Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence

Minutes

July 13, 2000

The Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence held a public hearing on July 13, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the Fine Arts Center at the Baltimore City Community College. The following members were present:

Dr. Alvin Thornton, Chair
Delegate Jean Cryor
Ms. Beatrice Gordon
Dr. Nancy Grasmick
Senator Barbara Hoffman
Delegate Carolyn Howard
Delegate Howard P. Rawlings
Senator Robert Neall
Ms. Elizabeth Moyer
Secretary Eloise Foster

Dr. Thornton convened the meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m. He asked that speakers limit their testimony to five minutes. The following paragraphs identify the speakers and outline their testimony.

The first speaker was Delegate Lisa Gladden of Baltimore City. She stated that education is the key to economic success and stressed the right to an adequate education that the Maryland Constitution guarantees for all children. She said that, in Baltimore City, the lack of financial resources is one of the problems that the school system faces, and that more money is needed for teacher development, for teaching supplements, and for higher teacher salaries. Other states have addressed this problem by determining the cost of an adequate education and making adjustments for disadvantaged students and for higher service costs in certain areas. Delegate Gladden suggested the Commission determine the cost to adequately fund education so that the constitutional obligation to Maryland's children can be fulfilled.

Cathy Brennan of the New Maryland Education Coalition spoke next on what it means to provide an "adequate" education. She said it must include all the basic services plus preventive and remedial services. Adequacy could also be measured through a child's ability to achieve State standards on the MSPAP. If this is the measure, she said, then Maryland schools are not adequately financed. To determine an adequate level of financing, she suggested the "professional standards" technique which reflects the thinking of local and national education experts who would develop a package of services and programs that children need in order to reach standards. The combined cost of the services would be the cost of an adequate education. Ms. Brennan claimed that this would provide a rational framework for education finance.

Senator Hoffman pointed out that adequate funding alone does not guarantee success; Ms. Brennan agreed.

Dr. Iris Metts, Superintendent of Schools for Prince George's County, was next to speak. She said there are many things to examine in school funding and that many of them do not get to the core of differences in school achievement. She said it is difficult to gauge the impact of impoverished and non-English speaking students on school financing but suggests sticking with some form of the base funding formula with adjustments for at-risk children. She said there should be some assurance that money is being spent properly and that positive results are attained. She also suggested that there be consequences when schools fail to meet standards. In examining the funding structure, she suggested the Commission look at school building capacity, school building structures, salaries, non-English speaking student population, and technology in schools. She also asked the Commission to read her written testimony.

Senator Neall asked how the State could be certain that, if it pays a higher proportion of a county's construction and transportation costs (as suggested in Dr. Metts' written testimony), the county will use the savings for other education costs. Dr. Metts responded that these assurances should be built into the law.

Dr. Metts' written testimony also makes a suggestion that the State pay the employee social security contributions required of local jurisdictions. Senator Neall commented that this would unequally aid jurisdictions and that he has an obligation to avoid funding disparities.

Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley was the next to address the Commission. The Mayor talked about local tax capacity and tax effort. He said that while Baltimore City has the second lowest tax capacity, it has the highest tax effort as a percentage of capacity. He said despite this, and despite the fact that the city has higher needs (particularly in the area of public safety), the city spent $5.1 million more than what the State requires for maintenance of effort. Mayor O'Malley pointed out that the city has done this with the highest proportion of economically disadvantaged students in the State and therefore with the highest per pupil costs.

The Mayor defined adequacy as giving all students the ability to meet high standards. He specifically mentioned special education and transportation as areas that are in need of updating. He said Baltimore City is on the rise, in part as a result of the City-State partnership, and said the State will share in the city's prosperity, just as it did in its adversity.

Mayor O'Malley then introduced the new CEO of the Baltimore City Public Schools, Ms. Carmen Russo. Ms. Russo said she has accepted the responsibility of speaking for the students of Baltimore City. She said she understands that there must be a partnership with the State and called the partnership a creative solution to the problems of the city's schools. With respect to equity, she said the Commission must focus on the extremely high number of at-risk children that Baltimore City serves and cited statistics to describe the extent of the problem. With respect to adequacy, she mentioned Baltimore City's law suit that resulted in $230 million in additional State funds over five years. She said that the results have been positive but are not where they need to be. This is why Baltimore is back in court seeking additional State funds. She ended by saying she is totally committed to improving achievement in the Baltimore City Public Schools but understands that she needs more money to accomplish this goal.

Ms. Russo was followed by Bill Streuver, a member of the New Baltimore City School Board of School Commissioners. Mr. Streuver said that he understands the need for money but also realizes that emphasis must be placed on achievement. He gave two examples of Baltimore City's need for money. The first was the lack of air conditioning in most Baltimore City schools, which diminishes teachers' ability to teach and students' ability to learn in summer school. Secondly, he described a special five-week reading program that took place over the summer and resulted in remarkable improvements by students. Unfortunately, the program could not be expanded due to limited resources.

Ms. Nancy Suniewick of the Committee for Montgomery was the next speaker. She went over the testimony presented last week in Germantown. To summarize, the number of students in Montgomery County is growing rapidly and many of the new students have special needs. She reported that one suggestion presented at the last hearing was to increase the foundation amount provided to counties under the current basic expense formula.

Mr. Timothy Tilghman of the Prince George's County Community Advisory Council was the next to address the Commission. His testimony encompassed five topics. First, he recommended the current basic expense formula be increased from 75% to 100% of the third and fourth prior years' contribution. Second, he suggested weighting "at-risk" students at 1.25 to determine a funding amount for them. Within the at-risk topic, he also proposed a fully-staffed alternative school for students with disciplinary problems. His third proposal was to have the infrastructure of all schools be prepared to support technology within five years. Technology must also be available to school administrators and should be supported with staff training. His fourth recommendation was to increase investment in school staff by increasing teacher pay and by encouraging teachers, through incentives, to work in areas of extraordinary need. Finally, he suggested that local systems, working with the State, identify and devote dedicated funds to schools. To aid this effort, local jurisdictions must know and understand the State's long-term commitment to public school funding.

The next speaker was Ms. Dorothy Christofferson. She said that students in Prince George's County are suffering the most and requested that the State play a larger and stronger role in guiding and funding their educational experience. She suggested that the State use more recent enrollment data in funding formulas and design a more logical system of funding. She also suggested that the State take more control and responsibility for a school system when that system is failing its students.

Mr. Mark Hart, representing the Neighborhood Congress of Baltimore, was next to speak. He expressed concerns about the correlation between higher tax bases and higher educational achievement. He mentioned the poor condition of Baltimore City libraries and says their condition is the result of the lower tax base in Baltimore. He also stated that there should be accountability in schools and then related accountability to teacher quality.

Next, Ms. Joan Karasik of the Arc of Montgomery County spoke on special education. She stated that the federal government has strict laws about handling special education students but does not provide the funding necessary to meet the standards of those laws. With the exception of funds for non-public placements, the State also does not provide enough funds for special education students, leaving local jurisdictions to absorb the costs. She claimed that the end result is better special education systems in private schools, where more State funds are available. She would like to see the Commission devise a funding system for special education that eases the burden on the locals and does not reward school systems for pushing special education students into private schools. She also suggested that one way to further serve the special education population would be to get other agencies involved in the schools.

Ms. Robyn Traywick, a special education advocate spoke next. She claimed equity and accountability are foreign to special education. She has witnessed money being wasted by sending special education students on multiple field trips rather than trying to teach or mainstream them. Her definition of equity is wise and appropriate use of funds. She also expressed her concern that special education students are not included in MSPAP scoring and therefore are not included in Maryland's accountability program. She claimed that, in Montgomery County, special education students receive a lower proportion of public education funds than their proportion of the student population. She would like to see a hospital model of care for special education students, where all their needs could be met on-site.

The next individual to address the Commission was David Yaffe of Friends of the Library. He started by stating that there are two types of fairness at issue in education financing. The first ensures that all jurisdictions receive a minimum funding level per student, regardless of wealth; the second allows local jurisdictions to spend their money however they see fit. He recommends a formula similar to the per capita aid for libraries formula. This formula would begin with an amount that would adequately fund the education of one child and, based on a county's wealth, would determine what percentage is the county's responsibility and what percentage is the State's responsibility. The local government and the State must each provide the allotted amount times the number of students in the jurisdiction. This, he argued, would solve squabbles between jurisdictions and would eliminate much of the patchwork programs that now exist. He also added that some other method or formula might be needed to address special education funding.

Mr. Jim Mason, representing Harford County, was the next to speak. He first addressed equity by saying that the local pressure which the State has the most control over is unfunded mandates. He asked that the State avoid them. He claimed that the existing "maintenance of effort" requirement for local jurisdictions is working. With respect to accountability and adequacy, he expressed concerns about removing funding from struggling schools and said he would like to see accountability measures remain separate from funding. Concerning formula structure, he stated that categorical programs have been effective and should remain in place with regular re-examinations of their effectiveness. He did suggest that the Commission examine the funding of capital projects. The current system, he claimed, encourages local jurisdictions to wait until they have the funding "in-hand" before beginning needed projects. He also suggested that calculations of school capacity and funding be based on projections rather than current population. In conclusion, he noted that Harford County does not see a role for the private sector in public school funding.

The next person to speak to the Commission was Ms. Beth Thorsen, the President of the Education Association of Charles County. She started out by stating that Charles County has made great strides in MSPAP scores, reading, staff development, and teacher mentoring programs. However, she claimed that more could be done. Areas where she said State funds could play a greater role include school construction, special education, and school transportation. She stated that these programs should be left out of the basic school funding formula. She also said that Maryland should desire more than an "adequate" education for its children. She said smaller class sizes, skilled teachers, and better technology and textbooks are routes to higher student achievement. She expressed concerns about reward systems that would rob some districts of needed resources. Finally, she suggested that the Teacher Salary Challenge Fund, which sunsets after fiscal 2002, be added to the foundation program so schools can continue to attract and retain good teachers.

Minister Robert George of Interfaith Action Communities in Prince George's County was next to speak. Minister George stated that the school system is not equal and suggested some ways for the State to help remedy the situation: create teacher salary parity, upgrade technology at all schools, pay for more school construction, target money towards specific needs, reduce class sizes, help with teacher retention and recruitment, and provide for alternative learning centers for students who create discipline problems. He asked that the Commission not wait for further court involvement to ensure the funding of these items.

Ms. Sheila Grap, speaking on behalf of Baltimore City Public School System libraries, followed Minister George. She used statistics to indicate that the libraries in Baltimore City schools are well below standards and do not match the resources available in the libraries of other Maryland schools. She cited several studies that found a positive correlation between the availability of library resources and student achievement. She said dedicated State funding to improve the collections of Baltimore City school libraries and to add school librarians is an urgent need.

The next to speak was Ms. Tru Ginsberg. She spoke out for interagency support of education and suggested that the current basic expense be increased from 75% to 100% of prior years' funding. Categorical funds, she claims, are not the same as the foundation funds because they are targeted for certain programs. She said that Maryland should determine what the price of an adequate education is and publicize it broadly. This would allow the public to understand the costs and might make the public more willing to pay for any cost increases. The basic formula should be for all students within a system and should not force parents of regular education students to fight against the parents of special education students for funding; the formula must meet the needs of all students. In addition, she added that a higher foundation program would allow the State to limit categorical funding. Any targeted programs that do remain, however, should be wealth-based. She said she believes in performance but does not believe it should be tied to funding.

Delegate Rawlings asked why she did not want outcomes to be tied to funding. He pointed out that the Commission is on education finance, equity, and excellence and that excellence is not always tied to funding. He emphasized that the State must sometimes take a stand and cannot always simply throw money at a problem. Ms. Ginsberg said she would give this more thought.

Ms. Trudy Hodges was the next to address the Commission. She suggested that more funding be used for libraries and art, music, and drama classes. She said schools should have more resource teachers to teach these classes and that they should not count towards a teacher/student ratio.

Delegate Rawlings agreed but also wants to see a certain level of achievement follow the dollars that are spent. He claimed that more money has been spent but has not resulted in greater achievement.

Ms. Hodges said she understands his point and that she herself sees too many students enter Baltimore City Community College needing remedial education before they can begin college-level classes.

The next to the podium was Ms. Blake of the Baltimore Teachers Union who tried to address Delegate Rawlings' concern. She said that measures are in place that examine excellence based on performance. The real issue, she said, is how to support the classroom practitioner. She said more funding would help to lift students towards excellence. She also said she would try to come to another public hearing to speak more on this issue.

Mr. Rosenberg was the next speaker. He said the current system for funding schools should be scrapped since every dollar that is spent in one place must come out of another jurisdiction's pocket. He recommended that the State take over the funding of all Maryland's school systems.

Ms. Barb Felts, the mother of an autistic child, was the last to address the Commission. She noted the poor way that her son and other special education students have been treated in public schools. The students are not allowed to take text books home; are not mainstreamed; are provided very little, if any, access to computer labs, science labs, and libraries; and are not allowed to participate in extra-curricular activities. She stated that, with increased funding, some of these problems might be alleviated. She would like to see the State stop funding schools that do not follow federal special education laws.

Dr. Thornton thanked the speakers for their comments and called the meeting to an end at 9:50 p.m.