Todd Benoit’s column, “Getting down to school essentials” (BDN, March 19-20), started out describing the results of a survey of school superintendents regarding their views of the state’s latest school funding formula labeled Essential Programs and Services and ended up suggesting that there are too many superintendents in the state. I certainly make no apologies for my responses to that survey because I believe that the implementation of the Essential Programs and Services model for school funding has been premature.

I would like to make two points in regard to his assertions. The first is that the state Department of Education has not yet supplied school districts with the specific information used to calculate the school districts’ operational costs. Until that information is made available to school departments, it is very difficult to understand how the Department of Education is applying the many charts and tables used

in the model for the program.

This lack of information from the department has fueled a mistrust of and frustration with EPS that are justified. If you are living in a large school district and receiving big increases in state subsidies, you may not care how it is calculated. If you are living and working in a small school district, you would at least like to know how the state Department of Education has calculated the cost of your “essential programs and services.” Is it perhaps because the state’s new “one model fits all” philosophy

of school funding will not stand

the scrutiny?

Secondly, Benoit’s point about the large numbers of superintendents may be accurate, but he fails to point out that the number of superintendents is determined by the number of school committees and boards in Maine. Since many small towns in Maine like to believe that they can have some control over their local schools, they elect school boards and committees to carry out these functions. These lay people are often highly dedicated and conscientious citizens who have a keen interest in maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of their schools. They have this interest because of the sense of ownership that these towns have in their local schools. I fear that the “hub and spoke” model would erode the support that these schools enjoy in their towns.

The new “hub and spoke” model that would allegedly centralize administration while preserving small schools can work in a center like Bangor, or Portland, and in larger school administrative districts where a bureaucratic model with one superintendent and a number of assistant superintendents, curriculum coordinators, special education directors, and business managers can run the system under the direction of one school board.

However, there is another side to this picture and that is rural Maine. It is true that small schools in towns across Maine have gradually been disappearing during the past 100 years. However, does that mean that all small towns must relinquish their small elementary schools under the crush of state bureaucracy? Is there not still some space left for towns that have adequate population and tax base to support a local school?

I would argue that an important part of Maine’s future lies in its rural character. People who are looking to escape the big cities of this country are still interested in living in an environment that is not overcrowded and overregulated. Artists, poets, entrepreneurs, small farmers and many others are contributing to the economy of small towns and Maine. They are also a vibrant part of the diversity of this great state. These folks also have children and they want a good education for their children. Maine’s small schools offer this alternative.

The school boards and superintendents who oversee these small community schools need the support of the state just as much as the big cities. They are also efficient stewards of the resources provided to them. They deserve your support – not your ridicule.

David C. Wiggin is the superintendent of School Union 69, which encompasses Hope, Appleton and Lincolnville.