March 29, 2024
Column

Local school control has limits

Local control has long been a slogan in Maine. “We are a local control state” is part of the gospel of Maine. “That will destroy local control,” some say when they want to kill an education-related proposal. In fact, the term “local control” is used primarily to defeat rather than to support. All too often, “local control” is used to hammer down anything that is seen to threaten the power of the state’s 290 school boards and the 152 superintendents they employ.

In the beginning, schooling was indeed, local. It was paid for and run entirely by local residents. They hired the teacher and oversaw the curriculum. And why not? The students were local boys and girls who, in all likelihood, would stay in or near the community as they matured, marrying and raising their own families in the same locale.

The state of Maine was very slow to become a significant financial supporter of public education. In the 1950s, prior to the enactment of the Sinclair Act, which provided incentives for multitown school districts, the state was footing only 18 percent of the bill for public education. Local control was a rational partner of local funding.

Things have been changing since the mid-20th century. The state-funded share of education costs has ballooned, now reaching 55 percent. There is a bill in the Legislature to push the state share to 60 percent, and while it is not likely to pass at the moment, one cannot but wonder what some of the education groups see as a reasonable limit on the state share. The rationale for local control has certainly shifted in recent years. Maine children do not stay in their communities nearly so frequently, and many, perhaps regrettably, do not stay in the state. Our children go out of state and out of the United States for college, and in increasing numbers, they will spend a part or all of their lives out of the state or out of the country.

Preparing our children for the world they will inherit means preparing them to live in that world. Such preparation cannot be based on local culture or even state culture, though these should be a part of student learning. While there remains a validity to the local aspect of education, that validity does not require control.

It is not local control but local connection that is relevant to education in today’s context. For example, one of the oft-defended elements of local control is that it enhances a young person’s sense of connection to the school and to the community. An argument can be made that many students do better in community-based schools where they are known and where they do not get lost in the crowd – though there is not much agreement about how many students constitute such a crowd.

Enabling students to feel connected to their school and supporting the school’s connection to the community are not elements of education that require control of the schools; rather, they require meaningful interactions between the school and the community. Town citizens do not need to control the teacher-union contract, the hiring of a superintendent, or even the details of a budget in order to maintain a strong connection to their schools. Real school/community connections are based on concern for and interaction with the schools by organizations and individuals within the local community.

School/community linkage requires showing up at school events. It means turning out at the boys hockey games and cheering for the girls softball team. Connections are class mothers, local businesses that help students understand what a good employee needs to know. Connections are booster clubs, playground builders and band parents.

Keeping the connection means assuring that community voices are heard in the schools. It does not mean that any given town must control the schools within its borders; it does mean that the town’s citizens must demonstrate a concern for their schools and especially for their students. Strong community/school relations thrive around some of the individual schools in Maine’s largest school districts.

There is true value in and important reasons for maintaining strong local connections to education in Maine, but those reasons have little to do with control of the schools and a great deal to do with staying connected to the schools. Maintaining connections is a local challenge that can neither be threatened nor assured by any plan for reorganizations of Maine’s school administrations.

Ellie Multer is a member of the state Board of Education


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

You may also like