Scott A. Harrison, Ed.D., MBA, is a senior advisor at The Harrison Group, LLC, based in
Yarmouth.

Strengthening our schools requires all stakeholders to work toward a shared mission. Yet one of the most visible and divisive processes in public education remains contract negotiation. While collective bargaining is essential and protected, the current district-by-district model strains relationships, consumes months of leadership time and often places volunteer board members across from seasoned negotiators — driving districts to spend scarce taxpayer dollars on legal counsel and prolonged talks.

Beyond the financial and relational costs, this fragmented system widens inequities across Maine and misses an opportunity to use compensation more strategically, maximizing the return on one of the state’s largest public investments.

A statewide teacher contract deserves serious consideration, not as a silver bullet, but as a
structural reform grounded in equity, efficiency and effectiveness.

This idea is not new. Lawmakers have explored statewide bargaining out of concern that the current system produces uneven results. Though those efforts stalled, the problems persist: stark salary disparities, chronic rural staffing shortages and administrative burdens that pull leaders away from instructional priorities. Lengthy, contentious negotiations can also fuel an adversarial climate, draining trust and energy from the shared work of supporting students.

First, equity. Teacher compensation varies dramatically across districts. In more affluent
communities, salaries and benefits are often far more competitive than in rural areas. The result is predictable: educators gravitate toward higher-paying districts, while rural schools struggle with vacancies and turnover.

A thoughtfully designed statewide contract could establish a strong baseline, ensuring every Maine student — regardless of where they live — has access to high-quality educators. Equity does not require identical pay everywhere. It means narrowing unjustifiable gaps while accounting for legitimate regional differences based on costs of living and labor.

Second, efficiency. Consolidating negotiations could reduce duplicative administrative and legal costs. Health insurance — one of the most expensive components of teacher contracts — could benefit from economies of scale and broader risk pooling. Streamlining bargaining would allow school leaders to focus less on contract cycles and more on instructional improvement and student achievement. In an era of constrained resources, minimizing transaction costs matters.

Third, effectiveness. Compensation reform should strengthen the profession, not merely
redistribute dollars. Additional state investment may be needed, especially in under-resourced districts, but funding alone is not enough. Dollars must be aligned with a clear strategy that directs resources into classrooms and makes compensation an active ally in advancing district goals.

A well-designed framework can reinforce shared priorities, promote collaboration and
recognize innovative practice and meaningful results. More spending by itself will not improve outcomes; coherent strategy and smart design will.

Several practical examples illustrate how a statewide framework could advance effectiveness. It can elevate accomplished teaching by strengthening incentives for certification through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards — the profession’s gold standard and one associated with stronger student learning outcomes.

Increasing salary supplements and scholarships would better reflect the rigor and proven impact of certification, encouraging more educators to pursue this high standard and extending its benefits to students across Maine.

Incentives can also be structured to reinforce shared goals. Maine’s 2010–2017 Teacher Incentive Fund initiative demonstrated that performance-based supplements can succeed when layered onto a competitive base salary, grounded in multiple measures, aligned with school-wide priorities and designed to foster collaboration. It also underscored that systems relying solely on test scores — an incomplete measure of performance — can erode confidence and credibility.

The lesson is not to abandon incentives, but to design them thoughtfully so they build trust and advance collective success.

The timing is significant. Maine is reviewing its Essential Programs and Services funding formula. If updated to better reflect regional costs and workforce realities, it could provide a stronger fiscal foundation for compensation reform. Funding and compensation policy are deeply connected; aligning them increases the likelihood of lasting success.

Local control must also be respected. A statewide contract should address core compensation and benefits while leaving hiring, curriculum, classroom resources and budget priorities with local boards. Districts should retain flexibility to exceed statewide minimums at their own expense. The goal is to level the playing field — not flatten it.

Ultimately, this debate is not about winning at the bargaining table — it’s about whether our system truly serves all students and makes the most of one of Maine’s largest public investments. Viewed through the lens of equity, efficiency and long-term effectiveness, a statewide teacher contract offers a compelling path forward.