To the editor:
Imagine. I hire five employees and tell all of them the same thing: You need a reliable, responsible vehicle to do your job. I’ll pay for it.
The Five-School Model: I give three employees enough money to buy brand-new cars with safety features and options.
I give two employees just enough to buy a used car that runs, barely.
Later, when the used cars break down, I say: “See? These two aren’t reliable. It’s not worth investing in them anymore.”
But the problem was never the employees: it was unequal funding from the start.
That’s the five-school model: Same expectations. Same job. Different budgets. Predictable failure for the underfunded.
The Three-School Model: Now I give the same three employees even more money than before so they can buy top-of-the-line cars with every option.
The other two? No replacement. No repair.
They’re told to ride with the better-funded employees.
Then I say: “We’re eliminating their positions because their cars weren’t reliable enough to justify keeping them.”
That isn’t efficiency. That isn’t data-driven. That’s rewarding those already funded and blaming those who weren’t.
The bottom line: You can’t underfund two schools, compare them to well-funded schools, then claim the results prove they aren’t viable.
The outcome was decided when the budgets were set.
This isn’t about enrollment. This isn’t about performance.
It’s about selective investment followed by selective blame.
You don’t starve something, then criticize it for being weak.
Cole Bliss
East Calais
