In recent years the Maine Department of Education has tied new building construction to consolidation efforts to save money. DOE public statements indicate they would favor administrative consolidation and are not in favor of closing small rural schools; but the end result is just the opposite – no administrative consolidation and the closing of many rural schools. Why?

In the winter of 2003, then Education Commissioner Duke Albanese came to Dexter to see the need for a new middle school. Surrounding school districts (SAD 4-Guilford, SAD 41-Milo, SAD 46-Dexter, SAD 68-Dover-Foxcroft and Greenville) were invited to hear about “Planning for the Future,” which provided some interesting information on demographics, property valuations and General Purpose Aid to Education provided by the state.

There was a good discussion and nearly everyone left with more information than when they came and the opinion that Dexter needed a new middle school. The demographics proved to be dramatically in error.

During the following year, superintendents and several board members from each of these districts met to talk about consolidation possibilities; unless you had the ear of a school board member you would not know these discussions were happening, but there was always gossip at some level. The discussions were undoubtedly beneficial, but the result was poor and no discernible benefit from consolidation (cooperation) could be found.

I was not surprised; what group of superintendents would look to justify eliminating four-fifths of their jobs, and what group of board members could give up power to a regional administration? There are good reasons to cooperate; they were not well represented. I was stunned when two of my school board members publicly stated the best way to replace the middle school was to consolidate within our district. This came from school board members who had, earlier, adopted the motto: The school is the heart of the community; the community is the heart of the school. Soon, from December 2004 to January 2005, four public meetings were announced in each town in the district.

The board presented a plan: close all the schools in the district with the exception of the high school and technical center and build a K-8 school. The weather was poor, as was the attendance, but more information was transmitted to the public.

Gossip continued. Several ad-hoc committees were formed to determine where such a large school, with all new athletic fields and attending parking, could sprawl out into our presentday farmland. Architects were hired, money was being spent, but all business was done in executive session.

After 15 months of no public comment, it was announced this spring that the board had taken out an option on 46 acres of land outside Dexter. We have had four public meetings concerning this proposal. Each meeting has provided more information, slowly, with persistent questioning.

The cost statements have gone from $10 million to $12 million, to $20-plus million, to the more recent $28 million to $30 million. No one from the Board of Education has attended any of these meetings. The board, the administration, the teachers and some of the public are anxious for a new middle school; but not without some reservations.

The informational meetings provided three defining statements: (1) A longtime board member admitted that Albanese, in the winter of 2003, said to him, “If you want a new middle school, you will have to consolidate.” (2) Our superintendent of schools shared a “memorandum” on major capital construction projects that states: “the older buildings do not lend themselves to house today’s educational program that is driven by Maine’s Learning Results.” (3) The engineer, who works with the architect (architects are paid a percentage of the total bonded funding), stated that “they did not expect any students to walk or bike to school.”

Because of a lack of dialogue, we have poor communication and very little cooperation. We have an industrial proposal sprawling out into our farmland with seemingly no regard for future energy or transportation prospects. Most community planners would be appalled that this plan eliminates three elementary schools that are centrally located in each town (Garland, Exeter and Dexter), quite functional, with room to expand and a need to expand

The Garland School was built in 1954, has had a new roof, increased insulation, new windows and new siding, yet it, and its adjacent open space, ball field and playground, were given no value in the matrix of site evaluation. The Garland Town Office was built in 1848, the Garland Store in 1850, the library in 1935. The Grange, the church and the fire hall were all built in the 1800s. All of these buildings function well because they have been properly renovated and maintained.

A paternal attitude by the state only subdues a creative approach by local people to their school problems, but when you are used to the “state” paying two-thirds of the educational bill, it’s easy to fall into the “welfare” approach: i.e. “give me the money and I’ll do what you want.”

Neither attitude fosters a good atmosphere for long-term planning. Schools are social constructs. Applying industrial methods will not give us better schools.

Jim Bunn has lived in Garland since 1973, is a full-time farmer and teaches adult education in SAD 46 in Dexter.