There has been a long-running debate in Maine and nationally about the benefits and drawbacks of small schools. A new study here meant to shed light on the contentious topic offers little guidance. Its conclusions – that size doesn’t determine success and schools of all sizes may be successful – are so vague to be meaningless. Yet, the study calls for more money for isolated small schools, as long as they are high performing or have a plan to become so.

Rather than simply spending more – the governor proposed an extra $3 million for high-performing small schools in his State of the State speech – the state must first decide what it is trying to accomplish. The relatively new Essential Programs and Services funding system is based on what the state has determined is needed to educate each student rather than past expenditures, as with the previous formula.

As the number of students in a district declines, it will get less money from the state. Rising local property values also means less state money.

This has especially stung small communities near the coast. Parents from Cherryfield and Columbia Falls marched to Augusta to protest the potential closing of elementary schools in those towns.

For many communities, a school is the center of local activity. Take the school away and the town withers. The governor is on the right track when he talks about local schools becoming community hubs and housing Head Start programs and other services. This concept is in its infancy, however, and it needs much more thought and refinement before major decisions are made.

At the same time, the governor and Department of Education are right to emphasize the need for high-quality education in schools, regardless of size. The study by David Silvernail of the Maine Education Policy Research Institute at the University of Southern Maine, presented to the Legislature’s Education Committee this week, was meant to help lawmakers decide what characteristics high-performing schools share and whether they cost more to operate.

Neither question was really answered. Saying higher-performing schools “emphasize academics and performance” is obvious. So is the fact that some small high-performing schools cost more than their low-performing peers.

According to research by University of Maine economics professor Philip Trostel, per student operating costs in Maine were more than 11 percent higher than the national average in 2000-01, with Maine having the 11th most-expensive public education system in the nation. This is despite Maine having an average teacher salary that is the 13th lowest in the country in 2000-01, more than 16 percent below the national average.

The costs are high because Maine has a lot of school administrators. In 2000-01, Maine had more than twice as many full-time school district officials per student than in the rest of country, the sixth-highest ratio in the country.

Saving money on administration and devoting those funds to classroom instruction could improve performance at schools, large and small. This is where lawmakers should focus their attention.