The premise of the law, that rural education infrastructure is somehow "expensive" "wasteful" "redundant"... is incorrect -- making the policy application wrong, root and branch. Small, rural schools are often more efficient than large facilities were it not for the artificial, punitive fiscal policies applied by the Commissioner's office. Liquidation of rural educational capacity, and subsequent siphoning of resources out of rural Maine, rather than "collaboration" has long been a goal of this administration and rural counties who voted for repeal clearly saw this enshrined into law. School closures and subsequent long bus rides are "voted" into being by those elsewhere unaffected by such a policy -- not by communities themselves. Small communities have little recourse against this so-called "democratic process", and there is no "savings" on balance. In Arkansas, for instance, large communities voted to close small, neighboring schools even where the smaller schools were proven more efficient, doing more with less. Collaborate, yes. Rural Maine does this quite well. Centralization of school governance is not necessary and is, not recommended. It is my hope that the legislature moves to honor rural aspirations and protect the interests of ALL Maine citizens.

Muguet: face it, you lost. And, as we've reminded you ad nauseum, this is about district consolidation, not school consolidation.

Skip Greenlaw would like to gut the consolidation effort by eliminating penalties and allow towns to exit the larger districts. He knows that, without pressure, existing school districts would not combine. And by allowing towns to exit, he hopes to create enough uncertainty as to have future legislatures throw out the law. But hey, local anarchy at home is better than order from Augusta. Sheesh.

I'm glad the adults assumed leadership in this election. I only wish Gendron and Baldacci had held firm and that more districts could have been consolidated.

Had the law actually required centralization or elimination of school administration, there might have been an argument in its favor. But it didn't and there wasn't. Of course, Portland, Lewiston-Auburn and other urban areas of state didn't care about reality because they were not affected. I can only trust (a hard thing to do, but it must be done) the Legislature to make the necessary changes to this absurd law.

According to the research, Mainecommenter, district consolidation IS, inevitably, school consolidation (read "Anything But Research Based by the Rural Trust - rural.edu). Officials in Arkansas (this Commissioner's own model) repeated the same tired false dichotomy "ad nauseum" (and a wink and a nod), before closing hundreds of small rural schools in spite of their proven superior efficiency and effectiveness. If claims of universal benefit to taxpayers and schoolchildren were truthful, there should be no need to lock the gate behind communities entering into RSUs. The lies perpetuated by this administration and the Orwellian "People for Improved Education" (in truth, neither people, nor much interested in education) were bought in good faith by good people for whom the concept fits their sensabilities of economies of scale, and who voted for what they believed to be in the best interests of Maine taxpayers and schoolchildren. The barrier to withdrawal is designed to deny recourse to communities harmed by this policy, and they are many. As for your ridiculous characterization of local school boards as "anarchists" who need "order" imposed upon them by "adults" in August -- to call such a statement condescending at best is overly generous....patently absurd, insulting, mindlessly simplistic... In rural Maine, the fight didn't begin with this referendum, and, fortunately, the democratic process will not end with Tuesday's vote. Legislators from rural districts will work to ensure that the interests of their citizens are protected from a law that seeks, by design, to undermine them.

Muguet:

So, how small does a school age population need to be before closing a school? At what point does the need of a community's "need for a school" exceed the State's ability to pay with already scarce resources. At what point do the rest of us that partially pay for this luxurious arrangement, have a say? Some of the small school districts that you so defend are now in the process of closing schools themselves. What's the difference?

I attended a poorer small school district that virtually surrounded a larger, wealthier school district. If they had consolidated, the poorer school district would have been lifted and students there would have had access to the more plentiful curricula and programs of the wealthier school. Now, they're back to their silos and turf. When communities let "pride" get in the way of their childrens' best education potential, then there is neither pride nor much of a community.

Disgusting.

What people fail to examine in this debate is the success of small schools and the efficiency in cost per student. Somewhere in the formula for how many districts we have, there should have been an out for successful schools. Take Bridgewater Grammar school for example. It was a Pre-K to Grade 6 elementary school (just closed) that feeds into the Mars Hill District. If you take a look at the valedictorians for the past 20 years graduating out of Mars Hill, you will see a high number of them came out of Bridgewater. There is a direct correlation between small class sizes and individual attention. Now, those students are in classes of 27, 24, etc. in a larger school.

The result of consolidation in Mars Hill would have been an increase in cost, not a decrease. Mars Hill voted to take the penalty, because there were NO SAVINGS. Mars Hill's per student cost is about 2/3 the state average. Their buildings are paid for and well maintained. I suggest that if we want to save an administrator's salary, then put it on the town - remove it from the state cost sharing allocation. That should be up to the town. This, however, is not about cutting a superintendent. This is about CLOSING rural schools. The targeted district for Mars Hill? Presque Isle - 22 miles away. So, kids from Bridgewater, 7 miles south of Mars Hill, can ride 30 miles or more on a bus for 2-3 hours a day and repeat it in the afternoon. No sports. No after-school activities. Larger class sizes. Great educational opportunities - NOT!

And, INCREASED bussing costs (diesel and mileage), similar special ed. costs, because you need the same number of teachers, no matter which school they have to drive to. And likely a new school building in Presque Isle to house the students from area towns. Show me the savings in all of this.

Again, your characterization of rural communities letting "pride" come before their childrens' educational potential is seriously misinformed. Not only are the people of this area motivated by instructional quality alone, we are also very well-educated and extremely well-read on this particular subject. In case after case study, the law of unintended consequences prevents promised enhanced educational opportunities fail to materialize at all or are similarly slashed after a short period of time. Educational opportunities are paramount in the information age, which also affords these opportunities to be brought to rural children much more efficiently than expensive, achievement-surpressing, en masse bussing. The decision to close a school should be made on a case-by-case basis, while preserving the interests of all those affected. Again, I direct you to Arkansas. School closures there were inflicted upon highly efficient schools by those from afar who were voting their own perceived interests, with not documented benefit to anyone. Parents turned to the courts for relief. I cannot speak to your educational experience, and the decisions of your community and the larger, wealthier one not to collaborate or consolidate. ...a loss to everyone, I am sorry. My parents are both retired education professionals with advanced degrees and the stories I have been told about stupid sports rivalries taking priority over adademics in an earlier era are indeed "disgusting". To tar us with the same brush illustrates the shortcomings of your education.

The best way to cut administrative costs is to eliminate the mandates from Augusta and zero out the subsidies. The locals are plenty capable of figuring out what is absolutely necessary and taxing themselves for it. But you'll never see that happen because Susan Gendron won't give up her little empire.

Agreed, Muguet. "Disgusting" was too harsh a term. Perhaps "naive" is a better definition of those who think that the benefits and efficiencies of scale would naturally happen without Augusta's prodding. Your spirited defense of the failed (and expensive) status quo is admirable...but just as wrong.

Another example of Southern Maine saying, "My great idea works for me...what's your problem?"

fmrmti: I attended a northern maine school district. I'm using my experiences to encourage this consolidation.

I strongly disagree with the consolidation. It will cost more money then the school districts are paying now. I know that I wouldn't want to be on a bus for an hour or two every day either. You don't learn anything in a classroom for forty or fifty people either. Small classes have their benifits, more one-on-one help, you get taught more effectively, and the teachers actually know your name and you don't end up getting lost in the crowd. The school consolidation is a HUGE mistake. The children of the future will pay for the mistakes that their parents and grandparents made in the 2009 election.

I would hardly call the work of academia in the field of education, "naive", Mainecommenter. Their depth of understanding brought to bear upon detailed observations taken from this oft-implemented policy have shaped my position from one that once resembled you own. "Naivete" best describes the business-minded consultants who, armed with theoretical models of cookies baked in larger batches, attempt to apply these simplistic plans to public education. (HIstory is littered with the wreckage this phenomenon.) Children and communities respond in ways that become very expensive, and very inefficient. AlysonMcG: You have described perfectly what empirical research has proven. Perhaps the most thoroughly studied, is the experience of West Virginia, where aggressive consolidation policies began in 1990. The report, "A Decade of Consolidation, Where are the $avings?" details the costs incurred there. I don't want Maine to follow that path, and don't believe anyone else does. Rather than defending the status quo, Mainecommenter. I firmly believe in collaboration, and will certainly welcome more of it in future. Unions do this nicely. Consolidation of power, (though more convenient for lobbyists, and beneficial to the Commissioner's office) is not collaboration, and pulls dollars out of rural classrooms, where they are proven to yield the highest return, and into bussing, and construction of unwieldy facilities that require ever more administrative and support staff -- expenditures that do not foster achievement, but in fact, depress it. The belief that rural classrooms are inefficient and wasteful is one of perception perpetuated by this Commissioner's selective use of questionable math, and not grounded in reality. Rural children are not the cause of Maine's fiscal woes. Taxpayers and children of rural Maine should not bear a painful, false "remedy" to satisfy the misguided assumptions of the uninitiated, the unsophisticated and those with ulterior motives.

Muguet: Although I strongly disagree with your belief in our current educational institutions, it's been a pleasure conversing with someone with a brain; a rarity on these comment boards.

Thank you very much -- I enjoyed it myself, Mainecommenter