Smarter Money

Property taxpayers, still smarting from their last local increase, may have wondered last week how it was possible for them to contribute so much toward K-12 education and yet have a new study rank teacher pay in Maine near the bottom nationally. The easiest answer would be that local school districts were investing heavily in gold-plated chalk holders and buying especially good coffee for the teachers’ room. Unfortunately, the real problem is not so easy to fix and will require the Baldacci administration, the Legislature and school districts to substantially change the education system in Maine.

The American Federation of Teachers last week reported that pay for new teachers in Maine ranked 48th, at $24,054, with the average pay for all teachers only 38th, at $37,300. That would suggest that Maine doesn’t value education. But a recent Education Week study shows that Maine’s per-pupil cost of $7,595 placed it 13th nationally, a funding level that hits the state especially hard given the generally low incomes here. Why the disparity between the amount that goes into schools and the amount that actually finds its way to the people doing the teaching? Philip Trostel, an associate professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine, has several good reasons.

Student-teacher ratios in Maine are third lowest in the nation, 12.8-to-1 here vs. just over 16-to-1 nationally. That makes instruction costs 20 percent higher in Maine than nationally – Maine pays teachers fairly well, but it spreads the pay out among more teachers than most states. Administration costs are higher here too, with general administration in Maine 7.6 percent higher and specific school administration 9.1 percent higher than the national average. Operations and maintenance, the cost to keep school buildings running, are about 9 percent above the national average. Some expenses, such as student support, are lower in Maine than the national average, but overall, Maine spends 11 percent more for education and has poorly paid teachers, individually, to show for it.

Part of this can be attributed to the rural nature of the state – schools are spread out, practical commuting distance limits the size of some schools. But another part of the high cost is likely driven by habit, the understandable desire to maintain local schools, turf (try telling school superintendents that Maine could get by with far fewer of them) and the perception that students would suffer if schools were larger. It is this latter group of reasons that policymakers must address, with more incentive than the governor has offered so far, a more thorough campaign to inform taxpayers what they are paying for when they support the status quo, how other states administer geographically large school districts and what studies show for achievement among students in various size schools. The state Department of Education has done some of this already and plans to do more, but any idea that the state will impose spending caps on towns and force them into cooperating, as is being discussed in Augusta, will invite revolt.

Maine is expecting a teacher shortage in the next few years due to retirements. One way to solve this would be to use the teachers it has more effectively, thereby becoming able to offer them more money and subsequently attract more teachers with the higher wage. Raising pay to the national average would cost about $7,000 a teacher. And one way to afford this without raising taxes is to lower other costs that are well above average. That is more difficult, but it is necessary if Maine wants to attract new high-quality teachers to its classrooms.