I'll use this thread to keep a "tally" of the required county contribution under the Kirwan Formula Workgroup Plan today. It stands at $1.35B under the draft thus far. We all expect the details to change today, but unclear on ripple effects. DLS doc: dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPb…
On page 5 of that document, see the $8,051m column for current law mandated spending, and then the $8,995m column. That's NOW versus (draft) FULL KIRWAN in FY2030. However, it's understated significantly...
The $8,995m column includes the effect of counties *reducing* their contribution below current MOE requirements - they can't do that. So, a clearer look would be to compare the *greater* of the two numbers versus the current law.... #Kirwan #Blueprint4MD
If you do that, then the total of the new FULL KIRWAN required county funding is really $9,400m -- which amounts to a $1.35B funding increase upon full phase-in ... that number doesn't appear on any of the presentation docs thus far, but it is the correct FY 2030 starting point
To use an easy example, look at Calvert County. They already project to get to $167.8m in FY30 if they just go on autopilot until then. The draft #Kirwan plan would require them to fund $112.8. MOE doesn't let them cut back like that, under current law, and that's not going away.
So, right now - the draft #Kirwan plan doesn't require Calvert to backtrack, as that second column sorta implies. But since they are already above their target, no new funding obliged. Whether that is where we end the day, nobody knows yet. Thus this thread. 5/
Understand also that there's already a mandated spending increase *under current law* in that FY30 base number - as half of the counties are already required to not just maintain, but "escalate" their local spending... so autopilot isn't the perfect word. There's still growth. 6/
The Workgroup foreshadowed some look at the proposed "Concentration of Poverty" program (same doc, pg 3, 4th column, totals $235.1m - expect discussion today whether the local share should be reduced or waived for all or some (poorest?) counties... would reduce the local mandate
Okay, today’s docs are out. If you’re still looking at FY30 numbers (like I had been) the best source looks like this document, page 3:
dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPb… ... but I’d expect most of today’s discussion to focus on FY21-23 and “current” dollars
dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPb… ... but I’d expect most of today’s discussion to focus on FY21-23 and “current” dollars
It’s hard to come up with the bottom line effects as I had hoped, even with (effectively) only one policy option being presented today. The new mandate on large jurisdictions (BCity, PGCo) is less, but bottom line is only about $117 less. Details coming, we hope. #Blueprint4MD
Incidentally, the state costs at FY30 full implementation are now up to $2.77B...that’s around $400 more than the comparable figure last week. Concentration of Poverty becoming nearly all state funds is part, but not all of that.
On Concentration of Poverty, proposal is State pays full cost for most counties, except those who benefit from the 40% funding floor for Comp Ed program...so somewhere in between “all” and “poorest,” instead it’s more like “all but the wealthiest.” 18/24 now have zero local cost.
...which could set up a tricky “cliff effect” someday, as that 40% number is a pure on/off toggle switch. One weird year on the stock market could move a county on/off that list, with meaningful effect. Look for a band-aid someday on this, in traditional Annapolis fashion.
Watching the two biggest numbers in the county columns... the new mandated annual funding by FY30 looks like $330m for BCity and $360m for PGCo... those are still pretty imposing numbers. Some signaling had us expecting something lower.
I’m thinking that today’s draft plan as distributed, clocks in at about $1.2B new funding mandated in FY30, the full phase in year. Down a click from last week, but still a seemingly very big lift for several jurisdictions.
While focusing on the biggest counties, don’t forget someplace like Kent. Already among the highest spending per student statewde, despite a fairly low cost of living, they’d be told: jump from 21 to 29m in local funds... a really hefty requirement for a very small county.
By the way, this thread isn’t trying to cover everything being discussed today- just listening, writing from a county point of view. There are important discussions about phase-ins, priorities, and so forth that I’m not even getting into here, just by necessity. #sorrynotsorry
Progressivity of overall system “significantly improved” overall, per staff. Follow up to question from last week.
County Exec @HarfordExec asks if the county by county funding requirement and % increases can be run and provided before decision time...staff agrees. Should help focus the discussion. #Kirwan #Blueprint4MD
Questions about the county projections: staff says county numbers based off local spending “trends” - I *think* that means just some fund higher, some lower, you start from there and grow that. Not clear, to me, whether that means there’s growth above MOE assumed in the baseline.
Now @DelMaggie43 raises “in kind services” that we know counties pay on schools’ behalf but not direct to the schools...perhaps they should be included as counting toward the local share required here. *Big Idea* No clue who has real numbers on that, though...
Discussion about lingering inequity here...central to policy thinking behind this whole endeavor. “Have to work with our local government to come up with this.” -MMc Mentions of City in particular.
So... tenor now sounds like *maybe* they’ll leave numbers where they are, but agree to some tough-to-quantify change in “what funding counts” toward the mandate. It’s possible that ends up meaning a *lot* more to Balt City than any other jurisdiction, even Prince George’s County.
Okay, now there’s talk about a softer launch “phase in” of local requirements. So, that addresses the FY2022 sticker shock...but (I think) doesn’t alter the endgame - roughly $1.2B required local spending increase. Short term v. Long term may be at odds here, as they frame this.
Wow, quite a complicated issue to raise on #thelastday ... laundry list of items counties pay for on schools behalf in ways that vary across the state...and they’ll just put a pin in that, figure that solves the problem enough? We might not leave today with an actual “number.”
Focus on City effect...if phase-in requires $30m more per year...can they do it? “We’d need the Mayor to weigh in...” But the Work Group is voting today. Where does this go, then?
...oh, latest idea is to “phase in” the local requirements, but without specifying the duration of the phase-in. Defer details (duration) to... the full #Kirwan Commission, or maybe to the gap between them and a bill being introduced... sounds like this is happening.
Motion in progress... but they handed out the FY30 numbers as requested by @HarfordExec ... $1.2B and change #hearditherefirst
Here’s the new handout, shoddily captured via photo... 
Motion is: WG agrees to phase in local funding req, but without specifying the duration or specifics, and to broaden what new funds count toward satisfying the goal. Ultimately that is left to the legislation. Approved... Sec Brinkley abstains.
Now discussing FY30 cost effects...tick lower than last week, due to change w Concentration of Poverty program, and adjusting enrollment figure being used.
FWIW, new price tag in FY2030 is right about $4B, combining State and local share.
One important detail here...that $8.05B column, used as the base, *assumes* that counties would have continued to exceed MOE in a manner similar to recent years...so if you bumped up taxes for schools recently... this means you’d do that again, *plus* make up the difference shown
So...the State price tag of $2.77B is compared to current law mandating a certain funding level (clear) but the local price tag of $1.23B is compared to counties continuing to voluntarily fund above and beyond their funding requirements.
It will take some time for us to come up with an estimate of the newly mandated costs to counties... it we’ll get there. Won’t be today. But that would arguably be the more apples-to-apples comparison. #Kirwan #Blueprint4MD
Dr Kirwan calls for a motion...will ask for modifications, etc, and then to a final vote. Dr Thornton moves the question, amidst grins and chuckles.
Group doesn’t offer any requests to divide or alter the main motion...so Dr. Kirwan asks for discussion. Group seems ready to go. Dr. Kirwan launches into “wrap up” type comments, as we’re apparently prepping for a final vote. Thanking staff, members.
As vote approaches, @HarfordExec Glassman, talks on affordability for counties. Left w/o a clear response from counties, given short time and uncertainties. He plans to abstain from final vote here, but pledges counties will remain involved ahead, in Commission and legislature.
Then Sec Brinkley says he plans to abstain. He’s on #KirwanCommission, so he’s got a seat on the next leg of this journey, already. Concerned that the WG didn’t look at other issues- prioritizing, accountability.
Vote seemingly shapes up as 2 abstentions, and the rest as “yes.” Not really surprising. A few pre-vote comments about policy goals and affordability. Yet to hear from anyone suggesting opposition.
2 abstentions, all the rest yes, Work Group completed.
