As virtually everyone knows -- and as reported in the New York Times -- Howard County, Maryland, suffered through a heart-wrenching process of school redistricting this past fall. As a state delegate, I avoid getting involved in issues that are specific to the county, such as normal school redistricting; I got involved in this process because it was anything but normal.
"Redistricting" is always unpopular; neither kids nor their parents like moving kids out of their neighborhood schools. However, it's occasionally necessary to move students around to relieve schools that become overcrowded.
Unfortunately, last year the Howard County superintendent and a majority of the elected school board decided to use the redistricting process as a vehicle for social engineering.
Relying on ambivalent research, the County determined that we needed to address "economic segregation" in relocating children. Economic segregation is a newly minted politically correct agenda that suggests children living in lower income communities must be sent to schools in higher income district, and vice versa.
The agenda postulates that this is necessary and good because (1) lower-income students benefit from the more plentiful resources available in higher income communities, and (2) higher income students benefit from "experiencing the diversity" in lower performing schools.
While the concept may be valid in communities where local governments invest significantly fewer dollars in low-income
Random team for "Simulated Congressional Hearing" (SCH) day at TRES
school districts than in the wealthier districts, this justification is essentially moot in Howard County where all of our schools are well-funded and successful. The idea that students in wealthier school districts must change schools to be able to "experience diversity," is absurd!
I have six grandchildren in Howard County schools, and this accusation of racism in our county boggled my mind. My experience -- indeed, my eyes -- tell me that our schools are wonderfully diverse. A few weeks ago I ran across the above photo. I took it when I was an SCH judge for Triadelphia Ridge Elementary School. (The lovely young lady in the middle is granddaughter, Skylar). I'm not sure how much more racially balanced this randomly-selected team could be.
Indeed, of all the school jurisdictions in the country, Howard is one of the least likely to need redistricting to achieve some amorphous concept of socioeconomic integration.
Below are highlights from an article I wrote that appeared in MarylandReporter.com on November 7, 2019.
Just three years ago, the Howard County school superintendent as well as its Board of Education flatly ignored the passionate voice of the community. There were consequences.
The members of the School Board that signed the unpopular superintendent to a new 4-year contract were voted out of office. And the new Board had to pay over $1 million to remove the superintendent.
Three years ago, parents were frustrated and unhappy; this year, parents are frustrated and furious - and with good reason.
Superintendent Michael Martirano introduced his "Attendance Area Adjustment Plan" -- generally referred to as the Redistricting Plan -- on Aug. 20. Community response was swift, voluminous - over 5,700 pages of comments, and virtually all negative.
The plan was immediately suspect because of the sheer number of students it would transfer - 7,396 out of the 57,346 students, or almost 13%.
"Socioeconomic" segregation
The superintendent's plan included a new trend in social engineering. Socioeconomic integration is designed to "advance equity by addressing the distribution of students participating in the Free And Reduced-price Meals program (FARMs) across schools to the extent feasible." In other words, redistricting kids based on family income. . .
. . .by introducing the idea that we must balance schoolchildren by family income and calling it "socioeconomic integration," this process has stirred up racial unrest and has created a false impression about the county's true racial character.
As one comment said, "You're creating so much hate and animosity in the name of equity. It's a shame you can't do better than this."
The redistricting fight is not over. It now moves to Annapolis, for better and worse. For better, seven separate appeals have been filed with the State Board of Education. For worse, two members of the Howard County delegation have introduced legislation that could continue to split our neighborhoods for years to come.
At the Delegation hearing in Howard County on November 19 th, Bill 01-20 titled " Board of Education - Redetermination of Geographic Attendance Areas" was introduced. If passed, this bill will essentially create annual redistricting.
The bill says, "If student enrollment at a permanent school facility is not within Target Utilization [defined in the bill as between 90% and 110%], the County Board shall re-determine the geographic attendance area of the permanent school facility."
Fortunately, there are several opportunities for the community to make its will known. In order to pass, the Bill will face a second hearing in Annapolis. It must then be voted on and passed by the Delegation. The bill will then be assigned to a committee that will hold yet another hearing. The committee may then vote to approve or deny the bill; in the alternative, the committee chair may decide to kill the bill by failing to bring it up for a vote. If the bill is passed by the committee, it will go to the floor for a vote of the House where there is over a 99% chance that it will pass.
There is still an opportunity to affect the outcome when the bill is sent to the Senate. It must be heard and passed by a Senate Committee and by a majority of all Senators. The best chance to affect the bill is as early in the process as possible.
News from Annapolis will keep you advised on the status of this bill, as well as the progress of the appeals.
Actions of the Howard County School Board
The Board of Education of Howard County voted January 9, 2020, to adopt positions on local Howard County Delegation bills, with the following outcomes:
Ho.Co. 1-20 - Howard County - Board of Education - Redetermination of Geographic Attendance Areas: OPPOSE
Ho.Co. 2-20 - Howard County - Residential Property and New Home Construction Advertisements - School District Information: NO POSITION
Ho.Co. 4-20 - Howard County - School District Boundary Changes and Sales of Residential Real Property: SUPPORT W/AMENDMENTS
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: To ensure this covers all residential property sales (including condos, multifamily, duplex, townhouse, two-over-twos, etc.) HCPSS recommends "single-family" be removed (first line on page 2 under A). The Delegation may also want to address the impact of rental agreements.
Ho.Co. 6-20 - Howard County - Board of Education - Reporting on Demographics and Reduction of Academic Disparities: NO POSITION
Ho.Co. 13-20 - Howard County - Public School Program Capacity - School Board and Planning Commission: SUPPORT W/AMENDMENTS
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: While the Board supports the portion of the bill (specifically §9-1303 beginning at line 24 on page 2) that allows the Howard County Planning Commission to reject proposed residential projects where capacity is projected to be greater than 115%, HCPSS recommends removing the section prohibiting enrollment above 115% in any HCPSS school (specifically C (2) beginning at line 15 on page 2).
Ho.Co. 19-20 - Howard County - Education - Report on Deferred Maintenance: SUPPORT
Ho.Co. 22-20 - Howard County - Public Campaign Financing - Board of Education: NO POSITION
Ho.Co. 23-20 - Howard County - Public Schools - Reporting of School Data: NO POSITION
Ho.Co. 26-20 - Howard County - Transfer Tax - Rate Increase Authorization: SUPPORT W/AMENDMENTS
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS: HCPSS recommends an increase in the percent distributed to the school system to not less than 50%, as well as broadening the potential use of such funds to Howard County Public School System capital improvements (rather than specifically the School Site Acquisition and Construction Fund which can only be used for the purchase of school sites and the construction of school buildings) to give flexibility in meeting school system capital needs.
I recently got an email from a member of the BOOST Scholarship Coalition, thanking me for my support and encouraging us to continue to support the program. Here is part of that email:
The Maryland BOOST Scholarship Coalition is a group of parents, educators and school administrators who are dedicated to ensuring that Maryland students have access to high-quality, affordable and diverse educational options. We believe that education is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor and that families should be given the opportunity to choose the education best fit for their child.
Last year, thousands of students across the state received a BOOST Scholarship. For the current school year, there was a 25% increase in certified applicants, leading to a large wait list after initial awards were made.
I have been a strong supporter of the BOOST program since its inception. Our legislature, however, prefers not to support any form of education choice. Each year, my Appropriations Committee has cut the amount of dollars allocated to BOOST by the Governor. Last year, our Chair attempted to kill the entire program with budget language eliminating any future BOOST scholarships.
We will have a hearing at some point that will include discussion of the BOOST allocation. I urge all of you to come to Annapolis and testify to your support of the program and your desire to see the entire amount approved so that children are not denied the opportunity to choose to go to a school that will meet their individual needs.
As soon as I know when that hearing will be held, I will provide notice of it in my Newsletter.
from News from Annapolis: Week 3, 2020
Implementing Kirwan
Accountability: The Devil is in the Details
The much heralded Kirwan Commission has completed its work, and the General Assembly will be looking at legislation to enact the recommendations of the Committee, at a 10-year cost of over $30 million.
While there is much concern about where the $30 million would come from, there was as much or more concern over the perceived lack of adequate accountability standards.
The Commission addresses this issue in depth on pages 122-134: "It is imperative that a strong system of accountability be put in place to give the public confidence that its increased investment in pre-K-12 education will lead to a system that performs as well as the best education systems in the world."
Pursuant thereto, the Commission recommends creating an "independent oversight board of education policy experts to develop a comprehensive implementation plan."
In addition to the independent oversight board, the Report also recommends that MSDE appoint Expert Review Teams to conduct hands-on reviews of individual schools to find the cause of poor student performance and report back on what should be done.
In an effort to put some teeth into the Oversight Board, the Commission recommends giving the Oversight Board the "authority to withhold up to 25% of new funds if it finds that the local school system or school is not doing what it should do."
Is Withholding Funds an adequate Consequence to enforce compliance?
There is an inherent unwillingness among elected and appointed officials to actually impose serious consequences, particularly if the consequence seems harsh. Withholding a portion of State funding seems to be a more acceptable, civilized way to hold people accountable. However, the first hint that even this financial consequence might be too harsh for our elected and appointed officials occurs on page 132: "The Commission does not believe that funds should be withheld from any school or district simply because of poor student performance." Excuse me!? Isn't that the bottom line? Everything else is ancillary to raising the scholastic performance of students. If poor performance by students doesn't invoke the only consequence, what is the consequence for?
And then, there is the question of whether withholding funds is adequate even when the State attempts to invoke it.
The Devil is in the Details.
If we could go "poof" and the recommendations would be fully implemented, there would be massive support for the plan.
Unfortunately, we have no magic wand, and Harry Potter is stuck at Hogwarts.
The major concern of many Marylanders is WILL IT WORK? Will we have the discipline to enact major changes in a bureaucratic system over a period of 10 years?
And the answer to that question depends almost exclusively on the viability of the accountability and consequences provision.
We can't predict the long term future any better than a meteorologist can accurately predict the weather beyond next week. But we can learn from the past.
Lessons from the Baltimore City Schools
The catalyst for the effort to help Baltimore City schools ("City Schools" or "BCPS") to improve came initially from a lawsuit filed by the City against the State charging that the State was failing to provide the "thorough and efficient" or "adequate" education to the students in Baltimore City, as required by the Maryland Constitution.
The state soon realized that the problem with the underperforming City Schools was twofold: insufficient funding was just one prong; the City's "failure to adequately manage the school system" was just as big an issue.
Over the 10-12 year period the State and the Board of City School Commissioners ("Board") addressed both prongs of the problem. Through the recommendations of the Thornton Commission, the State provided an additional $43 million to the City Schools. Meanwhile, throughout the same time, the State and the Board made repeated efforts to address the management issues and restructure the system. All efforts failed.
How and why the state failed to get the City to implement changes is instructive in showing what might happen now, in our efforts to implement the Kirwan changes, and will help us to avoid the same mistakes.
The State finds management Problems
The first State effort to improve the City Schools began in 1992. After investigating and analyzing the problems that plagued the City, the State found that the City had:
"failed to implement a legislatively-endorsed series of recommendations made in 1992 by a consulting firm, that it had
failed to use nearly $12 million in Federal and State resources that had been made available to it in FY 1992-1995, that
due to lack of planning and management, it had failed to access millions of dollars of additional Federal funds that could have become available, and that it
failed to use $20 million of State capital improvement funds because of delays in design work and in signing contracts.
"The State alleged further that the City had failed to develop and implement:
a uniform curriculum,
an effective personnel training and evaluation system,
an adequate management information system,
an adequate procurement system,
effective testing protocols,
effective grants administration and monitoring,
a comprehensive plan to reduce school crime, and
an adequate plan to comply with the mandates of the U.S. District Court with respect to special education programs then under Federal court scrutiny."
The CONSENT Agreement
Soon thereafter, rather than argue out the issues in court, the State and the City entered into a "Consent Decree," that set forth rules for going forward.
The Consent Decree provided, essentially, for five things:
a significant restructuring of the governance of the City Public School System,
the provision of certain additional funding by the State for FY 1998-2002,
the development of a plan to increase student achievement,
interim and final review and evaluation of progress, and
the continuance of jurisdiction by the court
Time went by without progress; instead, the City seemed uniquely unable to stay within its budgets. The City of Baltimore agreed to make a loan to the City Schools, and o n March 17, 2004, the City School Board and the City of Baltimore entered into a City Funding Agreement.
The funding agreement created a three-person Fiscal Operating Committee to develop and implement a financial recovery plan. That plan was to include a new budgetary process, a schedule for reducing the structural deficit, an affordable downsized staffing model for BCPS, and further cos-saving measures.
The Fiscal Operating Committee
But the Fiscal Operating Committee was unable to implement any of the mandated changes. The Committee's Report noted that the FY 2004 plan to reduce the deficit not only could not be implemented but that an additional deficit was looming because:
(1) budgeted personnel costs were based on estimated salaries that did not reflect actual salaries,
(2) previously promised re-engineering efforts were never completed,
(3) temporary employees were not laid off when projected,
(4) staff initially paid through grants were absorbed by general funds when the grants expired, and
(5) monthly cost reporting lagged months behind.
"The Report concluded that the City Schools " not only continue to cut and contain costs in the remaining months of FY 2004 and PLAN TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS, it must also produce future year surpluses that will equal or exceed the cumulative deficit that it will carry forward at the end of the current fiscal year."
MSDE Appoints Panel to Investigate City Schools
"In July, 2004, a separate panel appointed by Maryland State Board of Education to investigate the BCPS deficit, made its report. In strong language, the panel condemned the City Schools management. "The 'makings of a disaster,' it said, were there from the beginning including:
no continuity of leadership in BCPS (four CEOs, three CFOs, and at least two CAOs in six years),
no system of internal communication,
no discipline,
no meaningful oversight,
a sense in middle management that new initiatives need not be followed because senior management would change,
no accountability, and
no sanctions for failure to perform
"In a system with almost a complete lack of consequence for overspending, the surprise is that the deficit is not even larger."
The Greater Baltimore Committee takes a turn
"A similar critique of BCPS management, along with positive recommendations for improvement, was rendered by The Greater Baltimore Committee and The Presidents' Roundtable, which had been requested by the Mayor of Baltimore and the president of the Board to review BCPS's budget process and fiscal management practices."
The General Assembly tries legislating compliance
"While the City's Fiscal Operating Committee, the MSBE panel, and the Greater Baltimore Committee were analyzing and attempting to deal with the BCPS deficit and management deficiencies, the General Assembly, obviously concerned about school budget deficits, enacted 2004 Md. Laws, Ch. 148, which it called the Education Fiscal Accountability and Oversight Act of 2004. Part of that Act was a new §5-114 added to the Education Article."
The Education Fiscal Accountability and Oversight Act:
required each local school superintendent to file a biannual report on the financial status of the local school system,
required the State Superintendent of Schools to monitor the financial status of each local school system and to make a biannual report to the Governor and Legislature.
provided that a local school system may not carry a deficit as reported in the annual audit of its financial transactions and accounts.
"If a deficit was reported, the State Superintendent was required:
to notify the Governor, the General Assembly, and the appropriate county government, and
among other things, to require the local school system to develop and submit for approval a corrective action cost containment plan within 15 days and
to file monthly status reports demonstrating action taken to close the deficit."
The General Assembly included what it hoped would be both a carrot and stick to encourage the City Schools to comply.
"If the local school system failed to comply with those requirements, the State Superintendent, with the approval of the State Board of Education, was to notify the State Comptroller who, in turn, was to withhold 10% of each installment of State funds payable to the local school system until compliance was effected.
City Schools given an EXTRA YEAR to comply
"Apparently recognizing that it would be impracticable to immediately apply the prohibition against deficits to Baltimore City, which then was reporting at least a $58 million deficit, the Legislature provided, in an uncodified §4 of the Act, . . . [they] effectively gave Baltimore one year more than was given to the 23 other local school systems to eliminate any deficit it might be carrying."
Did it work?
Notwithstanding the threat that the State could withhold 10% of the funds appropriated for them, the City Schools used a common political ploy to avoid being accountable.
They proposed cuts to high-profile programs -- eliminating systemic summer school for at-risk children, increase class size, eliminate guidance counselors and encourage the retirement of skilled teachers - all calculated to inflame the parents.
It worked.
The Bradford plaintiffs filed a complaint, arguing that these cuts "would reduce the educational opportunities available to the City students and suggested ways to get more funding, including, accelerating the phase-in of the Thornton funding, "relax the requirement that the Board repay $34 million of the $42 million loan in August, 2004, and that the parties "alter" BCPS's plan to eliminate its structural deficit within two years."
The State filed a reply to the Complaint, asking the court to find that the State aid as proposed would "satisfy the constitutional standard of adequacy." The State also asked the court to "order such additional restructuring of BCPS in order for the system to function efficiently and effectively."
Not according to the Baltimore City Circuit Court
"Following a four-day evidentiary hearing, . . .the court adopted most of the proposed findings submitted by the plaintiffs and virtually none of those proposed by the State."
This extraordinary ruling and order by the circuit court virtually instructed the State Legislature to appropriate more funds for the Baltimore City Schools in the amounts requested by the City Schools.
The Court of Appeals Saves the Day
The Court of Appeals (in Maryland v. Bradley) left no doubt that the circuit court had overstepped its authority in ordering the legislature to provide more funding to the City Schools.
"The General Assembly has at least the authority, if not an obligation, to ensure that appropriations for educational purposes are managed wisely and, to prohibit local school systems from running deficits.
"Indeed, to continue to permit school systems, through deliberate or negligent conduct, to become fiscally irresponsible and insolvent, as BCPS became, would be a breach of its solemn responsibility to both the children and the taxpayers of the State."
Status of the lawsuit -- and the City Schools
The material and the quoted sections of this article are taken from the Maryland Court of Appeals case, MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Keith A. BRADFORD, et al., Decided: June 09, 2005.
The Bradford lawsuit is still open and remains under the authority of the stateʼs Circuit Court. No further progress in improving the schools in Baltimore City has occurred.
"Twenty years ago, a survey conducted by the National Constitution Center found that more American teens could name the Three Stooges than the three branches of our federal government. More teenagers knew that Leonardo DiCaprio starred in Titanic than could name the Vice President." to read more . . . Joshua Barlow, teacher at the Free State Challenge Academy, joined Kathy and me, testifying in support of our bill which would have students take and pass the civics test given by the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service to immigrants applying to become citizens. Although our testimony was met with qualified support, education officials still have concerns about the bill. For example, a member of Ways & Means who is a retired teacher worried that it would usurp time from an already crowded curriculum.
More Bills: HB #1 The "Built to Learn Act of 2020"
The House Appropriations Committee on which I serve, voted this past Friday in unanimous support of HB-01, the "Built to Learn Act of 2020."
This bill authorizes the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) to issue up to $2.2 billion in revenue bonds for public school construction across the State. These revenue bonds are backed solely by up to $125 million of the stream of revenue from the gaming industry that flows into the Education Trust Fund each year -- and not by the State's "full faith and credit" that guaran ties General Obligation Bonds.
This bill passed the House last year, and has the strong support of the Senate and the Governor.
Although I almost never vote for bills that require ("mandate") spending, I supported the Built to Learn Act because it works! A similar program created in 2013 to build and rehab schools in Baltimore City produced excellent results, and I am convinced that this bill will give taxpayers our money's worth in new and rehabilitated schools.
from News from Annapolis: Week 10, 2020
Senate Amends Kirwan Bill
Contrary to my original belief, the Senate amendments to the Kirwan bill made the legislation, on balance, worse than the House version.
The positive changes were:
Reinstating the role of the Governor in appointing the members of the Accountability and Implementation Board. That Board holds virtually all of the power to make this bill work.
Adding a "checkpoint" in 2026 requiring a review of the results thus far and determining whether there is sufficient funding to go forward with the second five years. If either of those goals are not met, increases to state funding per child would be limited to 2%. Of course, that leaves the local counties a choice of assuming the state's share of the funding or cutting programs.
"THE GOVERNOR SHALL INCLUDE IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET BILL THE FOLLOWING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FUND:
(I) $25,000,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2022;
(II) $50,000,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2023;
(III) $75,000,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2024;
(IV) $100,000,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2025; AND
(V) $125,000,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2026 AND EACH FISCAL YEAR THEREAFTER."
"Good Teacher Protection Act" passes House
The Good Teacher Protection Act, one of a five-part package of bills the Minority Caucus offered to provide immediate relief to classrooms across the state, passed the House last week. The bill provides protections for teachers who are making an effort to keep their classrooms and their students safe. Chief among these protections is providing civil immunity for teachers taking reasonable actions to stop violence in their classrooms. A peaceful learning environment is essential to allow children to successfully learn and be able to compete in the growing economy and lead prosperous lives.
The Good Teacher Protection Act now moves to the Maryland Senate. The status of the other four bills in the Education Package are as follows:
The Right to Teach Act, legislation that will allow teachers to remove chronically disruptive students from their classrooms, has had a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee, but has not yet received a vote.
The Predator-Free Schools Act, prohibiting sex offenders from attending school with minor children,
The Accountability in Education Act which expands the role of the Inspector General for Education, and
The Right to Learn Act that frees children from chronically-failing schools are all still stuck in the House Rules Committee.
These are important bills that would bring immediate and meaningful change to the classrooms, allowing teachers to teach and children to learn. Let's hope the majority Democrats give these bills a hearing and a vote.
