State political news has been dominated this week by the debate between Bob Ehrlich and Martin O’Malley on state education aid, a worthy topic on which we will have some comment. But operating support is only one side of state funding for local schools. The other side is capital support for school construction. How did the two Governors do on that measure during their terms in office?
First, let’s understand how the state makes funding decisions on school construction. The Public School Construction Program (PSCP) is administered by staff overseen by the Board of Public Works, a three-person body consisting of the Governor, the Comptroller and the state Treasurer. Every year, the state’s twenty-four local school districts submit capital funding requests to PSCP. Those requests are reviewed by the staff and an inter-agency committee comprised of the State Superintendent of Schools (Nancy Grasmick), the Secretaries of the Departments of General Services and Planning, and one member each selected by the House and the Senate. The staff and the inter-agency committee review each school district’s capital submission to determine those projects with the most merit and forward their recommendation to the Board of Public Works. State support is given in the form of matching grants for local contributions, with the state paying a higher percentage of project costs in “poor” jurisdictions than in “rich” ones. The school districts can appeal that recommendation to the Board before the Board takes a final vote.
Obviously, the Governor is not the only player in this process, but he is the single most important player. Early on, the Governor determines a preliminary allocation for school construction, which sets the total pie available for school construction funds. This preliminary allocation then forms the basis for a bond authorization to be passed by the General Assembly which actually pays for the state’s school construction funding. And while the Governor does not directly determine funding allocations by county, he can substantially influence that decision through his appointment of two of the five inter-agency committee members and his relationship (or lack thereof) with Grasmick.
In practice, the counties submit more money in requests than they know the state will approve. Many small jurisdictions submit small requests and get most or all of them approved. Big jurisdictions submit massive requests and get less of them approved, but they also get more money. The biggest factor influencing the entire process is how much money is available – and that is the Governor’s call.
Here are the amounts of school construction funding requested by the counties and approved by the state during the Ehrlich and O’Malley administrations.
Unsurprisingly, the amounts requested by the counties have gone up – WAY up – during the last eight years. In Ehrlich’s first year, the counties asked for $310 million in school construction money. This year, the counties asked for $729 million. The state’s approval rate has varied between 30% (in FY 2005) and 45% (in FY 2008). Total amounts have risen substantially over time as O’Malley has raised his school construction funding allocation to keep pace with the counties’ rising requests.
Here are the total amounts of school construction funding requested and authorized by county for the two Governors’ terms.
The Ehrlich administration approved $765 million in school construction money. The O’Malley administration approved $1.2 billion in school construction money, a 63% increase. Part of this was driven by more funding requests from the counties, but O’Malley made more money available to meet them. Nineteen of the state’s twenty-four jurisdictions received more school construction funding under O’Malley than under Ehrlich. Every county that saw a decrease asked O’Malley for less money than they asked from Ehrlich.
Here are the school construction funding increases enjoyed by the state’s eight largest jurisdictions under O’Malley’s term relative to Ehrlich’s term.
Anne Arundel: +95%
Harford: +93%
Montgomery: +92%
Baltimore County: +89%
Baltimore City: +82%
Prince George’s: +73%
Howard: +56%
Frederick: +37%
Bob Ehrlich served as Governor in fat budget times but only made school construction a priority in the year he ran for reelection. Martin O’Malley has served as Governor in lean budget times but has made school construction a priority every year.
For those who are concerned about crowded schools, the choice is clear: O’Malley.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Ehrlich vs. O’Malley on School Construction
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Governor, Leave it Alone (Updated)
One month ago, I criticized Governor O’Malley for allocating $46.3 million for school construction in Montgomery County instead of the $55 million he promised our state delegation in the special session. After that, I was willing to let it lie. I know how tight the state budget is. But the Governor will just not let this go.
According to Maryland Moment’s John Wagner, the Governor went after Montgomery County school construction director Joe Lavorgna at a recent Board of Public Works meeting. The Governor claimed, correctly, that his administration had allocated $98 million for school construction in its first two years – much more than Governor Ehrlich’s $19.6 million. Wagner reports this exchange:“Was there another county that got as much as $98 million?” O’Malley asked Joe Lavorgna, who oversees school construction in Montgomery County and attended the board’s meeting.
The Governor should have let this drop. Instead, he is putting this issue back in our faces. And he is badly misreading the political mood in this county.
Lavorgna had been invited to the lectern by Franchot, a former Montgomery delegate, to explain the ramifications of receiving less funding than Montgomery officials had anticipated based on closed-door conversations during the special session. During that session, lawmakers took tough votes on tax increases and slot machines.
Lavorgna said that some local money would be used to close the shortfall in construction funding and that some projects could be pushed back.
O’Malley asked Lavorgna to give a copy of a chart showing a comparison to the Ehrlich years to his boss, Montgomery Schools Superintendent Jerry D. Weast. O’Malley said spoke recently with Weast by phone.
Lavorgna appeared taken aback by the exchange.
“I’m not here to complain about the state aid,” he said.
1. Montgomery County residents have just suffered twin hits from state and county tax hikes. No one, not the richest nor the poorest, has escaped them. And on top of that, we are being reminded that our state aid is less than our legislators were promised.
2. The school construction fight exacerbates a long-held perception that the county does not get its fair due from the state. In last week’s apocalyptic budget sessions, County Council President Mike Knapp said from the dais that the state regarded Montgomery County as its “piggy bank.” None of his colleagues disagreed with him. More people are beginning to remark on the statistic that Montgomery gets only 15 cents of every dollar it pays in state taxes back in the form of direct state grants. The state average is 35 cents.
3. School construction is a big issue in this county. Frustration about over-crowded schools was a factor in electing several slow-growth County Council Members in 2006. Last year’s growth policy doubled development impact taxes in an effort to pay for more school capacity. And delays on school improvements have been a hot topic for many county parents over the last several months.
4. Opposition to disparate impacts on Montgomery County drove many of our state legislators to vote against the Governor’s proposed millionaire tax. Now that the Governor is resurrecting the school construction dispute, he is encouraging our delegation to act more parochially. This is unhealthy for his remaining agenda.
Politicians, of all people, are hardly surprised when other politicians break their promises. (It is always entertaining to hear one of them complain about how politicians in general can't be trusted!) The wise thing for the Governor to do would have been to let this lie and move on to other matters likely to attract our state legislators’ support. But instead he is throwing the school issue back at us and inviting discontent. Governor, for your own sake, leave it alone.
Update: The Baltimore Sun has more here. It seems the event was instigated by Comptroller Peter Franchot and that makes the Governor's reaction slightly more understandable. However, the Governor should have known better than to fall into the Comptroller's trap.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Teachers Could Answer Questions
Montgomery County plans to revise its sex-ed curriculum after seeing the results of the pilot project this past semester:
Montgomery County sex education teachers would be allowed to tell students who ask that homosexuality is not a mental illness under a last-minute change to new lessons that go to the school board today for a politically charged vote.
Superintendent Jerry D. Weast informed school board members in a memo yesterday of a one-sentence addition to the lessons, which are proposed for all eighth- and 10th-grade health classes in the fall. The lessons were field-tested at six schools this spring.
The extra sentence could be key to preserving the support of the board. Board members have faced mounting pressure from an advisory committee -- made up of parents, educators and representatives of various constituencies -- to bolster the lessons with statements that counter misconceptions about homosexuality. A closely divided board rejected adding such language to the teaching materials in January, when they were approved as a pilot.
"If students ask the question, they're entitled to an answer," said board member Patricia O'Neill, who had planned today to propose adding similar language.
One day, people will wonder how we could spend so much time debating something so obvious.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Kudos to Club 2012 in Loudon
Read about a great initative launched by African-American parents in Loudoun County that probably has more potential to help close the racial achievement gap than any government effort as parental interest is one of the key predictors of student accomplishment. Apparently, the NAACP Parents' Council in Montgomery has organized a somewhat similar Sunday Scholars program.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Weast Contract Extended
The schools are closed but the big news of the days it that School Superintendent Weast's contract has been extended unanimously by the school board. Fortunately, we know he can lead us through today's crisis because as Superintendent Weast:
I've seen it through snipers. I've seen it through 9/11. I've seen it through every event that could happen in this communityCan you make this stuff up? I realize that we've been following our president's lead in defining leadership down but do we all receive gold stars for surviving 9/11? Oddly enough, I suspect handling 9/11 as head of the school system was duck soup compared to some of the day-to-day challenges for which Weast's admirers give him plaudits:
Admirers credit Weast with effectively balancing the interests of the county's haves and have-nots, attending to language and poverty needs in the eastern swath of the county while simultaneously managing highly organized parent groups in affluent Bethesda and Potomac, sometimes on the same day.
Weast credited his team, and himself, with overseeing an era of rising test scores in a school system that is growing more racially diverse. Few school systems accomplish that feat, he said, because of the enduring achievement gap between white and Asian students on the one hand and blacks and Hispanics on the other.
"Find me another one, because I'd like to see it," Weast said, after accepting the board's offer yesterday morning. "And I've studied the top 100 school systems."
