Do teachers have a right to be involved in politics?

The Washington Post has seen fit to run yet another editorial attacking the Montgomery County Education Association and its political activism.   One must wonder why the Post, given its stated support of reform efforts in public education, chooses to single out the local teachers and their union who have done more than any other in the area to bring such efforts to fruition.  MCEA has a long and meaningful history of partnering with Montgomery County Public Schools to improve teaching and learning.  The Post itself recognized this when it ran a front page article on (6/29/09) about our Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program.   PAR is only one part of the jointly designed and managed Teacher Professional Growth System, which is a model teacher evaluation system for school systems around the country and abroad.  Maryland’s schools have been ranked #1 in the nation for five years by Education Week- in no small part due to the student achievement gains that are the focus, indeed the commitment, of the educators of MCPS.

The Post alleges that MCEA has sold its endorsement but offers no evidence to substantiate this claim. We have never traded our support for financial contributions. Never have and never will. Every candidate we recommend is someone we believe will be an advocate for public education. In fact, many of the candidates recommended by MCEA have been recommended by the Post editorial board as well. 

The criteria we use are posted on our website. The Post itself has noted the transparency of our process (which one might note, is markedly more democratic and open than the process the Post’s editorial board itself uses).  We do not apologize for our efforts to inform voters about the candidates our members, the people trusted to care for, challenge, and teach the students of MCPS, believe will best support them in their work. 

In 2006 and to a lesser extent in 2010, we accepted voluntary donations from candidates who recognized that pooling their resources to publicize their support for public education and from educators was an effective means of informing the voting public and seeking its support. The coordinated mailings fully complied with all Maryland campaign finance laws.  No donations were sought or accepted until well after our recommendation process was completed. All contributions were reported to the State Board of Elections. There was no quid-pro-quo - candidates did not have to donate a cent to our coordinated campaign. Some did. Some didn’t. Their choice.

Do we advocate for our members?  Of course we do.  Do we want them to have the resources they need to do their best every day for students?  No doubt.  Do we want politicians who will work with us to protect our classrooms? Absolutely. We want high quality teachers, lower class sizes, and increased funding to help close the achievement gap. So do the candidates we recommend. 

So why is the Post so vitriolic in its smear campaign against MCEA? Josh Kurtz, a senior editor at Roll Call, concluded in 2009 that the Post’s “unbridled ferocity”  was an effort “to reassert its power over Montgomery County elections… by tear(ing) down the institution it sees as its biggest rival for winning the hearts and minds of county voters”. John Farrell, a contributing writer at U.S. News & World Report wrote at that time that the Post’s editorials were “semi-hysterical” and that the paper “owes the teachers a correction, if not an apology, for recklessly tossing around words like ‘corrupt’ and ‘shakedown’.”

We believe that voters deserve to have as much information as possible in order to make informed decisions. We will not back down from our advocacy for our schools, any more than we will lessen our efforts in the classroom every day to help all our students be successful.

Pres. Prouty testifies before the County Council in support of the BOE Budget

Below is a transcript of MCEA President Doug Prouty's testimony before the Montgomery County Council, during this evenings public hearing on the Proposed FY14 Operating Budget.

Good evening Council President Navarro , Vice-President Rice, and members of the County Council. I
testify tonight on behalf of the 12,000 professional educators whose dedication to our students have helped
make the Montgomery County Public Schools one of the best school districts in America. We support the
MCPS budget as submitted to you by the County Executive.

In my role as president, I have the opportunity to speak with districts and unions from around the state and
country. What I find is that MCPS leads the nation in so many areas of education, and while we aren’t
perfect, the focus on student learning and achievement is exemplary. People who choose to work in MCPS
expect great things of our kids and of ourselves, and we believe we can bend the arc of history in the lives of
children and families. As MLK said, “The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to
think critically”- we seek to do just that.

This budget is a modest request in the context that we face currently. Full funding of this budget, in the
manner that the Executive has designed, constitutes only a 2.8% increase in the tax supported budget for
MCPS. I recognize that there are some who believe MCPS had been receiving significantly larger increases
than other county agencies before the recent recession. However, the County Council’s own report proves
otherwise. The October 16, 2012 Report from the Council’s Office of Legislative Oversight documented
the “Annual Change in County Aggregate Operating Budgets by Agency, from FY03 to FY13” (Table 4-4).
According to the OLO Report, the average annual increase in the MCPS budget over the past decade was
4.9%, equal to the average increase in the Montgomery County Government budget. I would ask you to
help refute the mistaken impression that the MCPS budget is taking up a larger and larger share of the
County’s overall budget; it is simply not true.

Included in the proposed FY14 MCPS budget is the restoration or addition of positions that target the
achievement gap and will provide additional resources to schools. These include thirty focus teacher
positions in middle schools to support students who need it in Math and Reading, thirteen counselors and
other support positions in small elementary schools, five new psychologist positions, five additional
instrumental music teachers, and ten elementary Math positions to ensure more differentiation for students.
This budget also provides for expansion of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years program to King
and Clemente middle schools, two diverse schools in terms of both race and socio-economic status. We are
focused on providing the best education to every student in MCPS and on closing the gap.

One program of which you may not be aware is a graduate certificate program which started in 2010. This
program was initiated by MCEA in partnership with MCPS and McDaniel College, and grants a graduate
certificate in Equity and Excellence in Education. The first cohort of this program completed their
certificates in December, 2012 and the next cohort is already working. The twenty three teachers in the
first cohort dubbed themselves ‘Equity Warriors’ and are focused on spreading their knowledge of
equitable teaching practices and cultural awareness to their colleagues. Our goal is, in the next five years, to
have trained hundreds of educators throughout the system on how better to meet the needs of our
increasingly diverse and economically disadvantaged students. MCEA is proud to have led this initiative to
help close the achievement gap by building the skills of the teaching workforce.

This commitment to all students is shared by MCEA members as well as those of SEIU Local 500 and
MCAAP. You have shown your commitment to these students by providing budget increases to MCPS. We
know that the recent recession forced cuts to every agency of Montgomery County Government and this
included MCPS. Local per pupil spending is now approximately $1400 less than it was in 2009, prior to the
recession. We expect to grow by another 10,000 students in the next five years and our new students will
increase our diversity of every sort- racial, socio-economic, ESOL, and Special Education.

We share your commitment to improve staffing in critical areas and lower class sizes. However, it is simply
unrealistic to expect MCPS to continue to provide a high quality education to all students and to continue
our work to meet the needs of our struggling students with a stagnant per pupil allocation. Our costs do not
remain stagnant and neither do our students’ needs.

Freezing local per pupil spending below 2009 levels - by limiting the MCPS budget to the Maintenance of
Effort level in perpetuity - is a recipe for disaster. Just as you recognize the need of our citizens for
improved services by police, fire fighters, and in our parks and libraries, you must also recognize the need
for improved services for our students.

The $1,400 cut in local per-pupil spending means that the MCPS budget has been “scrubbed”: tens of
millions of dollars in administrative and operational costs have been saved. There are simply no substantial
additional savings to be found. We have already had to increase class sizes and cut staffing in critical areas to
absorb the cut in local per-pupil spending. We did what had to be done to help the County get through the
recent recession and thankfully, this budget begins to restore certain high priority staffing and program
needs. But it is wishful thinking to suggest that we can close the achievement gap without an increased
investment. Let’s move past the dislike for the MOE legislation passed last year - and the dislike for the
rebasing of the MCPS budget the year before - and work together again for the quality of life of our students
and all Montgomery County residents.

Fund Corporate Tax Breaks, Not Schools?

In a bizarre twist of public policy making, the Maryland General Assembly is considering giving Lockheed Martin a multi-million dollar break from county taxes, at a time when the county government is struggling to provide essential funding for schools and other essential social services.

For several years, Lockheed Martin has attempted to get the Montgomery County Council to exempt it from paying the County's hotel tax. The County Council has (wisely) refused to do so. Now a bill is moving through the state legislature to over-ride the Council's control over it's own hotel tax, and grant an exemption to Lockheed Martin. No other company in Maryland would benefit from this bill. Not only that, it would apply retro-actively, requiring Montgomery County to issue a refund check to Lockheed Martin for $1.8 million in hotel taxes they have paid in recent years.

MCEA has signed on to a broad coalition of local organizations opposed to this corporate tax break, and end run around local control.

To let your elected state senators and delegates know how you feel about this issue, go to our Contact Your Elected Representatives page.

To learn more, read the following news coverage:

OUTRAGE: MD Politicians Urge Millions In Corporate Welfare for Lockheed Martin (Maryland Juice)

Maryland Senate advances local tax break for Lockheed Martin (Washington Post)

Afternoon Poll: Lockheed Martin Tax Break (Bethesda Now) [Take the Poll!]

Wall Street Tells Maryland: Invest in Education!

The Annapolis political blog MarylandReporter.com just posted a fascinating story about a normally boring topic: a hearing held by the State Senate Budget and Tax Committee. Low-and-behold, a prominent national economist from Moody Analytics not only "gave Maryland senators an upbeat analysis of the economy", but also said:

"...state policymakers should look at the longer term and focus on educational structure and infrastructure. They should make the “the right kind of investments” to level opportunities for the middle and lower income Marylanders."...

Next time an elected official questions the wisdom of investing in education -- or argues that the county should continue to freeze local per-pupil spending below 2007 levels (yes - certain members of the Montgomery County Council continue to assert that they won't raise local per-pupil spending as a bargaining chip for state legislative action!) -- you can remind them that even Wall Street thinks Maryland should be investing in education.

"Ed reform" and our PGS

Today, The Baltimore Sun is reporting that the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) is at risk of losing millions of dollars in Federal aid due to continued revisions the state keeps making to its Race to the Top plans. The big issue is how will the state roll out and implement it's new teacher evaluation program. The U.S. Department of Education has expressed it's concerns with MSDE and has threatened the possibility of fines of near $38 million.
The state will be implementing a new and unproven evaluation system across the state this fall and it seems as if it is not ready to go.
Yet, MCEA and MCPS who did not sign on to participate in RTTT are in the position of being forced to change our Professional Growth System to comply with the revised laws spurred on by the state's RTTT participation. MCEA President Doug Prouty emailed members last week (see below) and MCPS Supt. Joshua Starr emailed employees yesterday about our efforts to limit the damage these changes will do the PGS.
Our PGS is nationally and internationally recognized as a model educator evaluation system. In the last year, educators and administrators from Kentucky, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania and China visited us to see how the PGS works and how they could implement it. The PGS has been written about in The New York Times and Rethinking Schools. USDE even featured it on it's website.
So this is what the "ed reform" movement has brought us; the state meddling with a proven and respected evaluation system while trying to hurry up and finish their own unknown system for the rest of the state.


Message from MCEA President Doug Prouty about the evaluation controversy:

January 3, 2013

Dear Colleagues,

Happy New Year and welcome back! We want to be sure that you know the most current information on teacher evaluation. As you know, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP have been working to meet the requirements of the new state regulations brought on by Maryland’s Race To The Top (RTTT) grant and the Maryland Education Reform Act of 2010. This work has been ongoing for the past year and a half. [Please note the focus in the work of the Maryland State Department of Education is on classroom teacher and principal evaluation and not other certificated educators - thus the use of the term teacher throughout this document and the submission to the state described below].

Recent events

Last spring, MCEA, MCPS, and MCAAP submitted a proposal to the Maryland State Department of Education about how we believed our existing Teacher Professional Growth System complied with new state regulations and the Education Reform Act of 2010. That proposal was rejected. Just before Winter Break, we submitted a new proposal to meet a deadline of December 26th. This response details how we plan to meet what is required of us regarding three aspects of our evaluation system:

·       the use of student achievement data

·       a three tiered rating system, and

·         a three year evaluation cycle

This response will be discussed by the Montgomery County Board of Education at its meeting on Tuesday, January 8th.

The State Dept. of Education required each local school system and teacher union local to provide information as to whether we had reached agreement on how we would be sure that we were in compliance with the Education Reform Act of 2010 and the applicable portions of regulations that were passed to implement Maryland’s Race to the Top program. Since MCPS and MCEA did not sign on to RTTT, the section of the regulations that stipulates a percentage system in which student achievement data must comprise 50% of a teacher’s (and principal’s) evaluation does not apply to MCPS.

We are required by the Education Reform Act of 2010 to utilize student achievement data as a “significant component”’ of the evaluation measured “from a clearly articulated baseline to one or more points in time‘’. Some guidance as to how we might meet the state’s requirements was provided in a letter sent by the state superintendent in late November. This letter included an analysis of the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook as well as several redacted evaluations which were sent to the Maryland Dept. of Education in June as a part of our work with the state on our PGS and state law and regulations.

The guiding tenet of our work to meet the state law and regulations has been to maintain the integrity of our Teacher Professional Growth System, which was designed and has been implemented to provide meaningful and timely feedback on performance, structured support for areas of concern, and a holistic rating of a teacher’s job performance that is fair, transparent, and not numerically driven. There are numerous examples of systems in other places in which a teacher can be considered for dismissal strictly on the basis of test scores. Dr. Starr, the leadership of MCPS, the other leaders of MCEA and I are committed to keeping our system intact. At the same time, we have to be mindful of the fact that failure to demonstrate that we are willing to comply with state law could result in the state model of evaluation being forced on us, which is a 50/50 split between observations and student achievement data. We believe that the state model is dramatically worse than our system.

What we have proposed

A multi-stakeholder group, including Chris Lloyd, MCEA Vice President and co-chair of the PAR Panel, two former members of the PAR Panel, a current Consulting Teacher and me, has been meeting over last year to analyze how to thread the needle of maintaining our system but complying with the state law and regulations. This group also included building principals and central office staff. In addition, meetings of the three union presidents and members of the executive leadership team occurred periodically to discuss events and strategies. The MCEA Board of Directors reviewed the proposal prior to its submission.

In order to meet the student achievement data requirement, we have proposed to bolster a part of the current evaluation system, specifically in Standards I and IV. In Standard I, one of the current criteria is, “The teacher sets quantifiable learning outcomes for students and holds him/herself accountable for ensuring students meet those objectives.” This process will be implemented more consistently, with teachers expected to set two or three outcomes each year (either individually or in grade level or course alike teams). The data to be used to measure these outcomes would be decided by the teacher(s) and must include data that can be tracked periodically from a starting point over the year. The teacher may decide which groups of students would be included in each outcome- it need not be the entirety of a teacher’s student load. The outcomes would be approved by the principal and would be discussed during post observation conferences and at a meeting prior to the completion of the evaluation at the end of the year. Progress on these outcomes would be a ‘significant component’ of an evaluation, but would not and could not be a sole determinant of the rating of the evaluation, nor will it be quantified with a percentage.

The evaluation report itself would be modified to list the outcomes on the introductory page. In addition, the narrative portion of the evaluation in Standard I would include reflection on the outcomes based on discussions during the post observation conferences and year end meeting.

In Standard IV, teachers are expected to use student achievement data to reflect on, plan, and differentiate lessons. The narrative portion in Standard IV would continue to reflect the teacher’s ability to accomplish this using a variety of data sources, as currently described in the Teacher Professional Growth System handbook.

Many of the counties in Maryland are using similar outcome setting processes as a part of their revised evaluation systems. Information and training on designing, setting, and monitoring student learning outcomes will be implemented during the spring of 2013 in preparation for the 2013-14 school year, depending on the state response to this proposal.

From its beginnings, the MCPS Teacher Professional Growth System has included student achievement as important sources of data in the evaluation process (see TPGS Handbook page 11). The modifications discussed above are intended to clarify our existing system. The TPGS Handbook says, and will continue to say, that “Standardized test scores provide one important source of data, but they cannot constitute a judgment, in and of themselves, about the performance of a teacher or the success of a school” (TPGS Handbook page 12).

We have proposed including a new rating of ‘Emerging” in our evaluation system to achieve a three-tiered rating system by differentiating those teachers who are currently rated ‘below standard’ but meet one of several criteria indicating progress toward a ‘meets standard’ rating. These criteria are already in place and have been used by the PAR Panel in determining whether or not to provide a teacher in the program a second year of CT support.

We also proposed implementing the Career Lattice program over the next several years, which gives each teacher the option of voluntarily seeking ‘Lead Teacher’ status through a process based partially on the National Board Certification process. The application would include a videotape with analysis of a lesson, recommendations from the building principal, EFR or building rep, and a colleague of the teacher’s choosing, as well as two brief essays documenting leadership demonstrated by the teacher in the school and/or school community. These applications would be assessed by a newly formed Career Lattice Panel, with equal numbers of MCEA and MCPS appointees. Once implemented, Lead Teacher status would then be a gateway for a range of career opportunities. Lead Teacher status would be added to the evaluation document as an additional rating beyond ‘meets standard’. We would then have a four tiered system. The state wants each local to adjust their ratings to a uniform system of Highly Effective, Effective, and Ineffective, but we have proposed these changes as an alternative.

We have also proposed a one year study of a change to a three year evaluation cycle from our current differentiated cycle of evaluations in years one, two, five, nine, and every five years following. We have indicated that we believe our current system allows for a more meaningful and rigorous evaluation than would a uniform three year cycle because it allows for greater attention and support for beginning MCPS teachers and teachers in need of assistance.

Next Steps

The Maryland State Department of Education is expected to respond to our submission in January. This same process/timeline is true of each local school system in the state. Based on the nature of the response, we will judge where we are and what the next step will be. If our system with the adjustments mentioned above is found in compliance with state law and applicable regulations, we will begin designing and implementing the necessary information and training programs for teachers and principals to incorporate these changes for next year. A part of this will be a number of Q & A sessions so that teachers can clarify their understanding of the changes to the system. Please keep an eye out for more information.

I firmly believe this work and the proposal we submitted maintains the integrity of our system and also demonstrates to the state our willingness and desire to be in compliance with state law and regulations.

Thanks for all you do every day for our students and each other. We will continue to keep you informed of developments as they unfold.

In Solidarity,

Doug

Doug Prouty, MCEA President

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.

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

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.”

Just the Facts on the County Budget

It is indeed unfortunate that some in the county continue to try and pit the interests of education against other county services. MCEA believes that all county services are important, all have suffered damaging cuts in the last three years, and the county government needs to 1) do more to raise revenues to restore services and well as 2) focusing more of the county's resources on services rather than on reserve funds.

To be clear:

1. The Board of Education's proposed budget accepts the level of county funding that was set by the County Council last spring - nothing more. The County Council unilaterally "rebased" its Maintenance of Effort obligation, and in doing so enshrined a $1,500 decrease in local per-pupil spending. The Board of Education's budget accepts that lower level of local per pupil spending.

2. The Board of Education's OVERALL proposed budget is ony increasing by 2.2%. In contrast, the budget for county agencies is proposed to increase by 4.7%. (see this chart, which is reprinted from the County Excutive's Recommended FY13 Operating Budget, Schedule B-2, on pages 71-1 to 71-2). NOTE: the chart indicates the county government budget increasing by 8.6%. However since this includes retiree health trust fund funding for all agencies (aka "OPEB") - the fairer comparison backs OPEB out, leaving the county government increase at 4.7%, compared to the increase of only 2.2% in the MCPS budget - most of which is funded by increased state aid, not local dollars).

3. As a percent County generated revenues, the proposed Board of Education budget represents the lowest share since 1999. MCPS share of locally generated revenues will fall to just 41.8%, from a high of 52.5% in 2002. (see chart below).

It's time we stop pitting county services against one another and instead work to improve all the services our residents - and especially our students, elderly, and most vulnerable - depend on.

A look at who is behind ed "reform"

Check out Diane Ravitch's column on the people and groups behind the corporate ed "reform" movement in our country.  It's an interesting look at those who want to use tax payer dollars to fund charter and virtual schools and privatize education.  These groups create political agendas and legislation that is copied and pushed by legislators the country over.  Just look at what is going on in New Jersey right now to see it in action.  

Unfinished Business in Annapolis

Passage of the bill to fix the State's Maintenance of Effort law has been a huge victory for education funding. However the legislature has failed to complete action on the state budget.

This past Monday was supposed to be the final day of the session. But the clock struck midnight before the legislature acted on important components of the budget that would protect state funding for our schools in the coming year. If the legislature fails to reconvene to address this, it will trigger a so-called “doomsday budget” that will mean more than $200 million in cuts to school funding next year. 

Our Advocacy Must Continue

We need one more phone call, email, text, and legislative contact to force the General Assembly and Governor O’Malley to act and ensure the Doomsday budget is not enacted. Send an email with this link, and/or call our legislative hotline at 866-268-MSEA today!

MOE bill emerging in House

After months of work - and behind the scenes discussions - a workgroup in the Maryland House of Delegates has just released a bill designed to fix what the State Board of Education described as the "broken" Maintenance of Effort law. The bill is designed to prevent local counties from unilaterally rebasing their per-pupil spending without seeking a waiver from the State Board of Education.

The text of House Bill 1412 can be found at: http://mlis.state.md.us/2012rs/billfile/HB1412.htm
Click on the link at the bottom of page that says "First Reading".

While MSEA has a few remaining concerns about some provisions in the bill, it is seen as going a long way towards fixing the problem. Not only does the bill require that local counties seek waivers, it also allows local counties to exceed property tax caps in order to meet their Maintenance of Effort school funding obligations.

An article in Southern Maryland Online today describes the bill, as does this Baltimore Sun story. 

Stop The Shift - news round-up

There has been a lot of media attention focusing on the Governor's proposal to shift a portion of the cost of teacher pensions on to the counties. As we've noted before, this would be disastrous to the MCPS budget and the county budget as well.

Here are recently published letters to the editor of The Gazette:

The first is from Doug Prouty president of the Montgomery County Education Association and Gino Renne, president of UFCW Local 1994, MCGEO  Association.

The second is from Roger Berliner president of the Montgomery County Council and Andrea Harrison, chairwoman of the Prince George’s County Council.

In Frederick County, FCTA president Gary Brennan and Frederick County's Commissioners held a joint press conference to protest the pension shift scheme.

You can also watch MCEA Executive Director Tom Israel speak before the County Council about the need to prevent this shift: