After a decade as a Maine superintendent, I authored a 2006 Brookings report that drove school district consolidations, many later reversed by local voters.

The education funding debate stays fixated on revenue — who is paying and how — while ignoring results — who benefits and by how much (“Maine’s school funding formula has long been called inequitable. Changing it is complicated,” Aug. 10).

In Maine’s many rural schools, that’s a hard conversation. It’s even harder because 70 to 85% of every district budget goes to labor, meaning talk quickly turns to jobs, pay and class size.

Legislators and school committee members can start by analyzing which dollars spent lead to better student outcomes. Think of it as learning on investment (LOI) just as businesses measure ROI, return on investment.

David Silvernail and Wes Bonney’s Essential Programs and Services model, adopted in 2004, was a notable attempt to balance revenue and spending. But the reality is that affluent communities will always want, and can pay for, more than most districts can afford. That’s not equity, and the state should not be subsidizing it in the name of reducing the tax burden.

Just as wealthier states, like New York and California, subsidize poorer states, Maine should acknowledge that wealthier communities will need to provide equitable resources to poorer communities. It’s time for an honest, sustained conversation on how to keep students in rural communities learning and thriving, without masking inequities in the name of fairness.

Michael Moore
Walnut Creek, Calif.