Kirwan – Page 2

Kirwan Conversations: A Chat with Kirwan Commission Member Karen Couch

March 2, 2020 by Dave Wheelan

Last week, the Spy started a series of interviews with senior stakeholders in the state and on the Eastern Shore to discuss the landmark recommendations of the Kirwan Commission and the resulting legislation now under consideration in Annapolis.

We began with Michael Sanderson, the director of Maryland Association of Counties, who stated very clearly that the proposed Kirwan recommendations would be the “most consequential policy decisions that any of these policymakers are going to make during their whole political career.”

Given how serious these reforms would mean on the Eastern Shore, we continue with our interview with Dr. Karen Couch, the superintendent of Kent County Public Schools, and, more importantly, one of the few education professionals to serve on the commission. It is also noteworthy to point out the Dr. Couch represented the smallest county school system in the State.

In her Spy interview, we talk specifically about the five primary elements of what is now called the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future and its impact on Kent County education.

This video is approximately twelve minutes in length. For more information about Kirwan and Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, please go here.

Report: State Lost Billions by Not Closing Corporate Loopholes

February 28, 2020 by Maryland Matters

A liberal-leaning think tank is pressing for passage of a series of revenue bills targeting business loopholes and tax breaks ― by looking back at what could have been.

The Maryland Center on Economic Policy released a memo on Thursday detailing $2.8 billion in revenue that could have been raised by their bill package if lawmakers had passed the measures last term.

The center, which produced the memo independently, is part of the Fair Funding Coalition, which is pressing for passage of 10 bills that they say would close corporate loopholes, end policies that benefit special interests and establish a more equitable income tax system in the state.

The goal of the proposals is to raise dedicated revenues to help the state cover the costs of Kirwan Commission education reform proposals, which could become substantially more expensive in coming weeks as lawmakers consider tweaks to relieve local spending mandates.

“We made it much harder on ourselves because we didn’t take these steps sooner,” said Benjamin Orr, executive director of the Center on Economic Policy.

The analysis found that eliminating pass-throughs in corporate tax reporting and implementing combined reporting for multi-state corporations could have generated more than $1.8 billion between 2014 and 2018.

The center also would have ended some businesses subsidies during that time period, amounting to $194 million.

Levying a 1% state surtax on capital gains would have generated $455 million, and closing the “carried interest loophole” by taxing income of investment fund managers at 17% ― instead of the lower capital gains tax rate ― could have generated $209 million.

Orr said he was still optimistic that lawmakers might pass one or more of the measures included in the analysis this legislative session. The bills, he said, would minimize impact on low- and moderate-income residents while, in cases like combined reporting, bring Maryland in line with the majority of other states.

Sen. Paul G. Pinsky (D-Prince George’s) has introduced a combined reporting bill for more than a decade.

“We would have had a hell of a lot of money,” Pinsky said, if his bill had been passed earlier.

He believes there’s still a chance that his bill and others could be part of a revenue package advanced this session, and that it makes sense to focus efforts to raise revenue for education reforms by focusing on businesses.

“I hear from some of these companies that say we have jobs, but we don’t have people to fill them. So I think there’s a nexus between them paying their fair share and investing in education, because they’re the ones who are going to take advantage of it,” Pinsky said. “We’re the ones preparing their future employees. I think it’s way past due.”

The Center on Economic Policy’s push for business tax reform has been boosted by Warren Deschenaux, who retired as the General Assembly’s long-serving top fiscal analyst in 2017.

On Thursday, he said it was critical that lawmakers increase state revenues not only to fund education reform, but also to address the state’s structural deficit.

“If you look at the outlook, things are rather grim ― and that’s before anything bad [like a recession] happens,” Deschenaux said.

The Fair Funding Coalition’s package of bills are just a small portion of an influx in revenue measures introduced this year, encompassing everything from sports betting to digital downloads and a recent proposal to dramatically expand the state’s sales tax to services.

A hearing on the sales tax proposal ― which sponsor Del. Eric G. Luedtke (D-Montgomery) has said could generate an additional $2.6 billion ― is expected to draw strident opposition from corners of the business community on Monday.

Orr said while the center has endorsed limited sales tax expansions for specific services in the past, it has not yet taken a position on the broader 2020 sales tax proposal.

“Our top priority remains closing loopholes and getting rid of tax breaks that only benefit special interests,” he said.

Deschenaux said the sales tax proposal could end up making the other proposed revenue bills more attractive to lawmakers in contrast.

“Some of those consumers are wealthy and they’re getting lawyer advice and having their taxes done,” he said of the proposed tax on services. “But a lot of those people are having their dry cleaning done, their cars repaired, and so forth. And so it reaches perhaps more broadly than one might prefer.”

by Danielle E. Gaines

Op-Ed: Kirwan Report – A County Perspective By Laura Price

February 26, 2020 by Spy Desk

It has been an interesting and unsettling week since the introduction and subsequent public hearing on the Blueprint Education Bill (Kirwan). The Maryland Association of Counties took a position that it is the State’s constitutional obligation to fund education and we believe that this new layer of funding should be borne by the State. The counties have been equal partners and funded well above Maintenance of Effort, in addition to taking on teacher pensions and other expenses, while also losing revenues from the State over the years.

On Monday, there was a joint hearing of four committees in Annapolis, which I attended as a member of the Rural County elected officials’ panel. To say the process was fair and all views were given equal opportunity to be heard would be inaccurate, at best.

At the top of the hearing, Chairman Pinsky had announced, “We want to allow democracy and also have efficiency. We have other work to be done. Obviously, this is a crucial piece of legislation for the legislature and the State… We are using a timer today, for the first 7 panels of elected officials, they will have 2 ½ minutes each…”

The hearing began as most would, with the lead sponsors of the bill — Senate President Ferguson and House Speaker Jones — giving their statements. They were followed by Brit Kirwan, the chairperson of the Commission, and Rachel Hise, from the Department of Legislative Services (DLS). They spoke to the merits of the bill and answered selected questions from committee members.

Questions were limited and there were times the Senators and Delegates were cut off from their line of questioning. When a delegate started to ask a question about funding, Sen. Paul Pinsky, chairman of the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, stopped him and stated, “This is a policy legislation, it’s not the funding piece, obviously it has implications. We’re going to hold the funding issue to when the appropriations, budget and tax and other committees address that issue. We understand that this isn’t going to fall from the sky without a cost, but they’re (Kirwan and Hise) not prepared to answer budget questions, they are here with the policy…”

Really? Not prepared? That statement pretty much sums it all up. No one wanted to hear about valid points of concern, let alone a negative position. During the entire three years of the “Kirwan Commission,” we were all told they were not there to discuss how it would be paid for, only to make policy recommendations. Wait until there is an actual bill in Annapolis, they told us, then we can talk about the fiscal impact. Now it’s the day of the hearing, the bill has been introduced and still the legislators, let alone the people, aren’t allowed to ask fiscal questions!

The main function all along for Ms. Hise from DLS was to put numbers to the policy. She was the lead during all of the Kirwan funding workgroup and Kirwan commission meetings. To say that she wasn’t there to answer financial questions is bizarre. Chairman Kirwan was there to advocate policy, and Ms. Hise, one would think, was there to answer funding questions.

After the initial bill sponsors and Kirwan and Hise had finished, the hearing continued with the county executives and the mayor of Baltimore. They were each given their time and when they were done, I fully expected our panel of rural county elected officials to be called next. Imagine my surprise when that did not happen.

I thought it might have been an oversight and went in search of someone who had the list of people who had signed up to testify. They finally located our panel, listed dead last on the list of 130 speakers. He assured me he would reach out to Chairman Pinsky’s aide. The aide explained that because we were listed as “letter of information,” we were at the bottom. The testimony was all front loaded with Favorable or Favorable with amendments. I further asked if the chairman could consider moving us up because we were elected officials and that they had already heard from the larger counties. The answer was no. A delegate even texted Del. Maggie McIntosh (chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee) and the answer was still no.

The four of us on the panel who were there weren’t even “opposing” the legislation, we were there to present information about the State’s constitutional obligation to fund education and the impact of tax increases at the local level under this mandate.

So, we sat for hours. By the time the hearing was nearly five hours in, some of us gave up and left. The media had left hours earlier. Many of the Senators and Delegates had left. The room was emptying fast and the elected officials from smaller jurisdictions, with huge impacts, had not been heard. What was the point in speaking to a near empty room?

This is not democracy. Allowing the larger jurisdictions to speak first and not allowing equal time for the other counties is discriminatory. Having only select counties and other supporters fill the first couple hours paints a slanted view of any piece of legislation, let alone the single largest and most costly piece of legislation in Maryland history.

In other news, House Democrats just introduced a bill to cut the state sales tax rate by one penny and expand the tax to most professional services, including visits to the accountant or the beautician, which are currently exempt. This significantly expands the scope of sales tax from just “goods” to include taxing most “services” with the exception of food, medicine, medical services, social work and other non-profits.

Delegate Luedtke said “There is a plethora of proposals for revenue this session, and we have a choice, we can do a whole ton of things at once, which are very complex and only pay for part of the plan, or we can have the courage to go to the people of Maryland and say, ‘If you want great schools this is how we pay for it and this one bill can do it, and it’s a relatively simple, straightforward proposal.’”

People should and will debate whether this massive expansion of sales tax, which is expected to bring in $2.6 billion to the State by 2025 is a good idea, but I will say that at least someone in Annapolis finally realized that Kirwan could not be paid for without an increase in taxes on the average Marylander. That has been my point since I started attending all the workgroup meetings and writing on this topic. If the State legislature does believe that Kirwan is a good idea, then they need to be willing to raise taxes on Marylanders to pay for it and be held accountable. The counties were always going have to increase taxes, primarily property tax, with no choice and very little voice if Kirwan becomes law.

Laura Price serves as Talbot’s legislative liaison to the Maryland Association of Counties and is a member of the Talbot County Council.

Kirwan Conversations: A Chat with MACo’s Michael Sanderson

February 25, 2020 by Dave Wheelan

To use Michael Sanderson’s own words, as the Spy starts a special series on the landmark Kirwan Commission and the resulting legislation now under consideration in Annapolis, he calls it “this most consequential policy decisions that any of these policymakers are going to make during their whole political career.”

In terms of public schools in the state, the stakes have never been higher as Maryland’s General Assembly and Senate debate a bill that would increase spending by $4 billion a year within the next ten years.

Given these circumstances, the Chestertown Spy and Talbot Spy have begun a series of interviews with significant stakeholders both in the capital but in Kent and Talbot Counties to understand the local impact of Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

We begin with Michael’s perspective as someone who, for decades, has headed up the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo). In his Spy interview, he talks about this historic nature of the Blueprint, and in particular, the effect on Kent and Talbot Counties.

This video is approximately twelve minutes in length. For more information about the Maryland Association of Counties please go here.

Poll: State Voters Want Better Schools, Shy Away from Tax Hikes

February 24, 2020 by Maryland Matters

The vast majority of Maryland residents believe that teacher salaries are too low and that many school buildings are in poor condition, but there is little support for increasing taxes to address those concerns, according to a just-released survey.

The poll, by Goucher College, found that 69% of the public agrees that “public schools in Maryland don’t receive enough state funding.” In addition, 85% said they believe teachers are underpaid and 76% agreed that “many public school buildings and facilities in Maryland are run-down.”

But when interviewers asked about increasing taxes, sharp divisions emerged.

More than a third of Marylanders — 37% — would rather keep state services and taxes where they are. And even more troubling for advocates of education reform, 28% would rather have fewer state government services in order to reduce taxes.

Only 28% of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant improved state services.

“There is a huge disconnect,” said political science professor Mileah K. Kromer, director of the Sarah T. Hughes Field Politics Center at Goucher College.

“They support the priorities of Kirwan — higher teacher salaries, more teacher training, more state funding,” she added, a reference to the educational reform commission chaired by former University System of Maryland chancellor William E. “Brit” Kirwan.

“The conflict is how we pay for it.”

The Goucher survey was in the field from Feb. 13-18, before Democratic leaders in the House of Delegates floated a proposal to cut the sales tax rate, from 6% to 5%, but broaden it to apply it to more services, a move that would bring in an additional $2.6 billion a year for Maryland schools.

Only 47% of residents polled ranked Maryland a “good” or “excellent” place to get a K-12 education.

Crime is now a top concern

The survey also found that crime — for the first time since Goucher started querying voters — is now the top concern of state residents.

Twenty percent of those surveyed identified “crime/criminal justice/policing” as the most important issue facing the state, just ahead of education (17%) and economic issues (15%).

But at the request of Maryland Matters, Kromer provided additional data that revealed a strong geographic split.

Among residents living in Baltimore City and the surrounding counties, 33% identified crime as the top issue, followed by education (15%) and economic issues (13%).

But in the populous Washington, D.C., suburbs, public sentiment was more in line with past polling.

Residents of Montgomery and Prince George’s rated education as their biggest issue, at 25%. Economic issues followed, at 15%, with crime the top concern of just 6% of residents.

Likewise, in communities outside the state’s urban corridor, economic issues remain the top concern (19%), followed by crime (11%) and education (8%).

Baltimore City recorded 348 homicides in 2019, and Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) and legislative leaders have called the situation there “a crisis.”

“This is the first time it’s ever ticked up that high,” Kromer said of the statewide number on crime. “It’s on the minds of one of the most populous jurisdictions in the state.”

Sports betting, Gov. Hogan and Kirwan

Marylanders are divided on the issue of legalized sports betting.

By a margin of 47% to 43%, the public narrowly supports allowing people to gamble on sporting events online.

But nearly half opposed sports gambling at casinos, race tracks or stadiums. Goucher found that 45% of the public is OK with betting on sports at those locations, with 49% opposed.

The General Assembly is considering — and is likely to pass — sports wagering this session. Online betting firms, race track owners, casino interests and pro sports teams are lobbying lawmakers extensively.

Kromer predicts support will grow once lawmakers tie the proceeds sports gambling will generate to education.

“When you talk about just the act of betting on sports … people are pretty divided,” she said. “But they’re going to start to talk about tying that revenue directly to education, and that changes the values proposition for people.”

Hogan remains very popular, but his numbers have slipped just a bit from previous Goucher surveys. Sixty-two percent of residents approved of the job he’s doing, with 20% voicing disapproval and 17% answering “don’t know.”

A year ago, as he flirted with a potential run for president, Hogan was at 69-14 in the Goucher poll. Despite the slip, the second-term executive’s numbers are remarkable for a Republican governor in a state where Democrats hold a vast edge in voter registration.

Although the Kirwan Commission has spent years working on recommendations to improve the state’s educational system, most residents have never heard of it.

Nearly 70% of residents surveyed said they know “nothing” about the panel, while 15% know “a little” and 9% said they know something. Only 5% said they had a strong awareness of the plan’s recommendations, which backers have said have the potential to transform the state’s schools and serve as a national model.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed ranked Maryland a “good” or “excellent” place to raise a family, and 58% said they feel the state has strong job opportunities.

But only 39% ranked Maryland as a good place to run a business, and just 27% think of the state as a quality place to retire.

The Goucher survey, which is conducted twice a year, polled 713 adults by cellphone and landline. The poll had 3.7-point margin of error.

by Bruce DePuyt

Breaking Down the Blueprint Bill

February 18, 2020 by Maryland Matters

Senate Pres. Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) offer support for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education reform bill in Annapolis on Monday. Photo by Danielle E. Gaines.

Hundreds of people filled hearing rooms and rallied in Annapolis on Monday as the General Assembly took the unusual step of convening a joint hearing of four House and Senate committees, which, in the next seven weeks, will determine the fate of a three-year multibillion-dollar public school reform effort.

Advocates say recommendations of the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education have the potential to transform public schools in Maryland for future generations and correct wealth inequality throughout the state.

The four committees — the House Appropriations and Ways and Means committees, and the Senate’s Budget and Taxation and Education, Health and Environmental Affairs committees — heard testimony from 130 witnesses on Monday, in a hearing that lasted six hours.

House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City), who were both members of the commission before rising to their roles in legislative leadership, led off the hearing.

“Here’s what we know: the current system is not working,” Jones said. “We can’t be satisfied as policymakers until every child in every Zip code has the chance to succeed. Our most important and sacred duties as elected officials is that we leave a brighter future for our students.”

The legislation, called the “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,” would expand pre-kindergarten programs and career education for high schoolers, increase pay and career opportunities for teachers, and increase state funding for schools with high concentrations of poverty.

The bill sets state funding requirements for newly proposed programs, but does not say how they should be paid for.

Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) and legislative Republicans have expressed concern about the plan’s price tag.

Over the weekend, Republican leaders in the House of Delegates sought to delay the hearing by 48 hours as they waited for a Department of Legislative Services fiscal analysis.

According to the new fiscal note, available Monday morning, state aid to public schools is expected to increase by $2.6 billion annually by 2030; counties would be expected to collectively pay $1.3 billion more annually by 2030.

Jones stressed that the first three years of the bill are already covered.

Ferguson acknowledged that lawmakers will have to consider additional revenue options in the future, with separate revenue-generating bills under consideration this year.

“It’s going to cost more than we are spending today. That is a fact and a reality and something we have to own up to,” Ferguson said. “I believe that what we see in front of us is not only an investment in the short term, it is a long-term investment that will reap long-term rewards. Not just in our educational outcomes, but in our economic productivity moving forward.”

Here’s a quick glance at the bill’s primary focus areas, with some of the testimony from Monday’s mega-hearing:

Policy Area 1: Pre-kindergarten access

What’s proposed: Kirwan Commissioners want to expand pre-kindergarten access by creating a public-private model to add pre-kindergarten slots through a publicly funded system. The bill would create a state funding program that provides counties with a per-child payment for each kindergarten slot created in a public school or through a contract with a private provider. State funding for pre-kindergarten programs would ramp up over time, with the earliest focus on providing state funding to the low-income four-year-olds — those from families earning 300 percent of the federal poverty level or less — who want to enroll.

Why the commission likes it: Enrolling more students in pre-kindergarten can alleviate adverse childhood experiences and result in early intervention for learning difficulties. If more children receive interventions at a younger age, they’ll enter elementary and subsequent school levels more prepared, and the state’s special education population could decrease.

The cost: $529 million in state spending annually in 2030

Supporter: Montgomery County Executive Marc B. Elrich (D), a former elementary school teacher, said the provisions for pre-kindergarten were “critically important.”

What he had to say: “If kids don’t come to school ready to learn, they struggle and those struggles stay with them throughout their entire time in school. We know that if you start at a level playing field, you tend to stay level, which means you spend a lot less in remediation. I look at this legislation as a game-changer. I hope that this is the last generation of children that we have to put all these resources into. Because if we’re successful and their parents have better jobs and better opportunities, we’re not going to be dealing with the underlying issue of poverty to the extent that we’re dealing with it today.”

Policy Area 2: High-quality teachers

What’s proposed: The commission proposes an increase in salaries and advancement opportunities for teachers, as well as an increase in the number of teachers statewide. Teachers would reach different rungs on a proposed “career ladder,” including state certification, national certification and teachers could seek to be placed in leadership positions, either as part of a school’s administration or as mentors for other teachers. County school boards would be required to implement teacher salary increases over time, and all teacher salaries in the state are expected to be $60,000 or more by 2030. There also would be a focus on limiting teachers’ classroom duties to allow them more time for planning, mentoring and tutoring students in need.

Why the commission likes it: The commission’s goal is to increase the prestige associated with the teaching profession and make it a long-term career choice for high-achieving students. Commissioners also hoped to increase diversity in the teaching corps through an increase in funding for grants, teaching fellowships and loan repayment programs for those who teach in schools with high concentrations of poverty.

The cost: $168 million in state spending in fiscal 2030

Supporter: Maleeta Kitchen, Howard County Public Schools math teacher

What she had to say: “The Blueprint also addresses teacher prep and the need to hire more educators of color. It is important for students to see professional educators who look like them ― who look like me. Collaborating with higher education, especially our HBCU’s will hopefully bring more educators into the field of teaching.”

Seeking amendments: Diamonté Brown, of the Baltimore Teachers Union, said the proposed career ladders would restrict major salary increases to those teachers who become National Board Certified Teachers. She suggested an amendment to allow additional pathways for advancement in the career ladder.

What she had to say: “We the Baltimore Teachers Union understand that the National Board process can be a great professional development experience, and we are not opposed to it being used and incentivized as teachers hone their craft. We do have concerns about a process with no publicly available disaggregated data on passage rates by teacher race and by the poverty level of students served. Requiring National Board certification statewide could exacerbate equity concerns by making Baltimore City a place to teach where you’re less likely to advance financially and in the career ladder due to working in schools with concentrated poverty and trauma and less support for navigating the [National Board Certification] process.”

Policy Area 3: College and career readiness

What’s proposed: Under the reform plan, the goal is for students to reach a “college and career readiness” standard ― initially set as proficiency in 10th grade English and Algebra I ― by the end of their 10th grade year. Once that standard is met, those students would be eligible to enroll in college-level courses or in enhanced career education programs for the rest of their high school career. Students who don’t meet the standard in their 10th grade year would receive targeted interventions by teachers in an effort to get them to the standard by graduation.

Why the commission likes it: An early focus on post-graduation skills could allow students to graduate high school with career certificates or associate degrees, increasing wealth and success as adults. As an incentive, counties would receive a grant each year based on the percentage of students who meet the college and career readiness standard. The bill also includes a $500,000 study to determine if Maryland’s current career and college readiness standards are high enough.

The cost: $26 million in state spending annually by fiscal year 2030

Supporter: Brigette Dumais, executive director of the Maryland Workforce Alliance, expressed support for an increased focus on career and technical education programs.

What she had to say: “The increasing cost of college and the student debt crisis have made higher education a barrier to economic opportunity. Instituting robust CTE with paid on-the-job training would allow students to earn as they learn. Through the apprenticeship model, students receive both free college credits and a paycheck, carving a path to debt-free college. Additionally, CTE students will graduate high school with an industry-recognized credential, allowing them to immediately enter the well-paid workforce if they prefer not to go to college.”

Policy Area 4: More resources for at-risk children

What’s proposed: The commission wants to direct additional funding to students who attend schools with higher concentrations of poverty. The bill proposes annual “concentration of poverty” grants to schools with high numbers of so-called “at-promise” students to hire a school-based health-care practitioner and provide other wellness programs. The $248,833 grants would be provided in fiscal year 2022 to schools with concentrations of poverty of 80% or higher; the grants would be gradually expanded to cover schools with 55% concentrations of poverty by 2027.

Why the commission likes it: While all students who live in poverty may face hardships in school, the commission believes that those burdens are compounded when faced by the majority or nearly all students in a school. Other student groups targeted for increased funding in the bill include students learning English, those enrolled in special education programs, and “struggling learners” with low scores on standardized tests.

The cost: In 2030, the state’s annual spending would increase by $692 million for concentration of poverty grants, $182 million for special education, and $57 million to support students learning English.

Supporter: Wes Moore, CEO of antipoverty nonprofit Robin Hood and New York Times best-selling author

What he had to say: Moore asked lawmakers to “place an equity lens” on the state’s education funding formula. “I’m asking that you not tell our most vulnerable and our most systemically underserved communities to pay for their own poverty….But communities with the greatest need for these reforms are being asked to pay the most to get services desperately needed in every school and in every community, and that’s not fair.”

Policy Area 5: Implementation and accountability

What’s proposed: The bill establishes a seven-member Accountability and Implementation Board appointed jointly by the governor, Senate president and House speaker. The board would develop a statewide comprehensive implementation plan to guide reforms and would also approve county-level implementation plans. The board would have the power to withhold 25% of new state funding from counties each fiscal year until the board approves of a county’s progress toward implementing reforms.

The cost: $3.9 million in fiscal year 2030 for the accountability board and expert review teams that will travel the state to determine whether reforms are being successfully implemented in individual schools.

Testifying: Warner I. Sumpter, president of the Maryland State Board of Education

What he had to say: The state board is enthusiastic about the Blueprint proposal overall, but has “significant concerns” with the proposed accountability board. “The existing structures of the state government are the best mechanisms to provide the necessary governance and accountability sought,” Sumpter said. “…Under the oversight of the state board, the Maryland Department of Education has the structure, expertise and experience in place to carry out the responsibilities and charges outlined in this legislation.” He asked the committees to consider an amendment to put the state board in charge of accountability measures.

By Danielle Gaines

Reporter Hannah Gaskill contributed to this report.

Out and About (Sort of): Education Dominates Session by Howard Freedlander

February 18, 2020 by Howard Freedlander

If you keep your ear to the rumblings of the 2020 Maryland General Assembly, you will hear one subject above all others: education reform

After you learn that a 100-page bill proposed last week calls for funding of pre-kindergarten programs, higher pay and career opportunities for teachers and enhanced technical training, you then focus on the cost of $4 billion a year over the next decade. The state would pay $2.8 billion, while the counties simultaneously would pay $1.2 billion.

As you dig deeper, you discover that the predominantly Democratic legislature opposes a tax hike for Marylanders. Instead, the legislators plan to explore other funding sources, such as sports betting and tax on internet sales.

You can imagine that skepticism abounds in the halls of the General Assembly. How will local school systems be held accountable for the useful expenditure of large amounts of new money? Will poorly performing schools throughout the state suddenly improve with an infusion of money?

Counties are concerned about paying their share of the cost of the Kirwan Commission recommendations. The hand wringing already has begun.

In 2002, the Thornton Commission proposed major changes to the delivery of education with a price tag, if I recall correctly, of $3 billion. And, believe it or not, the commission identified no funding source.

The Thornton results are questionable. Less than 40 percent of the state’s high school graduates currently can read at the 10th-grade level or pass an Algebra 1 exam.

Though my skepticism is obvious, I view the quality of public school education an essential factor in the socioeconomic success of Maryland. If we lack an educated and capable workforce, we then court disaster in drawing and retaining small-and-big business employers in our state.

The main product in Maryland is human capital. While our agricultural sector is strong and thriving, tourism continues to prosper, our health care providers are among the best in the world, information technology companies produce innovative services and the Port of Baltimore is booming, what we grow best in the Old Line State are people.

Maryland taxpayers must support an education system that thrives not merely on test scores and college enrollment, but also on the types of citizens we are growing and nurturing. I’m suggesting that public schools do what they do best: develop young minds, as well as encourage character development that yields better citizens.

We are fortunate in this country to have superb independent schools that provide an alternative to public schools for parents who can afford a private-school education. Independent schools often flourish when public schools fail to meet high academic and disciplinary standards.

Though the U.S. Constitution does not stipulate provision of a public school education, it implicitly calls for an informed citizenry, without which democracy fails or flounders.

Fiscally sound implementation of the “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future” is key to the vibrancy of a state that cannot depend on a natural resource such as oil, or a strong manufacturing base that once existed primarily in the Baltimore area. We do have world-class hospitals. We do have exceptional colleges and universities.

I’m not ignoring the plentiful but pollution-challenged Chesapeake Bay, a source of food and recreation.

And we do have people anxious to receive a top-flight K-12 public education funded by both the state, counties and the City of Baltimore. The projected cost of $4 billion is eye-popping. Accountability measures become ever more necessary and enforceable.

I’ve witnessed General Assembly sessions mired in resolving difficult financial issues linked to economic turbulence. I’ve seen sessions bogged down by social conflicts like abortion and gay marriage. These subjects often dominate public discourse. Passion and stridency often characterize the conversation.

The current 90-day session offers its 188 legislators an opportunity to focus on a non-partisan topic—albeit one with an alarmingly high price tag—that can determine, if not influence the future of a buoyant state.

Educational reform demands serious debate. It demands a sustainable funding source.

It demands a bipartisan approach, if possible.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Report from Annapolis 2020 – Part 4 by Laura Price

February 12, 2020 by Laura Price

We have gotten through the first 30 of 90 days in Annapolis legislative session. MACo reviewed three dozen bills which prompted wide-ranging discussion. The tax committee had our usual assortment of subtraction modification bills that MACo again sent letters to advocate issuing State tax credits instead.

There was a bill, HB565 – “Income Tax – Business and Economic Development Tax Credit Termination,” which is similar to HB223, “End Ineffective Business Subsidies Act,” that I previously wrote about and MACo opposed. Our economic development departments need these tools to attract and retain businesses that help create and add jobs to our economy. It seems the purpose behind some of these bills is to see how much money the State can claw back from the counties to pay for the Kirwan education bill. On the opposite end of the spectrum is HB492/SB493 – “Small Business Development Center Fund,” which MACo supports. This bill would increase the minimum appropriation from $950K to $1.5 million. This helps fund our local offices that work directly with our small businesses which are just getting started, helping them create business plans to become successful business in our communities.

From the education committee, HB665 – “Public School Construction and State Buildings – Use of Geothermal Energy,” was considered. This would prohibit the construction of a new public school unless it had geothermal installed. It would also require a State building to install a geothermal energy system. While there is an interest in more environmentally friendly buildings, this is not a technology that can be utilized everywhere. It might work well for the soils on the Eastern Shore, but would not be cost effective to drill down through rock in Allegany County. It also doesn’t make sense to rip out existing systems and do systemic upgrades. It would be problematic in a building that has a chiller. The decision to use geothermal should be made on a case-by-case basis, by the engineers and architects and by considering what actually makes the most sense and will be efficient.

A bill we did support, SB495 – “Bay Restoration Funds – Municipal Wastewater Facilities (Eckardt), would especially benefit the more rural counties. This would expand the authorized uses of the BRF to include costs associated with connecting a property to an existing municipal wastewater facility with enhanced nutrient removal. Here in Talbot, we have been particularly focused on getting people off of septic and onto a sewer line. If we can expand the use of funds to help offset some of the capital costs, we can really make progress on removing more nitrogen and phosphorous from reaching the Bay waters.

HB586 – “Public Safety – Criminal History Check – Fire Departments and Ambulance Services” would prohibit our public safety departments from conducting a criminal history check or requiring an applicant to disclose those records before an initial interview. This is an add-on to the “Ban the Box” bill that passed last year. The question asks whether the job applicant has a criminal history and is now prohibited on employment applications. We can debate if this is a good idea or not, however, when it comes to our emergency and public safety positions, it is vitally important that the employer know this information. These employees are our front-line defense, often going into individuals’ homes. It would also require these departments to establish a peer review committee and they would have some input in the hiring process. Our department heads should not have to abdicate any of their authority to decide who is the best candidate to employ.

SB388 – “Circuit Court Employees – Collective Bargaining” would establish collective bargaining rights to employees of the circuit and district courts. These are state-mandated positions that the counties have to fund completely. The local jurisdictions ought to be able to control the wages of our local employees without a State labor relations board also mandating how much a county must pay. This is another example of the State mandating the position and the pay, when the county taxpayers are footing the bill, hence MACo opposes this bill. We do like HB498 which would appropriate $1 million in the State budget to be used to make grants to area agencies to expand aging in place programs for seniors. It is so much more cost-effective than having our senior citizens have to go to nursing homes and have a much better quality of life if they can stay in their own familiar homes.

All that and the Kirwan bill had not been officially introduced as of this writing. By the time you read this, Education bill SB1000/HB1300 most likely will have been made available for all to read. (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov ) I’m sure by next week, this entire column will cover what is in the bill. Word is that it will follow pretty true to the actual recommendations that were made by the Kirwan commission and also maintain the funding formulas and the split between the State and the Counties.

My fear is that it still may not identify any actual funding source for how to pay for it. That would be almost exactly like “Thornton” from almost 20 years ago. Big policy ideas for improving education, but no specific way to pay for it. In reality, at least for the county share, it will require large tax increases, because we can’t possibly cut enough in current spending to be able to afford it.

The final report from November left some questions unanswered. Such as, what is the County timetable phase in? What will count toward the mandate (school nurses from health department, school resource offices in our law enforcement, for example)? Will there be any triggers to not increase for a time period, if there is a downturn in the economy? And will there be any changes to wealth formulas? For example, in Caroline county, One penny only raises about $250k, to fully fund Kirwan, they may have to come up with $10m, which would be an increase of 40 cents on their property tax rate. That is unaffordable for the citizens and there are many, if not most counties in similar situations.

Once again, stay tuned and stay informed.

Laura Price is 2nd Vice President on the Executive Board of Directors of MACo, Chair of Budget and Tax, Talbot’s legislative liaison and member of the Talbot County Council.

« Previous Page

Follow Us