Category Archives: education

Adam Pagnucco, budget, Economy, education, transportation

How to Spend More on Education and Transportation Without Raising Taxes

By Adam Pagnucco.  

It’s election season and that means it’s time for lots of promises from politicians.  And boy are they promising a lot, especially on the county’s two big issues of education and transportation.  The mailbox’s “progressive leaders” have “plans” to guarantee every child a great school, invest in transportation – especially transit – and to do all of the above without raising taxes.  Sounds great, yeah?

Time to get real, folks!

Education and transportation each have two virtues.  First, each of them generates direct economic returns.  Education spending yields a return on human capital while transportation spending yields a return on physical infrastructure.  Both are important for attracting and retaining residents and jobs.  Second, each of them is popular with voters.  For as long as anyone can remember, education and transportation have been two of the top issues in our elections – and they might possibly be THE top two.  Happily, on these two issues, good policy and good politics come together!

Paying for them is another matter.  MCPS accounts for a greater percentage of the budget than any other agency with a $2.5 billion budget in FY18.  Montgomery College received more than $300 million.  The Department of Transportation’s operating budget was $56 million.  Funding increases with meaningful impacts on these agencies need to be in the tens of millions of dollars – at least.  That kind of money far exceeds a spreadsheet rounding error.

And yet, there is a way to increase spending on MCPS, the college and transportation without massive tax hikes.  The catch is that it’s not quick or easy.

Let’s do a simple (and yes, admittedly simplistic!) exercise with the operating budget.  First, let’s identify the combined local dollar spending on MCPS, the college and the Department of Transportation (DOT).  Next, let’s segregate out intergovernmental aid, which plays an important role in the budget but is not controlled by the county government.  Then let’s segregate debt service.  Yes, over long periods of time, the county can adjust debt service.  But much of the debt service is being paid on capital projects already completed, and furthermore, a huge chunk of it goes to school construction and transportation projects.  Boosting education and transportation operating budgets by cutting their capital budgets is not the best idea in the world!  Finally, let’s subtract out local dollar education and transportation spending, intergovernmental aid and debt service from total spending and what we get is a great big category that we shall creatively name “Everything Else.”

Here’s what happens when we do that for FY11, the trough budget year of the Great Recession, and FY18, the budget that ends on June 30 of this year.

What the above data shows is that the total county budget grew by 28% over this period.  Intergovernmental aid grew by 26% and debt service rose by a whopping 58%.  (We have previously written about the county’s rapidly growing debt.)  Now let’s contrast the two remaining broad categories: the local dollars spent on MCPS, the college and DOT and everything else.  The education and transportation budgets grew by a combined 18%.  Everything else grew by 37%.

That’s right folks – spending on everything else has been growing twice as fast as local dollar spending on education and transportation operating budgets.  That’s a strange fact in a county in which education and transportation are arguably the top two political issues.

Now what would have happened if the everything else side of the budget was restrained to grow at the same rate as inflation?  The average annual growth rate of the Washington-Baltimore CPI-U since 2011 has been 1.3%, meaning that prices have grown by 9.8% over that period.  When we hold the total budget, intergovernmental aid and debt service constant and assign a growth rate of 9.8% to the everything else category, here’s what happens to local dollars available for education and transportation.  For the purposes of discussion, let’s call this Scenario 1.

In Scenario 1, $2.4 billion is available for education and transportation because of spending restraint on everything else.  That’s $383 million more than the $2 billion that was actually available in the real world FY18 budget.

Holding a big chunk of county government to the rate of inflation for seven straight years is tough medicine and very unlikely.  So let’s create a Scenario 2 in which the everything else category is restrained to twice the rate of inflation, or 19.5% growth since FY11.

In Scenario 2, $2.2 billion is available for education and transportation, $244 million more than the real world FY18 budget.

For the sake of comparison to both of these scenarios, let’s recall that the 9 percent property tax hike was supposed to raise $140 million a year.  (It probably raised a little less than that.)  So under both scenarios, the county could have avoided the giant tax hike and still had lots of money left over for more education and transportation spending.

Yes folks, we understand the radical nature of what we are proposing – namely that liberal Democrats should deliberately and strategically restrain the growth in some forms of spending to boost growth in other spending.  This is likely to be an unpopular concept in a county that has multiple jam-packed budget hearings every year with groups of all kinds requesting money.  But here’s the benefit to concentrating on education and transportation: both forms of spending are investments that generate returns for the economy.  And when those returns boost economic growth, they generate tax revenue that bolsters the entire budget.

What is necessary to pull this off?  Simply put, this requires strategy, discipline, patience and leadership.  Without those traits, given the huge number of constituencies that want their piece of the budget, it would be impossible to focus it on education and transportation.  The natural outcome of a budget process without strategy is that everything gets funded, a tax hike follows, voters tire of it and then they pass restrictive charter amendments and vote for politicians like Larry Hogan.

So what are we going to get?  Spending on everything followed by tax hikes?  Or a budget that is strategically focused on generating economic returns from education and transportation?

Folks, that depends on your decisions in the voting booth.

Share
2018 Governor's Race, education

MCEA’s Awkward Alliance

This year, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) – the teachers union – decided to support Ben Jealous for governor. Fine, so far.

But this just got very awkward after last night’s education forum. Except for Rich Madaleno from Montgomery, all of the other candidates, including Ben Jealous, embraced a new wealth based formula for education funding that just kills Montgomery.

I imagine it also does little for affluent Howard. The new formula  zeros out funding for Talbot, Kent, and Worcester counties. Not only would it eliminate all no state aid for these three Eastern Shore jurisdictions, it also would require all that money to be made up in local taxes. Every penny cut would be required by state law to be replaced by local funds.

If there is one thing MCEA opposes, it’s cutting funds for Montgomery County Public Schools. Now, they’re supporting a candidate who wants to siphon large sums of money away from Montgomery to other jurisdictions.

Beyond the large number of portable classrooms, Montgomery faces a growing number of students who need extra help for a variety of reasons but who don’t come from families with a lot of extra money to help pick up the slack.

In the past, Adam Pagnucco has written about state funding formulas are already skewed against Montgomery, even as we face burgeoning problems in the public schools. Separately, a hike in the millionaires tax, paid primarily by Montgomery, has helped fund a burst of construction in Baltimore and elsewhere in the State.

The changes endorsed by all candidates except Madaleno would massively undermine efforts by Montgomery to address the achievement gap here. Indeed, the County would be hard pressed to maintain its current commitment with the size of cuts proposed, as Adam has explained well in a piece aptly titled “Hell, No!”

While this is awkward for Montgomery advocates of greater state school funding who support a variety of candidates, I imagine it might dismay county officials who support Rushern Baker at least partly in the hope that the D.C. area would get more attention to its increasingly serious needs.

But the problem is particularly acute for MCEA. They’ve found themselves behind a candidate whose platform would result in enormous pressure on the salaries and pensions of their members or force major cuts elsewhere in an already pressed county budget despite county efforts for years to protect education funding.

Share
education, Montgomery County Council

Was Montgomery College Funding Cut? Councilmembers Clash

After what I thought would be a relatively non-controversial post about the huge asset that Montgomery College is to the county, I received a request for a correction from Council President Hans Riemer (D-At Large):

David, while I certainly agree that Montgomery College is a gem, it is not true that the Council cut the budget for MC. The Council increased the budget for MC. The college will receive about $2.5 million more this year than last year. The Council even increased the amount for the College over what Ike recommended, by $750,000.

Craig Rice wanted even larger increases. We weren’t able to provide them due to our fiscal constraints.

I would like to request a clarification. To forward the assertion that we have cut the College’s budget is not accurate.

Hans

I appreciate Hans taking the time to lend his view and provide more information on the subject. I asked Councilmember Craig Rice (D-2) for his perspective. He took the time to provide a very thoughtful discussion of the topic that is well worth reading for its insight into the process and the politics:

David,

I think the best way to explain it to you is the same way in which Montgomery County public schools does their budget. The board of trustees and the president come together with a budget that supports not only the additional programming but the overall expenses for the college in the particular year.

Then they present this budget to the county executive who then presents it to the County Council. The county executive reduced or cut the approved budget that was approved by the board of trustees and the president. That then was sent over to us at the county council. We (education committee and then full council) decided to restore some of those reductions or cuts to the tune of $750,000 but still left $1.1 million in cuts or reductions from the college’s approved budget.

Now while technically this is an increase over last year due mainly to MOE just as Montgomery County public schools has an increase every year if we were to not fund maintenance of effort or not find the Board of Education to request it would be seen as a reduction i.e. cut.
And the crux of the issue is this. Montgomery college was very clear that it was stuck in a hard place between deciding on funding negotiations or funding equity gap programs or increasing tuition. We had a choice on the council to not force them to make that decision. But that did not happen.
The other challenge is that Montgomery college actually already reduced/cut their budget to adjust to the numbers that the county executive was hinting that they needed to be at anyway. To then layer on another reduction on top of what they had already proposed initially is why the college was severely at a disadvantage.
Craig Howard can give you exact numbers related to the college in terms of what they actually gave up. I have attached the packet for MC from Craig Howard which has more detail than you’d ever want.  http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&clip_id=14923&meta_id=154281
Thanks,
Craig Rice
Share
education

Montgomery’s Undervalued Gem

In votes on the Montgomery County budget, Councilmember Craig Rice expressed deep unhappiness about the process and cuts to the Montgomery College (MC) budget:

Montgomery College’s budget was severely cut which could mean even greater increases in tuition than originally proposed, reductions to strategic programs designed to reduce the achievement gap and eliminate disparities, or reductions in staff pay. And none of these things will help us to address workforce disparities that our community college has been partners with us on fixing for many years…

I can’t speak to the process, though the last time I saw Craig speak out publicly in this way was to defend constituents against George Leventhal’s atrocious behavior on the dais. I also am not knowledgeable to assess MC staff pay.

What I can tell you is that Montgomery College is the least discussed major asset in the county and does far more good than will ever get mentioned. In particular, it does more to promote upward mobility than any other institution.

For starters, it provides an affordable, accessible path to a college education. The idea of taking out ginormous loans to pay for an away-from-home school like UMD understandably scares the bejeezus out of many people who loathe debt and have never seen remotely that much money. It’s also not the most cost effective way to pay for a college education. The cost effectiveness of MC also means that government gets far more bang for its buck in terms of outcomes.

MC makes it possible for students to live at home and pursue degrees at their own pace, commonly while holding down a job to support themselves or help defray the far more affordable cost. Students who earn their associates degree are also then well prepared, if they choose, to pursue a four-year degree at a college like UMD.

Another virtue of many of MC’s educational programs is that they are geared toward obtaining practical skills in various areas that lend themselves to employment immediately upon graduation in fields as diverse as teaching, hotel management, nursing, and cybersecurity. As a result, it provides students with skills that result in higher wage employment and employers with more highly skilled employees, which makes Montgomery a more attractive place to do business.

Additionally, MC provides needed vocational training. Too often, education is talked about in terms of college or nothing. But not everyone wants to or is going to college and a lot of jobs require skills. As anyone who has hired a plumber or had their or A/C unit fixed knows, many non-professional jobs pay a lot better than unskilled labor.

In short, what MC provides is a range of real opportunities for students looking to move up the ladder at an affordable cost to both the students and the government. Ramping up institutions like the University of Maryland has aided the state and DC suburbs enormously. But we should not underrate the role played by Montgomery College in not just training students but also providing many different employers with skilled workers.

Share
education, Mike Knapp

Increasing Access to Higher Education in Montgomery County: An Economic Imperative

By Michael Knapp, Chair, Montgomery College Board of Trustees.

Since the presidential campaigns of 2016, candidates for numerous state and local offices have identified providing free access to college as a campaign issue that polls well, primarily because of high cost of college.  Unfortunately there have been very few candidates who have actually thought through the practical elements of what this means: What do you pay for – tuition only? Who is eligible? What schools are included? And most important, how is it paid for?  As the Maryland General Assembly goes into session this week and we begin an historic election year in Montgomery County, we wanted to raise this important issue and provide some perspective on how it can be considered.

At Montgomery College, providing affordable access isn’t a poll-tested tagline, it’s an economic imperative without which our community and residents won’t grow to meet the needs of the future.  We know that without a skilled workforce our employers can’t grow and without clear career pathways into the workforce most residents won’t be able to move into jobs that provide a wage that will allow them to live in our community.  As a result, we take this discussion very seriously and have given a great deal of thought about how to make increasing access a reality for thousands of members of our community.

With an issue this important, there must be a framework of key principles to form a foundation on which to build such a plan. We see those as the following.

  • Any program will require significant public and private investment, and there must be a clearly defined return on investment that includes providing clear pathways for students into the workforce and a pipeline of skilled workers for local employers.
  • Increasing access to college for students often requires considering more than just free or reduced tuition — it may mean providing assistance with transportation, childcare, food, and housing.
  • Free isn’t free — all students must be willing to provide a measurable contribution to their own success in return for increased access.
  • The path to higher education and the resources needed must be clear and transparent so that all who are interested can readily take advantage.
  • The program must be sustainable — there must an identified and consistent source of revenue to make this program reality each year.
  • Success must be defined and the outcomes measured.

We know that at least 65 percent of all jobs require an education beyond high school and that, in a community like Montgomery County with such a high cost of living; it is an imperative to ensure that residents have ready access to the skills needed by local employers.  In addition, the goal set by the College and Career Readiness and College Completion Act of 2013 is that 55 percent of adults aged 25 to 64 will hold an at least an associate’s degree by 2025, and this degree must be able to assist residents in obtaining skills employers need.  Yet, even with the vital importance of this type of program it is also critical that this not be just another debt that will be borne by the students or the community to pay later—there must be a real and sustainable funding source.  We have explored models throughout the nation and are developing a series of recommendations to present for consideration with our civic, political, and business leadership.  The important thing to note is that there are innovative strategies that we can use to implement this program beyond just raising taxes on our residents.

Montgomery County’s economic and wage growth has slowed, and we are on the verge of an election season that will have an unprecedented number of candidates seeking local and state elected office.  Now is the time to have a real conversation about how to provide increased access to higher education for the benefit of our community.  Our ability to get this done will have a lasting impact on the lives of our residents and our local economy — the leadership of Montgomery College is committed to working with all interested parties in making this critical concept a reality, provided that they are committed to a real dialogue that addresses the principles we’ve outlined and not just looking for an easy sound bite.

Michael Knapp served on the Montgomery County Council from 2002 through 2010.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, education, Larry Hogan

Hogan’s Campaign Against Public Schools

By Adam Pagnucco.

Governor Larry Hogan is the most dedicated opponent of Maryland public schools in recent memory.  And now, new rankings of states in a respected education publication show how effective he has been.

Education Week, which ranks public school systems by state, rated Maryland’s public schools as fifth in the nation as of 2017.  That’s a decent rank, except when you consider that the publication rated Maryland number one every year from 2009 through 2013.  Maryland scored particularly low on its achievement gap between low-income and high-income students, ranked as 42nd in the country.

The decline in the state’s ranking is no surprise since it’s perfectly consistent with Governor Hogan’s record on public schools.  Consider what he has done in his first two years in office.

  1. He cut public school funding in his first budget.

The Governor of Maryland has enormous budgetary powers under the state’s constitution.  When he submits an operating budget to the General Assembly, the state legislators generally cannot add spending to it – they can only set aside spending for particular purposes or cut it.  Over the years, the General Assembly has established funding formulas for certain spending items in state law, and that includes most state aid programs for K-12 education.  But the Governor identified one program that was not protected by state law – a program that sent extra money to school systems with higher costs of educating students.  The Governor cut half of that money, a total of $68 million, in his very first budget.  Here are the counties that were affected and their dollar losses:

Prince George’s: $20 million

Montgomery: $18 million

Baltimore City: $12 million

Anne Arundel: $5 million

Frederick: $3 million

Baltimore County: $3 million

Howard: $3 million

Others: $4 million

Note that almost three-quarters of the cuts applied to three jurisdictions: Prince George’s, Montgomery and the City.  What do they have in common?  You guessed it: they all voted against Hogan by large margins.

Hogan resisted calls from the General Assembly to restore the cuts, so they passed a law making the program mandatory.  Hogan waved the white flag of surrender, admitting that he did not have the votes to sustain a veto.  If he had gotten them, those cuts would have continued every single year.

  1. He withheld teacher pension aid for counties in his second budget.

Since FY2013, counties have been responsible for paying part of the cost of teacher pension funding, with the remainder covered by the state.  After passage of his second budget, Hogan withheld $19 million in state aid the General Assembly set aside to help counties pay for teacher pensions, a move that threatened their credit ratings.  Here are the counties that were affected and their dollar losses:

Montgomery: $6 million

Howard: $2 million

Baltimore County: $2 million

Anne Arundel: $2 million

Prince George’s: $1 million

Frederick: $1 million

Others: $5 million

Ultimately, Hogan agreed to release the money but only when the General Assembly agreed to provide an equal amount in corporate welfare to Northrop Grumman, one of Hogan’s top policy priorities.  What kind of Governor plays games with school funding in order to get more money for corporate welfare?

  1. He is jamming public school boards with public school skeptics.

As Governor, Hogan has the power to appoint members of the State Board of Education as well as numerous local school boards.  He has used that prerogative to stack these boards with skeptics of public schools.  The President and Vice-President of the State Board of Education, both Hogan appointees, are nationally-known promoters of charter schools.  Other State Board appointees are a religious school principal and “a consultant who works on charter school conversions.”  It is no coincidence that the State Board is now considering an expansion of vouchers for private schools.  Another Hogan appointee is Ann Miller of the Baltimore County school board, who has a history of criticizing LGBT people and immigrants.  Another Baltimore County school board appointee, retired private school teacher and non-voter June Eaton, was asked by the Baltimore Sun “if she had any public school issues that needed to be addressed.”  Eaton replied, “I really haven’t given it much thought. This is all new to me.”

  1. He is pushing hard for tax dollars to be sent to private schools.

At the same time that Hogan has been trying to cut funding for public schools, he is doing everything in his power to send tax dollars to private schools.  Last year, he got the General Assembly to agree to $5 million in funding for vouchers.  Now, he is pushing to expand the program to $10 million.  The Governor continues to support a corporate tax credit for businesses contributing to private schools and introduced a bill that would have allowed charter schools to compete for state public school construction funding.

Hogan’s behavior is straight out of the playbook of Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos: starve public schools and send the money to the private sector.  Hogan even put his own twist on it by using public school money as a bargaining chip to get corporate welfare for defense behemoth Northrop Grumman.  The Governor’s intentions are beyond doubt.  Only one question remains.

Can he be stopped?

Share
Corporate Welfare, education

Hogan Takes $25 Million from Schools but Gives $20 Million to Northrup Grumman

Governor Larry Hogan has refused to spend $25.1 million that the General Assembly allocated toward education. Apparently, this is because he’s piqued that the legislature did not give the discretion on how to spend the money.

Among the $25.1 million is $6.1 million that would have gone to fixing aging schools. Governor Hypocrite has made a cause célèbre of bringing air conditioning more quickly to Baltimore schools but is uninterested in upgrades when he’s not at the center of headlines or they were the legislature’s idea.

An additional $19 million would have helped local school systems cover the cost of employee pensions, allowing them to free up the money to improve education. Hogan said no.

Instead, Hogan is giving $20 million to Northrup Grumman in a huge dollop of corporate welfare. Avowedly, this bribe to Northrup Grumman is to “retain” 10,000 new jobs in Maryland. Except that the fine print of the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) report reveals that NG is not required to create a single job to get the money.

Bad idea for so many reasons beyond the Trumpian “believe me” approach. First, Northrup Grumman won’t release the taxes it pays to the State, so we don’t even know the benefits. Does NG pay any taxes to the Maryland? Apparently, “don’t ask, don’t tell” has finally found a new home at NG.

Second, unlike some corporations, Northrup Grumman can’t easily move. It has a complex, heavy plant that would be very expensive to rebuild or relocate. The jobs require high skill workers who aren’t going to move or be replaced if NG up and moves to low tax Kansas or Louisiana. Most important, they do a lot of secret work for the federal government and it is very helpful to be near DC.

Third, and perhaps worst of all, the General Assembly already gave Northrup Grumman a $37.5 million tax credit in the past session with the Governor’s enthusiastic backing. So the total amount that NG is receiving at the trough in $62.5 $57.5 million. Yet Hogan won’t release $25 million more appropriated to the schools.

Finally, corporate welfare is a bad idea that both Democrats and Republicans should loathe. Democrats should dislike it because its a giveaway to the wealthy. Republicans should hate it even more, as another government expenditure and market-distorting industrial policy. Businesses should compete on a level playing field.

Maryland is never going to compete for business as the cheapest destination. Here’s a novel idea for Gov. Hogan’s consideration: let’s continue to invest in education so that our citizens remain the best prepared and most competitive in the nation, so we can attract good jobs on our merits rather than cash.

Share
education, Larry Hogan

Will Hogan Sign the College Affordability Act?

college_debt

The Governor has indicated his support for giving $37.5 million in corporate welfare subsidies to Northrup Grumman but he hasn’t yet taken a position on this bill. State Sen. Rich Madaleno has started an online petition to encourage Gov. Larry Hogan to sign the College Affordability Act:

We have a serious problem in our state.  Too many Maryland students simply cannot afford to go to college, and too many graduates are loaded down with excessive amounts of student debt – the average debt of a college graduate in Maryland exceeded $27,000 last year.  If we do not get control of the spiraling cost of college, we will confine a generation of our young people to poor employment and economic opportunities.

This year the Maryland General Assembly passed “The College Affordability Act of 2016” (SB676 & HB1014) to address this serious concern.

This landmark bill helps Maryland families and graduates in the following critical ways:

  • Encourages families to save for college by offering matching funds for anyone who puts money annual into a college savings account, and
  • Reduces the cost of student loans by providing tax credits to Marylanders paying down their student debt.

The College Affordability Act of 2016 will impact up to 20,000 Maryland families every year, and it passed the General Assembly with overwhelming majorities.

Now it’s time for Governor Hogan to sign the bill into law!

Sign the petition to help amp up the pressure on the Governor to take a small step towards reducing college debt. It’s a Change Maryland should support.

Share
Baltimore City, education, Montgomery County

MoCo Delegation Protests Hogan’s Effort to Shift Money from Higher Ed to Corrections

The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the Montgomery County legislative delegation to Governor Larry Hogan. Emphasis added.

Dear Governor Hogan:

As you know, your unilateral decision to spend $480 million on a new jail will result in unreasonable delays in funding for major projects at numerous universities. One of the projects that will be delayed by your decision to redirect funding from higher education to the Baltimore City jail is a long-planned expansion of the Universities at Shady Grove (USG) in Montgomery County. . . .

It is a sad, unfortunate and startling fact that Maryland spends more on corrections than it does on higher education. This is exacerbated by your decision to fund the Baltimore City jail over higher education. Again, we understand there is a clear need for a new correctional facility in Baltimore. However, there is a capital improvement plan already in place for such a new facility. Note that many of us would support expediting the plan given the deplorable conditions of the facility. But, expediting the entirety of the new jail facility at the expense of higher education is pure folly. Respectfully, if Maryland is “open for business,” then we must invest in higher education for many reasons, including providing an educated workforce for current and future Maryland businesses.

You can download the full letter here:

Share
education

MSEA Decries Hogan’s Effort to Shift Public Dollars to Private Schools

msea

The following is from MSEA’s press release:

MSEA Statement on Gov. Hogan’s 2016 Education Proposals

Proposed BOAST Program Would Divert Taxpayer Dollars From Public Schools to Private Schools

Annapolis, Maryland — This morning, Gov. Hogan’s office released details on his 2016 proposals for education initiatives, including the same BOAST legislation he unsuccessfully introduced last year. Betty Weller, president of the Maryland State Education Association, made the following statement:

“If Gov. Hogan’s goal is to make sure every student has the opportunity to succeed, BOAST (now called the Maryland Education Credit by private school advocates) should have been the last option on his list. It’s a voucher-like scheme designed to move tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from public schools into private schools. Not only does it create new tax breaks for corporations, it would only help students who can already afford to attend private school. It would do nothing for low-income students except make it harder to fund their public schools.

“BOAST is opposed by nearly 60% of Maryland voters—including a plurality of Republicans—at a time when Marylanders believe their public schools need more funding, not less. Support for private school education is a distraction from the larger education issues at hand, like reducing standardized testing, closing opportunity gaps, and increasing public school funding.

“Educators look forward to working with legislators to reject this proposal—and a similar $5 million giveaway proposed in the governor’s budget—and advance effective solutions that truly improve our public schools.”

Share