When it comes to the distribution of the common wealth, there are supposed absolutes at the various levels of government. The Federal budget is now expressed in terms of funds available after FICA, debt service, or defense spending. Over the past few weeks, we have discussed some of these issues within the context of a never ratified, but generally accepted second bill of rights. Debt service is currently being discussed in DC, but that’s a dog and pony show. There are few alternatives to raising the debt ceiling. It’s merely a matter of what deal gets struck.
At the local level, schools have gained absolute status. Local governments fund the school board, who in turn, fund the individual line items of the annual budget. While this construct appears to add a layer of bureaucracy to county school systems, it is more of a benefit to have people intimately associated with school funding matters. Board members should have the ability to identify wants versus needs, and can act as the current fiscal situation allows. They are also elected officials, meaning that board members do not have the luxury of making decisions as untouchable political appointees.
While it would seem that this is a simple construct, the details are far more complex. Separate boards have the potential to create an adversarial relationship with the council that provides its funding. While it would seem that the BoE is subordinate to a county’s council, the various school boards have an ally in Annapolis. The State’s maintenance of effort (MOE) mandate says that per-pupil funding must not decrease in any year versus the prior year.
This type of law is designed to keep our children from being held hostage during budget negotiations; however, in its application, it rubber stamps self-perpetuating government by exempting half of a county’s budget from scrutiny. When a rare waiver is granted, it allows for the rhetoric to fly. When Montgomery County sought its recent waiver, BoE President Christopher Barclay stated, “The children of Montgomery County and Maryland have been stripped of a bedrock protection through this narrow reading of the maintenance-of-effort law. In Montgomery County alone, we are seeing what happens when a local government fails to meet its legal obligation.”
Mr. Barclay is not on an island. Eric Luedtke, teacher and member of the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County Education Association, chimes in with, “The fact is that without maintenance of effort, we will be doing less for our community’s children next year than we did this year. Is that really a precedent that we want to set?” I’m guessing that Misters Barclay and Luedtke never held a press conference to genuflect at the feet of the Montgomery County Council for their years of exceeding the mandate.
In the County of Kent, I believe we have been blessed with people who accepted the larger circumstance. While there was a brief dust up regarding teacher pay versus other employees who had recently taken pay cuts, the majority of the energy was focused on how to make lemonade from our economic lemons. Of course, it also helped that the size of the school system kept us out of the State penalty box.
All of the Eastern Shore self-congratulation aside, a change to the MOE mandate needs to be discussed in Annapolis. The State will surely take notice if Eastern Shore counties continue to be held harmless while not meeting the spirit of the mandate. Unfortunately, these circumstances are likely to last another three years. Locally speaking, schools are funded through property taxes. Property taxes are based upon tri-annual assessments, and we are coming out of a period where revenues have been buoyed by over-assessed property.
Of course, there is an analogous example of MOE on the revenue side of the spectrum. That concept would be the constant yield. Counties can raise tax rates to garner a constant yield (after a hearing). Hopefully it is coming together for everyone. The MOE mandate generally guarantees the growth in expenditure, and the constant yield mechanism matches the revenue. It took a quarter century of MOE, but we’ve reached the breaking point of self-perpetuating government.
We should not mistake money for effort. Oddly enough, more effort will likely be expended when there is less money to be used. That’s what makes writing this edition very difficult. Our educators are caring people, and we’re ultimately discussing their value. Their worth is immeasurable, so it is hard for me to write that the common wealth is best served by tinkering with the formulae used to pay them.
What Troup’s Corner would suggest for our 36th District delegation, is for MOE to be based upon a four year outlook. This would give the counties flexibility to adjust their budgets year to year to account for an unforeseen issue. It would guarantee each high school class similar funding to the next group. Decreases would not be too drastic, for they would have to be made up for within the two following years.
In order to avoid the “visceral” critique recently levied upon Troup’s Corner, let’s talk numbers. Here are the education budgets for the three recently completed budgets: 2010 $17.22 million, 2011 $18.17 million, 2012 $17.26 million. Using the 2010 figure as a launch point, if a standard of 1% per annum were established, the numbers would follow this pattern: 2010 $17.22 million, 2011 $17.39 million, 2012 $17.56 million, 2013 $17.74 million. For my four-year proposal, I submit to our readers that Kent County should be credited for the excess funding they provided, not penalized for failing to keep/raise that level of funding in 2012.
While the ideas presented here are likely far from perfect, hopefully the case has been made that current statute provides minimal flexibility to deal with trying economic times. Penalizing county governments means that the people who the State says they are helping with their mandate actually just wind up paying more to get less. I am somewhat reminded of a line from Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing Speech” that reads, “…Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
Fun in Troup’s Corner: Two more pieces of reader feedback that are unlikely to appear on the Best of Troup’s Corner DVD case. “esoteric” –Well known from Worton “…a tad dense.” – Rock Hall resident. Also, yours truly would love for a local ice cream shop to carry teaberry ice cream. That ice cream company in Hershey, PA makes it. So, if you’re a distributor of said ice cream…hint. And if you are a seller, yeah I’m “that guy.”
MBTroup says
It should have been noted by the author (that density rears its ugly head from time to time :-)) that the Commissioners suggested a way to deal with the issue from the State perspective. In essence, each jurisdiction would start out with a flat amount to cover overhead that all school districts must have (Super, CFO, BOE etc) and then the normal formula would be applied.
Seeing as Commissioner Fithian is a regular on the boards, he can better explain the resistance he and the 36th faced. But I believe it had something to do with I-95 corridor administrators whose salaries would not have been covered by the flat amount. They would have had to dip into the meat and potatoes funding to cover the difference. Please allow me the wiggle room to stand corrected if necessary.
Bill says
Could someone define “common wealth” for me? Google doesn’t help….
Bill
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Monsieur Troup’er…
I think you’re giving an editorial hall pass to the state on their Draconian, yet ingenious, One Maryland share-the wealth state aid formula scheme… which effectively controls the school funding for each public school system. It’s obviously flawed as it treats the largest (and highest achieving) system (Montgomery) the same as the smallest (KCPS)… and funds on a per student basis… not taking into any economy of scale or the incremental costs involved in managing a declining school population… like KCPS.
Public school funding in Maryland consists of county funding, state aid via the formula, direct grants from the state, direct and indirect grants from the feds… and maybe some private grants. None of the county and state (formula & grants) funding is via direct taxation like in many other states. Likewise, Maryland’s elected BOE’s have no taxing authority… and must rely on elected CC’s for funding. This too is a piece of the Draconian, yet ingenious methodology the state uses to diffuse the funding process… thus increasing their control over local education.
The MOE gimmick doesn’t allow for the accumulated excess over MOE funding over the years. The CC’s shared the wealth with the BOE for many years… and likewise have asked them to share the pain the past two years. We are fortunate in CofK that both elected entities understand the economics and were on the same budgeting page.
The state (and the county school supers) rejected any proposed change to the formula that would include an economy of scale factor. And none of the counties have stepped up (although you can offer Montgomery’s challenge to MOE funding) to offer any substantial change to the methodology that would make the funding more transparent.
Actually it’s pretty simple:
1. The elected BOE’s establish a property tax rate to fund a county’s share of local school funding. They become the public school taxing authority… not the CC’s. The taxpayers know exactly what they’re paying for… and who to hold accountable.
2. The state uses the .112 (or whatever they decide on) property tax to fund their state aid formula to the county systems. It’s pretty obvious that CofK isn’t gonna get its fair share back, but at least we know where we’re getting the short stick… and how much we’re getting shorted.
3. The Gov and the state BOE become policy makers and not a funding authority.
We’re in agreement that sending money to A’polis is not in our best interests. And it’s even worse to let them tell us how to spend our tax $$$’s… and that’s all the MOE scheme is… a state power grab.
MBTroup says
@Bill – Ostensibly, you pay taxes to fund programs that are needed for the advancement of our civil society. The idea being that this “common wealth” is used to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts. In reality, it may be the case that they are making some of the parts more whole.
MBTroup says
@WBK – I touched on the State situation in the first comment, but it doesn’t do your larger point much justice. Ya know, it appears that The Spy has retained Daniel Menefee as an investigative reporter of sorts, to supplement Melissa’s work at the local meetings. Frankly, the abandoned funding change we are currently discussing, might have been worth asking a few tough questions of some folks on the educational side of the spectrum.
By the way, I can’t say that I agree with your assertion that the BOE should get taxing authority. Don’t they negotiate the contracts? In accounting parlance, having the same people collect the money and distribute it is poor segregation of duties. That doesn’t even address the potential for the BOE needing to be “bailed out” a la other autonomous government units.
MD Eastern Shore says
“Common wealth” = what you and I worked our butts off for but our government wants more (without working for it!), so they take it by threat of grievous injury to your wallet and/or liberty under color of law. BOHICA!
MD Eastern Shore says
My solution: dump the whole rotten county school system and give parents vouchers for private schools. They can’t do any worse, and they’re likely to care a whole lot more.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Monsieur Troup’er says: Don’t they negotiate the contracts? In accounting parlance, having the same people collect the money and distribute it is poor segregation of duties. That doesn’t even address the potential for the BOE needing to be “bailed out” a la other autonomous government units.
The CC’s are doing it with their share of our tax dollars. It’s a lot more transparent system… for the taxpayers. I’d much rather have an elected BOE accountable for both the financials and the academic results of our local school system. It’s an interesting dynamics… ask anybody who has lived in New Jersey.
And besides… it makes the state somewhat more accountable because the funding is a direct taxation.
As a test… send the recommendations to our 36th reps… individually… and see what kind of response you get. In fact, we’re wasting our time discussing any aspects of our public education system in Maryland because the state has the gold and makes the rules… and not to our advantage. Note: Maryland’s extreme adversion to charter schools as an example.
MBTroup says
@WBK: “As a test… send the recommendations to our 36th reps… individually… and see what kind of response you get. In fact, we’re wasting our time discussing any aspects of our public education system in Maryland…”
Bob, you and I have discussed how to handle Libya. I’m thinking that between these two issues, one is a better use of our time 🙂 Perhaps to your point, maybe it isn’t the one that would seem eassier to tackle.
As you note, the major disadvantage to a small community is the rounding error that we become in any State analysis. The advantage is that we have an accessible Delegate. So if he is reading…
The crux of my suggestion is that the MoE standard should remain intact, but enforced over a rolling four year period. This would provide local governemnts year-to-year flexibility without allowing them to abandon their obligation to provide adequately funded schools. Let’s say a school system had a 15% increase in funding to pay for a capital project or other major investment. MoE says that the subsequent year’s allocation starts from that 15% increase, correct? Perhaps this standard has a weird way of being a disincentive to making investments in our schools with first-class amenities. I wonder if any educators read this and became infuriated, when I feel that my suggestion puts as much, maybe more money into the schools.
On the other hand, a BOE with taxing authority opens the “we don’t have any school children” box. It’s a tired argument; however, embedded in property taxes, folks without children can tell themselves they are paying for the sheriff’s department.
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Monsieur Troup’er says: Let’s say a school system had a 15% increase in funding to pay for a capital project or other major investment. MoE says that the subsequent year’s allocation starts from that 15% increase, correct?
Nope… capital expenditures are a separate funding item. And guess what? Baltimore City only pays for 5% of theirs and the rest comes from the state. CofK pays for 50%.
Folks without children pay for schools because of the greater good nature of our taxing system. Just as folks without W&S are paying a greater good tax to supplement the county W&S rates. It’s all about transparency.
MBTroup says
Bob – I was afraid of that as I typed it. I remember seeing your personal treasurer’s handouts, and thought it was separate. Let’s take the term CapEx out of it, and just replace it with “extraordinary funding injection.” That’s the danger of details.
I’m not debating your greater good point. Your KP taxes go to Worton Elementary, and we thank you!
Warrior Bob Kramer says
Monsieur Troup’er says: replace it with “extraordinary funding injection.
I have such disdain for the way the state of Maryland funds its public education that I’m skeptical that the common sense approach you’re advocating for a simple safeguard against MOE mandated funding would be considered by the state. In any case… nice discussion thread that folks should really take to heart.
Janis Sartucci says
Thought you might be interested in seeing what legislation Montgomery County’s Board President has requested from the legislature:
https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/06/board-of-ed-president-wants-taxes.html
MBTroup says
@Janis – I posted the following on your site
“…I encourage your readers to read the entire piece where I point out the inherent flaw of MOE, and suggest a change that even Mr Barclay may find amenable.
Anonymous is right that Kent is the smallest district (a point I conceded in the pasted portion). Also, the point was not to do a hatchet job on Mr. Barclay or Mr. Luedtke. The point was to contrast Kent’s issues with MoCo. State mandates have a larger impact on smaller counties, relatively speaking of course. I agree with Mr Barclay that a change to MOE is needed. He wants to instituionalize it (a “bedrock protection”). I call for flexibility (keeping the spirit of the mandate, but applying it over a four year period).
But I’m just a guy with an internet connection. Nothing to worry about from me.”