Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence
Minutes
(Revised 9/7/00)
August 24, 2000
The Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence
held a meeting on August 24, 2000, at 1:00 p.m. in the Room 130 of the Lowe House
Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland. The following members were present:
Mr. Joseph Anderson, acting chair
Delegate Paul Carlson (for Delegate Sheila Hixson)
Senator Michael Collins
Delegate Norman Conway
Dr. Nancy Grasmick
Ms. Francine Hawkins
Ms. Loretta Johnson
Mr. Tom Lee (for Secretary Eloise Foster)
Senator Christopher McCabe
Mr. William Middleton
Ms. Elizabeth Moyer
Senator Robert Neall
Ms. Carolyn Perkins
Ms. Marilyn Praisner
Delegate Howard Rawlings
Dr. G. William Troxler
Mr. John Wagoner
Mr. Anderson convened the meeting at approximately 1:05 p.m. and began by conveying Dr. Thornton's regrets that he was unable to attend the meeting. Mr. Anderson then noted that he was at the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO) conference the previous week and that he heard many people mention the work of the Commission. He said the work of the Commission is being followed carefully by local governments and expressed his own feeling that the Commission has an opportunity to make some overdue changes. Mr. Anderson then mentioned the October 26 deadline for a draft report with interim recommendations and noted that he believes the Commission is on the right track towards achieving some good results.
Delegate Rawlings said he is still unsure exactly what track the Commission is on and asked Mr. Anderson what his sense of this was. Mr. Anderson responded by saying he believes the Commission has done the right thing by seeking public input and feels that a good process is in place to eventually make some beneficial recommendations to the legislature.
Delegate Rawlings then restated his request from prior meetings that the Commission examine revenue sources as well as new funding streams for education. Mr. Anderson noted the importance of this issue, especially since local governments are hoping that the State will play a larger role in education financing. Delegate Rawlings asked that, when policy options are presented to the Commission, they include options for increasing revenues. Dr. Grasmick seconded this request. Dr. Troxler reminded the Commission that the Caucus of Black School Board Members, in its public testimony, proposed as a revenue source an expansion of the sales tax to include certain services.
Commission members were then asked to review a letter to the Governor and presiding officers requesting an extension of the Commission's deadline for submitting its final report. The Commission approved the letter as written and asked that staff send the letter to the appropriate parties.
Mr. John Rohrer of the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) briefly introduced several topics that staff would be presenting during the meeting. He said the Commission would be hearing the last of the presentations on State education funding programs, covering about 20 programs that combined make up about 20 percent of fiscal 2001 State education aid. Many of the programs are designed to address specific issues and some are funded through the School Accountability Funding for Excellence (SAFE) program. Mr. Rohrer noted that MSDE would follow the DLS presentations on State aid programs with its own presentation on the SAFE program.
Ms. Rachel Hise of the Department of Legislative Services presented a paper on the Baltimore City-State partnership legislation of 1997. She noted that the legislation resulted from litigation against the State and that goals of the legislation focused on accountability in two areas: improving academic achievement and improving school management. The Baltimore City Schools legislation, which reorganized the administrative structure of the school system, provided an additional $230 million in State education funds over five fiscal years. In the legislation that enacted the Teacher Salary Challenge Program in 2000, the State added another $8 million in fiscal 2001 and 2002 to meet its legal obligations and to avoid future litigation. Metis Associates and the Council of Great City Schools completed the interim evaluation of the partnership and found that an additional $2,698 per pupil (an additional $287 million annually) was needed in Baltimore City to adequately fund education. This summer, a number of parties again sued the State for additional funding, and the Baltimore City Circuit Court found that the State had not made its "best effort" to provide the Baltimore City Public Schools with additional funds. The State is currently appealing this decision.
Ms. Praisner asked if the different governance structure now operating in Baltimore City has resulted in unequal comparisons of Baltimore City's budget to other local budgets. Dr. Grasmick reported that one intent of the Baltimore City Schools legislation was to de-couple the management and administrative functions of the school system from the management and administration functions of Baltimore City. Ms. Praisner asked whether historical data on the funding of Baltimore City schools was available for the period in which costs for certain functions were paid by the city rather than the school system. Dr. Grasmick stated that MSDE would need to investigate whether this data was available. Ms. Loretta Johnson noted that during that period, the school system was charged by the city for the services that were provided to the school system, so the cost of these services would have been reflected in the school system's budget.
Ms. Praisner also asked if there was any intention of closing some Baltimore City schools given the declining enrollment in the city. Delegate Rawlings said he expects some plan of action to be submitted to the General Assembly for fiscal 2002. Dr. Grasmick also noted that a performance-based evaluation tied to student achievement is required under the Baltimore City Schools legislation.
Ms. Hise next reported on Prince George's County's Magnet Schools, Effective Schools, and Integrated Student Support (ISS) programs. Delegate Rawlings asked whether the money for the Prince George's County Magnet program goes directly to the magnet schools. Dr. Grasmick said that the funds are distributed to the county based on a plan for allocating the money to the magnet schools that is submitted by the county to MSDE for approval. She also explained that funding for the Effective Schools and ISS programs is based on comprehensive plans required under the SAFE program. Ms. Hise noted that an evaluation of the magnet schools was underway and that, thus far, the evaluation has found that the schools are effective for desegregation purposes but not necessarily for improving academics. The evaluation first focused on magnet elementary schools and marked eight for possible elimination and four for possible replication. Evaluators will soon do the same for magnet middle schools and eventually for magnet high schools.
One issue raised by Ms. Hise was the similarities and differences between the ISS program, which provides aid to in-school wellness centers, the Judy Hoyer Centers, and school-based health centers. Several Commission members had questions about the Judy Hoyer Centers. Dr. Grasmick explained that the existing model is a free-standing center that is designed for pre-school at-risk children and their families and that seeks to engage families early to improve children's future educational achievement. The center provides services both for parents (parenting skills, job training, etc.) and children and is linked to the local school system. This year, school districts outside of Prince George's County have an opportunity to apply to MSDE for funding for Judy Hoyer Centers in their areas. Most of the new centers will not be opened before September 2001, although a few may be ready by January 2001.
Delegate Rawlings noted that there are some questions about whether public school funds are being properly used and managed by the Prince George's County Board of Education and inquired about the investigation into this issue that is currently underway. Ms. Hise said she believes that the audit being conducted by a third party is expected to be completed by Labor Day.
The next set of presentations, by Ms. Hise and Ms. Beth Vaina, focused on school construction and technology. School construction, a $282 million program, was covered first. Ms. Vaina reported that close to 80 percent of local requests for school construction aid were funded in fiscal 2001. Three issues with school construction funding were discussed: the local management of such a large number of projects, costs that are ineligible for State funding, and differing local abilities to match State funds.
Ms. Praisner asked how much debt service local governments are paying annually for school construction. Mr. Rohrer responded that in 1998, local governments expended about $169 million for school construction debt service. Ms. Praisner and Senator Neall inquired as to how many jurisdictions have hired professional construction personnel (i.e., licensed engineers or architects) to manage school construction projects. Mr. Yale Stenzler, executive director of the Interagency Committee on School Construction, reported that there are ten counties that do not have either a licensed architect or licensed engineer on staff. Mr. Stenzler also distributed a handout which indicated which counties have hired licensed architects or engineers to oversee school construction projects. Ms. Praisner asked Mr. Stenzler how many jurisdictions are forward-funding school construction projects, and he responded that about six are doing this. Ms. Praisner next asked about the State's preference between computer labs and in-class computers. Dr. Grasmick said she does not feel there is one right answer. However, she said computer labs, in general, are more appropriate for high schools, and in-class computers are more preferable for elementary schools, particularly those elementary schools located in economically disadvantaged areas where computers are not often accessible in homes. Mr. Middleton pointed out that this debate will become mute as more schools begin using wireless computers.
The Aging Schools program was discussed next. The program has a fiscal 2001 funding level of $10.4 million and funds are used for improvements, repairs, and maintenance of public school buildings that are more than 15 years old. Ms. Hise mentioned two issues relating to the program. First, she said the Commission may want to consider a local match for program funds. Second, she noted that the State grant amounts are written into statute. Ms. Hise suggested that an alternative would be to codify a distribution formula that would allow for different grant amounts each year depending on the underlying data. Delegate Rawlings stated that all education funds do not need to be allocated pursuant to a formula. Regarding the first issue, Mr. Middleton asked that the Commission not consider imposition of a local match requirement. The Aging Schools funds, he said, have been a good way to ensure that some needed projects get done without the concern of meeting matching requirements. Mr. Wagoner stated that local jurisdictions do end up spending money on architecture and engineering services, so there is already a local contribution.
Ms. Beth Vaina reported on three additional technology programs - the Education Modernization Initiative, the Maryland Technology Academy, and the Center for Educational Progress.
Mr. Rohrer introduced the next set of presentations - by Ms. Vaina, Ms. Heidi Dudderar, and Mr. Ted King - on special funding programs related to teachers. He said the programs combined make up about 15 percent of State aid to education, although most of the funding in this category goes towards teachers' retirement payments.
Ms. Vaina discussed funding for teachers' retirement. She noted that the State contribution amount has been decreasing recently due to high investment returns. The one issue raised, which Dr. Augenblick discussed on August 10, was that the distribution of retirement benefits is positively correlated with wealth and negatively correlated with students needs.
Ms. Praisner noted that the State stopped making social security payments for teachers several years ago. She asked staff to provide an update on the cost of this policy change to local jurisdictions. She also asked for information on the amount of teacher retirement payments that were not made by the State during the fiscal crisis in the early 1990s.
Mr. King next discussed the Teacher Salary Challenge Program. The program offers State money as an incentive for local governments to raise the salaries of teachers. Most local school districts (23) have applied to participate in the program in fiscal 2001. The presentation featured an exhibit that compared average teacher salaries throughout the State. Ms. Praisner mentioned that the table did not compare Maryland counties to other non-Maryland cities and counties. For example, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties are compared against each other in the table but not against Washington D.C. and Northern Virginia counties. Mr. Rohrer said the Teacher Salary Challenge Program did not attempt to address differences in local pay scales. Ms. Perkins also suggested that the data in not as helpful without some knowledge of the experience and educational attainment of teachers within each district. Ms. Praisner noted that through the collective bargaining process and local priorities emphasis may be placed on starting teacher salaries or top of the scale concerns. Delegate Rawlings stated that the program affects the collective bargaining process and argued that the program raises the question of the State's role in the process. Senator Neall reminded the Commission that the legislature changed the initial bill to allow school systems to meet the match requirement by adjusting salary scales as well as providing across-the-board salary increases.
Mr. King also noted that effectiveness is another issue with the Teacher Salary Challenge Program. It is uncertain, he said, if other incentives, like pay-for-performance, might be more effective in attracting and retaining teachers than "across-the-board" blanket salary increases. Senator McCabe asked if low salaries are the major cause for losing teachers or for not attracting teachers. Mr. King, Dr. Grasmick, and Ms. Moyer all agreed that salary is important but is not the only factor to be considered in connection with teacher recruitment and retention. Dr. Grasmick and Ms. Moyer said studies on this topic have been done and that issues such as teacher support and opportunities for mentoring and professional development play a large role in determining a teacher's satisfaction with the job.
Delegate Rawlings asked what percentage of education costs are for teacher salaries. Dr. Grasmick said about 83 percent of education funds go for instructional personnel and that this is fairly consistent with the rest of the country. Delegate Rawlings suggested that, since this is where the biggest chunk of education money is being spent, it might be wise for future legislation to address issues relating to teachers' salaries, including the issue of regional disparities in teacher salaries.
Delegate Conway, pointing to the need for more teachers, said the State needs to try to generate more interest among younger students in teaching as a profession. Dr. Grasmick agreed with this assessment. Both suggested an early intervention program targeted for middle school students who may want to be teachers. Delegate Rawlings noted the higher salaries that Edison Schools in Baltimore will pay to teachers and principals in the coming year, partly because of the extended school days and school years. Delegate Rawlings believes additional money can be used to improve the standing of the teaching profession.
The Commission discussed several other programs relating to teachers, including teacher mentoring. Ms. Dudderar noted that State aid for teacher mentoring has increased considerably since 1997, although the majority of the funds are distributed to three counties that receive special grants. She also noted that current law requires MSDE to distribute $5 million as competitive grants to county boards for expansion of mentoring programs. MSDE plans to distribute these funds based on the number new hires in each county. Dr. Grasmick stated that the grants are being distributed competitively because there is competition between schools for funding and because no funds are released until a county submits a proposal to MSDE for approval based on standards established by MSDE. However, she stated that MSDE does want every school district to get some money because the department wants teacher mentoring to be present in every county. She asked that the DLS report on teacher mentoring be amended to reflect her comments.
Dr. Grasmick and Dr. Ronald Friend of MSDE next provided the Commission with an overview of the SAFE program. Dr. Grasmick began the presentation by stating that the SAFE program was designed to help at-risk children succeed in school. All local school systems were required to submit a comprehensive plan in which they outlined a strategy for improving the opportunities of at-risk students. The plans must be backed by strong accountability measures and frequent reporting to MSDE. According to Dr. Grasmick, local school districts appreciate this approach.
Dr. Friend continued the presentation by going into more detail about the comprehensive plans. The notebooks that local school systems use to formulate their plans are organized to help systems identify their goals first and then base their budgets on stated objectives. The comprehensive plans integrate federal and State funds targeted for at-risk populations and allow for a single grant award for all at-risk funds. Semi-annual reports provide a wealth of data which are used to make informed decisions about how programs and plans can be improved. Dr. Grasmick said the process is being used as a national model.
Ms. Praisner asked how MSDE expected to use all the data they are now generating from locals. Dr. Grasmick said the data are being used to track and measure progress. Ms. Praisner then asked if Dr. Grasmick expects to release more of the data. Dr. Grasmick said there has been some interest in this although the primary objective thus far has been to identify what is working and make changes to local programming as a result of this knowledge.
Mr. Middleton vouched for the effectiveness of the SAFE accountability process, saying it is the best planning mechanism he has worked with. He likes the focus on the students and does not mind that the funds are not flexible. Delegate Conway said that he likes that the funds can be tracked to schools, not just to the counties. He also said that SAFE accountability has lead to innovative ways of using and leveraging funds for at-risk students. Ms. Perkins asked what percentage of SAFE funds are used to pay personnel salaries and Dr. Grasmick responded that, as with education funds on the whole, about 80 percent are used for personnel.
In concluding the meeting, Mr. Anderson discussed the agenda for the September 7 meeting. At the meeting, he said, Dr. Augenblick will return with a proposal for addressing the issue of adequacy. There will also be a DLS presentation on local tax restrictions and local tax effort and an MSDE presentation on its fiscal 2002 budget proposals. Finally, staff will provide a "menu" of policy options for the Commission to examine and consider. Delegate Rawlings reiterated his concern about finding a revenue stream to support any new State education initiatives and stated that he will not vote for any proposals that do not include a revenue source.