money, according to St. John.  As stated earlier, the BEP is staffed by volunteers.  Dismantling the Board will take work from these volunteers and give it to an appellate court.  This will cost money.  St. John believes Maine’s judicial system is inadequately funded at this time.  The new appellate court could be a further strain on the system.  This is only based on the information we have so far.

St. John questioned if there would be any savings from a new office to review regulations.  Given what we know now, the office could end up costing the state more.  This new office would likely need lawyers to examine regulations.  St. John asked if experts related fields would be involved in the reviews.  According to St. John, the DEP has these people already.  Asking a group of lawyers, who may not be familiar with Maine’s environmental or other regulatory issues, to quickly determine which regulations Maine does or does not need did not sound like a practical or money saving plan to St. John.

St. John also noted that the DEP’s budget and staff has declined.  Many efficiencies have already been found at the agency.

Again the savings found by the creation of the Department of Commerce is unclear.  The Finance Authority, for example, is independent and has a larger staff than the current Department of Economic and Community Development.  It is not clear how combining FAME with the MDECD into a new department will offer any savings from consolidation.  In fact, St. John believes that this may lead to better results either.  This consolidation could increase the quality of services, but it could also lead to a greater tangle of bureaucracy.  The smaller, highly focused organizations we have now can give us better results.  The focused nature of the organizations allows that to be more nimble and better able to react to situations said St. John.

At the moment there are more questions than answers regarding Cutler’s proposal.  What functions will state government gain?  What efficiencies will be found?  What will be the cost of these proposals?  Mainers are not likely to get behind Cutler’s plan in larger numbers, especially fiscal conservatives, until he addresses these and other issues.  Cutler can shed light on some of these unknowns now.  Others will not become clear to Cutler unless he becomes governor.

Hopefully we will learn more about this proposal as the election moves into the final months.  Then we can truly assess if Mainers will benefit from Cutler’s reforms or not.  Right now, all we can do is guess.