As part of the profuse discussion about school district consolidation up in Augusta over the past few months there have been a number of references made to the “two Maines.” For those uninitiated, the “two Maines” phenomena is related to notion that the people of Maine can be broken down into two distinct cultural groups. The exact description of these, and a clear understanding of the differences, has never been clearly articulated.
For some people, the “two Maines” follows geographical boundaries. For many years it was defined as those who lived on either side of Interstate 95. For some it was defined as a “north/south” bifurcation, the exact location of the boundary remains contested. But with changes in economics and the real estate market, this former border line is almost impossible to find.
Some have chosen to make the “two Maines” a function of socio-economical class, one being “poor Mainers” and the other “everybody else.” But once again, the boundary of this distinction is not clear as it seems that there are many otherwise “wealthy” Mainers who dwell in both camps.
Still another understanding of the “two Maines” comes from family lineage. When I first came to Maine 37 years ago there was a rather clear distinction between “Native Mainers” and “the people from away.” The distinction was made obvious in the form of distinct regional accents, vocabulary, occupations and even in clothing style. Perhaps as the result of the mass immigration of outsiders to Maine in the past 40 years, and changes in transportation and economics, it has become harder and harder to find true natives.
Now it appears the “two Maines” are to be defined by relative size and location of communities. I’ve heard it said that the distinction is now “rural Maine” and, in lieu of a better name, “urban Maine.”
Now, I understand that according to some federal departments, some of the cities of Maine can be described as “urban.” But having grown up in the borough of Brooklyn, in New York City, where the population was around 9 million, I find this “urban Maine” idea a bit laughable. Under this new interpretation of the “two Maines” we are separated by the fact that we live in either small, generally rural communities were we apparently embrace expensive and inefficient school administrative units, or we live in larger, more urban settings with more efficient and progressive school administrative units.
But, I think this new dichotomy of the “two Maines” is equally wrong. If you listen to who is in favor of school district consolidation and who is opposed you’ll find some a complete array of heterogeneous set of communities that fall into both camps.
Ultimately, I think it may just simply come down to two visions of Maine. It seems to me that the “two Maines” may simply come down to two groups of people: one which embraces change and progress and looks to improve, and the second who relishes tradition, likes to keep things the way they are, and thinks we should leave well enough alone. The mantra of the first group might be like the slogan for Toyota Motors “Moving Forward.” For the second group, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
These two mindsets are almost perfectly articulated when one reads two opposing newspaper editorials reacting to the Maine school district consolidation debate that has been going on since the Governor first proposed reducing the number of school districts in Maine from 150 to 26 back in January.
The two editorials – one in the Portland Press Herald and the second in the Ellsworth American – each take dramatically opposing positions on school district consolidation.
The Portland Press Herald editorial appears to have taken the position that generally supports the notion of consolidation and demands that the process be made mandatory. They suggest the need for urgency noting, “Maine has tried the carrot for years without appreciable results. It's time for the stick.”
The Ellsworth American refers to the school consolidation process as a “Runaway Train” complaining, “Now Baldacci is demanding that the Legislature restructure an education system that, for all its faults, has mostly served us well for decades…”
Can both these newspaper editorial staffs be right? Or, do they simply represent what they think is the mindset of their readers.
While you make your own mind up about which vision of Maine you choose to support, remember that this process of school reform and change is not new and it may simply be too late to turn back.
Since that infamous “A Nation at Risk” report delivered in April 1983 to then US Department of Education Secretary T.H. Bell, educators in all fifty states have worked feverishly to reconstruct the educational landscape. In Maine we have moved mountains to get where we are: creating the Maine Learning Results, the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA), and investing millions of taxpayers’ dollars for professional development activities used to re-train thousands of teachers into the ways of standards-based education. For a more detailed review, please see Michael Fullan’s report A Look to the Future: Maine Education Reform [PDF].
These reform efforts have been in part fueled by some good old fashioned competition between the states and even among communities within states. As I predicted many years ago when the MEAs were first administered, the score achieved by all the schools in Maine appear in the newspaper each year followed by explanations as to why some score are low and heaping adulations on schools where the scores have shown improvement. No school wants to be at the bottom of that list and this has fueled a need to reform.
In recent years the battle to improve education has been boosted by two new challenges. One is the No Child Left Behind legislation which imbues fear, anxiety, and embarrassment to those schools who “fail” to show “adequate yearly progress.” And the second comes from a well-documented idea that America may be losing its place as the dominant economic and cultural leader of the world. This idea suggested largely by the Tom Friedman book, The World Is Flat has gained a lot of traction in recent years and has focused a great deal of attention on the American public school “industrial complex” and the need to dramatically reform it.
One of the common complaints about American politics these days is the shear lack of leadership and vision. We’ve watched our political leaders vacillate on topic after topic waiting to see “what the polls show” and then move their message to one that resonates with the majority. It’s ironic therefore that Governor Baldacci’s bold leadership and vision to bring about change in Maine’s public school industrial complex should bring about such criticism.
What has been sadly missing from this debate is the articulation of the potential benefits from school district consolidation. If you believe the editors of the Ellsworth American, the goal of this effort is a clandestine attempt to close down small schools in small communities (this despite the fact that the latest revisions of the plan have clearly define mechanisms to prevent this). But with school district consolidation the exact opposite might happen. By bringing small communities and small schools into larger communities with more resources they should be able to provide the smaller communities with those same resources and actually increase the educational opportunities for the students in those small schools. By simply bringing more educators together into larger communities of learners, you will enrich all of their experiences. And there are many more examples of how school district consolidation could improve communities and increase educational opportunities.
Ultimately, the decision to act on this plan is up to the Legislature. But make no mistake, if they fail to act, you will see more citizens’ initiatives on the ballots in the fall and should something like a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights come into effect, we will all be wishing we had passed this plan when we had the chance.
~John Brandt
