A legislative panel Monday rejected a portion of Gov. Paul LePage’s two-year budget proposal that would charge local school districts with paying half of teacher retirement costs.
The provision in the governor’s $6.3 billion two-year budget plan would provide school districts with about $29.4 million in additional funds over the next two years to pay for the shift. School districts would receive the money through the state’s school funding formula — which awards education aid based on factors including property values and the number of students who receive reduced-price lunches — so wealthier districts would end up shouldering a higher percentage of retirement costs than others. The Legislature’s Education Committee voted 9-4 Monday against the provision. The vote becomes part of the committee’s budget recommendations that next go to the Legislature’s budget-writing Appropriations Committee.
The state currently picks up 100 percent of teacher retirement costs. The LePage administration pitched the retirement proposal as a more equitable way to split retirement costs between the state and teachers’ employers, and to assign costs based on ability to pay. Democratic legislators have portrayed the plan as one of a number of provisions in LePage’s budget that move costs to local taxpayers.
“I think this is the worst possible time to begin that shift in responsibility,” said Sen. Chris Johnson, DSomerville, an Education Committee member.
Also Monday, Education Committee members decided against the possibility of shifting school employees to Social Security and away from the Maine Public Employees Retirement System. But legislation to make that change is forthcoming next year.
The committee Monday also opposed a portion of the LePage budget that would set up a “Choice and Opportunity Fund” creating a voucher system for underprivileged students and families that would allow them to use taxpayer dollars to transfer to other public or private schools. The committee opposed that proposal, 9-2.

Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less