Executive Board
Executive Board
|
MAESP Legislative Update November, 2007 2007 Special Session Info & Updates The week of briefings and hearings has passed and, as many predicted, the Governors budget proposal has received the general endorsement of the Senate. MAESP urges everyone to continue to contact your legislators, recognizing that there appears little chance for significant changes to the Budget Reconciliation Act (SB 1) as introduced. The House will take up the bill immediately following the Senate’s approval, so now is the time to be contacting all members, House and Senate. Go to the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE)’s website [www.mabe.org ] for updates on recent Senate and House actions and pending actions. The simplest message, now that the “freeze” appears a near certainty, is to remind your Delegates and Senators that given inflation, flat funding is a cut - and to urge opposition to any additional cuts (see the House section below). What do we know today about the prospects for FY 2009 and 2010 funding as included in the Budget Reconciliation Act? The tables below reflect the current status. Note that the 1% hold harmless grants would benefit 6 school systems. Also note that the funding tables include GCEI amounts, but that the GCEI is not mandated in the bill itself. Updated funding table for SB 1 - Budget Reconciliation Act 1% supplemental grant section of the funding table General Assembly Roster with weblinks Senate Action - Contact your Senators to urge continued support for public education funding and opposition to any proposed cuts or shifts to FY 2009 funding. The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee has endorsed the Governor’s budget proposal, including the “freeze” in 2009 and 2010, with a return to an inflation factor in 2011. The full Senate is poised to approve the Committee’s bill and will then forward it to the House. Despite all appearances that the fate of school funding for the coming fiscal year is a “done deal” we need to continue to speak out on behalf of public education. General Assembly Roster with weblinks
- CPI or IPD, whichever is less and not to exceed 5%, is the inflation factor that will replace the IPD in 2011 and beyond - This is the best news included in the bill; a firm commitment to return to a true inflation factor. Of course the "whichever is less" language is a disappointment.
House Action – Contact your Delegates to urge them to oppose any proposed cuts to education funding! The House is focused on a series of proposed budget cuts that directly impact public education. These are serious proposals, no longer couched as “doomsday” scenarios but cuts recommended by staff (and staff works for the leadership). General Assembly Roster with weblinks
The
cuts to education include: Cut $19.6 million - Reduce the GCEI by applying the formula to the State share of the foundation program only; Cut $5.8 million - Defer inflationary adjustments to student transportation grants; Cut $3.3 million - Defer additional enhancements to the public libraries formula; Cut $2.8 million - Defer funding for the school facilities assessment survey; and Flat fund the Infants and Toddlers Program at the FY 2008 $5.8 million level - full funding would add $8.2 million. These are not good time for education in Annapolis. After making commitments to fund Maryland schools at a level that would provide “ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES” for Maryland students (Thornton) and then not really doing that although making significant funding improvements, there appears to be a move by the Legislature and the Governor to have education play a major role in eliminating the nearly $2 Billion deficit. Call your House of Delegates representative and Senators and tell them cutting resources and transferring funding responsibility to local counties is not a wise choice for Maryland schools.
MAESP LEGISLATIVE UPDATE October 2007 MAESP Members, The
contents of the following Legislative Update has been produced by the
leadership and lobbying staff of MSTA. I thought it was excellent
and am sharing it with you. MAESP shares the goal with MSTA that
Education not be hurt by the Governor’s and subsequently the Legislature’s
actions to deal with the state’s $Billion + deficit. On Saturday, September 29th,
we met with Governor O’Malley to convey our dissatisfaction with his
proposed two-year freeze and then permanent 2.5 percent cap on the Thornton
formula. Shortly thereafter, Diana Saquella,
MSTA staff, began a series of meetings with members of the Governor’s
staff. Our priority for the current stage of the budget deliberations
was to remove the permanent cap on Thornton and to protect school systems
from a funding freeze: “no caps, no freeze”. Yesterday we met with the Governor. He informed us that he was going to notify “bill drafting” that he wanted the following changes to his proposal made prior to its release to the General Assembly on Friday:
GCEI phase-in remains part of his
proposal. Here is some background on each of
the three changes: The guaranteed increase for 2008-09
and 2009-10 Eleven school systems don’t receive
GCEI funds. They would have been hit particularly hard. As a result
of enrollment declines, two systems—Garrett and Kent—would have
received less in 2008-09 than they are already receiving this year.
A one percent guarantee provides something for everyone. The Governor knows that we are not
happy about this 1 percent “growth” and will look for opportunities
to work with the General Assembly to improve it. The CPI replacing the IPD The CPI is a measure of the change
of cost of a “basket” of goods. It includes food, utilities, housing,
transportation, recreation, education, etc. The IPD is a measure of
Gross Domestic Product, everything spent within our borders on goods
and services. They tend to move together, but from time to time diverge. When the Thornton formula was developed,
CPI had been greater than IPD. In the 1990’s, the CPI increased by
31.8 percent while the IPD increased by 29.3 percent. Anyone selecting
the IPD as a growth index would have expected increases below CPI.
The opposite has been true in the
2000’s. Most recently, in 2006 CPI was 3.2 percent and IPD was 5.4
percent. We don’t have a crystal ball. When
we look back in 2010 or 2020, we’re not sure which will prove to be
greater. We’ve consulted with top staff at the Economic Policy Institute,
and they don’t know either. The critical factor is not which index
we use for Thornton, but that we pick one and stick with it. Removal of the Cap This is a huge move on the Governor’s
part. As long as a cap was recommended, we were considering a shift
in Thornton policy which would have institutionalized erosion of the
value, or buying power, of the funding from the State to the Locals. Now that the cap is gone, for the
moment the long-term value of Thornton is protected. The Governor had
told us in our first meeting that he was focused on the sustainability
and the commitment of Thornton; this move proves he meant it. He deserves
credit for listening to us and working to improve the package. MSTA is mobilizing our members to
lobby for support of the Governor’s revenue package. We would ask
each of the MCES members to organize your own constituents in support.
MAESP will attempt to do the same. Our message: No Freeze, no Caps
on Thornton. A vote for the Governor’s revenue package is a vote for
public schools. Through the Special Session, we are
not getting into the details of the revenue package. We’re not
taking positions on slots, whether the sales tax should be 6 or 6.25
percent, whether the income tax is progressive enough or exactly what
the top rate should be. That’s stuff that will be worked out in the
General Assembly, and being diverted by lawmakers into those debates
will weaken our voice; will kill our message and along with it our effectiveness. No Freeze, no Caps
on Thornton. A vote for the Governor’s revenue package is a vote for
public schools. We are intending to testify on Tuesday
at the 1:00 hearing on Thornton funding and encourage each of you to
do the same. We will work on bringing local leaders in for the hearing.
We encourage you to reach out and mobilize your members and partners
to ramp up the activity. We’ll keep you posted of any further developments. 2006 LEGISLATIVE SESSION SUMMARY Jim Dryden, Executive
Director This initial summary just addresses
the Pension Enhancement Legislation which
we feel is the issue of greatest interest. Although
at times the outcome did not look promising,
in the end most legislators did not want
to face re-election having failed to act
on this issue so important to so many constituents. An
extensive Legislative Summary follows this
extract. Teachers' Pensions Pension Benefits Increase MAESP placed a high
priority on supporting legislation to increase
the level of benefits provided to Maryland's
retired school system employees. A key feature
of this year's legislative deliberations
on pensions, in general, was the consensus
that not only teachers and other school system
employees, but also all state employees,
deserved a much better pension system. Therefore,
the legislation included increased pension
benefits and employee contributions for all
members of the Teachers' Pension System and
the Employee's Pension System. MAESP participated
in a coalition, "The Coalition for Pension
Fairness", that included MASSP, MSTA, MABE,
AFSCME, SEIU, PSSAM, ESMEC, the retired teachers
association, and others. A significant facet
of the legislative debate surrounding teachers'
pensions focused on whether to provide retroactivity
with regard to the application of the increased
state multiplier. The cost of "full" retroactivity
to the first year of employment would have
been nearly $500 million. For much of session,
the House and Senate appeared to have opposing
perspectives on the question of retroactivity
and other components of the bill. Fortunately,
the General Assembly ultimately agreed to
compromise, and passed identical bills on
the last day of session (HB 1737/SB 1019).
The legislation accomplishes the goal of
significantly improves the future standing
of Maryland's pension system relative to
other states; and should serve as a meaningful
recruitment and retention tool for many years.
The legislation holds the state's increased
obligation to under $150 million, phases
in increased employee contributions, and
provides the added benefit of retroactivity
extending back to 1998. The bill takes effect
July 1, 2006. The key provisions of the bill include: . An increased 1.8% benefit multiplier retroactive to July 1, 1998. (replaces current 1.4% multiplier) . An increased 5% employee contribution phased in over 3 years. (increases the current 2% to 3%, 4%, and 5%) . The option for Participating Governmental Units (PGUs), [School Systems] to participate in the enhanced benefit through June 30, 2007. . A requirement that the Joint Committee on Pensions perform a peer study of other large public state pension systems every five years.
Contribution Rate The contribution rate of a member who is subject to the alternate contributory pension selection under Part III is: . 3% of the member's earnable compensation received from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, both inclusive;
2008, both inclusive; and
Cost As a result of Senate
Bill 1019/House Bill 1737, the Department
of legislative Services projects that total
State pension liabilities over the next 25
years will increase by $1.8 billion. With
the State responsible for paying the full
employer share of that liability for all
teachers and State employees, State pension
contributions increase by $120.4 million
in fiscal 2008 and are expected to grow by
4 percent annually thereafter. Of that amount,
$104.6 million (87 percent) is expected to
be from general funds, with the remainder
estimated to be equally divided between special
and federal funds. TPS enhancements account
for 68 percent of the total cost of the bills,
while EPS enhancements are responsible for
the remaining 32 percent. The combined pension
liabilities for local governments that opt
for the enhanced benefit could increase by
$376 million, assuming that all eligible
local governments choose to participate.
There is no additional cost to the State
for local governments that participate in
the enhanced benefit for their employees. Effective Date The enhanced benefits included in this legislation apply to active members of the Employees' and Teachers' Pension System and to members of the Employees' and Teachers' Retirement Systems who are in the bifurcated plan who are active members as of June 30, 2006. Therefore, employees already in the process of retiring may choose to defer their retirement date until July 1, 2006 or later to take advantage of the enhancements.
This is very detailed
report on the 2006 Maryland
Legislative Session. It is a
25½ page report. Probably more
information than most principals need or
desire. I provide it for those with
sufficient time and interest. The 2006 session saw
the introduction of 1,749 House bills and
1,107 Senate bills for a total of 2,856.
By midnight on sine die, April 10, the General
Assembly had passed 823 bills and five joint
resolutions. MAESP tracked approximately
250 bills relating to K-12 public education.
The following summary reviews MAESP's top
legislative priorities for the 2006 legislative
session, outlines the key provisions of selected
bills, and the outcomes of all pertinent
bills. MAESP's 2006 Legislative Priorities MAESP's top priorities for
the 2006 legislative session included: Teachers' Pensions Pension Benefits Increase MABE placed a high
priority on supporting legislation to increase
the level of benefits provided to Maryland's
retired school system employees. A key feature
of this year's legislative deliberations
on pensions, in general, was the consensus
that not only teachers and other school system
employees, but also all state employees,
deserved a much better pension system. Therefore,
the legislation included increased pension
benefits and employee contributions for all
members of the Teachers' Pension System and
the Employee's Pension System. MABE participated
in a coalition, "The Coalition for Pension
Fairness", that included MSTA, AFSCME, SEIU,
PSSAM, ESMEC, the retired teachers association,
the associations of elementary and secondary
school principals, and others. A significant facet
of the legislative debate surrounding teachers'
pensions focused on whether to provide retroactivity
with regard to the application of the increased
state multiplier. The cost of "full" retroactivity
to the first year of employment would have
been nearly $500 million. For much of session,
the House and Senate appeared to have opposing
perspectives on the question of retroactivity
and other components of the bill. Fortunately,
the General Assembly ultimately agreed to
compromise, and passed identical bills on
the last day of session (HB 1737/SB 1019).
The legislation accomplishes the goal of
significantly improves the future standing
of Maryland's pension system relative to
other states; and should serve as a meaningful
recruitment and retention tool for many years.
The legislation holds the state's increased
obligation to under $150 million, phases
in increased employee contributions, and
provides the added benefit of retroactivity
extending back to 1998. The bill takes effect
July 1, 2006. The key provisions of the bill include: . An increased 1.8% benefit multiplier retroactive to July 1, 1998. (replaces current 1.4% multiplier) . An increased 5% employee contribution phased in over 3 years. (increases the current 2% to 3%, 4%, and 5%) . The option for Participating Governmental Units (PGUs) to participate in the enhanced benefit through June 30, 2007. . A requirement that the Joint Committee on Pensions perform a peer study of other large public state pension systems every five years.
Contribution Rate The contribution rate of a member who is subject to the alternate contributory pension selection under Part III is: . 3% of the member's earnable compensation received from July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, both inclusive;
2008, both inclusive; and
Cost As a result of Senate
Bill 1019/House Bill 1737, the Department
of legislative Services projects that total
State pension liabilities over the next 25
years will increase by $1.8 billion. With
the State responsible for paying the full
employer share of that liability for all
teachers and State employees, State pension
contributions increase by $120.4 million
in fiscal 2008 and are expected to grow by
4 percent annually thereafter. Of that amount,
$104.6 million (87 percent) is expected to
be from general funds, with the remainder
estimated to be equally divided between special
and federal funds. TPS enhancements account
for 68 percent of the total cost of the bills,
while EPS enhancements are responsible for
the remaining 32 percent. The combined pension
liabilities for local governments that opt
for the enhanced benefit could increase by
$376 million, assuming that all eligible
local governments choose to participate.
There is no additional cost to the State
for local governments that participate in
the enhanced benefit for their employees. Effective Date The enhanced benefits
included in this legislation apply to active
members of the Employees' and Teachers' Pension
System and to members of the Employees' and
Teachers' Retirement Systems who are in the
bifurcated plan who are active members as
of June 30, 2006. Therefore, employees already
in the process of retiring may choose to
defer their retirement date until July 1,
2006 or later to take advantage of the enhancements. Support for teachers' pension enhancement MABE supported legislation
to increase the level of benefits provided
to Maryland's retired school system employees
under the state's teacher pension system
in a manner that strikes a balance between
increased employee and State contributions.
Maryland's teachers' pension system is one
of the very worst in the nation, negatively
impacting the recruitment and retention of
high qualified teachers. Outcome: Legislation passed
to increase benefits from 38% to 54% based
on 30 years of service, funded through increased
State funding and increased employee contributions.
(HB 1737/SB 1019) (see bill summary on pages
5-6) Support for adequate state funding for school construction in FY 2007 and beyond MAESP sought a $400
million state funding level for school construction
and renovation projects for FY 2007 to provide
the state's share of the more than $4 billion
needed to address the school facility needs
identified in the School Facilities Task
Force report. MABE advocated achieving the
$400 million target through general obligation
bonds and PAYGO funds in order to optimize
both the state's debt capacity and the significant
FY 2007 budget surplus. Outcome: The total allocation
for school construction and renovation projects
in FY 2007 is $322 million. (SB 370)
(see bill summary on pages 4-5) Support for full funding for the Bridge to Excellence Act MABE greatly appreciates
the committed support of the Governor and
vast majority of legislators for the continued,
funding of the Act in FY 2007 through FY
2008. MABE opposes efforts to reduce or delay
the state's funding obligation under the
Act, recognizing that major portions of the
Act have been under-funded or eliminated
since its passage in 2002. In this light,
MABE strongly supported "full" funding for
the Act, including the Geographic Cost of
Education Index (GCEI). MABE has consistently
advocated for the GCEI as an integral component
of the "Thornton" Commission's recommendations
and Bridge to Excellence Act and would significantly
increase State aid to certain counties based
on a cost index. Outcome: Mandated funding
increases are provided as required by the 2002
Bridge to Excellence Act (SB 110). However,
GCEI legislation to mandate future funding
for the GCEI failed to pass. (SB 4) (see bill
summary on page 3) Support for continued autonomy for the State and local boards of education to set education policy MAESP always places
a very high priority on preserving the current
statutory framework which assigns the responsibility
to adopt education policy to the state and
local boards of education; boards which have
consistently adopted policies that promote
high standards for academic and fiscal accountability.
During the 2006 session, MAESP opposed many
legislative initiatives that would have had
the effect of reducing local board authority
or which create un-funded mandates. Outcome: Mixed - bills were
defeated that would have mandated increased
physical education (SB 611), student health
screenings (SB 329), student drug testing (SB
756), and payment of retiree health care benefits
(SB 427/SB 428); bills passed mandating defibrillators
in high schools (HB 1200), school system payment
of audiologist and speech therapist licensing
fees (SB 600), and further state encroachment
into areas such as the calculation of graduation
rates (SB 59/HB 71) and conditions that trigger
local adoption of the State's student behavior
modification program (HB 1495). Charter School Act clarifications In addition
to these four top priorities, MAESP invested
significant time and energy into the development
of legislation to amend the Public Charter
School Act of 2003. MAESP's primary goal
in supporting this legislation was the adoption
of a statutory definition of the amount of
the commensurate charter school funding base
a local school system must allocate to a
charter school. Outcome: The Senate rejected
the bill by a one vote margin. This legislation
was strongly opposed by the charter school
community and state education officials. (SB
293) (See bill summary on page 15)
Operating Budget Highlights "Thornton" Bridge to Excellence
Act Funding The General Assembly
passed a $29.4 billion operating budget bill
(SB 110), that provides a record increase
in State primary and secondary education
aid for a third consecutive year. FY 2007
education aid will increase by $466 million
over FY 2006 to nearly $4.5 billion, an increase
of 11.6 percent. This increase follows increases
of approximately $380 million in fiscal 2006
and $323 million in fiscal 2005. In total,
education aid has increased by $1.6 billion
from fiscal 2002 to 2007, reflecting an average
annual growth rate of 9.2 percent from the
year before the Bridge to Excellence legislation
passed to the upcoming fiscal year. Bridge
to Excellence funding, including foundation
aid and special needs categories, will increase
by $401 million in fiscal 2007, while other
education aid programs, including libraries,
will realize increases of $65 million. An increase of approximately
$500 million is projected for fiscal 2008,
the final year of the Bridge to Excellence
Act's phase-in. After fiscal 2008, with no
other changes to the funding formula, annual
increases in State education aid will be
driven by inflation and changes in enrolment.
It is important to remember that the Bridge
to Excellence Act signifies more than mandated
per pupil funding increases. These increases
are founded on a "standards-based" funding
system - and Maryland's educational standards
are radically different than in 2002. The
Bridge to Excellence Act anticipated these
changes and calls for an updated adequacy
study to be completed by 2008. Although the largest
dollar increase is in the foundation program,
there are larger percentage increases in
funding for the special needs programs - the
compensatory education, special education,
and limited English proficiency formulas - and
the guaranteed tax base formula. The special
needs programs provide additional State support
based on enrolments of students with greater
needs, and the guaranteed tax base program
provides State aid to 10 school systems located
in jurisdictions with low wealth. The increases
for these programs illustrate the Bridge
to Excellence objective of enhancing aid
for lower wealth jurisdictions and school
systems with larger populations of at-risk
students. Source:
Department of Legislative Services 90-Day
Report What's Next? The Bridge to Excellence
Act mandates that MSDE conduct a study (through
an outside contractor) to "evaluate the effect
of increased state aid for education on student
and school performance in each local school
system." MSDE must submit an initial report
on the results of the evaluation to the Governor
and General Assembly on or before December
31, 2006. The final report is due by December
31, 2008. The MSDE report must include the following:
School Construction School Construction & Renovation
Funding The capital budget
of 2006, Senate Bill 370 (Ch. 46) contains
$322.7 million for public school construction
in fiscal 2007, including $43.4 million added
to the Governor's proposal by the General
Assembly. This is the highest level of funding
for public school construction since the
program began in 1971. For the second consecutive
year, the level of public school construction
funding has met the goal set in the Public
School Facilities Act of 2004. The Act's
funding goal of $3.85 billion over eight
years ($2.0 billion paid by the State and
$1.85 billion paid by local governments under
the State-local shared cost formula) reflects
the amount needed to address deficiencies
in facilities identified in 2003 by the Task
Force to Study Public School Facilities.
To meet the funding goal, the State must
spend $250 million each year through fiscal
2013. In 2005, school boards and county governments,
through MABE, Maryland Association of Boards
of Education, and the Maryland Association
of Counties (MACo), advocated for a significant
increase above the $250 million amount to
reflect the dramatically increased construction
costs resulting from rising steel prices
and the unanticipated effects of Hurricane
Katrina. Therefore MABE and MACo sought
$400 million. The state-wide demands
for new construction and renovation projects
continues to climb, as county governments
sought a total of $644.4 million in State
funding for "ready to go" A or B list projects.
The General Assembly funded on average 71
percent of those projects. To be eligible
for funding, projects must be designated
as A (funded) or B (ready to go) on the Public
School Construction Program's ABC List. On
January 18, 2006, the Board of Public Works
approved $210 million for projects recommended
by the Interagency Committee on School Construction
(IAC). IAC revised upward its earlier recommendation
of $129 million when the Governor increased
the initial proposal for school construction
funding. The General Assembly exercised its
authority to distribute the remaining funding
and, unlike the operating budget, the General
Assembly may increase the capital budget
above the amount submitted by the Governor.
The General Assembly allocated a total of
$96 million for eligible projects in 12 jurisdictions,
which supplemented the Board of Public Works'
list of approved projects. Under the capital
budget language, IAC will allocate 100 percent
of the additional funds for specific eligible
projects in the counties in local priority
order. Process Improvements The FY 2007 capital
budget includes a provision that gives counties
options, if allocated funds cannot be used
for an eligible project, to (1) use the funds
for another eligible project; (2) revert
the funds to the contingency fund for a county
project in the future; or (3) use the funds
for a project eligible under the Aging Schools
Program (subject to the same local match
required for school construction projects). Aging Schools Program The General Assembly increased Funding
for the Aging Schools Program by $3.7 million
in PAYGO funds. Projects receiving grants
from the new funds are subject to the local
participation requirements that apply to
other school construction projects. Other
funds for the Aging Schools Program include
$9.9 million in IAC's operating budget and
$1.6 million that was transferred from the
capital budget to PAYGO. The Aging Schools
Program was also addressed in other legislation.
Beginning in fiscal 2008, Senate Bill 432/House
Bill 705 (both passed) require the $10.4
million in statutory State grants for the
program to be adjusted each year for inflation
as determined by the Consumer Price Index
(CPI). By fiscal 2011, compounding inflation
should add an estimated $1.2 million to the
grants. Source: Department
of Legislative Services 90-Day Report Baltimore City Schools Restructuring
Put on Hold MAESP did not play an active
role in this legislation. On March 29, 2006,
the State Board of Education voted to require
significant changes to the governance structures
of seven middle schools in Baltimore City,
including conversion to charter schools under
the control of a third party, and to have
a third party manage four high schools in
the city under the direction of MSDE. According
to the timetable established by the State
Board, the new governance structures were
to be implemented for the 2007-2008 school
year. MABE responded quickly through a letter
to the State Board of Education outlining
concerns that focused on the Association's
concerns on behalf of all local boards of
education regarding the process the State
board employed to make, and communicate,
its decision. MABE's primary goal is to pursue
assurances of better communication between
the State Board and all local school systems
regarding future school improvement decisions,
recognizing the federal No Child Left Behind
Act's school improvement sanctions may potentially
impact many more school systems in the near
future. The General Assembly
took immediate legislative action to prevent
the State board from taking over schools
in Baltimore City (HB 1215). House Bill 1215
(Chapter 59) places a one-year moratorium
on State-imposed school restructuring in
Baltimore City. Specifically, the State Board
of Education and the State Superintendent
of Schools are prohibited from imposing a
major restructuring of the governance structure
of a public school in Baltimore City or removing
a public school from the direct control of
the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners.
The prohibition applies retroactively to
any action in furtherance of restructuring
that was taken by the State board and the
State superintendent on or after March 28,
2006. The prohibition terminates May 30,
2007. Governor Ehrlich vetoed
the bill, and his veto was promptly overridden
by both the House and Senate. In response
to the bill's passage, the U.S. Department
of Education informed Maryland that the enactment
of House Bill 1215 could jeopardize $171
million in federal Title I funds due to non-compliance
with NCLB. The majority of this funding,
an estimated $163 million, passes through
the State budget and is allocated to local
school systems. The Attorney General of Maryland
has advised that the bill only restricts
the State's ability to impose certain restructuring
options on the Baltimore City Public School
System and does not preclude the school system
from implementing any restructuring on its
own initiative. The Attorney General has
concluded, therefore, that the bill will
have no impact on federal funds. School Health & Safety Defibrillators in Schools MAESP's and MABE's
opposition notwithstanding, legislation passed
which will require each local board of education
to develop and implement an automated external
defibrillator (AED) program for each of its
high schools. (HB 1200/SB 249). The bill
takes effect July 1, 2006. Specifically, the legislation requires the following:
What is an "automated external
defibrillator (AED)"? Defibrillator - (Webster's Dictionary) An electronic device
that applies an electric shock to restore
the rhythm of a fibrillating heart. Defibrillator - (Maryland Statute - §13-517(a) of the Education Article) (3) "Automated external defibrillator (AED)" means a medical heart monitor and defibrillator device that: (i) Is cleared for market by the federal Food and Drug Administration; (ii) Recognizes the presence or absence of ventricular fibrillation or rapid ventricular tachycardia; (iii) Determines, without intervention by an operator, whether defibrillation should be performed; (iv) On determining that defibrillation should be performed, automatically charges; and (v) 1. Requires operator intervention to deliver the electrical impulse; or 2.
Automatically continues with delivery of
electrical impulse. The new law requires
the Maryland State Department of Education
(MSDE) to adopt regulations that: (1) establish
guidelines for periodic inspections and maintenance
of AEDs; and (2) assist local boards in implementing
AED programs. MSDE must adopt the regulations
in consultation with the Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene (DHMH), the Maryland State
School Health Council (MSSHC), and the Maryland
Institute for Emergency Medical Services
Systems (MIEMSS). AED Cost Concerns? Clearly this AED legislation
poses an un-funded mandate that intrudes
on the prerogative of local boards and superintendents
to allocate scarce resources - a fiscal reality
even in the area of school health and safety.
Many school systems have already implemented
AED programs in all high schools, including:
Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Caroline, Dorchester,
Garrett, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester
counties. Inquiries regarding cost and other
implementation issues may be directed to
the appropriate staff in these school systems.
In addition, MABE anticipates providing information
and resources to school systems to facilitate
compliance with this significant new requirement. AED Liability Concerns? §13-517(m)
of the Education Article answers some questions: "(1) In addition to any other immunities available under statutory or common law, an authorized facility is not civilly liable for any act or omission in the provision of automated external defibrillation if the authorized facility: (i) Has satisfied the requirements for making automated external defibrillation available under this section; and (ii) Possesses a valid certificate at the time of the act or omission. (2) In addition to any other immunities available under statutory or common law, the sponsoring physician of an authorized facility is not civilly liable for any act or omission in the provision of automated external defibrillation. (3) In addition to any other immunities available under statutory or common law, an individual is not civilly liable for any act or omission if: (i) The individual is acting in good faith while rendering automated external defibrillation to a person who is a victim or reasonably believed by the individual to be a victim of a sudden cardiac arrest; (ii) The assistance or aid is provided in a reasonably prudent manner; (iii) The automated external defibrillation is provided without fee or other compensation; and (iv) 1. The act or omission occurs while the individual is providing automated external defibrillation in accordance with the requirements of this section at an authorized facility; 2. The individual has successfully completed an AED training course and is authorized to provide automated external defibrillation; or 3. The individual is using an automated external defibrillator obtained by a prescription issued by a physician. (4) The immunities in this subsection are not available if the conduct of the authorized facility amounts to gross negligence, willful or wanton misconduct, or intentionally tortious conduct. (5) This subsection
does not affect, and may not be construed
as affecting, any immunities from civil or
criminal liability or defenses established
by any other provision of the Code or by
common law to which an authorized facility
or an individual may be entitled." (Note: Also see Maryland's
Good Samaritan Statute - §5-603 of the
Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.) What is MIEMMS? MIEMSS is the state
agency that implements the State's AED program
and authorizes facilities meeting
the necessary requirements to participate
in the program. In 1999, a new law went into
effect in Maryland, that permits a business,
organization, association, etc. ("authorized
facility"), that meets certain requirements,
to set up a program whereby someone suffering
a cardiac arrest on the authorized facility's
premises can receive treatment with an automated
external defibrillator (AED) on-site by appropriately
trained non-medical personnel before the
arrival of emergency medical services personnel.
An authorized facility may be a single organization
located at one place or a business that operates
at several locations (sites). For more
information, go to the MIEMMS AED program
website: http://miemss.umaryland.edu
/AED.htm School Safety Task Force This bill establishes
the Task Force on School Safety to evaluate
a variety of methods and strategies that
could be implemented to improve school safety
and make recommendations regarding the use
of the strategies. MABE must designate two
representatives for the task force. A final
report is due by December 1, 2007. The Maryland
State Department of Education (MSDE) must
provide staff for the task force. The bill
takes effect July 1, 2006 and terminates
December 31, 2007. (SB 146, not yet signed
by the Governor.) MAESP has not been asked
to provide representation. Open Meetings Don't say "executive function",
say "administrative function" Two competing bills
were introduced to revise the State's Open
Meeting Act and a compromise was struck that
appears to have arrived at a reasonable adjustment
to the Act intended to clarify the longstanding
confusion regarding the distinction between
meetings in "executive session" and meetings
to address "executive functions." The bill
takes effect October 1, 2006 if enacted.
(HB 698/SB 406, not yet signed by the Governor) The compromise legislation
(HB 698/SB 406) is relatively narrow in scope,
repealing the term "executive function" and
replacing it with the term "administrative
function." In addition, the bill imposes
a minimal reporting requirement. If a public
body recesses an open session to carry out
an administrative function in a meeting that
is not open to the public, the minutes for
the next meeting must include: (1) a statement of the date, time, place, and persons present at the administrative function meeting; and (2) a phrase or sentence
identifying the subject matter discussed
at that meeting. Procurement New small bid threshold raised
from $15,000 to $25,000 Legislation sought
by local boards and superintendents and MSDE
for several legislative sessions finally
passed. The new law increases the maximum
amount that local school systems may procure
without advertising to $25,000, the current
threshold for "small procurements" in State
law. If the statutory definition of a small
procurement changes, the amount that local
school systems may procure without advertising
would be altered concurrently. The bill takes
effect July 1, 2006. (HB 569, signed by the
Governor, Chapter 95) Under current law,
if the cost of any school building, improvement,
supply, or equipment is more than $15,000,
a local board of education must advertise
for bids in a medium accessible to the general
public at least two weeks before the bids
are to be filed. State procurement law defines
a "small procurement" as a procurement for
which $25,000 or less is spent. Small procurements
of $10,000 to $25,000 must use written and
published solicitations, although oral solicitations
may be used as an addition to written and
published solicitations. The most favorable
bid price or most advantageous offer must
be accepted. The Board of Public Works must
review the small procurement amount at least
every three years and recommend any changes
in the amount to the General Assembly. Graduation Rate Calculation Legislation passed
that requires the Maryland State Department
of Education (MSDE) and local boards of education
to collect and maintain data to calculate
a graduation rate for each graduating class
(HB 71/SB 59). Graduation rates must be calculated
using a methodology that tracks cohorts of
students as they enter ninth grade and measures
the percentage who graduate with a regular
high school diploma within four years. The
bill takes effect July 1, 2006 (*not yet
signed by the Governor). By September 1, 2011
and each year thereafter, local school systems
and MSDE must report graduation rates as
calculated using the new methodology. Rates
must be reported in the aggregate and disaggregated
by five race/ethnicity groups and three at-risk
categories. The graduation rate formula,
including permissible adjustments consistent
with the federal No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB), must be used as the additional high
school indicator to determine whether a high
school has made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) under NCLB. Students who graduate on
time with GEDs or other certificates not
aligned with State standards are not included
in the formula calculation. Prior to 2011, unless
MSDE implements the graduation rate formula
earlier than is required by the bill, local
boards and MSDE must report a less precise "interim
graduation rate" by September 1 of each year. In
2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, the interim
graduation rate must be used as the additional
high school indicator to determine whether
a high school makes AYP under NCLB. MSDE
must report annually on the implementation
of the graduation rate methodology, statistical
analyses and data verification processes
developed for the methodology, and discrepancies
discovered in the analysis of graduation
rate data. A report on the interim
graduation rate calculation is due from MSDE
by August 1, 2006. MSDE must implement
training for personnel responsible for collecting,
maintaining, analyzing, and reporting gradation
data and must provide technical support to
the local boards of education with respect
to these efforts. MSDE also must establish
a standard process for verifying graduation
rate data and must serve as the central repository
for the data. Finally, a public awareness
campaign about the need for accurate graduation
data must be implemented by MSDE. Local
boards of education and MSDE may develop
additional indicators regarding alternative
high school completions. MSDE must ensure
that that the indicators are comparable for
all schools and school systems. Special Education An MSDE departmental bill (SB 107) passed. The bill was intended to update Maryland statute in accordance the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The bill: . Clarifies that surgically implanted medical devices are not included in the services that must be provided to children with disabilities; . Adds unaccompanied homeless children to the children for whom parent surrogates must be appointed to represent them in the educational decision making process; . Requires local superintendents of schools to ensure that qualified parent surrogates are appointed for children with disabilities when they are needed; . Requires local superintendents of schools to notify the State Superintendent of Schools in writing of the termination of previously appointed parent surrogates and to submit the names and qualifications of new parent surrogates; . Establishes a process for resolution sessions that can be used to settle disputes about the identification, evaluation, or educational placements of children with disabilities; and . Makes other
non-substantive clarifying changes to laws
relating to children with disabilities. Perhaps most importantly,
the bill changes from 180 to 120 the number
of calendar days following the issuance of
the hearing decision, that a party to the
hearing has to file an appeal from a final
decision of the Office of Administrative
Hearings to the federal District Court for
Maryland or to the circuit court for the
county in which the child resides. The
bill takes effect July 1, 2006. Unresolved Issues Charter Schools MAESP advocated unsuccessfully
for legislation to revise and clarify the
Public Charter School Act of 2003 (SB 293).
The thrust of the legislation was two-fold;
to define "commensurate funding" for charter
schools, as required in the Act, and to clearly
prohibit the application of any waiver to
the provisions of the Act itself. Unfortunately,
the legislation failed to pass the full Senate
due to strong opposition from all Republican
Senators and several Democrats representing
districts in which charter school are located.
By a 1 vote margin, 23 to 24, the Senate
rejected the charter school bill developed
by Senator Paul Pinsky, amended to reflect
the concerns of local boards and superintendents,
and endorsed by both the Senate Education
and Budget and Taxation Committees. The key components of the bill would have: . Defined "commensurate funding" as 85% of the local per pupil expenditures from the unrestricted current expense fund, minus expenditures for special education, student transportation, contingencies, and reserve funds; . Clarified that a charter school may not seek a waiver from the laws governing public charter schools; and . Set a timeline and
deadline requiring that charter school applications
must be submitted by August 1, and
that a local board of education must review
each application and render a decision
by December 1. Failure to enact this
legislation maintains the rather murky status
quo. The State Board indicated in January
of this year that it intended to "wait and
see" how the legislature addressed the funding
issue. At the same time, the Court of Special
Appeals will eventually hear MSDE's appeal
from the Prince George's circuit court decision
that found the State Board's funding formula
to be unreasonable. The conclusion of the
Prince George's County circuit court in it's
2005 decision points to the responsibility
of local boards of education to craft charter
agreements that provide funding that is "commensurate
with the amount disbursed to other public
schools." The court concluded: "Commensurate funding is a matter of statutory interpretation; however, neither the definition of "commensurate" nor the methodology for determining a funding formula are set forth in the Public Charter School Act. Rather, the Act makes the local/County Board, who is in the appropriate position to ascertain eligibility requirements for various local and federal funds and grants, the "primary public chartering authority" for the consideration of the charter school application and for determining the disbursement of funding."
Geographic Cost of Education
Index Legislation failed
once again in 2006 to mandate future funding
for the Geographic Cost of Education Index
(GCEI). The GCEI is an original, yet never
funded, component of the "Thornton" Commission's
recommendations and essential to achieving
the Bridge to Excellence Act's mandate for
adequate funding for all of Maryland's students
by FY 2008. The "Thornton" Commission on
Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence
recommended in its final report that "education
funding should be adjusted to reflect regional
differences in the cost of education that
are due to factors outside the control of
the local jurisdictions." Therefore, the
Bridge to Excellence Act included the GCEI
funding component to provide additional State
education aid to certain "high cost" jurisdictions. If funded, the index
as adopted in statute in 2004 would provide
nearly $140 million per year in additional
foundation ADI to 13 school systems. Unfortunately,
despite the adoption of the GCEI distribution
formula in statute in 2004, funding has remained
discretionary, and no funding for the GCEI
has been included in the FY 2005, FY 2006,
or FY 2007 State budgets. The Governor's
decision to reject the MSDE/State Board budget
request for more than $73 million for the
GCEI in FY 2007 presented a major challenge
for the General Assembly in addressing this
issue this session. The legislative response
was to mandate future funding beginning in
either FY 2008 or 2009 (SB 4, SB 196, HB
242). SB 576 went so far as to propose funding
the GCEI with dedicated revenue from a significant
increase in State tax rates for alcoholic
beverages. MAESP continues to
believe that legislation is needed to ensure
that Maryland students benefit from full
GCEI funding and that this funding will be
essential to achieving adequate per pupil
funding levels as defined by the Bridge to
Excellence Act. County Wealth Formula Legislation was introduced
early in session, then withdrawn by the sponsor
(HB 1055), and then introduced again much
later in session by a different sponsor (HB
1742), which would have altered the definition
of "net taxable income" in the calculation
of State aid for education to include returns
filed through November 1 after the calendar
year for which net taxable income is to be
determined; applying the Act to the calculation
of payments of State aid for education for
fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2007. Sex Offenders & Schools The Senate and House
failed to agree on legislation (SB 1/HB 4)
that would have increased a wide variety
of penalties against sex offenders. Unfortunately,
this legislation included provisions supported
by MAESP which would have added new protections
against registered sex offenders entering
school property and would have required notice
to school systems of changes in address for
registered sex offenders. These issues are
sure to be revisited in the 2007 session. Bill Signings, Vetoes, etc. The Governor may sign,
veto, or allow passed bills to become law
without his signature. A complete summary
of all bills signed or vetoed is available
on the General Assembly's website at http://www.mlis.state.md.us
/2005rs/signings/signed.htm #0510 .
The following list of bills passed indicates
those bills already signed and/or enacted
without the governor's signature, and includes
the assigned "Chapter Law" numbers. Synopses & outcomes for
all education bills in the 2006 legislative
session Passed Bills HB 36/SB 741 - Education -
Task Force to Study Raising the Compulsory
Public School Attendance Age to 18 Establishing
the Task Force to Study Raising the Compulsory
Public School Attendance Age to 18; providing
for the membership and staffing of the Task
Force; specifying the purposes and goals of
the Task Force; requiring the Task Force to
report to the Governor and the General Assembly
by December 1, 2007. HB 71/SB 59 - Public Schools
- Graduation Rate Formula - Collecting, Maintaining,
Analyzing, and Reporting Requiring
county boards of education to collect, maintain,
and analyze graduation rates by dividing the
number of students who graduate on time by
the number of students in a four-year cohort;
requiring county boards to report these rates
in the aggregate and disaggregated by specified
subgroups; requiring county boards to report
graduation rates to the public and to the State
Department of Education; requiring the Department
to compile graduation rates and calculate a
graduation rate for the State; etc. (MABE
Opposed) HB 129/SB 373 - Education
- Adult External High School Program Providing
continued funding for the Adult External High
School Program; repealing specified evaluation
and reporting requirements; and removing the
termination date for the Program. (SB 373 became
law without Governor's signature per Maryland
Constitution - Chapter 47) (MABE
Supported) HB 168 - Children's Trust
Fund Establishes a "Children's
Trust Fund" to be used for the Child Abuse
and Neglect Centers of Excellence Initiative. The
bill takes effect July 1, 2006 if enacted.
(Signed by the Governor, Chapter 80) HB 133/SB 367 - Education
- Maryland Infants and Toddlers Program - Grants
- Funding Requiring the Governor to
include at least a specified appropriation
in the annual budget for the Maryland Infants
and Toddlers Program; etc. (MABE
Supported) HB 206 - Education - Juvenile
Services Alternative Education Program Repealing
the Juvenile Services Alternative Education
Program and the Juvenile Services Alternative
Education Program Advisory Board. HB 210/SB 243 - General Assembly - Office
of Legislative Audits - Authorized Representatives
and Authorized Work This bill authorizes
the Legislative Auditor, with the concurrence
of the Executive Director of the Department
of Legislative Services (DLS), to contract
with consultants to assist OLA in performing
its authorized duties. The bill establishes
a process for the Joint Audit Committee (JAC)
to review a local school system's response
to audit recommendations. Specifically,
OLA must review the local school system's response
and advise JAC when that response is not satisfactory.
DLS's Executive Director or JAC may direct
OLA to undertake a review to determine actions
taken by the system to implement audit recommendations.
JAC may make recommendations, based on a system
audit, to the Governor, the State Superintendent,
the local school governing board, or local
school officials. The bill provides that
OLA's access to records and confidentiality
requirements apply to all authorized work and
authorized representatives. The bill takes
effect October 1, 2006. HB 301/SB 294 - Children,
Youth, and Family Services - Local Management
Boards, State Coordinating Council, and Local
Coordinating Councils - Services for Children
With Special Needs Establishing
a local management board and local coordinating
council in each county; establishing the State
Coordinating Council for children; establishing
the duties and composition of the local management
board, State Coordinating Council, and local
coordinating council; requiring a public agency
to disclose specified information and records
to another public agency or the Office for
Children; requiring the Maryland Association
of Local Management Board Directors to submit
a report to committees of the General Assembly;
etc. HB 353 - Teachers and School
Administrators - Sexual Contact with Students - Prohibition The
measure would prohibit a person in a position
of authority from engaging in a sexual act,
sexual contact, or vaginal intercourse with
a minor who, at the time of the sexual act
or sexual contact, is a student enrolled at
a school, where the person in a position of
authority is employed. The measure defines
a person in a position of authority to mean
a person who: (1) is a least 21 years old;
(2) is employed as a full-time permanent employee
by a public or private preschool, elementary
school, or secondary school; and (3) because
of the person's position or occupation, exercises
supervision over a minor who attends the school;
and includes a principal, vice principal, teacher,
or school counselor at a public or private
preschool, elementary school, or secondary
school. The bill takes effect October
1, 2006 if enacted. (MABE Supported) HB 378/SB 291 - Crimes - Restitution - Victims and Payments Expanding the list of entities to which restitution can be ordered to be paid for the commission of offenses |