Special Event: Back from the Labor Movement in Iraq

Wed., December 12, 7 p.m., Rockville Library
Featured Speaker: Gene Bruskin
Co-Convener of U.S. Labor Against the War

Cosponsors: Montgomery County Education Association;  UFCW 1994 MCGEO;  Peace Action Montgomery; New Beginnings Initiative

Labor leader Gene Bruskin has recently returned from a week in Basra, Iraq as part of a U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) delegation to the International Civil Society Solidarity Initiative conference.

The conference brought together trade unionists and other supporters from the U.S. and Europe with women's, student, environmental and other Iraqi organizations seeking to develop popular campaigns for labor rights and justice for Iraqi working people.  The USLAW delegation had extensive conversations with Iraqi union leaders that led to the creation of a signed agreement calling for international support for a united campaign for labor rights in Iraq. Unions in Iraq are still largely illegal and are governed by Saddam Hussein's 1987 anti-union declaration. 

On Dec. 12, join Gene for an informative discussion on Iraq. We’ll discuss what it is like for ordinary Iraqis now that the U.S. military has mostly left the country. What did we leave behind? What does this say about “wars of choice”? What was the impact of the war on the labor movement? What can we do now?

USLAW consists of 200 labor organizations across the U.S. that advocate spending public money for human needs, not unnecessary foreign wars.

Teachers Union Says "Stop Blaming the County’s Budget Problems on the School System"

MCEA Press Release: November 29, 2012

Today, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), the union representing more than 12,000 teachers in the Montgomery County Public Schools, called on county elected officials to stop blaming the school system for the County’s budget problems.

According to the County Council’s own recent report (from their Office of Legislative Oversight), the average increase in the MCPS budget over the last decade has been 4.9%. The average increase in the county government budget over the past decade has also been 4.9% (see Table 1 below). How can the school system be blamed for the county’s budget problems if the schools budget has been increasing at the same rate as the county government’s budget?

In fact, about half of that increase in the MCPS budget has come from increased state funding, not from the county government.  The share of the county government’s local revenues going to our schools has actually been decreasing over the past decade (see Table 2 below).

“There is no doubt that the County has been through challenging fiscal times” said MCEA President Doug Prouty, “ but it belies the facts to say that the problem is funding for education”. The national recession has resulted in serious decreases in state and local revenues at the same time that demand for services has been increasing.

The school system has seen an enrollment increase of more than 10,000 students. Almost all of that growth has been among low-income and non-English speaking students who often need more resources to be successful. MCPS has also seen a dramatic increase in the need for special education services to meet the needs of its 17,000+ special education students.

Thankfully, state aid to MCPS has increased. But the reality is that local per-pupil spending – meaning funding approved by the Montgomery County Council – has decreased as a share of the county’s local taxes and revenues. State aid – intended to meet the needs of our growing population of low-income and non-English speaking students – has instead been used to fill the gap created by the decrease in local per-pupil spending.

The County’s local per-pupil spending is now lower than it was before the recession hit – more than six years ago. (See Chart 1 below)

“Our schools are the solution to our fiscal problems, not the cause” said Prouty. “Good schools raise property values and attract high paying jobs”.

Let’s stop blaming the County’s budget problems on the school system. And let’s start talking about how we meet the needs of all our students for the 21st century and close the remaining achievement gaps.

FACT 1: The MCPS Budget has not been increasing any faster than the County Government budget

Table 1: Rate of Growth in County Budgets

from the County Council’s own Report (page 19), October 16, 2012

FACT 2: For the past 10 years, the Montgomery County Government has been allocating a smaller and smaller share of local revenues to our schools

Table 2: Montgomery County’s Local School Funding as a Percent of Local Revenues

FACT 3: The County's local per-pupil spending is now lower than it was six years ago

Chart 1: Montgomery County’s  Local Per-Pupil Spending: 2006 – 2013

Nothing to BOAST about

The following letter was submitted to Maryland Juice by our own Jane Stern, though it hasn't been published yet.  There is a possibility that Gov. O'Malley will be recommending funding for the BOAST voucher program. This program would divert millions of dollars from Maryland's public schools by providing public funds to students wishing to attend private schools. 

The Saturday, October 20 Juice Report #3 (see below) discussed the 2010 firing of April Flores, a Baltimore Catholic School teacher for being “unchaste” and the contrast to the controversy surrounding Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet’s Diversity and Inclusion provost. 

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor case less than a year ago, the Catholic Church, like all other religious institutions has the right to discriminate for any reason whatsoever against employees who fall under the so-called ministerial exception.  In fact, such institutions may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  In addition, they may discriminate against staff on the basis of race and personal medical decisions. In light of this case, it is worrisome to find Governor O’Malley supporting an initiative, known as the BOAST Bill.  This legislation would divert millions of dollars in public funds to private religious schools which are now free to discriminate. One wonders why the governor would do this, particularly in light of his past support for Maryland’s anti-discrimination law and the more recent fight for Question 6 and marriage equality. 

Governor O’Malley recently joined the Maryland State Education Association for a Town Hall style meeting with educators which was covered by the Daily Times. Unfortunately, the Times did not report on his response to a request to him to clear up any ambiguity on his position on vouchers and promise no longer to offer his support for the perennially submitted vouchers bill known as BOAST or other voucher-like proposals in the budgeting or legislative process during the remainder of his term.

Some background: BOAST is a tuition tax credit voucher bill that would divert millions of dollars to private schools, most of which would be Catholic schools.   It has been introduced and promoted by the Catholic Conference for the past 10 years and despite the fact that the governor and Senate President Mike Miller support the BOAST bill it has perennially failed, mostly because of strong opposition from Del. Shelia Hixson and Speaker of the House Mike Busch.  (Last year, the version of BOAST put forth in the House managed to garner only one sponsor.) 

In 2006 and 2010, when he was running for governor, Gov. O’Malley stated that he was opposed to the BOAST tax credits and other voucher schemes. That is one reason why many public school supporters voted for him twice. Yet in the last few years, proponents have used a letter from him supporting BOAST.  It has recently been rumored that Gov. O’Malley would include the BOAST tax credit voucher program in his budget in order to get around the legislative process and opposition in the House of Delegates.  If this program is included in his budget it would not receive a proper hearing, and all the details of the program would likely be decided by legislators and staff without public input.  Maryland’s governor has the strongest budget power in the country; the legislature can only cut the budget. As a result of the give and take dynamics between the House and Senate budget committees, it is unlikely the program would be cut. 

In response to the question posed at the town hall, Gov. O’Malley stated that he now supports the BOAST voucher program.  In an attempt to align himself with another Democrat, Gov. O'Malley incorrectly referenced Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania as a Democrat who passed a similar program in Pennsylvania. You can watch Gov. O’Malley’s response to the question at 28:30 of the video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymrTANwgUfE&feature=plcp. 

Gov. O’Malley is incorrect that Rendell initiated the state voucher program in Pennsylvania. Rendell took office in 2003 and Pennsylvania’s BOAST tuition tax credit program was signed in 2001 by Governor Tom Ridge, a Republican. The BOAST bill is extreme model legislation drafted by ALEC, a well-known right wing organization. If Maryland were to create a program, even one as small as $5 million per year, it would mean public funding going to the Catholic schools and other religious schools, many of which worked so hard to defeat Question 6.  Nine of the eleven states with tuition tax credit BOAST-like programs were led by Republican governors and Republican majority legislatures when their respective bills passed. A tenth had a Republican-controlled House and a divided Senate. And in New Hampshire, Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoed the bill only to have his veto overturned by a Republican controlled legislature.  The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles.

The private schools that would benefit from this public money have no legal mandate to comply with anti-discrimination laws in place for public schools.  In fact, they may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  Public funding from BOAST tax credit vouchers would go to students who attend private schools that are not required to uphold the First Amendment, basic due process rights, and other constitutional and statutory rights and protections of students in public schools. The type of unjust treatment 25-year veteran Catholic school teacher April Flores is now so familiar with would be sanctioned with public funding if Gov. O’Malley is able to go around the House of Delegates and include the program in his budget.

  

BOAST tuition tax credit vouchers are a stark contrast to the commitment to fairness and equality that Maryland voters supported through the passage of Question 6. Gov. O’Malley should be distancing himself from the support he is now showing for such a voucher scheme. The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles and is not suitable for Maryland or, indeed, any other state.

The Governor’s motto, that we should move forward, not back, is belied by his wish to return to the customs of the old world by which governments supported their favorite religions – customs from which the founding fathers clearly meant to depart.

JUICE #3: FLASHBACK TO 2010 // VETERAN TEACHER FIRED FROM BALTIMORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL FOR BEING "UNCHASTE" - A Maryland Juice reader has forwarded us an interesting contrast to the current controversy surrounding the suspension of Gallaudet's "diversity and inclusion provost." As you may have heard, the D.C.-based University is weighing the fate of their employee Angela McCaskill, after she signed a petition calling for the marriage rights of same-sex couples to be put to a popular vote. Arguably, McCaskill violated the school's established "credo" of discouraging "behaviors and attitudes that disrespect the diversity of individuals and groups for any reason including ... sexual orientation."

Many have been quick to defend McCaskill, arguing that her private views and behavior should be protected. But when it comes to individual freedom and free association rights, it appears that many on the right are content to err on the side of protecting those who seek to advance discrimination over those who are the victims of said discrimination. As one example, a reader has sent us a story about a veteran teacher at a Baltimore Catholic school who was terminated in 2010 for being "unchaste." When's the last time you heard of a straight person being fired for the same reason? In any case, below see a quick explanation from our reader, followed by a column written by the fired teacher:

ANONYMOUS READER: See the attached copy of the New Ways Ministry newsletter published in Spring 2010. Below you will find a first person story penned by April Flores, describing how she was terminated from her job as a teacher at the Sacred Heart of Mary School after administrators from the Archdiocese of Baltimore discovered that she had wed her female partner in Washington DC in July 2009. She describes a humiliating process of going through a "hearing" to try to keep her job, and includes some of the language that was used in the correspondence that was used to terminate her: “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.”

Seriously, they terminated a 25-year veteran teacher, who apparently was valued by the community she served, because the Archdiocese was "offended", and because she was not chaste. It is not clear how the Archdiocese knew Ms. Flores was unchaste (hard to imagine how they gathered this data), and interesting that we seldom (never ?) hear of heterosexual folks being terminated due to lack of chastity.

Below, read a column by April Flores, a teacher who was fired from Baltimore's Sacred Heart of Mary School in 2010 (via BaltimoreOutLoud.com & New Ways Ministry):

APRIL FLORES: I’m Catholic and I used to proudly celebrate Catholic Schools Week; however, due to a collision of my religion and my personal life, I did not participate in this year’s festivities. I devoted over twenty-five years of my life to Catholic education and was only married to my wife, Jennifer Simmons, for one month before the Archdiocese of Baltimore (AOB) involuntarily terminated my contract.

This past July I was told by Michelly Merrick, director of human resources for the AOB, that the Archdiocese learned of my civil ceremony and that they thought it best for everyone that I resign from Sacred Heart of Mary School. I disagree, which is why I refused to resign. In a second meeting with the AOB, they stated that there are similar cases to mine, but those are not being investigated because names were not given. Other employees are not adhering to Catholic moral standards, yet I am the only person punished. How is that just?

Anyone that truly knows me can attest to the fact that I am a selfless, dedicated, and effective teacher who is loved and respected by students, parents, and colleagues. This is evident by the overwhelming support I received from my Catholic community when they learned of my termination. I received only support until I faced a panel of five archdiocesan administrators at an optional hearing, at which my students and parents protested my dismissal.

According to Dr. Ronald Valenti, the superintendent of the AOB, the panel unanimously decided to uphold the decision of the Archdiocese to terminate my contract. In retrospect, I should have questioned the panel and asked them if they believed that Jesus would prohibit a lesbian from teaching his word or if Jesus would shun me the way the Archdiocese has.

I was terminated because I am guilty of “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.” I understand these claims, but I believe that my termination remains civilly discriminatory, morally wrong, and an enormous disservice to my students.

Catholicism preaches to love everyone despite existing differences; however, I am being castigated for being different. If God loves unconditionally, why can’t we? My termination clearly implies that Catholicism holds that it is sinful to be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individual. How can the Archdiocese terminate me, but justify accepting tuition money from parents of lgbt students?

Some Catholics are outraged and are disgusted with the Church’s stance regarding homosexuality. How long will the Church ignore these congregants? People are seeking change, the Church needs to do so as well. What type of message should be sent? One that is loving, forgiving, and accepting of all people or one where it is socially and religiously acceptable for discrimination to exist?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” There is no Maryland state or federal law that protects lgbt individuals from being discriminated against by religious institutions. I believe that this is an injustice and I am doing my part to be the change I wish to see in the world. I want to see religious institutions waive their rights of discriminating against lgbt individuals; however, this requires people to positively appeal for change.

I encourage everyone, especially Catholics, who are enraged, disappointed, or bothered by this story to appeal for change for our lgbt community. Only then, will I reconsider celebrating Catholic Schools Week.

Maryland Juice again notes that polls consistently show Catholics in America are the most supportive group on marriage equality. But the reality is, that at some point, America will have to have a serious conversation about employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, and to what extent we really do believe that these victims are in a different class of protection than racial minorities, women and other protected groups. The free association and religious freedom arguments are actually more interesting than they seem at first. Is discrimination against LGBT individuals as much a core part of the Catholic Church's mission as hatred of African-Americans is for the Ku Klux Klan? For how long does a group have to argue that they haven't liked LGBT people for it to be considered a core part of their religion or mission. How clearly does it have to be established in their text?

In the meantime, only those who choose to live in the bizarro bubble of rightwing religious extremism seem to have the unbelievable view that it is they who need the greater protection from discrimination. In short, they value not being offended by things as more important than the basic rights of others. It seems to me that they (or rather their leaders) are obsessed with how other people live and maybe they need to stop thinking about it. Remember, there is no right to not be offended in America (unlike in other nations). Has anyone thought about these issues, or are we just pandering to the politics of religion right now? I'm not arguing that we need to trample on religious rights in America, but honestly, the policy justifications for some of these religious arguments are just completely whack.

Quality controls lacking for D.C. schools accepting federal vouchers

The following article was recently published in the Washington Post.
by Lyndsey Layton and Emma Brown

"Congress created the nation’s only federally funded school voucher program in the District to give the city’s poorest children a chance at a better education than their neighborhood schools offer.

But a Washington Post review found that hundreds of students use their voucher dollars to attend schools that are unaccredited or are in unconventional settings, such as a family-run K-12 school operating out of a storefront, a Nation of Islam school based in a converted Deanwood residence, and a school built around the philosophy of a Bulgarian psychotherapist.

Some of these schools are heavily dependent on tax dollars, with more than 90 percent of their students paying with federal vouchers.

Yet the government has no say over curriculum, quality or management. And parents trying to select a school have little independent information, relying mostly on marketing from the schools.

The director of the nonprofit organization that manages the D.C. vouchers on behalf of the federal government calls quality control “a blind spot.....”

to read the full article, click here.

Montgomery County schools superintendent launches podcast with teachers’ union vice president

Article posted yesterday on WashingtonPost.com
By Lynh Bui

Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Joshua P. Starr has hit the digital airwaves.

Starr has launched a podcast called “What’s the BIG Idea?” a show he hosts with Chris Lloyd, vice president of the Montgomery County Education Association and an eighth-grade teacher.

“Public education is really, really complex,” Starr says in the inaugural podcast. “There are no easy answers, and I feel like part of my job is to try to help people understand that complexity in a multitude of ways.”

The show will bring in people in from around the region “who have big ideas about things going on in education,” Starr said.

On first listen, it sounds like the podcast aims to give people in the education community a chance to think deeply about problems, innovations, systems and policy tied to teaching kids in America.

“We tend to kind of go for the latest fad, the latest reform, the latest kind of quick fix...” Lloyd said. “But we don’t really think about what’s the purpose of education.”

Lloyd is part of the Montgomery County Education Association, the union that represents more than 12,000 teachers, counselors and other educators in the school system.

In the first podcast, Starr and Lloyd talk to Sam Chaltain, a writer and education activist who lives in Washington, D.C. Chaltain was also national director of education advocacy organization the Forum for Education & Democracy.

Starr and Lloyd don’t waste any time in the first episode. Their first question to Chaltain:

“What’s the problem we’re trying to solve in American public education?”

To send questions for future podcasts, find them on Twitter @wtbipodcast or e-mail podcast@mcpsmd.org

“What’s the BIG Idea?” is available through iTunes or here.

Facts Matter

The Washington Post editorial board is entitled to its own opinions but not its own facts.  Their recent  editorial "A lesson in runaway spending" (10-18-12)  ignores the facts to advance the editors’ own agenda.

Buried in the very County Council Report (Table 4-4) that the editorial cites is the straightforward fact that the average annual change in MCPS’ budget over the past decade has been 4.9% and the average annual change in the County Government budget has been --- 4.9%. How can any objective reader blame “runaway spending” in MCPS for the County’s budget woes?

In fact, most of the increase in the school budget has been funded by the state, not by Montgomery County.  The very same report (Table 3-1) reveals that local per-pupil spending by the Montgomery County Council has been cut back to a level lower than it was six years ago – in 2007.

The real question is how long does the Post editorial Board – and most members of the Montgomery County Council – want to freeze local per-pupil spending below 2007 levels? Seven years? Ten years? Fifteen years?

Last Spring, the Council approved a budget increase for non-MCPS spending of 4.7%- more than twice the increase given to MCPS of 2.2%. Had these increases been equal, MCPS could have begun to restore positions cut in previous years. The statement in the editorial that staffing levels were cut for the current school year in order to fund raises is inaccurate- overall hiring is up for the current school year in order to teach the 2,500 new students enrolled for this year.

The Post also repeats the falsehood from the Council report that any increase above the minimum level would be “irreversible”. The legislation passed last year provides for a clearer and faster path to a waiver of the minimum spending requirement, including new criteria providing that a county’s history of exceeding the minimum required spending will now be a factor that must be considered in granting a waiver request.  There is also a provision that if the Executive, Council, and Board of Education agree such a waiver is necessary, as was true in 2010 when the state BOE granted Montgomery County’s request, it is automatic.

Our schools face increasing challenges. The new Common Core standards will raise expectations for all students.  The number of low-income and non-English speaking students, who often need more resources to be successful, is increasing rapidly. MCPS has the highest African-American graduation rate of any major school system in the country, but we have a lot more work to do. Does anyone think we can close the achievement gap if the County continues to freeze local per-pupil spending below 2007 levels?

No one wants to see county services cut. Our children need the health and human services and public safety protections that the county government funds. But this groundless blaming of the school system for the County Government’s budget woes is misguided. It’s about time we worked together to meet the needs of our community and stop this blame game.

Doug Prouty, President, Montgomery County Education Association

Vote Yes on the DREAM Act

Sara Nathan is a high school English teacher and MCEA member. She recently wrote this compelling column on why we should support Question 4 - the Maryland DREAM Act. Thank you Sara for allowing MCEA to reprint it.

Clearing plates and filling water glasses in a restaurant is how a sixteen -year-old Salvadoran immigrant who lives in Rockville earns money to help his parents pay their rent. This fall, in addition to his restaurant work, he joined a growing number of undocumented immigrants who are attending Montgomery County Public Schools for the first time.

Increased school enrollment of undocumented teenagers who have been living in Maryland and working for restaurants, cleaning services, landscaping companies and home-based day care centers is one of the benefits of Obama’s executive order giving legal status and work permits to immigrants who came here when they were younger than 16 and have either graduated or are attending high school.

Now Maryland voters have the chance to give those students a greater motivation to graduate from high school and become well-educated contributing members of our society rather than part of a permanent non-English speaking underclass living and working in the shadows. Maryland voters can encourage these students to develop skills to qualify for higher-paying jobs which will increase the state tax base and generate more revenue for our economy.

Marylanders will be able to vote yes on Nov. 6 on ballot Question 4 which would give undocumented immigrants, who graduate from Maryland high schools and whose parents have paid taxes for at least three years, the right to pay in-state tuition to attend state universities. The greatest benefit of that initiative may well be that it gives high school students a greater incentive to earn their diplomas, whether or not they are financially able to go on to college.

In previous years, undocumented teenage immigrants have enrolled in Montgomery County schools, primarily with the goal of learning English and they initially progress quickly. In the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of all students living in the United States to a free public school education, but some saw a greater value in working than studying.

The graduation rate for students enrolled in English as a Second Language classes is the lowest of any subgroup in Montgomery County – only 70.7% in 2010 compared to an overall graduation rate of 90%, according to the Montgomery County Public Schools Annual Report on Our Call to Action. Latino students, which may include undocumented immigrants who do not need specialized English classes, have the lowest graduation rate of any ethnic group –just 79.3%.

Immigrant students who dropped out often had a detrimental impact on their peers. Rather than admitting even to classmates that they chose not to pursue their diplomas because of their immigration status, they often claimed that school did not matter and they chose to work and earn money immediately.

But this fall, anecdotal conversations with new immigrant students have shown a return to education. Many report that they had already been living and working in Maryland, but were not enrolled in school or previously dropped out and chose to return to school in September.

Opponents may argue that these students are not legally in the U.S. and their education imposes an undue burden on tax papers. But these students are already here working and studying. Last year, one Salvadoran immigrant student reported that he held three jobs while attending school: cleaning office buildings Monday through Friday, washing trucks at a truck stop off Interstate 70 on Saturday, and cleaning garbage trucks on Sunday.

Encouraging these teenage workers to stay in school means Maryland businesses will have a better educated work force, rather than a permanent lower class of non-English speaking workers laboring for cash.

 The student working at the truck stop will be able to read instructions for handling dangerous chemicals and prevent accidents.

 The student who works at her mother’s in-home day care center will be able to read nutritional labels and make the informed decision to serve the children Cheerios, rather than Cheetos for snack.

 The student working at a restaurant will be able to follow proper food handling instructions and keep the ingredients clean and safe.

Supporting Maryland ballot Question 4 will do more than provide an education for potential low wage workers. It will motivate the best students, who have persevered despite an uncertain future, to graduate from high school, attend community colleges and then transfer to four-year universities. Even paying the in-state rates, the cost of nearly $5,000 for tuition and fees for a year at Montgomery College and as much as $23,000 for tuition, room, board and books at the University of Maryland, may present an insurmountable obstacle for undocumented immigrants, who would not qualify for financial aid.

But others will find the way to pay their tuition and invest in themselves. Those students will become the future nurses, teachers, electrical engineers, pharmacists and computer scientists of our state.

School superintendent to Thomas Friedman: Why you are wrong about Race to the Top

Excerpt from a great story on Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog yesterday:

But I do not believe test scores must be tied to evaluations to reach this goal. The Peer Assistance and Review program operating in Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools is a perfect example of an innovative initiative that provides support for struggling teachers and a road out of the profession for those that cannot improve. In the 11 years of the program, hundreds of poorly performing teachers have left Montgomery County schools. Yet Montgomery County Superintendent Jerry Weast told the New York Times in June 2011 that his district will likely never receive Race to the Top funds because test scores are not part of the evaluation equation. “We don’t believe the tests are reliable,” Weast said. “You don’t want to turn your system into a test factory.”

New Poll: Too Little Spending on Schools, Not Enough Taxes from High Earners

This just in from MarylandReporter.com, "the news site for government and politics in the Free State":

November 01, 2012 at 12:28 am
By Sam Smith

Almost two-thirds of Maryland residents (65%) feel Maryland spends “too little” on public schools despite a rising trend in state and local government education spending, a new Goucher College poll found.

The poll also found that 60% of Maryland residents feel that high-income earners don’t pay enough taxes, despite a state income tax increase in May that forces over 300,000 Marylanders earning six figures to pay a higher tax rate.

Nearly two-thirds of residents feel large businesses and corporations don’t pay enough in taxes, as well. Meanwhile, 41% said that small businesses pay “too much” in taxes and another 41% feel small businesses pay a “fair share.”

The telephone survey was conducted by political science students at Goucher College in Towson. Unlike most election year polls, the Goucher poll surveyed all Marylanders, not just likely or registered voters.

The survey sampled 667 respondents representative of all Maryland regions, races and genders, recording a 3.79% pus or minus margin of error. One third of the interviews were done by cell phone. The questions did not define “higher income people” or “large businesses and corporations”.

Education spending, taxes on the rise

Although two-thirds of the population feels that the state doesn’t spend enough in education, state and local governments in Maryland are estimated to spend $19.7 billion on education in fiscal year 2013, with the state spending $5.3 billion, according to USGovernmentSpending.com.

Annual education spending in Maryland has increased over $7 billion since 2002 when the combined education spending reached $12.5 billion, with the state accounting for $3.4 billion.

Despite only 23% of the residents thinking that high income earners pay a fair share of taxes, Maryland’s new tax rates have single-filers earning over $100,000 and couples earning over $150,000 paying 5% plus a local piggyback tax of 1.2% to 3.2%. People earning over $250,000 are now paying a 5.75% rate plus the local income tax. The new tax system is estimated to increase revenue by over $260 million.

The Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index lists Maryland as the 10th worst tax climate in the country. Maryland’s tax climate has improved modestly since 2011 when it ranked as the eighth worst tax environment. However, Maryland ranked as the sixth worst individual income tax climate in the nation.

Although Maryland ranked as the 15th best corporate tax climate, the state has lost businesses to neighboring Virginia, which has the sixth best corporate tax ranking.

Question 7 ads influence residents view on education

With a record-setting $65 million spent so far on advertising in the fight for Maryland’s gambling expansion ballot initiative, much attention is focused on Maryland’s Education Trust Fund this election as it will be a beneficiary of expanded gambling. Mileah Kromer, director of Goucher College’s Sarah T. Hughes Field Politics Center, said due to the Question 7 advertising bombardment, people are led to believe that education is underfunded by the state.

“If you continually say that, people will look towards the education system and say ‘obviously, we need to fund it. It must be underfunded if the reason we want to pass this gambling initiative is to better fund education,’” Kromer said.

Proponents and opponents of Question 7 have advertised in every form and fashion this fall: television, radio, telephone, mailings, billboards and signs. A second Goucher poll on perception of Maryland ballot questions shows that 87% of Maryland residents have seen the advertising on TV.

Kromer added that the results could have been affected by respondents evaluating their local school systems instead of state funding.

“Education is one of those things that people are so close to that any time you look at any sort of efficiency in your own school system the first thing that individuals think is why is it so poorly funded?” Kromer said.

Campaign rhetoric influences views on individual and business taxes

Kromer said that even though Maryland has increased taxes on the wealthy and has a less-than desirable tax climate, respondents saying that high income earners and businesses aren’t paying enough taxes could be simply repeating the campaign messages of Obama and Romney as they try to appeal to the middle class.

“It’s really people repeating the rhetoric they do hear in the campaigns.” Kromer said. “There is this focus on how we need to help out middle income people. Even among Romney and Obama, both talk about how they are not going to cut anymore taxes for the upper class.”