Montgomery school board members blast county report on state aid
|
Version 0 of 1. Five members of Montgomery County’s school board issued a statement blasting a county reportthat examines how Maryland’s largest school system spends state aid that is based on its enrollment of students from low-income families. The report said the high-performing school system used $47 million of its $128.6 million in such state aid for broader operating-budget functions last school year, not specifically targeting programs aimed at the needs of students living at or near the poverty level. The school system was not required to target those programs but the analysis — by the Office of Legislative Oversight, the research arm of the Montgomery County Council — said it could have provided more resources to high-poverty schools, especially middle and high schools. [Report: Aid based on low-income students not always used for their direct benefit] “We have studied the report and we are appalled,” said the board statement, issued Friday. “Rather than recognize our efforts or provide useful suggestions, the report suggests we embark down a path that no other school district in Maryland follows and ignores efforts already under way to address our achievement gaps.” On Monday, state Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery) also issued a statement critical of the report, which he said “sows divisions when there needs to be community collaboration” and mischaracterized requirements of the state aid “to mask the impact of the county government’s reduction in per pupil funding.” Late last week, state Sen. Nancy J. King (D-Montgomery) wrote a letter to Montgomery County Council President George Leventhal (D-At Large) voicing concerns about the report, which was released Sept. 22. The full statement from the five Montgomery school board members — a majority of the eight-member policymaking body — can be read here. Below is a condensed version: “The Montgomery County Board of Education strongly believes in providing our schools with the highest needs more resources to support students. This is a fundamental part of our core value of equity and an essential strategy we believe will help narrow our achievement gaps. In many of our higher need schools, we invest as much as $4,000 more per student. Perhaps that is why we find the most recent Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) report ‘Resources and Staffing in MCPS Schools’ so offensive.” “. . .The report blithely misinterprets state education financing under the Bridge to Excellence Act of 2002. More puzzling and troubling, by its own admission, the OLO ignores in its analysis a huge list of well-funded programs and initiatives dedicated to narrowing achievement gaps, specifically those providing support for our black and Hispanic students. We are happy to have a conversation about what we as a county should be investing in our children but this deeply flawed report would be an inappropriate basis for such a conversation.” “. . .We are further dismayed by the glib conclusions in the OLO report. It suggests for instance that all of the state funds that MCPS receives for ‘compensatory’ education only should be spent in the schools with the highest poverty rates. Because we don’t have additional funds this would require us to take $47 million in funding from districtwide gap-closing strategies and other schools and shift it to high-needs schools. Not only is this counterproductive, but it is not at all how this state funding program was intended to be implemented. . . .We have students with needs at every one of our schools. Disinvesting in those schools, as suggested by OLO would not be in the best interest of these students.” “. . .As our student enrollment continues to grow and change, the Board is very interested in being an effective partner with the County Council to meet the needs of our most impacted students. But that conversation cannot center on giving more resources to some at the expense of others. We must have a productive conversation about how we can invest more in education and ensure we get a strong return on that investment. That is the morally right thing to do.” Patricia B. O’Neill, board president Phil Kauffman, chairman, policy management committee Christopher S. Barclay, chairman, strategic planning committee Judith Docca, board member Eric Guerci, student board member |