The Legislature’s Education Committee recently voted against allowing public funds to go to some religious schools, but some major changes to Maine’s education system are still to be decided by legislators as the session comes to a close in mid-April.

We’re pleased the education committee had the foresight to kill the bill that would have allowed taxpayer dollars to fund religious schools.

Even though Education Commissioner Stephen Bowen said the provision prohibiting funding for religious school students was only implemented in 1981, separation of church and state is a tenet on which this country was founded, and it is important that it continue to be preserved. The founders of this country recognized the importance of separation of church and state, and wrote it into the Constitution so Americans would not be persecuted as they were in Europe.

It is also encouraging that the committee was not rushed by administration officials and took a step back to consider further school choice. The committee voted unanimously to create a group to develop models for school choice and bring those back to the Legislature next year. Bowen expressed disappointment, but the committee was right to take the time to investigate this bill’s implications.

Just a few years after consolidation, the penalties to encourage those regional school units to stay together have been repealed, and the education committee has several proposals in front of it that could potentially increase costs to districts and tilt the favor of a good education to students whose families are already economically advantaged.

Gov. Paul LePage’s school choice bill, LD 1854, would allow public schools and some private schools to accept students from other districts, and give parents in those districts the right to send their children to those schools, even without agreement from their own superintendent.

Committee members expressed concerns about the finances and impact to school districts. They also raised concerns about students from low-income families having access to transportation to those other schools.

It is important that this proposal be properly vetted to address the committee’s concerns, and it was prudent that the committee formed a group to look into these issues of major concern.

Unfortunately, the committee also voted to send a bill on teaching standards and evaluations to the full Legislature.

Although Bowen says the proposal would result in clearer standards for teacher evaluations and create a better system for evaluating teachers and providing them with professional support, some are concerned that teachers would not have avenue for appeal. And again, teachers in districts with higher percentages of low-income students could “fail” evaluations based on student grades and test scores.

Often teachers are evaluated based on test scores and performance of their students, which should be a factor, but cannot be overly weighted in an evaluation system. Educators in “under-performing” districts ”“ which are often more economically disadvantaged ”“ would score lower than their counterparts in other more affluent districts, unless those standards are tailored from district to district.

The Legislature should carefully consider this final proposal and form a working group to ensure standards for evaluations are not one size fits all, and that educators have the ability to appeal and work on their performance before they could be fired.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by City Editor Robyn Burnham on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.