The recent flurry of revisions to Maine’s new school funding procedure, known as EPS (for Essential Programs and Services), raises very serious questions about the state’s plans for small and rural schools.

Like the State Board of Education’s recent approach to school construction, our funding policy appears to put the squeeze on our smallest – and often poorest – schools. The rural communities served by these schools are increasingly being told: Fund your school yourself if you want your children educated in community schools.

What’s the evidence for this? First, in the Maine Department of Education’s January estimates of state funding under EPS, larger percentages of smaller communities lost state funding than did larger communities. Forty-seven percent of towns with resident enrollment under 300 were “losers” as were 37 percent with enrollments between 301 and 499 students. By contrast, 15 percent of communities enrolling more than 1,250 pupils lost funding (and only 8 percent of those enrolling more than 2,000 did).

Second, the administration recognized that this “first run” of the new funding formula put undue pressure on primarily small towns. They borrowed $5.5 million from future education allocations to provide a one-time “adjustment” so that, in the coming two years, the impact of the EPS formula on taxpayers in these towns would be cushioned.

Third, some jarring contrasts show up in projected state allocations to towns and cities based on the initial run of the EPS formula. We have been tracking 30 high schools in recent years to examine how state and local policies might be affecting large, average and small schools. State funding, when averaged for our 10 small high schools (average enrollment of 153, located largely in rural counties), does not change in the first year of EPS. Funding rises by an average of 15 percent, however, for our 10 large schools (average enrollment of 1,061). Most surprisingly, state allocations to our 10 high schools with enrollments at the state high school average (about 540) rise an average of 57 percent.

Fourth, and most disturbing, these projected changes in state funding appear to ignore basic linkages between students’ socioeconomic status and opportunities for high educational attainment. Research established long ago that students from communities where adults have less money and less education face more hurdles to achieve the same educational results as children from more privileged communities. In Maine, there is a 66 percent chance that children from less privileged communities will achieve lower than children from higher socioeconomic levels.

Our data show that children attending our 10 small high schools come from communities with substantially lower adult education levels, occupational attainment and household income than communities feeding into average-sized high schools. Our 10 large high school communities fall on average near the “lows” of the small communities. A comparison of median household income for the three sets of communities places the average at $29,400 for the 10 small high schools, $41,690 for our large high schools and $47,240 for our 10 average high schools.

In 2001, average per pupil instructional costs were about the same for the 10 small high schools and the 10 average high schools (about $6,400 per student) and considerably less ($5,300) for the 10 large schools. Mill rates for education were 67 cents higher in average-sized school communities than in the small school communities and $1.85 higher than in large-school communities.

The picture sketched by these data is alarming. At least for the 30 high schools we are monitoring, EPS appears to increase state funding to those schools that a) have the most educationally privileged populations and b) can most afford to raise funds locally to augment state aid. Communities primarily small and rural that serve populations that typically need more rather than fewer educational services if they are to attain high educational results are flat-funded at best.

While these early results are not conclusive, they alert us to the real possibility that EPS is, in fact, a regressive policy. The goal of ensuring every Maine child an “adequate” yet affordable education is laudable. But EPS as it stands threatens to undo decades of progress that has brought Maine to the forefront of public education nationwide.

The Education Committee must take the time to study carefully – and to make public their findings – the impacts of EPS on all Maine schools and communities, not merely on the average Maine school. Our goal should be to improve the learning of every Maine child, regardless of the location, cultural background, educational level, or size of her or his hometown. Forcing every school into a one-size-fits-all mold, as EPS does, may bring “tax relief” to the average Mainer, but it won’t ensure a high-quality education for each and every child.

Gordon Donaldson Jr. is a professor of education at the University of Maine.