When former Gov. Angus King first announced his intention nine years ago to put a laptop in the hands of every seventh- and eighth-grader in the state, it raised more than a few eyebrows. Maine, after all, was and probably always will be a rural state with limited resources.

It’s to the credit of King, and the budget surpluses of the late ’90s, that every junior high school student got a laptop in 2003, but expanding that ambitious program to high school students, who could arguably benefit from them even more, has proven difficult, with both King and those surpluses gone.

Thanks to the federal economic stimulus plan, some high school students will finally get laptops this fall, but many will not. The federal money didn’t cover the entire cost of the program, and the state decided not to pick up the rest, leaving the decision up to local school districts. It’s not surprising that about half of them, feeling pressure to keep their budgets low in the middle of a recession, opted not to proceed with the program.

While it’s not surprising, leaving such a large gap will defeat one of the original goals of the project – eliminating inequality in access to technology for children. It will also leave incomplete a project that is showing promise and giving students in Maine a tremendous advantage.

Opponents of the program have argued that while improving students’ access to technology is a laudable goal, it is simply too expensive for a state with such a small tax base and plenty of problems: Roads in disrepair, low incomes, high taxes and high energy costs are but a few of the state’s challenges. There are, opponents argue, more efficient ways to increase students’ access to technology, and giving them laptops doesn’t guarantee schools or the students will use them to their full potential.

All of those arguments are quite legitimate. In fact, it’s likely that King wouldn’t have embarked on the laptop initiative had he not been faced with a $70 million surplus. It was that surplus that prompted King to ask the state’s education technology guru, Seymour Papert, about reducing the ratio of students to computers to 3-1, according to a history of the project on the Department of Education’s Web site. Papert told King not to bother, that only a ratio of 1-1 would have a profound impact on students.

It was an ambitious goal, but one that King, and eventually the state, pursued. Although the results of the project are far from conclusive at this point, studies on the program, most of which are available on the Department of Education’s Web site, suggest that it is improving students understanding of technology and that schools are using the laptops effectively. The results will never be conclusive, however, if the state fails to put the laptops in the hands of high school students.

The state should commit to finishing this project because the potential rewards are great – a reputation for great schools and a highly educated and technologically savvy work force.

Leaving it unfinished wouldn’t do justice to the money that was originally invested in the program or the students who benefited from it.

Brendan Moran, editor