To the Editor:
I attended last week’s Damariscotta school budget meeting to learn more about the circumstances reported by the LCN leading to a huge increase in the special education component. I came away disappointed, but in agreement with a clear majority of voters who signaled that major, multi-year taxpayer commitments should not be approved on blind faith.
School officials approached the presentation of articles as though all should be passed as a routine matter, despite a material increase in overall cost per student. The key discussion item was a request that residents essentially sign a blank check for out-of-state schooling up to age 20 of a “special needs” student, evidently now at the ninth-grade level.
What could cause the annual cost to start at $205,000, excluding transportation? What is the nature of the special need – educational, physical, medical, psychological, dietary – or all of those? That first-year price tag alone would cover four years of study at the nation’s most prestigious universities.
How come this issue is just coming to light when the student has been funded by the Damariscotta school system while attending another in-state facility? Why wasn’t there some earlier disclosure of a daunting financial challenge? What explains a sudden need for dramatically different and escalated treatment?
Federal law requires communities to provide “free appropriate public education” to those with disabilities. What are we really buying for such a princely sum? Appropriate education is determined by an unidentified advisory panel, presumably including educators, doctors, therapists and social workers, but no one representing those asked to bear the associated cost.
Does what they consider best for the student make sense for the rest of us? Is it “public education” or “personally privileged education” that actually might be discriminatory? What alternatives were considered, and why were they rejected? Can we learn anything from precedents in Maine and elsewhere?
What’s the likely outcome of a six-figure annual expenditure that cumulatively could reach well over $1-million, and what happens after attainment of age 20? Should we believe the prescribed treatment will be remedial, or is it merely speculative? Can we expect to have a productive citizen? Is there remaining parental responsibility, or is the youth now effectively a ward of the town?
The opposing majority was sympathetic toward education and legitimate assistance to the needy, but sent a strong message about the vagueness of the funding request. They simply did not want to commit the town to an ongoing obligation of major budget consequence without a better understanding of how it would satisfy a legitimate need.
We may ultimately have to accept the outcome as a take-it-and-like-it government mandate, but the opaqueness of the explanation is not acceptable. Better transparency is possible without compromising the surrounding issues of privacy.
George C. Betke Jr.
Damariscotta
