7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
1/25
Board of Education of Harford County
Legislative Platform
2013
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
2/25
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
3/25
Cassandra R. Beverley
Elected Member,
Councilmanic District B
Robert L. Frisch
Elected Member,
Councilmanic District A
Robert M. Tomback, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Schools
Panashe Mutombo
Student Representative
Board of Education of Harford County
Joseph A. Hau
Appointed Member-at-Large
Nancy Reynolds
Vice President, Appointed
Member-at-Large
Alysson L. Krchnavy
Appointed Member-at-Large
Francis F. Rick Grambo, III
President, Elected Member
Councilmanic District D
Thomas Fitzpatrick
Appointed Member-at-Large
James D. Thornton
Appointed Member-at-Large
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
4/25
HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATIONLEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENTS2013 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
GENERAL POSITIONS
Support local control of education policy and budget.
Support local control of appropriations and expenditures within budget categories.
Support full State and Federal funding for education.
Oppose any and all unfunded and underfunded State and Federal mandates.
OVERARCHING THEMES
Local Board Authority
Oppose any legislation which reduces the authority to local boards of education and/or superintendents to ef-fectively govern and administer public schools granted by law.
Oppose overriding the local boards authority to make nal determination in contact negotiations.
Budget and Education Funding
Support as a minimum requirement the current maintenance of effort as stipulated in the Education Article,Annotated Code of Maryland.
Support full funding of the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act for Fiscal Year 2014 including increasedfunding to reect inationary increases in the cost of education.
Curriculum
Support local control of the number of minutes during the school day devoted to any subject area.
Oppose legislation requiring mandatory pre-kindergarten unless both the full operating and capital costs of theprogram are borne solely by the State of Maryland.
School Facilities
Support consistent State funding level for school construction and renovation projects
Support legislation or regulations to revise the States denition of eligible project costs to include architectural
engineering and site development costs.
Executive Summary
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
5/25
The 2013 Legislative Platform supports the Harford County Public Schools goals to prepare every student forsuccess in postsecondary education and a career and to encourage and monitor engagement between the schoolsystem and the community to support student achievement.
The Legislative Platform contains the legislative priorities adopted by the Board of Education of Harford County.These priorities are signicant to enhancement of public education and are likely, based on prior experiences, to
be considered during the 2013 General Assembly Session. A number of these subjects are also part of the federalgovernments education process.
Although there are signs of improvements in both the national and Maryland economic climate, it is widelyanticipated that a signicant portion of the 2013 Session will again involve the critical need to address another
challenging budgetary year. The economic downturn has continued to adversely affect tax revenues for all levels ofgovernment, resulting in the potential for less funding for public education activities and for local government aidto Marylands counties. Initial estimates indicated that the General Assembly will need to address a $638 million
structural decit for scal 2014 as indicated by the Spending Affordability Brieng (October 17, 2012). This was
the rst of three meetings to be held by the Committee, which will result in a scal policy recommendation to the
Governor and General Assembly for the scal 2014 State Budget.
Also, putting pressure on the States budget is the scal cliff which will be reached if Congress and the President
cant strike a deal by January 1, 2013 to avert a series of budget cuts in place by lawmakers and the Obamaadministration last year to resolve a standoff over the nations debt ceiling that threatened to put the nation intodefault. Through a process known as sequestration, automatic reductions would take effectcutting both military
and domestic spending. It is projected that Maryland would lose $117.6 million in Federal Funds if sequestration
takes effect according to the Maryland Department of Legislative Services (DLS). The economic impact would
be much greater. DLS warns that if the scenario known as going over the scal cliff plays out, Maryland could
lose 53,000 jobs during the budget year ending June 30 and 60,200 more next year. Therefore, the SpendingAffordability Committee and Maryland lawmakers on October 17 expressed concern that the federal problemscould throw the states plans into reverse at a time when the state economy seems to be improving and Maryland iscoming close to closing a long-term revenue shortfall.
The Harford County Board of Education and the Superintendent are committed to work diligently with Harford
Countys elected ofcials to ensure the continued delivery of excellent education opportunities for all of our
students. To enhance the education experiences in Harford County, we urge avoidance of unfunded mandates as
well as ineffective efforts to modify curriculum and instruction.
Introduction
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
6/25
The 2013 Legislative Program is an integral component of an overall strategy in support of Harford County PublicSchools vision, mission and goals.
VISION
Harford County Public Schools will be a community of learners in which our public schools, families, public of-cials, businesses, community organizations, and other citizens work collaboratively to prepare all of our students tosucceed academically and socially in a diverse, democratic, change-oriented, and global society.
MISSION
The mission of the Harford County Public Schools is to promote excellence in instructional leadership and teach-ing and to provide facilities and instructional materials that support teaching and learning for the 21st century. The
Harford County Board of Education will support this mission by fostering a climate for deliberate change andmonitoring progress through measurable indicators.
GOALS
GOAL 1: To prepare every student for success in postsecondary education and a career.
GOAL 2: To encourage and monitor engagement between the school system and the community to supportstudent achievement.
GOAL 3: To hire and support skilled staff who are committed to increasing student achievement.
GOAL 4: To provide safe, secure, and healthy learning environments that are conducive to effective teachingand learning.
Included in this document are legislative positions on issues signicant to public education in Harford County. We
are a goal-oriented organization, focused on increased academic rigor and increased access to challenging course
work for all children. The perspective presented herein reects this focus and is intended to assist our elected repre-sentatives during the 2013 General Assembly Session.
Individuals seeking further explanation or information are encouraged to contact Kathy Carmello, Facilitator ofGovernmental Relations, Harford County Public Schools at 410-809-6066 or [email protected].
Francis F. Grambo, III, President Robert M. Tomback, Ph.D., Superintendent of SchoolsBoard of Education of Harford County Harford County Public Schools
The Harford County Public School System does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, odisability in matters affecting employment or in providing access to programs. Inquiries related to the policies of the Board of Education of HarfordCounty should be directed to the Manager of Communications, 410-588-5203.
From the Harford County Board of Education
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
7/25
Compulsory Attendance ......................................................................................................................................................1
Curriculum and Assessments...............................................................................................................................................2
Federal Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act..........................................................................3
Federal Support of Public Education ..................................................................................................................................5
Funding of Excellence in Public Education ...................................... ..................................................................................7
Local School Board Authority/Governance ........................................................................................................................8
Maintenance of Effort ........................................................................................................................................................9
Parent and Community Involvement ..................................................................................................................................1
Public School Construction ................................................................................................................................................12
Retirement and Pension ....................................................................................................................................................13
School Nutrition and Health ............................................................................................................................................14
School and Student Safety .................................................................................................................................................15
Teachers and Instructional Personnel .................................................................................................................................16
Transportation .................................................................................................................................................................17
Harford County Public Schools
A.A. Roberty Building
102 S. Hickory Avenue
Bel Air, Maryland 21014
www.hcps.org
Table of Contents
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
8/25
After considering legislation
for more than a decade, the
Maryland General Assembly
passed Senate Bill 362
which phases in increases in
the age of compulsory school
attendance from 15 to 17
years old over a two year
period beginning with the
2015-2016 school year.
The new law furthers
requires a child under the
legal dropout age to return
to attendance at a public
school regularly during the
school year if the child is no
longer participating in GED
courses and has not obtained
a passing score on the GED
test that resulted in the
issuance of a Maryland high
school diploma.
The Harford County Board of Education is committed to providing a high-quality,world-class education that ensures success for every student through excellence inteaching and learning. A high-quality education is the fundamental right of everychild.
The decision to drop out of school can be life-changing. In our changing economy,workers need at least a high school diploma to compete in the workforce. A 2007
Maryland Task Force to Study Raising the Compulsory Public School AttendanceAge to 18 notes that students who drop out of high school face harsh futures,characterized by lower wages, disproportionate representation in prisons, and shorteroverall life spans.
While rising the compulsory age of attendance alone is not a silver bullet, it is critical
that our laws and policies limit the ease by which students can drop out of school.Additionally, any real or sustainable impact will take place only if requiring students
to stay in school beyond age 16 is accompanied by engaging instruction and personalsupports.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
An increased level of responsibility or duty on the behalf of the parent(s) or
legal guardian(s) for the disruptive or detrimental behavior of their student,
while acknowledging the continued responsibility of the school system to
intervene with strategies that will promote educational success.
Providing adequate supports to address the issues that cause students to leave
school.
Compulsory Attendance
1
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
9/25
2
Curriculum and Assessments
Maryland schools have achieved academic excellence that is nationally recognized.The program of studies in each school system is developed as a whole and islinked to State and local assessments. The authority to establish curriculum andassessments is better left with the State Board and local boards, the same entities
charged with the responsibility to research, investigate, and evaluate both thecurriculum and assessments. To seek repeatedly through legislation to interjectpiecemeal segments into the curriculum or to extract portions of the testing onlyserves to weaken the effectiveness of the entire educational program.
The Harford County Public Schools curricula is written, taught, and assessedcurricula in alignment with the Common Core State Standards and is guidedby a systemic teaching and learning framework utilizing a research-based set ofcomponents for instruction, incorporating Interstate Teacher Assessment andSupport Consortium for instructional standards.
The Harford County Board of Education believes curriculum must prepare allstudents to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Every student must have a
challenging instructional program, which is relevant and prepares each studentto enter the workforce or to continue his or her education. A school districtscurriculum should also address ethics, character and democratic principles. Theultimate decisions establishing curriculum must be made at the local level and suchcurriculum must be inclusive to educate the whole student.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Retaining decision-making authority at the local level. Maintaining the authority of local boards of education to determine educational
policy, curriculum, and administration.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Any efforts by the General Assembly to legislate curriculum, rmly believing
that this role belongs to local boards of education in conjunction with the StateBoard.
Imposition of new or additional reporting requirements requiring additionalresource utilization.
In creating the State Board
and local boards of education,
the Maryland General
Assembly has delegatedto them the responsibility
for content standards and
curriculum. The State Board
establishes state standards and
the local boards adopt and
implement locally developed
programs with local funding
to ensure that these standards
are met. Local boards of
education can best balance
educational practices, availableresources, public input, and
accountability.
Currently, Maryland has
a state curriculum that all
school districts use as a guide
to developing its curriculum for
students. Legislation is often
introduced into the Maryland
Legislature as an attempt by
special interest groups to have
the content of local Maryland
public school system curriculum
mandated by state law.
Examples of this type of
legislation would be a measure
to authorize school personnel
to read or post in any public
school building specied
patriotic materials that may
contain religious references,
quotations, or illustrations.
Another example would be a
bill prohibiting a local board
of education from adopting
curricula or courses of study.
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
10/25
3
The Harford County Board of Education believes our students education is thesingle most important key to success for individuals and our nation in a global
economy. We have long talked about the need for equity and excellence in educationbut we have yet to live up to our rhetoric. In todays world, our ability to educateevery child to high standards is moral, democratic, and economic imperative. TheESEA reauthorization represents a great opportunity for a new vision and approachto achieve educational excellence and equity. We need to move beyond the importantyet narrow goal of No Child Left Behind to a goal of every child a graduateprepared with the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in college andcareer as productive citizens of our diverse interconnected society and a globally-interconnected world.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) has stalled in Congress. Both the House and Senate
committees that oversee education have passed legislation to reauthorize ESEA,and although not perfect, is a step in the right direction. However, because of thepartisan differences, the bills have not been brought to the oor.
Although the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has issued waivers to 36
states, those waivers come with new requirements from DOE. The longer thereauthorization is delayed, the more those conditions will be locally phased-in,meaning that a delayed change of policy direction or priorities in the reauthorizationwill increasingly create unnecessary costs and confusion at the local level.
In the event the reauthorization will not be completed before the 112th Congressadjourns then the Board urges Congress, as an alternative, to enact legislation that
would provide temporary relief from the costly and burdensome sanctions againstschools and school districts. With the continued delays in reauthorizing ESEA, the
performance bar continues to riseresulting in more schools being subject to therestructuring sanctions that impose costly implementation problems. Not only arethe requirements unsound educationally, but also nanciallyat a time when school
districts are severely cutting their budgets.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Providing full funding, along with other federal assistance.
Programs critical to successfully achieving the goals of the law. State and local efforts to provide students with an education that is
appropriately focused on the skills and uses of knowledge needed for successin the global and technological world of the 21st century by funding multiple
education entities, including regional education entities, to develop modelstandards for voluntary adoption for those purposes.
The Congressional leadership
in both the U.S. House
of Representatives and the
U.S. Senate are beginning
the legislative process to
reauthorize the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA).
ESEA began in 1965 as
part of the War on Poverty,
providing additional funding to
states and districts to enhance
educational opportunities fordisadvantaged students. With
the Improving Americas
Schools Act of 1994, ESEA
transitioned toward promoting
standards-based reforms.
In 2002, the passage of
the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act accelerated that
effort, establishing detailed
requirements for standards,
assessments, accountabilitydeterminations, school
improvement, data reporting,
and other areas, which apply
similarly across all states
and (in general) to all public
schools within the states.
Today, a new ESEA is
needed to encourage local
innovations in developing
effective policies that can
dramatically improve student
achievement and close
achievement gapsso that all
children graduate from high
school ready for college and
career.
Federal Reauthorization of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act (ESEA)
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
11/25
4
Increased investments in supports for disadvantaged students, as well as core foundations of standards-basedreform such as improved data systems and assessments, access to highly effective teachers and leaders, andsupports for underperforming districts and schools.
Investing heavily in improving teachers and leaders and evaluating the profession by funding ongoing qualityimprovement across the continuum of educator policiesfrom recruitment to preparation to induction toprofessional development to career pathways, etc.
Create a new literacy initiative formula program that spans birth through graduation and supports stateand school-based literacy efforts. Federal law should further fund corresponding high-quality professionaldevelopment of teachers aligned to this new initiative.
Enhance other core investments, including increased support for extended learning time and response tointervention, integration of community and student support services, increased use of technology to driveinnovative practices in teaching and learning, and increased access to effective curriculum and instruction,
including the expansion of broadband access. Facilitating strategic interventions that are designed at the local level and are targeted to students and schools
most in need, rather than impose ineffective and costly sanctions.
Investing in new models that keep students safe, supported, and healthy both in and out of school.
Providing assistance to states for the purpose of supporting local school districts in implementing commonstandards, such as support for professional development, curriculum alignment and course materials.
Focusing on teacher and leader effectiveness in improving student outcomes.
Strengthening pathways into teaching and school leadership positions in high-needs schools.
Requiring NCLB testing and reporting for non-public schools for students receiving Title I services.
Expanding access to and funding for high-quality, voluntary pre-kindergarten programs for all three andfour year olds by creating a new federal grant program, such as the Early Learning Challenge Fund, that willdevelop, expand, and enhance the quality of voluntary preschool programs.
ESEA continued...
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
12/25
5
Education programs face an
estimated cut of 7.8 percent
or more on January 1, 2013,
unless Congress takes action tocancel the budget cuts. These cuts
are scheduled to occur through
a process called sequestration.
Sequestration is dened as the
automatic, across-the-board
cancellation of budgetary
resources. It was put into place
as a government wide effort to cut
overall federal spending without
concern for priority investments
like education that are crucialto the long term success of the
nation, but are inconsequential in
relation to the federal budget.
SEQUESTRATION
Sequestration is a product of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that was enactedin August of 2011 as the result of negotiations between Congress and the
Administration to raise the national debt limit. In exchange for raising the nationaldebt limit, the law created a Joint Select Committee on Decit Reduction (called
the Supercommittee) that was tasked with developing a plan to produce a savings in
expenditures of $1.2 trillion by November 23, 2011. However, the Supercommitteewas unable to reach an agreement on how to enact the $1.2 trillion in cuts.Therefore, the Budget Control Act includes a provision stating that in lieu of anagreement or congressional passage of legislation by the Supercommittee, a series of
across-the-board budget cuts (also called sequestration) to both defense programs
and domestic programs, including education, will occur instead.
The Harford County Board of Education urges Congress to rescind sequestrationas these cuts would affect every school district and the millions of students they
educate. Many school systems have already implemented cuts commensurate tostate and local budget conditions. Any further cuts would result in larger class sizes,narrowing of the curriculum, and staff lay-offs. Ultimately, Congress can intervene
now and rescind the sequestration provision of the Budget Control Act before it isscheduled to become effective on January 2, 2013.
Apart from sequestration, Congress is considering the regular appropriations billwhich would determine the amount from which sequestration would be applied ifleft to stand.
HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION BELIEVES:
Congress should develop a balanced budget that protects education investmentsin lieu of the across-the-board cuts, also called sequestration, that are scheduledto occur in January because of the Budget Control Act. These cuts wouldaffect almost every school district and the millions of students they educate.Specically, the resulting $1.2 billion cut to Title I could mean denying funding
to nearly 4,000 schools serving more than 1.6 million disadvantaged students,based on estimates by the U.S. Department of Education.
Congress should not mandate school districts to implement specic
assessments, instruction, personnel policies or other requirements usingor asa condition of receivingfederal funds.
Federal Support of Public Education
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
13/25
6
Congress should increase and certainly preserve funding levels for special education (IDEA) and Title I grantsfor disadvantaged students. Reductions in these programs would be detrimental to our school districts andcommunities that are already experiencing severe budgetary challenges because of local and state economies.Further cuts to our public schools will further erode our efforts to close achievement gaps.
Any new responsibilities that result in unfunded or underfunded mandates will inevitably result in the loss ofprograms, jobs, or both at the local level. Every dollar in unfunded mandates must come from somewhere
else in the educational system, and could result in layoffs, larger class sizes, narrowing of the curriculum,elimination of after-school programs, and cuts to other program areas including areas of school food serviceitself.
Federal Support of Public Education continued...
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
14/25
7
Marylands Public Schools
are ranked Number One in
the nation. The Bridge to
Excellence in Public SchoolsAct of 2002 (BTE) represents
the resources invested to support
this achievement. Full funding
and reinstatement of the annual
ination factor is needed to
sustain successful programs and
services for our students.
The Harford County Board of Education is committed to improving student perfor-mance and closing the achievement gap. The 2013 session of the General Assemblywill consider numerous issues of profound importance to Marylands public schoolstudents and to the school employees who deliver the promise of a high quality pub-
lic education.
As required in the Bridge to Excellence Act, the target per pupil allocation was to
have been adjusted annually to reect changes in the Implicit Price Deator (IPD).
However, during the 2007 special session of the General Assembly the Governor
elected to remove the IPD in favor of at funding for school systems. This at
funding will continue as State budget language allows for no more than a 1% in-crease in the foundation formula.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Full commitment to the funding incorporated in the Bridge to Excellence Act
for Fiscal Year 2013 (Thornton Funding) including resumption of the annual
ination adjustment.
Additional funding to support efforts in special education, multi-cultural, giftedand talented and the arts.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Additional state mandates, unless accompanied by sufcient and ongoingstate
funding.
Unfunded mandates which diminish the ability of local school systems torespond to the unique needs and circumstances.
Reduction to the maintenance of effort provision.
Any further attempts to increase the local share of tuition for special educationstudents served in nonpublic schools.
Average Daily Attendance for calculation of education funding.
Funding of Excellence in Public Education
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
15/25
8
A basic premise of our nations
system of public education is that
public schools should be governed
locally. Nearly a century ago,the General Assembly through
statute, created 24 local boards
of education (one for each county
and the City of Baltimore),
the State Board of Education,
and the ofce of the State
Superintendent of Schools.
Maryland statute provides that
educational matters that affect
the counties shall be under the
control of a county board ofeducation and that local boards
determine, with the advice of
the county superintendent, the
educational policies of the county
school system. (4-101 and
4-108, Education Article).
While the General Assembly
has from time to time enacted
signicant education-related
legislation and funding initiatives,it has consistently delegated
the regular oversight of public
education to the State Board
and local boards of education
established specically to make
educational policy decisions.
The Harford County Board of Education believes effective reform takes place best
through cooperative planning within the local community rather than through top-down decisions. As decisions are made on the local level, local boards of educationreceive and rely on public input. The connection between neighborhoods and localpublic schools encourages participation by parents and other community membersin the education process so that everyone feels a responsibility for an ownershipof public education. By retaining decision-making authority at the local level, localboards of education can best balance educational practices, available resources toimplement those practices, public input, and accountability.
The Harford County Board of Education honors its legal duties and maintains anindependent and highly effective working relationship with the Superintendent, whoby law and operationally, must be appropriately enabled to manage the operationsof our school system. Our Board members are committed to continuing the effec-tive public dialog regarding all educational matters with all stakeholder groups andto ensure that the decision-making process considers all stakeholders input. Boardmembers communicate on a daily basis with citizens and other stakeholders by tele-phone, e-mails, and letters. Board members regularly attend numerous school and
community events that provide opportunities for regular dialogue with the public.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Local control of educational policy, curriculum, and administration.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Any legislative initiatives that have the effect of reducing or circumscribing localboard authority or which create unfunded mandates.
Any effort to change the appointment authority for local superintendents ofschools.
Local School Board Authority/Governance
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
16/25
9
Currently, more than 50%
of the funding for Marylands
public schools is provided by
local governments, requiring
school boards to rely heavily on
local governments to fund the
increasing costs of education.
State law requires that local
governments maintain their
education funding effort
from year to year on a per
pupil basis. This minimum
maintenance of effort
provision helps to ensure the
provision of a minimum localgovernment investment in
public schools.
The Harford County Board of Education believes that maintenance of effort is thecommitment that the local government makes to education.
The General Assembly provided for maintenance of effort (MOE) funding ofedu-
cation by local governments so as to ensure that all students receive the base fundingneeded for their education, irrespective of the economic situation, consistent withthe obligation to provide free and adequate public education under the Constitutionof Maryland.
Additionally, as stated in a 2009 Opinion of the Attorney General, by requiring aminimum level of local funding, the MOE requirement ensures that State policy
decisions to improve public education through enhanced nancial support are not
defeated by local funding decisions.
In 1996, the General Assembly amended the law to allow the State Board of Educa-tion to grant waivers of the maintenance of effort requirement to local governmentsThe new law also permitted local governments to exclude non-recurring costs fromthe maintenance of effort calculation or a one-time expenditure such as technologyequipment or textbooks.
In 2002, the General Assembly enacted the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools
Act, which requires a signicant increase in state funding without modifying the
minimum maintenance of effort requirement for county governments. The Com-mission on Education, Finance, Equity and Excellence, which had proposed theBridge to Excellence Act, concluded in its report that meeting adequacy goalswillrequire that counties continue to exceed maintenance of effort. The Commission
report further stated that if counties provide increases in education funding compa-rable to the increases [in state funding], most school systems would meet or exceedadequacy goals
In 2005, a Maintenance of Effort Commission (the Commission) was established to
review the efforts of local governments in meeting and exceeding maintenance ofeffort requirements. The Commission reviewed the maintenance of effort formulato determine whether any modications should be made. In the nal report issued
in March 2007, the commission did not recommend any major changes to the cur-rent formula, although there was debate over what should be considered as a non-recurring cost.
With the economic climate in FY2009 and FY2010, local governments lost large
revenue. This caused the counties of Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Wicomico
to seek a waiver of maintenance of effort. The Maryland State Board of Educationdenied all of the waiver requests in 2009.
In 2010, Montgomery County and Wicomico County again sought maintenance of
effort waivers. This year, the State Board granted their waiver requests. However, theState Board ruling called for changes in the law and local boards of educations agree.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
17/25
10
In 2011, the BRFA limited the amount of any maintenance of effort penalty by providing that the penalty may not
be more than the net increase in State aid over scal year 2011, regardless of the fund source.
The BRFA also amended the Education Article to clarify that the minimum amount of education funding that may
be provided by a county is the local share of the foundation program, and that this amount is not subject to waiver.The BRFA also claried that maintenance of effort is not the minimum funding amount, but is the amount required
for a county to receive the annual increase in state education aid.
During the 2012 Legislative Session, the General Assembly enacted legislation to strengthen and enhance therequired local government funding level. This legislation eliminated the penalty that would have been imposedin FY2013 for failure to meet MOE funding for three counties, excludes debt service from the MOE calculation,
modied the waiver process and authorizes the State to withhold any MOE deciency amount from a Countys lo-cal income tax revenues, thereby ensuring the annual MOE funding level as a oor for the Countys appropriation to
the local Board.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Continuation of the current MOE processes and required local funding level, retaining the MOE level as the
local funding oor.
The Boards continued cooperative work with County Government to enhance local k-12 public educationfunding that is consistent with the adequacy goals involving a thorough and efcient education as incorporated
into the Thornton Commission Report.
A request for a waiver from MOE funding level should be the last resort for a local government to considerbecause of the potential for damaging the outstanding progress that has been made in K-12 education inHarford County.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Any legislation that would allow local governments to fund school systems in any manner that would beinconsistent with MOE requirements.
Any effort to diminish the enhancements made to the MOE process during the 2012 General AssemblySession.
MOE continued...
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
18/25
11
Te No Child Let BehindAct o 2001 requires thatparents are to be aordedsubstantial and meaningulopportunities to participatein the education o theirchildren.
While the Maryland StateBoard o Education setsbroad statewide policiesand mandates throughits regulations, it is theresponsibility o the localboard o education toestablish specic policies
and procedures or thepublic schools within itsjurisdiction. As decisionsare made at the locallevel, local school boardsreceive and rely on publicinput, on the premise thateective reorm takes placein a spirit o cooperativeplanning throughout thelocal community, ratherthan through top-downdecision making processes.
The Harford County Board of Education believes that meaningful parentinvolvement and the development of collaborative relationships between home
and school are critical to success for all students. When teachers and parents
communicate and share similar high and realistic expectations for student
achievement and behavior, students can be expected to learn more and performbetter in school.
The Harford County Board of Education recognizes that parent involvementsignicantly contributes to the achievement of academic standards by students
participating in district programs. The Board views the education of students asa cooperative effort among school, parents, and community. The Board furtherrecognizes that parents play an important role in a childs education. In recognizingthat role, the Board respects parents as partners in the decision-making process for
their childrens education.
Therefore, the Harford County Board of Education views the education ofstudents as a cooperative effort among school, parents, and community.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
A comprehensive and effective system of parent and community involvementin its schools, the educational environment and education, generally.
Working with parents to become informed decision makers and effective
advocates for children.
The promotion and encouragement of meaningful partnerships among
schools, parents, families and communities so as to increase involvement andparticipation by all in promoting social, emotional and educational growth ofHCPS students.
Seeking and utilizing community resources so as to strengthen schools,families and student learning.
Parent and Community Involvement
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
19/25
12
Each year, the Harford County Board of Education, school staff, and community,review and analyze the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the Board to
establish priorities as it secures future funding. This review includes the status of
County and State funding levels from the previous scal year, the volume and status
of current approved capital projects, an analysis of enrollments and capacities, anda study of population growth within Harford County. In addition, informationobtained from system-wide building evaluations, a review of project categories, andthe infusion of technology into our facilities are considered.
The Harford County Board of Education Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Budget request of$62,169,168 provides funding for 44 projects.
The Fiscal Year 2014 Capital Budget requests $25,563,056 from the State, and
$36,606,112 from Harford County Government.
The State request for Fiscal Year 2014 includes $6,594,048 for the Youths Benet
Elementary School replacement. Local Planning is requested for Havre de GraceHigh School replacement.
In addition, the State request for Fiscal Year 2014 includes the following systemicprojects:
Magnolia Middle School HVAC, $2,649,000; North Harford Elementary SchoolHVAC, $1,098,390; Norrisville Elementary School HVAC, $1,736,000; George D.
Lisby Elementary School Roof Replacement, $434,000; Fallston High School HVAC$5,056,000; Joppatowne High School HVAC and other projects, $6,273,000; and the
Energy Efciency Initiative, $3,389,000.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Construction funding be increased, including special funding for aging schools,until the infrastructure needs of school systems are met.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Any further reduction to the State and local cost share formula.
The Public School
Construction Program was
created by the General
Assembly in 1971 to increase
the State participation in
school construction costs and
to equalize public school
facilities throughout the
State. The program of public
school construction has been
very successful, helping school
systems renovate and/or
replace older school buildings
and to build new schools to
address increases in studentenrollment.
The Harford County Public
Schools Department of
Planning and Construction
develops school facilities that
meet student population
and educational program
requirements.
Public School Construction
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
20/25
13
During the regular 2012
session, which ended on April
9, the General Assembly
passed the operating Budget
Bill (SB 150) but did not
pass the two remaining revenue
and budget reconciliation bills
that constituted the 2012
scal package even though
consensus had been reached by
Senate and House conference
committees on both bills.
The failure of SB 152
(Budget Reconciliation and
Financing Act of 2012) andSB 523(State and Local
Revenue Financing Act of
2012) triggered more than
$436.3 million in reductions
specied in the Budget Bill for
scal 2013, which had been
characterized earlier as the
doomsday budget without the
passage of the two remaining
scal bills.
Therefore, on Wednesday,
May 9, 2012, under
Article II, Section 16 of
the Maryland Constitution,
Governor Martin OMalley
issued Executive Order
01.01.2012.10. The
executive order called for a
special session of the General
Assembly to begin on Monday,
May 14, 2012 for the purposeof passing legislation to
address Marylands scal year
2013 budget.
In 2006, Maryland improved its teacher pension benets in order to be more
competitive nationally. Pension benets were improved retroactively on an
assumption of available funding. Subsequent decisions to fund this increase usingthe corridor method, coupled with the current economic downturn, have resulted in
pension system liabilities signicantly outpacing assets.
In 2011, the Governor and General Assembly made sweeping changes to the Stateteacher retirement system for all current and future employees, from increasingpension contributions by an additional 2%, effective July 1, 2011; to revising onesaverage nal retirement computation; to changing the time period to vest for
retirement; to revising cost-of-living adjustments, among other signicant changes.
However, the 2012 rst special session of the Maryland General Assembly saw
the passage of SB 1301 (Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act-BRFA) which
changed mandated spending formulas, increased revenues and the transfer of
employer costs for school employee pensions to the boards of education. TheBRFA transfers the employers normal share of the pension costs for public schoolemployees from the State to the school boards over four years, with the countiesrequired maintenance of effort (MOE) amount increasing each year by the additiona
pension costs during the phase-in period. The State will continue to maintainresponsibility for unfunded liabilities.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Any further change in funding responsibility for teacher retirement costs
that reduces teacher retirement payouts and increasing individual teacherresponsibility for retirement costs.
Any legislation that reduces funds available for pension funding.
Retirement and Pension
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
21/25
14
School Nutrition and Health
School nutrition is vitally
important in fostering a
healthy and positive learning
environment for children to
achieve their full potential.
The issue of nutritional health
and wellness has attracted
considerable attention in
the General Assembly as
well as Congress in recent
years, particularly as the
rate of childhood obesity has
increased. As a result, there
have been numerous attempts
at the state as well as thefederal level regulating the
types of foods sold in schools
to increase physical education
requirements.
The Harford County Board of Education believes in the importance of developinghealthy school environments, which includes meeting the nutritional needs ofstudents. Current federal laws already prohibit the sale of foods of minimalnutritional value during lunch periods. The Maryland State Department of
Education policies further enforce the federal requirements and, in addition,prohibit access to all vending machines until after the last lunch period. These stateand federal requirements, in conjunction with locally developed and implementedpolicies, appropriately ensure that public schools meet the nutritional needs ofstudents. The Maryland Meals for Achievement in-classroom breakfast program hasbeen credited with improving academics, behavior, and the well-being of students.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
The state and federal requirements, in conjunction with locally developed and
implemented policies, in ensuring that public schools meet the nutritional needsof the students.
The continued funding of the Maryland Meals for Achievement Program.
The responsibility of implementing a physical education and wellness policy atthe local level so that the individual needs of each district can be addressed.
A physical education program aligned with the National Association for Sportand Physical Education (NASPE) standards.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Limiting the number of eligible schools from participation in Maryland Mealsfor Achievement.
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
22/25
15
School and Student Safety
Safety in public schools has
become increasingly important
to local boards of education
as threats to national and
community security have
taken on new meaning in
recent years. Educational
leaders must be included in
the continuing development
of a homeland security
plan. The pursuit of a safe
environment must be tempered
by a balanced emphasis on
the protection of individual
student rights.
Schools are among the most
important vehicles, together
with families, for providing
all children with an effective
educational opportunity and
supporting the growth and
development of every child.
Schools must seek to enhance
student learning by addressing
the intellectual, emotional
and physical safety needs
of students and staff. All
students deserve a quality
education that incorporates the
teaching of respect for others
and self, integrity, citizenship
and sense of commitment
and obligation to the school
and community. These
responsibilities are critical
components for developing
a safe and productive
environment in which all
students can learn and for
contributing to the vitality of
modern society.
The Harford County Board of Education believes all school personnel, boardmembers, parents, students and community agencies share a role in creating a safeand nurturing learning environment for all students and helping to raise a generationof youth who are respectful and responsible not only to themselves, but to others
within their school and community. Local boards of education must be vigilant indeveloping policies and procedures that assist teachers and administrators in creatinga safe learning environment that addresses every childs needs, and that embody thebelief that schools are designed to educate all young people.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Innovative initiatives and funding that speak to strategies that ensure a safeand secure learning and working environment for students and staff, includingthose that address gang prevention and involvement and promote targeted
interventions to reduce gang activity. State and local sharing or state assumption of costs associated with school
building alarms, cameras, and security technology in order to free school systemresources to address their core missionstudent achievement.
Incentive funding for local school systems to ensure safe and orderly school
environments through effective programs such as peer mediation, conict
resolution, character education, positive behavior intervention supports (PBIS),
and other proactive initiatives appropriate at the local school level.
A safe learning environment as the goal, but also recognizing that local boardsof education must identify and address the unique safety issues in their
jurisdictions.
Local exibility in creating and enforcing consistent and fair disciplinary
standards in handling infractions of the rules committed by individual students.
Continued cooperation among levels of government and across jurisdictionsaddressing the problems related to gang activity in Maryland.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OPPOSES:
Legislation which attempts to address student safety concerns and creates
unfunded mandates on local boards of education. Any legislation that would prohibit certain disciplinary actions, such as student
suspensions, thereby limiting the local boards authority to ensure the safety ofall students and staff.
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
23/25
16
The Harford County Board of Education believes that the quality of education isdirectly dependent on the quality of the teaching force. It is the goal of the elemen-tary and secondary public school system in Maryland to provide a high-quality educa-tion to every student. To do so requires an adequate supply of competent individuals
who are willing and able to serve as teachers. Districts and schools are constantly en-gaged in activities related to the recruitment and retention of their instructional staff.In the face of a growing school aged population, schools and districts must struggleto maintain standards for teaching quality while continuously recruiting bright newteachers and seeking to retain their most effective existing teachers.
THE HARFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION SUPPORTS:
Programs emphasizing competitive salaries and professional work environments
to attract and retain highly qualied teachers.
The goal of a highly qualied teacher in every classroom and exibility toestablish alternative entry routes into teaching to provide localities exibility in
hiring qualied persons, including career-changers, not formally prepared for
teaching careers.
Te dual goals o recruiting
and retaining eective
teachers are oten difcult
to realize because oinsufcient and sometimes
dwindling resources.
Current U.S. economic
conditions are causing
many states to roll back
their expenditures on public
education. Te people who
dispense ederal, state, and
local unds to education
will be hard-pressed to
determine which programsraise the quality o teaching
in the most cost-eective
manner.
Teachers and Instructional Personnel
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
24/25
17
Local boards of education
are responsible for funding
transportation provided to
students within the school
systems. Local school
systems responsibilities for
transporting students have
signicantly expanded due
to additional costs associated
with the transporting of
special education students.
Operational expenses
associated with fuel costs and
labor shortages have also
contributed to this increasedcost.
Harford County Public Schools provides both County owned and contracted busservice of nearly 40,000 miles per day. Additional mandates and specialized program
responsibilities for transporting students have signicantly expanded and as a result,
there are additional costs associated with the transporting of both special education
and other special program students.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY SUPPORTS:
Full funding for the student transportation provisions of the Bridge toExcellence Act so that increases in public school transportation costs do notprevent local boards from meeting other funding responsibilities.
State and local funding for student transportation sufcient to support any
expanded student transportation responsibilities and costs arising from thefederal No Child Left Behind Acts various student transfer options.
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY OPPOSES:
Legislation proposing new unfunded safety mandates, focusing instead onsecuring adequate funding to enable local school systems to ensure maximumstudent safety according to industry standards.
Transportation
7/29/2019 2013LegislativePlatform Final 010313.pdf
25/25