News from Annapolis
2019 Session:  Week   3                 Delegate Trent Kittleman - District 9A
 CONTENTS:
  • Put the brakes on!
  • More misguided spending won't work
  • Why Not?
  • Motivation by Consent Decree
  • The City's Response: Sue the State
  • What's the Situation Today?
  • Will Anything Work?
  • The New York Experiment
Please forward this email to your family and friends, and encourage them to sign up to receive the weekly News from Annapolis by sending me an email at TrentKittleman@verizon.net.
Cl.
The Kirwan Commission Plan: 
Will it Work?  
         I suspect that most of my readers know something of Maryland Commission on Innovation & Excellence in Education more commonly referred to as the "Kirwan Commission," so named for the former Chancellor of the University of Maryland and Chairman of the commission.
        Pursuant to its charge, the Commission's "Preliminary Report" describes expansive plans to completely reshape education in the state of Maryland. More recently, they estimated the potential cost of the Plan at just above or below $4 billion.
        The Commission has not yet finished its Final Report, nor have they drafted a more meaningful analysis of the cost - or who will pay for it.  
        Nonetheless, every day I find activists, lobbyists and fliers decorating the halls of the legislature advocating for us to "fund the Kirwan Commission recommendations!"   Many of us have serious questions and concerns about the scope of the 59 recommendations to reshape education in the state, the most pressing of which is how do we slow down this run-away train that's trying to implement Kirwan before we've gotten a Final Report or any real idea of how much it will cost?
Put on the Brakes!
            
        As a Delegate from District 9A - western Howard and southern Carroll counties -- I have the good fortune of representing counties with arguably the best two school systems in the State. I'm not convinced that either Carroll or Howard will like or benefit from the Kirwan recommendations that cede significant local control to the State. And all of the 24 local jurisdictions are very concerned about how that $4 billion price tag will be split between the State and the locals.
            My biggest concern, however, is will this new effort work any better than all of the efforts that have gone before, for two reasons:
  • After a certain threshold, "more money" is not the answer to the substantive problems in failing schools.
  • Efforts to impose a holistic system onto an entrenched bureaucracy is extremely difficult.
"More misguided spending will not fix Maryland schools"
  
        From 1998 to 2014, Maryland increased education operating ex penses by $3.8 billion -- a 45% increase. 
        Yet there was no improvement in results - in students' learning.
        Experts point to data showing that, after a certain point, the amount of spending on K-12 education becomes less important than how that money is spent. For example, a months-long analysis done on behalf of Maryland Public Policy Institute (MPPI), "found scant evidence showing that the Kirwan Commission's recommendations will benefit Maryland children and families, while ample evidence shows that Maryland's historic school spending increase since 2002 has produced disappointing results."
           Even the Kirwan Commission acknowledges how poorly Maryland schools performed over that time. The conclusion is that bigger school budgets do not translate into better student results in Maryland.
Why Not?       
           
        School systems, like any business, can spend their money wisely or foolishly.  If the School System continually misallocates funds such that its students are not benefitting, no amount of increased spending will create an adequate school system. An entrenched bureaucracy likes more money, but hates change.
            Unfortunately, in Maryland we have seen the truth that failures from continued misallocated funding and mismanagement cannot necessarily be corrected with more money.
Although Baltimore City is not alone, there is a detailed record of what happened when the City asked for - and got - more education money.
            In 1995, Baltimore City filed suit against the State Board of Education in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, alleging that the State Constitution requires the State to "establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public Schools." The City argued that State funding was inadequate, that, without more funding, the City was unable to provide even a basic education for its children.
            In response, the State counter-sued the City alleging that mismanagement was the problem -- not lack of funding -- and included a lengthy list of alleged mismanagement actions in its pleadings, as follows. The City:
  • Had failed to implement a legislatively-endorsed series of recommendations made in 1992 by a consulting firm,
  • That it had failed to use nearly $12 million in Federal and State resources that had been made available to it in FY 1992-1995,
  • That due to lack of planning and management, it had failed to access millions of dollars of additional Federal funds that could have become available, and
  • That it failed to use $20 million of State capital improvement funds because of delays in design work and in signing contracts.
  • Had failed to develop and implement:
    • a uniform curriculum,
    • an effective personnel training and evaluation system,
    • an adequate management information system,
    • an adequate procurement system,
    • effective testing protocols,
    • effective grants administration and monitoring,
    • a comprehensive plan to reduce school crime, and
    • An adequate plan to comply with the mandates of the U.S. District Court with respect to special education programs then under Federal court scrutiny
Motivation by Consent Decree

            T he Court ruled (1) that the public school children in Baltimore City were not being provided with an adequate education, "measured by contemporary standards," but (2) that there was a genuine dispute regarding the cause of the inadequate education.
          Rather than go to trial, the parties entered into a Consent Decree in November 1996, agreeing to work together to resolve the issues; the Circuit Court of Baltimore City retained jurisdiction. Over the next seven years, the parties endeavored, unsuccessfully, to improve the City's education system.
          It is instructive - and a bit terrifying - to read what went on during those years. Despite promises, the City was unable to control its spending or to implement the cost-saving measures promised.   As a result, the City continued to rack up deficits, year after year, despite a series of efforts by diverse expert entities:
The Fiscal Operating Committee was appointed by the mayor of Baltimore. After extensive efforts, this committee concluded:
  • The City's inability to reduce deficits was due to the City's failure to enact the various cost-saving measures, as promised.
  • " Put simply, Baltimore City Public Schools must not only continue to cut and contain costs in the remaining months of FY 2004 and plan to live within its means, it must also produce future year surpluses that will equal or exceed the cumulative deficit"

The Maryland State Board of Education (MSBE) appointed a separate panel to investigate the BCPS deficits.  Its report was devastating, saying that the "makings of a disaster" were inherent within the Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) and listed the factors that produced such a poor outcome:

  • No continuity of leadership in BCPS (four CEOs, three CFOs, and at least two CEOs in six years),
  • No system of internal communication,
  • No discipline,
  • No meaningful oversight,
  • A sense in middle management that new initiatives need not be followed because senior management would change,
  • No accountability, and
  • No sanctions for failure to perform.
The panel concluded that, in "a system with almost a complete lack of consequence for overspending, the surprise is that the deficit is not even larger."


A  Fiscal Operating Committee  
was appointed by the mayor of Baltimore. After extensive efforts, this committee concluded:
  • The City's inability to reduce deficits was due to the City's failure to enact the various cost-saving measures, as promised.
  • " Put simply, Baltimore City Public Schools must not only continue to cut and contain costs in the remaining months of FY 2004 and plan to live within its means, it must also produce future year surpluses that will equal or exceed the cumulative deficit"
The Maryland State Board of Education (MSBE)  appointed a separate panel to investigate the BCPS deficits.  Its report was devastating, saying that the "makings of a disaster" were inherent within the Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) and listed the factors that produced such a poor outcome:
  • No continuity of leadership in BCPS (four CEOs, three CFOs, and at least two CEOs in six years),
  • No system of internal communication,
  • No discipline,
  • No meaningful oversight,
  • A sense in middle management that new initiatives need not be followed because senior management would change,
  • No accountability, and
  • No sanctions for failure to perform.
The panel concluded that, in "a system with almost a complete lack of consequence for overspending, the surprise is that the deficit is not even larger."
        A  2004 Ernst & Young report  indicated that systemic management deficiencies still existed and that from 2001-2004, the BSPS "failed to avail itself of over $13 million of available State and Federal Funds."
        The Greater Baltimore Committee  and  The Presidents' Roundtable  were asked by the mayor to review BCPS's budget process and fiscal management practices. Their assessments produced a critique very similar to those above.
 
          During this time, the General Assembly, obviously concerned," passed the  Education Fiscal Accountability and Oversight Act of 2004 that prohibited a local school district from carrying a deficit and included an accountability process in the event a school district failed to comply. If a deficit existed and the school district was unable to cure the problem within a certain time-frame, the State Board of Education was to withhold 10% of State funds payable to the school system until compliance was achieved.
          Recognizing, however, that the City would be unable to  comply immediately, the Legislature gave the City an extra year to eliminate its deficits.
The City's Response: Sue the State    

        Rather than take advantage of the additional time, the City plaintiffs asked the Circuit Court to direct the State to "revisit" its plan to hold the City accountable for its deficit.  
Moreover, the City asked the court to tell the State to "make certain that the funds available to educate students in the 2004-05 school year are sufficient."

          The Baltimore City Circuit Court adopted most of the plaintiff's proposals and virtually none of those proposed by the State. The Court's lengthy Memorandum included an order declaring the General Assembly's law requiring Baltimore City to eliminate its deficit by FY 2006 to be unconstitutional and "null and void as against public policy."
        The State appealed. 
        On June 9, 2005, the Court of Appeals took the appeal and ruled only on the issues appropriately before the Court at that time. In a lengthy decision, the Court recounted all of the above-referenced facts and vacated the Order of the Circuit Court.
        A clearly annoyed Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly not only has the authority to prohibit local school systems from running deficits, but arguably, an obligation. "Indeed, to continue to permit school systems, through deliberate or negligent conduct to become fiscally irresponsible and insolvent, would be a breach of its solemn responsibility to both the children and the taxpayers of the State."

        The case (Bradford v. State Board of Education) continues to this day. So do the BCPS problems.
What's the Situation Today?  

            Although the Opinion was issued 13 years ago, the mismanagement of the BCPS continues to this day. The Baltimore Sun and Fox 45 News have been reporting on the ongoing problems in BCPS, as the "Project Baltimore" series. In one article, a veteran Baltimore City teacher said the only thing that can save City Schools is "total revolution." Other articles reported:
  • Inappropriate grade-changing
  • Schools that ran out of water
  • Schools without air condition or heating because BCPS failed to use the state funds it had to do repairs and ultimately had to return the funds
  • Far too many failing schools. (The recent Star review of Maryland schools by jurisdiction showed BCPS with 23 failing one-star schools. No other jurisdiction had more than three one-star schools.)
Will Anything Work?
            
        When a business is run into the ground by mismanagement, it can be put into "receivership," where the court appoints an outsider to be in charge either to turn the company around or oversee a bankruptcy. Although this particular process is not appropriate for a state agency, the November 1996 Consent Order did establish a similar procedure, giving "full control of all functions relating to BCPS," to a newly restructured Board appointed jointly by the Mayor and the Governor.

        It didn't work, most probably because the new Board members, as appointed, were still within the political orbit.

        Unfortunately, the Kirwan Commission refused to consider alternatives such as Charter Schools, Conversion schools, voucher programs such as BOOST, or creating new school districts- most probably because the General Assembly, in its wisdom, explicitly prohibited the State from considering anything truly transformational in the recently passed "Protect Our Schools Act."
There is no magic bullet for Baltimore City or any school district with similar problems. At this point, shouldn't we try anything and everything that might give the kids in Baltimore City a chance to learn?

        One reason I like the option of Charter Schools is because they have tangible parental approval. Baltimore City has by far the largest number of Charter Schools in Maryland. And yet, they have a waiting list that would fill twice that many. It may not be scientific, but as a Mom and a Grand mom, I put my faith in parents knowing what their kids need.
The New York experiment .
           
        On October 26, 2018, the New York Times published an article titled, "New York Knew Some Schools in Its $773 Million Plan Were Likely to Fail. It Kept Children in Them Anyway."
            New York City's "Renewal" plan was "built on the theory that academic performance would improve if children were given a wide array of social services and teachers were better trained. The city paid for an extension of the school day, professional coaches for teachers and a suite of social supports such as mental health clinics dentists and food pantries on site."
            The Times interviewed nine staff who worked on the Renewal program; all of them said that it was clear within the first year that the program was "veering off track." For example, confusing lines of authority left principals knowing who their boss was.
            In what has become unfortunately commonplace, a Department of Education internal memo "suggested making academic goals easier to reach so more schools could be called a success."
            Interviews with about a dozen academics who study failing schools criticized Renewal. While acknowledging that the social supports the schools were providing were often crucial for low-income families, "most research has shown that schools do not transform without fundamental changes aimed directly at academic improvement." Those measures have included:
  • Replacing teachers and principals
  • Integrating schools racially and socioeconomically, or
  • Converting schools into charter schools.
 
For me, the definitive statement came from James Kemple, the executive director of New York University's Research Alliance for New York City Schools:
            "We should stop ourselves from spending money on things that don't work."
 
            Amen.

Delegate Trent Kittleman
District 9A, Western Howard County and Southern Carroll County (Sykesville)
Room 202, Lowe House Office Building
6 Bladen Street,   Annapolis, MD 21401
410-841-3556  *   Trent.Kittleman@House.State.MD.US
Interim Office
3000 Kittleman Lane,  West Friendship, MD 21794
301-661-3344  *   trentkittleman@verizon.net
Administrative Aide: Chelsea Leigh Murphy