Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence

Minutes

December 6, 1999

The Commission on Education, Finance, Equity, and Excellence held its second meeting on December 6, 1999, beginning at 1:10 p.m. in Room 100 of the Lowe House Office Building. The following members are present:

Dr. Alvin Thorton, Chairman
Mr. Joseph Anderson, III
Delegate Norman Conway
Delegate Jean B. Cryor
Ms. Beatrice Gordon
Dr. Nancy Grasmick
Ms. Antoinette Hatton
Dr. Francine Hawkins
Delegate Sheila Hixson
Delegate Carolyn Howard
Senator Thomas Middleton
Mr. William Middleton
Ms. Elizabeth Moyer
Ms. Carolyn Perkins
Ms. Marilyn Praisner
Mr. Walter Sondheim, Jr.
Dr. G. William Troxler
Mr. John Wagoner

Dr. Thorton called the meeting to order and made opening remarks. He instructed the members to review the minutes from the November 15 meeting.

Senator Middleton clarified that he strongly supports funding for special education and that he did not want his question regarding special education to be construed otherwise. With this correction to the minutes requested, Senator Middleton moved that the minutes be adopted. The motion was seconded by Dr. Troxler and unanimously adopted by the Commission.

Dr. Thorton reiterated the Commission's charge as described by Casper R. Taylor, Jr., Speaker of the House of Delegates, that exemplifies the Speaker's commitment to One Maryland as well as the key issues recommended by Superintendent Grasmick during the November 15 meeting.

Next, Dr. Thorton welcomed Superintendent Grasmick to present an overview of accountability. Dr. Grasmick discussed the genesis of the State's accountability system under former Governor Schaefer. The crux of the accountability issue then, Dr. Grasmick stated, was whether Maryland students were achieving and how can the State collect data that can begin to answer that question. Dr. Grasmick cited several recommendations of the 1989 Sondheim Commission which included: (1) a belief system should underpin public education; (2) all students can learn; and (3) no student should have to attend a failing school.

Dr. Grasmick expounded that this belief system would have to: (1) recognize that public schools students and our communities are straddling a new era highlighted by an information age and an ever- accelerating demand for knowledge and information; and (2) instill in students the core capabilities of basic knowledge and further integrate advanced higher learning and problem solving skill sets. This framework suggested a new system of assessment, often dubbed performance assessment, which requires: (1) working with knowledge; (2) applying the knowledge; and (3) subsequently defending the knowledge in a manner that can be readily assessed. This performance assessment model, Maryland State Performance Assessment Program or MSPAP, which began testing in 1991, focused on the entirety of each school and ultimately each elementary and middle school in the State.

Dr. Grasmick explained that the State Board of Education initiated an intensive two year process of gathering information and data from the initial test results and concluded that it was necessary to establish a very high standard of performance. Dr. Grasmick remarked that this resulted in a year 2000 goal which was admittedly established without a comprehensive understanding of what efforts it would take to reach such a standard.

Dr. Grasmick stressed that Maryland, unlike most other states, has never altered this high standard of performance. For instance, Dr. Grasmick identified Massachusetts as a state that adjusted its standard of performance after the state's schools failed to meet the initial goals. Dr. Grasmick said that the ultimate accountability was to improve the quality of instruction in each class, each day.

Dr. Grasmick discussed the State's commitment to its high standard of performance and explained that a full report card on every school, in all jurisdictions, is available to the public via the Internet.

Dr. Grasmick then elaborated on the role of teachers and instructional capacity in Maryland schools. There is a panoply of professional development programs, support systems, and various materials available for instruction that need to be continually provided to teachers. Dr. Grasmick discussed further the State's recognition of the diversity of student backgrounds. Identifying these needs provides educators with an opportunity to determine the types of "safety nets" that are required for their students. Similar to national trends, Maryland's instructional capacity is not congruous in all public schools. Every state has set minimum standards. Only 14 have assessments, and Dr. Grasmick stated that few have the comprehensive package that Maryland provides.

Dr. Grasmick highlighted the results of the assessment standards. Since 1993, 10,000 more Maryland students earned a high school diploma than would have without the current standards- based assessments. Maryland has the lowest drop-out rate in the nation. In addition, 2,700 more students attend schools each day, a statistic that correlates highly with achievement, because schools are required to take attendance seriously. Each year, from 1993 to 1998, there has been a marked increase in performance. This year there was a slight 0.3 percent decrease in achievement that Dr. Grasmick attributed to a new level of systemic maturation. Nonetheless, Dr. Grasmick suggested that educators must follow the aphorism of the Sondheim Commission, "Never hide behind the averages."

Dr. Grasmick explained that schools and students can succeed, regardless of socio-economic backgrounds, by giving two promising examples - Pimlico Elementary and Mount Royal Elementary, both Baltimore City schools with a high-rate of students on the free and reduced meal program and exhibiting other characteristics of at-risk students.

Dr. Grasmick next explained the two-step reconstitution process that is founded on the principle that "No child should have to attend a failing school." First, the State recognizes failing schools that are distant from the State standard and declining in performance. These schools are identified as "reconstitution-eligible" which may require special attention from the local system, additional State resources, and technical support from the State. Dr. Grasmick said that there are 96 schools that are currently identified as reconstitution-eligible, as one school in Somerset County has recently exited from the program.

Second, the State can identify reconstitution-eligible schools that have failed to display progress over a 3-5 year period as "reconstituted." The State Board has the authority to close the school and redistribute the student population or contract the educational services to third party vendors. The State Board is currently requesting bids for a generic response to said service contracts for possible future reconstituted schools.

Dr. Grasmick next discussed a number of reform initiatives that have resulted from the State's commitment to accountability. They included: (1) the Baltimore City - State of Maryland partnership; (2) The Center for Reading Excellence; (3) in depth analyses of minority student performance; (4) a nationally recognized template for pre-K-12 intervention that will effectively end social promotion; (5) The Governor's Academy for Math and Science; (6) eliminating the out-dated functional diploma for a new diploma that requires passage of end-of-course exams; (7) The Maryland Plan for Technology, which encourages increased school linkages to Internet, teacher training, and software development; (8) a system of teacher professional development with higher education institutions; (9) The Technology Academy; (10) partnering with the Southern Education Foundation to improve middle schools; (11) The Reading Network; (12) HB 1/SAFE legislation; (13) a "first in the nation" federal regulatory waiver in certain areas; (14) School Recognition Program; (14) and a $1 million grant from IBM for reinventing education.

Dr. Grasmick concluded that the Sondheim Commission was correct - "Our Kids Can Do It"- but now it is the responsibility of the adults to provide the resources.

Senator Middleton asked Dr. Grasmick what resources were required for Pimlico and Mount Royal Elementaries to succeed. Dr. Grasmick responded that Mount Royal's teachers ultimately redefined instruction and relied on a decision support system (provided from a federal grant). Other than the federal grant, there were no additional monetary resources allocated specifically to the school. As a reconstitution-eligible school, Pimlico was granted an additional $60,000 per annum for three years from the State. These monies were strategically used by the new principal to focus on redefining instruction with the input of the community.

Dr. Troxler inquired as to the existence or results of any study that addresses common characteristics among reconstitution-eligible schools. Dr. Grasmick explained that the determination that 96 schools were reconstitution-eligible was overwhelming. Furthermore, Dr. Grasmick pointed out that 83 of these schools were located in Baltimore City, whose dysfunctional school system led to the restructuring efforts. These schools, in addition to those in Anne Arundel, Prince George's, and Somerset counties, typically share three central characteristics: (1) high numbers of students living in poverty; (2) less than dynamic principals; and (3) a breakdown in communication and support between the school and the local school system.

Delegate Cryor asked Dr. Grasmick if the two schools cited, Pimlico and Mount Royal Elementaries, had after-school education/tutoring programs. Dr. Grasmick responded that one of the schools did have such a program but that she would not attribute the school's success to after-school instruction.

Senator Middleton cited a study that suggested many of today's subjects taught in school may be antiquated and not responsive to the statistical and technical preparedness needs of the workforce. Dr. Grasmick responded that such studies are partially correct as schools must reconfigure their curriculum to meet the emerging needs of the workforce. However, she cautioned that educators should be reluctant to gear all educational instruction to career-oriented demands. She explained that such studies also have a bias in favor of an international approach to assessment standards. Dr. Grasmick noted that Maryland is one of the few states that currently conducts international bench marking of its standards.

Delegate Howard asked: (1) whether the two Baltimore City schools, cited by Dr. Grasmick, received federal funding, specifically Chapter 1 funding; and (2) the percentage of high poverty schools that are currently reconstitution-eligible. Dr. Grasmick explained: (1) that these schools had access to federal funding, but that the $60,000 State grant was a unique resource; and (2) that "high poverty rates" were emblematic of all of the reconstitution-eligible schools.

Mr. Sondheim reinforced Dr. Grasmick's comments that the principals and teachers were the cause of the success in the cited schools.

Dr. Troxler commented on a recent survey that asked its participants what was most important to them about their work, and that salary was lower on the list than may be expected. Dr. Troxler asked Dr. Grasmick how the MSPAP has evolved and who sets the standards. Dr. Grasmick said that teachers and administrators have input and, unlike most states, teachers actually score the assessments. Dr. Grasmick also said that teacher scoring has become a professional development tool for the teachers and is further evidence that the assessment is indeed authentic. Moreover, Dr. Grasmick listed a host of interested parties that give input to the State Board for purposes of developing the standards through the K-16 partnership.

Next, Mr. Burch presented the report Overview of the Baltimore City Schools Legislation and the School Accountability Funding for Excellence (SAFE) Legislation (see report). The Baltimore City Schools and safe legislation will provide local school districts with $671 million in State funding over a five year period (fiscal 1998 through 2002). State funding under both legislative initiatives expires after fiscal 2002. Therefore, before fiscal 2003, the General Assembly must decide whether to continue the annual categorical funding to local school districts.

Ms. Praisner asked for clarification regarding the SAFE Comprehensive Plan and any determination as to the effectiveness of the funding. Dr. Grasmick responded that the performance of every single school system is assessed on an annual basis.

Delegate Conway added that State funding also must be tied to county goals and objectives. Delegate Conway ultimately suggested flexibility in funding must also be considered when designing accountability procedures.

Ms. Perkins suggested that additional funding should be tied to these comprehensive plans.

Lastly, Mr. Tom Lewis, Legislative Assistant to the Speaker, addressed the Commission, on behalf of the Speaker of the House, Casper R. Taylor, Jr., with regards to "bridge" funding as proposed in House Bill 34 of 1999 entitled, "State Aid for Public Education - School Operating Support Grants." Mr. Lewis explained that, as introduced last year, the bill would have established a three-year supplemental funding formula that would provide local school systems with up to $30 million in additional operating aid until a new educational funding initiative(s) is recommended by the Commission after the Baltimore City Schools and SAFE legislation expire in 2002. HB 34's genesis was founded in discussions initiated by local superintendents with Dr. Grasmick and Speaker Taylor. Mr. Lewis said that the superintendents contended that the current categorical funding formulas were too restrictive and prohibited the local school districts from responding to emerging system needs. HB 34 sought to remedy this deficiency by providing flexible funding that was enrollment based with an adjustment for wealth that would expire with the Baltimore City and SAFE legislation.

Dr. Grasmick concurred with the concept and explained two issues the legislative remedy attempts to address. First, the State places certain demands on local systems relating to accountability, while aid is granted categorically. For example, the State does not fund the mandate that requires local systems to create system-wide plans addressing accountability. Second, in light of the increase in enrollment many boards are in a deficit with maintenance of effort because maintenance of effort is perceived by some local governments as maximums, not minimums.

Superintendent Middleton reinforced Dr. Grasmick's comments by expressing his appreciation for the categorical grants but noting that the local systems are in dire need of flexibility.

Ms. Perkins asked Mr. Lewis about the origin of the $30 million grant figure. Dr. Grasmick responded that Speaker Taylor identified available funds and responded to the needs of the superintendents. Mr. Lewis concurred and added that the formula is adjusted according to the wealth of the jurisdiction and remains an equitable distribution of aid.

Mr. Anderson asked how "Bridge Funding" correlates with accountability. Dr. Grasmick responded by stating that accountability is determined by the schools achievement relative to certain benchmarks.

Delegate Hixson asked Mr. Lewis to give a brief legislative history of HB 34. Mr Lewis explained that the bill passed the House but failed in the Senate.

Ms. Praisner asked Mr. Lewis to clarify the "hold harmless" section in the bill. Mr. Lewis said that last year several counties' State aid was actually decreasing and the "hold harmless" language was intended to prevent that for fiscal 2001. He was not certain if any counties might need a "hold harmless" provision.

Dr. Thorton asked Mr. Lewis about the most effective manner for the committee to express its support for the "bridge" funding concept. Mr. Lewis responded that a letter from Chairman Thorton for inclusion in the interim report would be sufficient.

Ms. Perkins stated that a reasonable, perhaps itemized, rationale for the "bridge" funding from school systems would be helpful to understanding their funding needs.

Ms. Moyer made a motion that the Commission generally support the concept of "bridge" funding. Ms. Gordon seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by the Commission.

Dr. Thorton outlined the scope of the interim report to include: (1) a brief review of the Commission's charge; (2) an overview of the first two meetings; (3) any findings and recommendations; (4) a general overview of the work plan for the 2000 interim and; (5) appendices, which will include minutes and materials from the first two meetings and the proposed work plan for the 2000 interim.

Dr. Troxler suggested that the work plan include an additional charge relating to the impact of technology on funding.

Ms. Praisner asked whether the work plan should incorporate an additional charge relating whether educational formulas are adequate and do they respond appropriately to the issue of equity.

Mr. Sondheim cautioned the Commissioners from including too many specific charges at such an early time as it may be presumptuous to pre-determine topics of action without the requisite discourse and investigation.

Senator Middleton and Delegate Hixson engaged in a discussion regarding the presentation of attendance in the interim report. Both agreed that attendance will be evident in the meeting minutes to be included in the report's appendices.

Ms. Praisner noted that the 1:00 p.m. meeting time was not convenient for her and several others with several midday meetings. Dr. Thorton asked staff to solicit input from members on the most convenient meeting times.

Dr. Thorton discussed a $200,000 budget request to be submitted to the Governor for approval to cover the cost of obtaining national experts on the adequacy issue, report production, and other Commission expenses. Dr. Thorton also expressed his interest in public meetings during the months of June and September 2000. Dr. Thorton also welcomed input regarding the possibility of inviting and hiring education experts and consultants to assist the Commission.

Delegate Cryor requested a list of potential experts on adequacy.

Ms. Gordon inquired as to the possibility of meetings while the General Assembly is in session and that all meeting material be mailed to the members in advance.

Dr. Thorton concluded that the Commission will meet as needed and that every attempt will be made by staff to send materials in advance to the members.

The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:48 p.m.