JULY 1995

Governor's Commission on School Funding

1. What is the Governor's Commission on School Funding?

The Commission is a 23-member panel formed the by Governor and chaired by Donald Hutchinson, president of the Greater Baltimore Committee. The panel includes bipartisan representation from the legislature, as well as representatives of teachers, superintendents, school boards, the business community, higher education and state government. The Commission met from May to December of 1993.

2. What was the Commission's task?

The Governor charged the Commission with recommending changes in state school funding that would ensure adequate resources for all schools and provide incentives for continuous improvement.

3. What problems did the Commission identify?

Data from the MSPAP tests indicate that the strongest predictor of a school's success is the percentage of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch. Commission members recognized this strong relationship between school poverty and school performance as its most serious challenge, since the obstacles to learning that poor children face extend beyond the school walls. The Commission also saw as barriers to success other student characteristics (e.g., limited English proficiency, special education needs), certain characteristics of school systems (management practices, local wealth and resources), and the nature of state funding programs (too many categorical programs, too few incentives for improved performance).

3. What problems did the Commission identify?

Data from the MSPAP tests indicate that the strongest predictor of a schoolÕs success is the percentage of its students eligible for free or reduced lunch. Commission members recognized this strong relationship between school poverty and school performance as its most serious challenge, since the obstacles to learning that poor children face extend beyond the school walls. The Commission also saw as barriers to success other student characteristics (e.g., limited English proficiency, special education needs), certain characteristics of school systems (management practices, local wealth and resources), and the nature of state funding programs (too many categorical programs, too few incentives for improved performance).

4. What did the Commission recommend doing about these concerns?

The Commission recommended that the state build a new funding model based on four principles: (1) State and local governments must share the responsibility of providing the resources to give each child an adequate education; (2) The state must devote additional resources to ensure educational opportunity for children with special needs, particularly children living in poverty; (3) The state must focus its policies and accountability system squarely on performance, holding each school system and school responsible for the results it achieves; (4) The state must integrate services for children and families through schools to meet the needs of children.

5. What specific changes should be made to the existing system of state funding?

A host of categorical funding programsÐtransportation, the bulk of public day special education funding and several smaller programsÐshould be folded into one foundation program that provides school systems with the resources they need to give every child a fundamental education. The foundation amount should equal the amount spent on children in school systems that have met state performance standardsÐCarroll, Frederick, and Howard counties. The state should provide a larger share of the foundation to less wealthy school systems, requiring local governments to make up the difference. The state should also require local school systems to share in the cost of the TeachersÕ Retirement Program by freezing the stateÕs contribution at the fiscal year 1995 level.

6. Is this enough to give all children a real opportunity to learn?

No, resources devoted to poor children must be redirected and rethought. First of all, existing resources outside the education budget for services to children and families must be coordinated through schools to address problems that interfere with learning in childrenÕs lives from birth through secondary school. The state needs to concentrate more resources on young children by expanding its pre-school Extended Elementary Education Program and offering full day kindergarten to children living in poverty. Compensatory Education funding must be better targeted to poor children and the state should provide additional grants of $1,500 per student living in poverty to schools that develop comprehensive plans for extending learning opportunities for poor children. Beyond the issue of poverty, the state should also provide resources to assist school systems in serving students with high intensity special education needs, students with limited English proficiency, and highly able

7. With all this in place, what else should the state do to improve education?

The state's role in promoting improved school performance is expanding and should continue to do so. In addition to supporting Challenge Schools and intervening to ÒreconstituteÓ some low performing schools, the state should provide monetary and other incentives to reward success and improvement, and assist schools needing to improve by training successful teachers and administrators to serve as Òconsultant educatorsÓ to these schools. A greater emphasis must be placed on professional development for school staff that is cost-effective, focused on school improvement, and firmly linked to the Maryland School Performance Program. Collective bargaining agreements should be reviewed to determine if any provisions conflict with State Board decisions, and the Board should also review the validity of individual jurisdictionsÕ exem ptions from state laws. At the same time, school systems should be required to utilize fully the expertise of principals, teachers, parents, and other members of school communities in assuring the success of all students.

8. How much would all of this cost?

To fully implement these recommendations, overall state funding by fiscal year 1999 should increase by $572 million (in addition to $634 million projected under current law). Since modest economic growth is projected in Maryland for the next five years, we suggest two funding levels as alternatives to full implementation: (1) Modified implementation, or slowing down increases in foundation funding, would require, by fiscal year 1999, $332 million above what is projected under law. (2) Initial implementation to establish priorities in the face of the state's difficult fiscal situation would require $47.3 million above projected funding. The most critical priority is to provide better learning opportunities to poor children. Other financial priorities include funding to support children with limited English proficiency, funding to reward districts with high attendance rates, and funding to support an expanded state role in promoting improved school performance.

9. What happens to the Commission's report now?

Copies of the report have been made available to state legislators, school and local officials, and the general public. The report will serve to inform both legislative deliberations and broader debates on education reform.