A big winner Tuesday was the two-year-old school consolidation law, which should not finally be accepted as the best way forward to control education costs.

Although merging districts has been difficult in some areas, all across the state voters said that they want to reduce the amount of money spent on administration so there would be more resources for real education. The concept becomes even more important during this period of fiscal crisis, when all school districts are bracing for another round of deep cuts.

Proponents of the repeal argued that the real savings from the law have been overstated and gave isolated examples of expenses that some old school districts encountered as a result of consolidating. But the logic behind the law was too much to overcome.

Fewer school districts, with fewer superintendents, business managers, curriculum coordinators, secretaries, copy machines and office heating bills, will save money. Those savings will grow over time as districts make decisions about closing schools and building new ones to serve the district, not one town at a time.

District consolidation creates more opportunities to expand programs during tight economic times. Schools in the same district can share an art or music teacher and bring groups of students together to offer classes that smaller districts would not be able to afford.

What the law does not do is maintain a small town's identity, which is enhanced by having its own school district and school board.

In some cases that would be a loss, but it is not the purpose of education spending. As the voters said Tuesday, education funding should be used for education, and not to maintain the current system.