The gap between what the top 20 and bottom 20 school districts spend on elementary pupils widened slightly between the 1999-2000 and the 2000-01 school years, despite substantial increases in state school aid in recent years, according to a Bangor Daily News analysis.

In its regular survey of per pupil elementary tuition rates for districts with 100 or more elementary students, the NEWS found that the spread between the top and bottom spenders broadened by $150.

Nearly all of the top 20 spenders are either coastal communities or home to industry, giving them strong tax bases, in contrast to the bottom 20, almost all of which are rural, inland districts.

The widening comes after a run of three years in which the gap, which nearly tripled from 1991 to 1996, narrowed slightly as the state poured greater amounts into local school aid.

In the 2000-01 academic year, the top 20 spenders had an average elementary tuition rate of $5,899. In contrast, the bottom 20 spent on average $3,699, for a gap of $2,200 – $150 more than the previous year. The elementary tuition rate is set by the state and does not include special or vocational education spending or debt service for construction or transportation.

The spread between what the bottom 20 spent compared to the state average grew just $46, a statistically insignificant amount, according to experts.

From 1991 to 1996, a stretch when state aid barely rose in the aftermath of an economic recession, the gap between the top and bottom widened from $724 to $1,944. As state aid stagnated, districts with little property value had nowhere to turn for additional school money, while property-rich towns, such as those along the coast or with large mills, could tap into their strong tax bases to compensate for the fall off in state aid.

Among the 20 lowest spenders, 17 are in the 40 percent of districts with the least ability to fund schools based on property value per pupil, according to the Maine Department of Education. Conversely, 18 out of the top 20 spenders are in the 40 percent of districts with the greatest ability to pay.

From 1989-90 to 1997-98, state aid for local K-12 education grew on average by just 2.1 percent a year. Since then, it has risen by 6.5 percent a year.

When told of the widening spending gap, David Silvernail, one of the state’s top experts on school funding, said, “It doesn’t surprise me because we have no cap.”

As long as Maine does not cap what districts can spend, there is always the chance the top can move away from the bottom, said Silvernail, director of the Center for Educational Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation at the University of Southern Maine. “Equity is elusive because of local control,” he said.

Yellow Breen of the Education Department notes that the state has never had a policy that would exert any control over the top spenders.

In contrast, the state has had an active policy in getting more financial help to the bottom, he said.

This upcoming school year will mark the midpoint of a four-year initiative developed by the Education Department to raise what is known as the “per pupil guarantee,” so that it will eventually equal the average amount spent by districts across the state. The guarantee is a minimum base amount, a combination of state and local funds, that districts must spend on each student. Raising the guarantee forces the state to direct more of its K-12 funding to the poorest school districts.

The idea is to “bring the bottom up to the middle,” Breen explained.

He pointed out that the spending gap between rich and poor schools could widen even if all districts increase spending by the same percentage because the top spenders are starting from a higher base.

And in fact, that has happened. From 1999-2000 to 2000-01, the top 20 increased spending by 7.5 percent, while the bottom 20 lifted their spending by 7.6 percent.

In trying to explain why the top spenders put more distance between themselves and the bottom, Breen surmised that lower-spending local units might have used the additional state aid of recent years to hold taxes down. Or, he said, they could have funneled more money into their high schools or special education or other costs outside the elementary tuition rate.

What he could say about the department’s four-year plan so far is that state aid going to the poorest 40 percent of school districts has risen $76 million, while state subsidy for the wealthiest 40 percent has fallen by about $19 million.

“Is the state targeting money at the poorest districts? Absolutely,” Breen said.

The real question concerns how Maine wants to approach equity, he said. “We believe you need a definition of equity that’s not tied to average spending, but to an amount that is considered sufficient.”

Thus, the four-year plan is an effort “to create a launching pad” for a new way of funding essential educational programs, he said.

That’s what Maine has been slowly working on since 1994, as a number of state commissions have studied the essential programs and services needed to provide equitable opportunities for all students to achieve the Learning Results, the state’s K-12 academic standards.

In 1998, the State Board of Education released a pair of reports that laid out the programs needed in schools, a list of required research to refine the initial findings, and a dollar figure.

Based on that 1998 figure, experts now figure that it would cost an additional $147 million in combined state and local educational funding to provide the essential programs and services.

This spring, lawmakers approved a bill that lays out a transition to the essential-programs-and-services funding model by the 2006-07 school year, but did not attach an actual dollar figure.

According to Silvernail, whose research is at the heart of the essential programs and services effort: “The old definition of equity just doesn’t work.

“We ought to agree on what resources are needed behind each student,” he explained. “Even if we had all the money in the world and in one stroke could make all per pupil spending equal, that to me would still not mean equity. Some kids have more resources at home and come [to school] more ready to learn.”

For example, he said, if there are more at-risk students in a district, that district needs more funding per pupil than one without as many high-risk children.

“That’s equity,” he said. “Equity is not that there’s the same dollar amount behind each kid.”