Local leaders, tasked with implementing the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (Blueprint), called on the state oversight committee to hold Governor and state legislature accountable for role in effective funding and implementation of education reform.
As previously covered on Conduit Street, the Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) is hosting public comment sessions for stakeholders to give feedback on education reform rollout and planning in Maryland. The advisory committee tasked with assessing the implementation plans and progress for pillar 5 heard from local school leaders giving feedback on components of the plan and suggestions for changes. As a reminder, pillar 5 outlines the requirements for local and State accountability.
At the beginning of the meeting AIB staff made clear that suggested changes can take two forms:
- recommendations within existing AIB purview and plan
- changes with statutory implications that require legislative action
The hour long session included feedback from an individual who has been a member of the expert review teams. Organizations represented included the Education Advocacy Coalition, Strong Schools Maryland, and the Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland (PSSAM). County representatives were also present to speak from Harford and Frederick County.
The most compelling moments of feedback during the meeting came from the Executive Director of PSSAM, Mary Pat Fannon, and the Katie Ridgeway, the Harford County Director of Strategic Initiatives. Fannon’s comments highlighted that the role of the AIB is to not only to hold the locals accountable but, equally, to address the State’s shortcomings that effect implementation. Specifically she noted that the foundation formula funding is no longer adequate, and the AIB must play a role in influencing the Governor’s Office and General Assembly to address this.
Director Ridgeway followed Fannon’s comments up by pointing out that when funding does not match reality it threatens outcomes. She went on to clarify that these funding shortfalls are well known to the AIB as they have had, for some time, detailed financial reports for all 24 jurisdictions that represent this to be true. MACo has provided extensive coverage and advocacy on this issue confirming these realities and the undue strain it is putting on local government budgets.
MACo advocacy during the legislative session focused on bringing these issues to light particularly with the State’s portion of the funding. While counties have been over-investing, year-over-year, by billions as costs and circumstances fluctuate, the State’s portion is relatively static and tied to numbers signed into law more than 5 years ago. State leadership continues to say they are “fully funding” the Blueprint because they are contributing an amount that has little to no relevance to current costs and market realities. Fannon mentioned that the shifts caused by COVID-19 could not have been anticipated but Ridgeway followed that up by sharing that expecting the same outcomes with insufficient funding would jeopardize the goals of the plan.
When pillar 5 committee membership – those tasked with holding everyone accountable and not just the locals – was asked for responses there was silence on the foundation formula concerns. Any effort to encourage the AIB to hold the legislature and State accountable for their role would be widely supported and encouraged by MACo membership.
