AUGUSTA, Maine – State Rep. Barbara Bagshaw, (R-Windham) is raising concerns about LD 2226, warning that proposed changes to Maine’s Essential Programs and Services (EPS) funding formula could carry long-term consequences for taxpayers if approved in its current form.
Bagshaw has focused much of her criticism on what she describes as the bill’s most problematic provision: a six-year “hold-harmless” structure that would delay reductions in state subsidies for certain school administrative units, even as enrollment and demographic conditions change.
The bill is expected to go before the House on Monday, placing lawmakers in position to weigh what Bagshaw described as a major restructuring of how education funding is distributed across the state.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1BhZmAhc6c
According to Bagshaw, the proposal would bar the state from reducing any school administrative unit’s subsidy tied to regional adjustment or local contribution changes for three fiscal years, from fiscal year 2027–28 through 2029–30. After that, reductions would be phased in gradually, with cuts capped at 25% in 2030–31 and 50% in 2031–32 before full implementation in 2032–33.
Bagshaw argues that the structure effectively freezes the current system in place for six years and delays the kinds of adjustments districts may need to make in response to declining enrollment and shifting financial realities.
Her concerns come as Maine’s public school enrollment remains approximately 4% below pre-pandemic levels, with declines continuing in many rural communities. More than half of Maine’s roughly 260 school administrative units serve fewer than 1,000 students, conditions that have increased financial pressure on smaller districts facing staffing shortages and rising operational costs.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GUZnX3HhM
Bagshaw said guaranteeing stable funding despite declining enrollment removes the financial signals that typically force districts to adapt. Instead of encouraging long-term planning and operational efficiency, she said the provision risks preserving existing spending patterns even when student populations change.
She also warned that the delayed reductions could create what she described as a predictable fiscal cliff. Districts that postpone adjustments during the six-year transition period may face significant changes once the full formula takes effect in fiscal year 2032–33. Rather than easing the transition, Bagshaw cautioned, the delay could concentrate financial pressures into a shorter time frame, making the eventual shift more disruptive.
Another area of concern for Bagshaw centers on the financial burden placed on taxpayers during the transition period. Under the proposed structure, the state would be required to fund both districts gaining subsidies and those protected from reductions.
Under a Level 2 simulation referenced in her concerns, 41 school administrative units would otherwise face losses averaging $165 per pupil. The hold-harmless provision would shield those districts from reductions during the transition period, even as funding shifts to other areas.
Bagshaw also pointed to uncertainty surrounding the total cost of the provision. She noted that the additional General Fund expense required to maintain the hold-harmless structure has not been fully quantified in fiscal analysis. That cost would be in addition to the projected $38.6 million baseline associated with the proposal, creating uncertainty about the long-term financial obligations tied to the bill.
Beyond the hold-harmless provision, Bagshaw raised concerns about the broader restructuring of the EPS funding formula, saying changes of this scale require careful review and analysis before adoption. She emphasized that the formula plays a central role in determining state education funding and local taxpayer obligations, making its design critical to long-term fiscal stability.
Bagshaw has said that while reform of the EPS formula is necessary, she believes the current proposal does not provide a sufficient solution to the underlying challenges facing Maine’s education funding system. Instead, she argues lawmakers should take additional time to evaluate the potential impacts and consider alternative approaches.
With LD 2226 scheduled for House consideration Monday, Bagshaw is urging lawmakers to proceed cautiously, warning that changes to the state’s education funding structure will have lasting effects on school districts, municipal budgets and taxpayers across Maine.
We may have declining students, but the administrators continue to expand. So this is basically a funding system for campaign donations via of the union.
In the 35 years I have lived in Sedgwick the trend has been steady: fewer students and more and more administrators, teachers’ aids and non teaching personal on the school payroll. The result is that my property taxes go up every year and if I ask why, I am told that it is because the “state rules require it”.
This is the 21st-century, we’re not still in the era of the inkpot and quill pen.
I don’t see why any school district with less than 1000 children can’t be administered on a county basis, if not directly out of Augusta. I know of his school district that has more employees then students!
There used to be a Maine State Superintendent of Schools — his desk is on display in Augusta, or was last time I was in the education building. Why can’t we go back to that?
Dr ED Because the Teachers Union controls the education system NOT the school board or DoE and they need the increases for their benifit.