For decades, Maine’s public school classrooms have functioned as Petri dishes, growing experimental cultures as much as educating students.

From “new math” in the 1960s and the “open classroom” concept of the early 1970s through the more recent “ portfolio assessments,” “ mastery learning,” “personal learning paths,” “authentic task development,” “student centered learning” and “standards based learning,” new models for educating American students emerge almost as often as doctoral candidates publish books.

The ongoing pursuit of excellence in a society that gained affluence through innovation keeps U.S. public education in a constant state of flux. That dynamic creates opportunity for exciting breakthroughs, but it also makes it profoundly difficult to establish a baseline to help determine whether we’re effectively adapting curriculum and methods to meet Information Age demands.

As global measures indicate that U.S. students continue to lose ground academically to their peers in other developed nations, the impetus to improve American education increases. That pressure, in turn, spurs political leaders to intervene.

Gov. Paul LePage proposed major changes to Maine’s public education funding and enrollment procedures this year via two bills, LD 1866 and LD 1854.

LD 1866 sought to remove the prohibition against using state money to fund religious schools. On Thursday, the House rejected the bill by an 84-59 vote.

That’s the correct answer. State government still falls far short of adequately funding public education, so it makes no sense to siphon off taxpayer dollars to underwrite schools that opt out of basic quality-control oversight and turn away difficult students.

The likely consequence of government subsidies for schools affiliated with tax-exempt religious institutions is that public schools would be left to educate Maine’s most academically challenged — and behaviorally challenging — students, with less money than they have now.

Based in part on the notion that competition would force schools to improve, LD 1854 aims to create an open enrollment system in which students could attend any school in the state. Tax dollars to support that student’s education would follow him or her to the newly chosen school district.

Critical thinking about LD 1854 reveals a key flaw in the proposal: The legislation operates on the premise that public education systems can work like businesses.

They don’t. Businesses fail. Schools can’t.

As demonstrated in classrooms run by skilled educators, a certain degree of academic competition can enhance learning. However, shifting the focus of competition in public education to dollars will distract school officials from what should be their primary concern: Educating students equipped to succeed.

The Education Committee recommended further study of LD 1854. One of the first assignments should be to determine whether it makes more sense to emphasize collaboration than competition. If students live close enough to transfer to another school district, doesn’t it make more sense — fiscally, academically and operationally — to encourage the neighboring school systems share resources than spend money on potentially redundant programs?

Using technology and incentives, state government could make better use of scarce taxpayer dollars by coordinating cooperation among school districts rather than pitting them against each other.

letters@timesrecord.com