The 2-year-old school consolidation law should now finally be accepted as the best way to control education costs.

Although merging districts has been difficult in some areas, voters across the state said they want to reduce the amount of money spent on administration so more resources are available for students' 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 claimed savings from the law have been overstated and gave examples of expenses that some former 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. The savings will grow over time as districts decide about closing schools and building new ones to serve the district, not individual towns.

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

The law, however, does not 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 firmly on Tuesday, education funding should be used for education, and not to foster small administrative entities.