hcpss equity report 2000

7/31/2019 HCPSS Equity Report 2000

1/47

H OWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND, MARCH 13, 2000

1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Qua lity edu cation is the num ber one reason families choose Howard County as a p lace to live. The continued

success of the coun tys school system is also a key to continued economic growth an d developm ent.

Desp ite the overall excellence of edu cation in How ard County, it is clear that significant inequities exist.

Schools with d isproportionate num bers of children w ith mu ltiple needs h ave lower p erformance scores, higher

rates of staff turnover, higher p ercentages of teachers that are new a nd non-tenured , and higher rates of student

mobility th an other schools.

The Committee defines equity as fairness to all children. Equity requires that w e provide each stud ent w ith

the resources, sup port, and instruction n ecessary to achieve academ ic success. Schools w ith disprop ortionate

nu mbers of children with m ultiple needs require more sup port th an schools that are less challenged.

Based u pon the w ork of the County Cou ncils Combined Com mittee on Education, other pub lic comm ent, and

the p erspectives of individual m embers of the Leadership Com mittee, we identified forty-seven p riority issues

that p otentially affected equ ity. In order to tackle these issues in the most efficient man ner, we group ed these

issues into four clusters:

Fact ors Affect ing Equity including such issues as redistricting, open en rollment, fund raising, and the

financing of the edu cation system,

Resources and Programs including equity in the allocation of resources for communications systems,

playgroun d equ ipment, technology, and the edu cational options,

Staffing including th e extent that problems associated w ith the recruiting an d retention of quality

teachers, skilled ad ministrators, and competent sup port staff affect ed ucational equity, and

Accountabil it y including a comp arison of the ways d ata are collected an d u sed by th e school system

compared to best practices from aroun d th e nation.

Our extensive review and analysis of data, consultation with staff at all levels of the school system, and two-way commu nication w ith the general pu blic has led the Leadership Com mittee to make seventy specific

recomm endations. If implemented , these recommend ations will dram atically increase the equity in How ard

Coun tys school system. Amon g the m ost significant of our recomm endations are the following:

FACTORS AFFECTING EQUITY

The school system shou ld replace the annu al, ad h oc, and contentious exercise of redistricting with a

comprehensive districting plan that creates a stable path for children from kind ergarten through high

school.

In conjunction w ith the countyw ide districting plan, all schools should be protected from open

enrollment for three years to allow new school comm un ities the opp ortun ity to come together an d

function cohesively.

The school system, in a collaborative und ertaking with the PTA Council of How ard Coun ty, shou ld

identify strategies to prom ote more equ itable fund raising.

The $2.1 million in equity fund ing proposed in the Superintendents Proposed Operating Budget for

Fiscal 2001 should be more clearly linked to plausible, demonstrable improvem ents in equity.

The school system shou ld includ e in its bud get for fiscal 2002 a breakout of how overall fun ding w ill be

allocated to each school in th e county and provid e a credible rationale for that allocation method ology.

The school system should aggressively seek additional federal fund ing and reinvest the proceeds of

such an effort (approximately $2.8 million annually) in improving equity.


2/47

REPORTOFTHE LEADERSHIP COMMITTEEON SCHOOL EQUITY

2

RESOURCESAN D PROGRAMS

The school systems fiscal 2002 capital budget shou ld reflect systematic planning for capital

improvemen ts, showing w hen renovation is scheduled for each school in the county.

The school system should d ramatically up grade telephone systems to improve commu nicationsbetween parents and school system staff responsible for their childrens ed ucation.

The replacement of playground equipment and unsafe stadium facilities should be includ ed as a line

item in th e fiscal 2002 capital bud get.

The school system should explore contracting out compu ter services, compu ter maintenance, netw ork

management, and technical support.

The school system should subm it a technology plan as a part of the fiscal 2002 operating bud get.

Each school that consistently un derp erforms should be required to prepare, with the assistance from

the school system, an improvement p lan.

The term focus school should be eliminated an d replaced by a formu la for allocating resources to

schools based u pon a continuu m of needs.

The school system and How ard Commu nity College should jointly develop a n ew mod el for assuring

that children wh o do not go on to college graduate h igh school with skills that are marketable and

needed by the coun tys business commu nity.

STAFFING

The salary levels for teachers, particularly starting teachers, should be increased.

The school system should develop improved p rocedures for evaluating the p erformance of schooladministrators.

The school system should develop strategies to reduce teacher and staff turn over at high-need schools.

ACCOUNTABILITY

The principles of continuous improvement should be incorporated in an integrated management

app roach across the school system.

Centralized, compu terized, and detailed p ortfolios should be d eveloped to follow students from year

to year and from school to school.

The school system and county government should jointly fund an independent p erformance review of

the school system in the fiscal 2001 operating budget.

The Comm ittee recognizes that, w hile some of these recomm end ations will require add itional resources, other

recomm endations shou ld save m oney. Most of the Committees recomm end ations are either cost-neutral or call

on the school system to revisit how existing resources are allocated to promote school equity.

Finally, the Committee recommend s that a plan for implementing the recommend ations we have m ade be

subm itted by the Superintend ent to the school board as a p art of the fiscal 2002 bud gets. We recomm end , too,

that a report on school equity be subm itted as a p art of the Sup erintendents prop osed bud get beginning in

fiscal 2003.


3/47


3

2.INTRODUCTION

How ard Cou nty is prou d of its schools. The performance of the coun tys school system is consistently at or near

the top of ratings comparing Marylands school d istricts.

The Leadership Comm ittee is proud , too, of the quality and comm itment of the teachers, adm inistrators, and

staff of the school system w ho serve the children of How ard County.

Quality education is the num ber one reason m ost families select How ard Coun ty as a p lace to live.

The ability of How ard Coun ty to provide a topnotch edu cation for its children has been a key factor in

the countys growth an d economic development.

The continued success of the coun tys education system is essential to sustaining, and im proving up on,

the qu ality of life that residents, p arents, businesses, and children themselves have come to value in the

county.

It is part of the culture of How ard Cou nty to seek continuous imp rovement in the p erformance of its public

services, to solve problem s before they become intractable, and to help people reach their fullest potential.

Howard Coun tians tend to reject the axiom, if it aint broke, don t fix it. We have reached a place in the

countys matu ration w hen a critical examination of pu blic edu cation is ap prop riate.

For more than a d ecade the countys school system h as had to devote m ost of its efforts and resources to just

keeping up with grow th: building n ew schools and m aking the investments necessary to meet the needs of an

increasing num ber of stud ents. This growth h as taken place through periods of relative prosperity and years

wh en resources were severely limited. The Leadership Comm ittee find s it remarkable that, emerging from this

period of sustained grow th, the coun ty schools are in as good a shape as they are.

Although How ard Cou ntys schools are the envy of man y commu nities, the Leadership Comm ittee believes that

there are many significant opp ortun ities for further impr ovement. One of the clearest ways to improve the

performance of the countys schools is to reduce the inequities that exist in the current system.

The Leadership Com mittee began its work by focusing on man y areas of perceived inequ ity. Data provided to

the Com mittee by the school system su ggest that significant inequities may w ell exist in th e countys

edu cational systems.

Maryland School Performan ce Assessment Program (MSPAP) scores among elementary schools in

How ard County vary widely.1

Schools with lower average MSPAP scores tend to h ave higher percentages of their stud ents from low-

income fam ilies.2

Schools with lower average MSPAP scores tend to have higher staff turn over than do schools with

higher av erage achievement scores.

Similarly, schools with lower average MSPAP scores tend to have a h igher percentage of teachers that

are new and non-tenured.

Schools with low er average MSPAP scores tend to h ave higher m obility among th e stud ent pop ulation.

The same schools tend to show up as facing special challenges, regardless of the measure being used.

1We selected elementar y schools for the pu rpose of this discussion. Similar inequ ities exist at the mid dle and high school levels.

2One ind icator of income variability is the percentage of pup ils eligible for free and redu ced lunch.


4/47


4

The Leadership Comm ittee defines equity as fairness to all children. We believe that equ ity requires that we

provide each stud ent w ith the necessary resources, supp ort and instruction need ed to achieve academic success.

The Committee does not believe that equity is the same thing as equality. Children w ith mu ltiple needs

require special attention. Schools with d isproportionate num bers of children w ith mu ltiple needs requ ire

add itional resources. Indeed, the school system has recognized th at schools with a disprop ortionate num ber of

children with multiple needs require additional resources and created a category of schools (focus schools) forspecial attention and add itional resources.

The recomm endations of the Leadership Com mittee in this report are designed to help the H oward Coun ty

school system mov e forward . . . leaving no child behind .

The balance of this report is devoted to the four m ajor issue areas identified by th e Comm ittee:

the factors affecting equity,

programs and resources,

s ta ffing , and

accountability.


5/47


5

To a large extent, the demograp hics of commu nities determ ine the edu cational needs of children w ho live in the

neighborhoods served by schools. Nevertheless, the Leadership Comm ittee was concerned about th e extent, ifany, to which the school systems policies and procedures affected (positively or negatively) inequities in the

edu cation provided to the children of Howard County.

The Comm ittee identified six factors that affect equity in H oward Countys educational system:

redist rict ing,

open enrollment,

s tudent mobility,

fund ra ising,

equity funding , and

federal funding .

3.1 Redistricting

The rapid grow th in How ard County has created sit uations w here children have been redistrict ed

repeatedly . This mov ement from school t o school is now driv ing a call for stable, predictable boundary lines.

BACKGROUND

How ard Cou ntys school system has bu ilt twenty-four new schools in the last twelve years. Coup led with

varying rates of growth across the county, the bu ilding of new schools has m ade redistricting an annu al issue.

It appears to the Comm ittee that th e school system currently redistricts only w here needed to fill new schoolsand reduce overcrowd ing in other schools. This app roach has created some noncontiguou s districts, some

questionable bound ary lines, and schools that are either un der capacity now or soon to be.

The Comm ittee has h eard considerable testimony abou t the p oor performan ce of certain schools comp ared to

others. Because the p ercentage of free and redu ced lunch stud ents at a par ticular school seems to correlate with

poor p erforman ce, a high p ercentage of students receiving free and redu ced lunch is perceived to be one of

the causes of poor p erformance. As a result, there has been a call for redistricting that takes into account the

socioeconom ic make-up of the school. The Leadership Comm ittee feels that this correlation shou ld n ot be u sed

as an excuse for low stud ent achievement and poor school performance. Using socioeconomic status as a

criterion for draw ing school bound ary lines will not necessarily improve performance. What it could d o is

mask real p roblems w ith teaching, learning and expectations in our schools.

In any discussion of bou nd ary lines, the following facts should be remembered:

There are currently plans for three new schools, one at each instructional level, and seventeen add itions

schedu led to come online by 2004. (There is also a high school ad d ition schedu led for 2006.)

There are currently six schools with noncontiguou s resident districts (four elementary and two high

schools).

The availability of app ropriate land for school construction has driven the location of recently built

schools, sometim es locating new schools close to existing schools. This has mad e the feeder school

concept h ard to reconcile w ith the cur rent building locations.

3. FACTORS AFFECTING EQUITY


6/47


6

Because schools in Colum bia were built on a neighborhood concept, they were often located close to one

another and app ear small by todays standard s.

Schools in Columbia were also built with the belief that neighborhoods would continually turnover and

sup ply children to those schools. Add itionally, man y n eighborhoods in Columbia h avent experienced

the expected turn over of children , thereby reducing the resident p opu lations of those schools.

The Howard County General Plan suggests that the potential exists for not more than 30,000 add itional

residen tial un its in the coun ty over the next fifteen years. The location and type of un its are also

reasonably predictable.

Many realtors in How ard Coun ty use districting for a particular school as a selling tool. As the result,

there exists a belief on the p art of home buyers th at they are bu ying into a p articular school district.

OPPORTUNITY

With the op ening of the new high school in Fulton, the new elementary school in the north east and the new

midd le school in the w est, the school system has th e opp ortun ity to create a long-range, comp rehensive

app roach to school districting rather than continu e an ann ual, piecemeal app roach to redistricting. The

school system, working in concert with county governm ent, could create an environm ent that fosterscommu nity inpu t, addresses comm un ity concerns, and results in a p lan that can be predictably ph ased in over a

period of years.

Some of the points that a comprehensive d istricting p lan could ad dress includ e:

eliminating all islands by creating contiguous d istricts,

assuring that all schools have a resident popu lation greater than the minimum enrollments set for each

of the instru ctional levels,

minimizing the number of midd le schools and high schools that children from a single elementary

school are districted into,

defining the natural bound ary lines for schools that facilitate comm un ity spirit and loyalty,

prom oting the ability of those children living within w alking d istance of their schools to wa lk to those

schools without fear for their safety,

providing a timeline that accounts for high school scheduling, and

minimizing the redraw ing of school bound ary lines by setting school boundaries based on more

accurate projections of future residential growth.

A long-term, comprehensive d istricting p lan could p rovide pred ictable information to the pu blic, the current

and prospective business comm un ity, and realtors about w hich schools children w ill attend. Consistent

information, provid ed by both the school system and the countys public information office, would allow new

county residents to get accurate information abou t various schools and redu ce the imp act of negative

perceptions about individu al schools in the system.

In ad dition, the school system could ensu re that d istricting information is part of the school profiles.3 The

profiles should flag those schools that may be considered for redistricting because of future grow th. This would

be a w ay to alert residen ts to future changes.

3The work of the Leadership Com mittee w as greatly facilitated by th e school systems report, School Profiles: Howard County PublicSchool System, 1999-2000.


7/47


7

The Board of Education could also evaluate its bound ary line policy p aying p articular attention to setting th e

minimu m capacity of schools at a p ercentage of capacity, not the current nu merical minimu m. Currently one

school, Running Brook Elementary, has a capacity (239) that is below the stated minimum enrollment necessary

for an elementary school. Percentage of capacity should be th e indicator of wh ether an u nd er-enrolled school

should be redistricted.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

1. The school sy stem should undertake a w ell-reasoned county-w ide districting plan that represents

a co llaborat iv e effort among al l educat ion stakeholders .

The dist ricting plan should address t he long-range needs of our students by creating as s ta ble a

path from kindergarten t hrough hi gh schoo l as p ossible.

This pl an should be developed and phased in beginning in 2002 to correspond w it h the opening of

the new high schoo l i n Fult on.

2. The schoo l s y st em and How ard County gov ernment should w ork col laborat iv ely to generat e t he

best hous ing a nd p opula t ion project ions poss ible t o di rect the schoo l d is t rict ing p lan.

3. How ard County gov ernment should assure safe pathw ay s for t hose st udent s w ho w al k t o s choo l.

3.2 Open Enrollment

The current open enrollment policy has been instrumenta l i n creating art ificial school communit ies t hat

either mask needed system reforms or exacerbate perceptions of poor performance in schools.

BACKGROUND

Howard Countys policy on open enrollment is relatively flexible. The only limiting factors are availability of

seats in a school and a familys ability to transport its student.4

In looking at the issue of open enrollment, we researched several counties in our area. We found tha t Anne Arund elCounty d oes not have an open enrollment p olicy. We also found that Montgomery Coun ty had an open enrollment

policy that considered, as one of its factors, diversity of a school by comp aring the racial/ ethnic make-up of a school

compared to the coun tywide racial/ ethnic profile. This policy is being challenged in court.

In How ard County, seven of nine focus elementary schools experienced the largest nu mber of stud ents leaving

their schools und er the open en rollment policy. This exodus can affect school equity because of the following:

A high d eparture rate from a school harms students who are left by reducing the nu mber of staff

members. Staffing for the schools is don e on a per-stud ent formula.

Large numbers of students leaving a school affect the economic and r acial mix of that school, changing

the extent to w hich a school reflects the character of the commu nity it serves.5

If leaving stud ents are among the top achievers, this creates an imbalance in test scores that brings intoquestion the ap propr iateness of the curriculum being offered an d suggesting that th e schools from

wh ich th ey are leaving are not as effective as they shou ld be.

Losing top achieving stud ents can cause a restructuring of expectations wh ich creates inequities in the

delivery of the curriculum .

4The school systems policy with resp ect to open enrollment is deta iled in its Pupil Assignmen t policy. This policy was last revisedNovember 24, 1998.

5Although we were unable to obtain data on the ethnicity of children entering and leaving schools under th e current openenrollment policy, the wid ely pub licized, if anecdotal, information regard ing the exodu s of children from Wilde Lake Midd le School toLime Kiln Middle School supports this statement.


8/47


8

Open enrollment is not available to parents who cannot provide transportation either because of

emp loyment or financial circumstances.6

Open enrollment is intertwined w ith the consideration of boundary lines. The enrollment at individual

schools is the sum of the resident pop ulation plus the op en-enrolled pop ulation.

OPPORTUNITY

Open enrollment has a place in the school system. There are legitimate reasons (including health, safety, and th e

opportunity to access specific programs) why a parent would consider enrolling a student in an open school.

Op en enrollment also allow s parents to fulfill wan ts for their stud ents that th ey think are not being offered

at the hom e school. Some of these might be a m ore academically challenging en vironmen t, smaller class

sizes, more varied course selection and an opp ortun ity to be with friend s. These are values that all paren ts

wa nt for their children an d form th e basis of many p erceptions of inequ ity. Parental choice can help to

foster a collaborative effort between school and hom e that shou ld benefit not only ind ividua l studen ts, but

the school commu nity as well.

Although open enrollment may not be th e best vehicle for the comm un ity to express its dissatisfaction with th e

home school, parents have u tilized it for this pu rpose. Disagreements w ith the ad ministration, dislike for the

quality of teaching, discipline issues, a sense of not being listened to, and an inability to get stu dent needs m et

are issues that d rive ind ividual parents as w ell as groups of parents to transfer stud ents from their hom e

schools. A few stu den ts leaving a school is to be expected, but significant num bers should be viewed as an

indicator of issues that n eed to b e add ressed at p articular schools. Situations like these shou ld elicit immediate

action from the Sup erintendent.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

4. All open enrol led st udent s need to be counted a s part of t heir home school popul at ion during t he

di st rict ing and redist rict ing p rocesses .

5. In conjunct ion w it h t he countyw ide di st rict ing p lan, al l s choo ls should be prot ect ed from open

enrollment for three years to allow new school communit ies the opportunit y t o come together and

learn to functi on as a resident community.

6. By t he end of this three-y ear period, the Board of Education should reevaluat e the open enrollment

po licy.

6Under current p olicy, in order for a parent to open enroll a student, the parent mu st provide transportation for that student.


9/47


9

3.3 Student Mobility

Student mobili ty may have a negativ e effect on the academic performance of students. This is seen as one

of t he causes of poor performance in some schoo ls .

BACKGROUND

Student mob ility rates are comp aratively high in seven of nine focus elemen tary schools. Mobility is considered

one of the negative factors in stud ent per forman ce. Since mobility rates are high in ou r focus schools and

performance is low, there is an assum ed correlation betw een the tw o. Also, when th e State Board of Edu cation

repo rts MSPAP scores, it always rep orts the m obility rates of schools as a relevant p iece of add itional

information. Although the Leadership Comm ittee has received n o da ta to suggest that m obility is a factor in

stud ent p erforman ce, the inclusion of mobility rates by the state imp lies some kind of causal relationship.

It has been suggested by man y teachers and ad ministrators in the school system that if we could red uce the

mobility of stud ents, we wou ld see a dram atic improvem ent in student p erforman ce wh ich w ould tran slate to

improved MSPAP scores. Although this is a strongly held belief in How ard Cou nty, it has not been show n w ith

MSPAP d ata because the assessment is a measu re of school performance, not ind ividu al studen t performan ce.

There is, though, a sense on th e part of principals that man y of the same children m ove repeatedly from school

to school.

Mobility could be a symptom of other circum stances in a childs life. Until there is an und erstanding of mob ility

and how it really affects stud ent performan ce, a plan for ad dressing it cannot be formu lated.

It may also be ap prop riate to determine the effects that new stud ents have on MSPAP scores of a school by

separating the scores of new stud ents from those of continuing stu dents. Similarly, it seems importan t to

identify the academic status of stud ents transferring into a new school so that d eficiencies are identified early

and can be add ressed w ithout delay.

OPPORTUNITY

The school system has th e data necessary to d etermine wh ether or n ot there is a difference in su ccess rates

between stable versus mobile stud ent p opu lations in specific schools and across the coun ty.

An evalu ation of mobility pattern s and effects could add ress such issues as:

patterns of mobility in individu al school populations and over the entire system,

the percentage of stud ents who re-enroll at a school after leaving a school, and

family reasons for mobility.

With an un derstand ing of the reasons for mobility in H oward County generally and at specific schools, the

school system (along with the How ard Cou nty governm ent and organizations in the commu nity) could identifyapp ropriate and innovative ways to a dd ress this potentially important factor affecting edu cation equ ity.

RECOMMENDATIO N:

7. The school sy stem and/or a community organization should undertake a study of student mobility in

How ard County to assess it s effects on st udents and develop a plan to t ake appropriate steps t o eit her

decrease familia l mobil it y or ameliorate the effects of st udent mobilit y.


10/47


10

3.4 Fundraising

Fundra is ing at ind iv idual schools w it hin t he schoo l s yst em co ntributes t o inequit ies among the schoo ls .

BACKGROUND

Individua l schools and their larger commu nities raise fun ds to su pp ort activities, sup plement instruction with

textbooks and materials, provide scholarships for school activities such as field trips, provide after school

program s, and contribute to the general well-being of the school comm un ity. Fund raising takes man y forms

such as direct solicitation of the comm un ity, sales, events, and school pictures. The unev en involvem ent of

parents and others in fun draising has contributed to the current problem of have and have not schools.

The Board of Education policy on fund raising requ ires each school to have in p lace a fun draising comm ittee.7

All fund raising requests are supp osed to be channeled through the committee. The fun ction of the comm ittee is

to ensure that th e pu rpose of the fund raiser is clearly defined and that each fund raiser is in line w ith school

system policy. Add itionally, this comm ittee is required to keep accurate records an d report all fund s raised to

the school system s centra l office.

Individua l schools as well as ind ividuals within schools also engage in gran t wr iting as a means of ad ditional

mon ey for specific prog ram s. The success of this fund ing source is related to the expertise of the ind ividu al

teachers, principals, or parent volun teers. The Leadership Comm ittee heard testimony from school principals

and others wh o reported their activities in securing grants to un dertake after school programs, sum mer

program s, and activities to increase the involvement of parents in their schools.

Each school in the county h as the opportu nity to form bu siness partn erships. Although th ese partnerships are

not intend ed to be a d irect source of fun ds, they h ave the p otential to generate m oney, in-kind contributions, and

perhap s most valuable of all, add itional hum an resources for a school. In add ition to the w ork of a person at the

school systems centra l office, ind ividu al schools often are active in find ing their own pa rtner s. The typical

school has between three and five partn erships, but the nu mber of partnerships ranges from zero at Ham mon d

Elementary School to eleven at Mount View Middle School.

OPPORTUNITY

The school system has just hired a grant w riter to assist schools in find ing and writing grants. The school

system has the opp ortun ity to devote the energies of this person to not just w riting gran ts, but d eveloping grant

opp ortunities specifically directed at th e schools with most need . Such a p riority could turn grantsman ship

from a factor that contributes to inequ ity to one that p romotes more equ itable edu cation in th e county.

Similarly, redirecting the p riorities of the school system s business par tnersh ip office cou ld ha rness th e energies

of business partnership s to p romote equ ity, rather th an exacerbating inequity.

The school system and the PTA Council of How ard Coun ty are both cur rently reviewing th eir policies on

fund raising. The school system has the opp ortunity to work w ith PTAs and other comm un ity organizations to

increase fund raising at schools that m ay h ave h istorically been less successful than others in securing v aluable

external sup port for program s that benefit children.

7School Board Policy #11300 refers to these as Local Committees.


11/47


11

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

8. The school sy st em should redirect the priorities o f its grant w riter and, if necessary, hire an

addi t ional grant w rit er to s ecure external fundi ng for schools w it h t he great est needs .

9. The priorit ies of t he sy st ems bus iness part nership s taff shoul d be redirected t o es tabli shing

partnershi ps inv ol v ing s choo ls w it h t he great est needs .

10. The school sy st em should engage in a collaborat ive undertaking w it h the PTA Council of

How ard County to rev iew it s respect iv e fundraising po licies in order t o i dent ify st rat egies to

promote more equitable fundrai sing w it hout det ract ing from t he commitment of t he communi ty

to cont ribute resources over and above those av ai lable from the scho ol sy st em.

3.5 Equity Funding

It is not clear t hat the $2.1 mil lion i ncluded i n t he Superint endent s Proposed O pera t ing Budget forFiscal Year 2001 for equity w il l actual ly resul t in a more equitable s choo l s yst em.8

BACKGROUND

In the Superintend ents message transm itting h is Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, th e

Superintendent observed:

The term equity has had a lot of play recently in How ard Cou nty. Many of the concerns raised are add ressed

in our bu dget by on going program s and new initiatives, but ou r bud get clearly contains some increases

totaling $2.1 million that address equity and related issues.9

Specifically, the p roposed bud get requests ad ditional fund ing in four areas:

1. School Maintenance More than half ($1.1 million) of the proposed equity increases are earmarked

for school maintenance.10

According to th e school system, these fun ds w ould be u sed for the following p urp oses:

contracted building repairs ($800,000),

three new maintenance positions ($100,000), and

two new positions, vehicles, and equipment for compu ter technicians to speed up the

repa ir of school comp uter s and to enh ance intern et access ($125,000).11

Though increased school maintenance and compu ter/ internet access may be app ropriate, there is no

assurance that these fund s w ill, in fact, promote equity.

8The following analysis was based up on the Superintendent s Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal 2001. Since that proposal wa s submittedthe school board has mad e, and continues to make, adjustments in the budget th at will be submitted to the County Executive and County Council.

9Superintendent s Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal 2001, p. 4. The $2.1 million proposed by th e Sup erintend ent to promote equ ity wasover and abov e the allocations of additional resources to focus schools. This amou nt also did not includ e separate fund ing for an equity-relatedinitiative at Phelps Luck Elementary School. Funding for the Ph elps Luck initiative was subsequen tly deleted by th e School Board .

10Memora nd um from Sydney L. Cousin to Martha Johnson, January 26, 2000.

11Ibid. See also pp. 7-7 throu gh 7-9 of the Proposed Budget.


12/47


12

Specifically, the Com mittee h as sever al concerns:

The $800,000 shown as an equity increase in contracted bu ilding repairs represents the entire

increase in that budget category.

Although th e Proposed Bud get ind icates that fiscal 2001 repair projects include . . . interior andexterior painting at schools, HVAC contracted services and parts, contracted emergency roof repairs,

and pu blic sewer conn ections, the Comm ittee was ad vised that school maintenance is not

preallocated to ind ividu al schools in the bud get.

The Committee was further advised that the compu ter repair bud get is not preallocated

to individu al schools. These new positions supp ort all schools requiring service when n eeded.12

Although the school system argues that older facilities require more m aintenance and emph asis (and

fund ing) than new er buildings, the proposed increase in school maintenance appears to be a general

increase in the school systems bud get and n ot targeted in an y dem onstrable way tow ard p romoting

equity.

2. School Printing The prop osed bu dget contains a request for $346,000 in ad ditional fund ing for schoolprinting related to equ ity.

According to the school system, these fun ds w ould b e used for the following pu rposes:

two ad ditional positions at the central print shop ($53,000),

table-top copiers in schools ($50,000),

rental of copier equipment ($100,000), and

general warehouse supp lies and p rinter pap er for school use ($143,000).

Again, though the school system m ay be able to make a compelling argu ment for increases in these areas,

there are several reasons w hy it m ay be inap prop riate to classify these bud get increases as related to

equity.

The additional two positions requested at the central print shop are the only new p ositions

requested.13

According to the proposed budget, the printing and d uplicating fund provides printing

services for the entire school system.14

Although not entirely clear, the equity increases proposed for table-top copiers and rental of

copier equipment appear to be the entire increases proposed by the school system. 15

Non e of the principals or school officials testifying before the Comm ittee identified the lack of

printing , duplicating, or general warehouse supp lies as a key factor inhibiting equ ity.

3. Addi t ional Guidance Counselors The proposed bud get includ es $33,000 for one ad ditional guidan ce

counselor as an equity expend iture.

12Proposed Bud get, p. 7-9.

13Ibid., p. R-19.

14Ibid.

15Ibid., pp. R-20-R 21.


13/47


13

The principals testifying before the Committee advised of their need for add itional sup port in the form of

gu idan ce counselors to better respon d to children w ith mu ltiple needs. It is not clear, how ever, the effect

that one ad ditional guidance counselor will have on equ ity.16

Further, although the prop osed bu dget ind icates that this will enable eighteen elementary schools to have

a full-time cou nselor, it is not clear w hich schools will have a full-time (vs. half-time) counselor since thebudget does not allocate funds for guidance positions to specific schools.17

4. Teacher Recruit ing and Ret ention The proposed budget allocates $415,000 related to teacher recruiting

and retention. The school system adv ised the Comm ittee that teacher recruiting is related to school

equity.18 Although, as noted elsewhere, we agree with this premise, it is difficult to link the entire increase

prop osed by the school system to equ ity.

According to the school system, these additional fun ds w ould b e used for the following p urp oses:

an ad ditional specialist and a clerical position in central office and other sup port costs

related to recruiting ($175,000),

two new teacher support programs ($40,000),

two new partnerships w ith colleges, expand ed recruitment of teachers from non-teaching

background s, and an add itional half-position for a facilitator to sup port n ew teacher

certification ($150,000), an d

add itional tuition reimbu rsement for teachers ($50,000).

With the exception of the teacher sup port p rograms and new teacher certification, the ad ditional fun ding

requested ap pears to represent general increases in the school systems bud get and not expend itures that

can credibly be linked to expected imp rovements in equity.

The Committee is also concerned that the detail provided for the $2.1 million equity increase totaled only $1.9

million.

OPPORTUNITY

How ard Cou nty is not the on ly school system struggling with the issue of school equity.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, for example, the superintendent of schools has proposed $3 million in additional

fund ing for four low -performing h igh schools. In return, the schools would be expected to m eet specific targets

for imp rovement, similar to a system of reward s and penalties currently in p lace with respect to twenty of

Fairfax Countys struggling elementary schools.

Und er the prop osal, ninth grad ers at the four schools would get an extra class period every d ay,

starting this fall. The following year, the schools would open in early Augu st and offer as m uch as six

more w eeks of classes dur ing th e academ ic year. School officials said th e extra time in school likelywou ld be required only for stud ents needing remedial work, and th ey also noted that the longer

school calend ar w ould require state approval . . .

16The Leadersh ip Comm ittee is pleased to learn that th e board of education has app roved a separat e increase in guidan ce counselors andexpenditu res more directly related to equity concerns. We und erstand th at their proposal will include three ad ditional equity specialists (oneguida nce counselor will be for Wilde Lake High School to make th eir complement compara ble to that of River Hill and Long Reach HighSchools). The board is also prop osing add itional funding for kind ergarten teachers, assistants, and med ia specialists for focus schools.

17Memorandum from Sydney Cousin, op. cit.

18Ibid.


14/47


14

School officials are calling the p rogram Focus 2004 because the stud ents ent ering n inth gr ad e this fall

are the class of 2004, the first senior class that w ill be requ ired by th e state to pass th e high school

Stand ards of Learning tests in order to grad uate . . .

The targeted schools have some of the highest stud ent turn over rates and concentrations of poverty in

Fairfax Coun ty, and they also have large num bers of imm igrant stud ents . . .

Initial reaction from some school board members and PTA leaders was positive . . . I think the thing

that is most striking about this proposal is that the recommend ations have come ou t of a task force of

peop le working in those schools, said board Vice Chairm an Jane K. Strau ss (Dran esville). This is

not the kind of thing you can impose on a commu nity.19

The notion of having school reforms d eveloped at th e commu nity level is also at the heart of imm ediate

intervention/ un derp erforming schools program being implemented by the State of California. Using a

combinat ion of federal and state fund s, California is granting $50,000 to each of 330 schools for plann ing grants.

In return, the schools are required to w ork w ith an external evaluator and a commu nity team to identify barriers

to school performance and to d evelop an action p lan to improve stud ent achievement. App roximately 100

schools will receive a minimu m of $50,000 and a m aximu m of up to $200 per stu dent to imp lement research-

based, comprehensive school reforms to im prove stud ent achievement.20

The Comm ittee believes that these mod els suggest that th ere may be w ays to m ore clearly target the $2.1 million

prop osed by the school system to demon strable improvem ents in equity than the explanation contained in the

proposed budget.

The Committee is concerned by its inability to secure information on the allocation of resources to individual

schools. Although some expend itures appear to benefit the school system as a w hole (category 01 general

adm inistration, for examp le), the overw helming m ajority of the funds requested in th e bud get involve resources

that are expend ed later either at, or on behalf of, individu al schools.

According to information p rovided to the Comm ittee, the school system d oes not bu dget on a school-by-school

basis.21 It would not seem too d ifficult, however, to mak e this information av ailable as a par t of the bud get

process, rather than after the fact.

The Comm ittee feels that school-based bud geting is essential to provide the baseline information u pon wh ich

informed jud gements can be mad e about the equ itable allocation of resources. This shou ld be possible without

sacrificing th e d etail contained in the current bu dget.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

11. The $2.1 proposed by the school sy st em for equity relat ed expenditures should be approved, but

set as ide pend ing t he submiss ion of a p roposal from the Superint endent that more clearly links

those expendi tures t o p lausible, demons trable increases i n school equit y. We feel that the li nk

w it h equity can be most easily establi shed wi th respect t o guidance counselors, teacher support,

and new teacher cert ifi cat ion.

The Commit tee recommends that a significant porti on of the $2.1 million be allocated t o support

the development and implement at ion of equi ty improvement pl ans submit ted by schools w it hgreat est needs in cooperat ion w it h t he communit ies they serv e.

12. The fiscal year 2002 budget for the school sy st em should contain an appendix allocat ing

proposed expend it ures t o indiv idual schools.

19Victoria Benning, Fairfax to Build Up Failing H igh Schools, Washington Post, Febru ary 18, 2000.

20Information about Californias imm ediate intervention/ underperforming schools program is available at http:/ / 165.74.253.64/ iiusp/ .

21Memoran du m from Sydn ey Cousin to Mart ha Johnson, February 15, 2000.


15/47


15

3.6 Federal Funding

The How ard County School Sys tem may be eligible to receiv e addit ional federal funds w hich could be

reinv est ed to promot e scho ol equity.

BACKGROUND

Nearly all (98.3%) of the system s bud get is fun ded by the coun ty (74.1%) or state (24.2%) govern men ts. On ly

1.7% of the systems fun ding is received from other sources of fun ding, including private contributions and

federal grants.22 The Superintendents Proposed Operating Budget for FY 2001 anticipates that the system w ill

receive $5.6 million in other funding.23

The distinguishing characteristic of most of this other funding, for the purposes of this discussion, consists of

grants w here the fund ing is capp ed. That is, the amoun t the system receives from each grant is fixed.

Expend itures in excess of these capped amou nts are born e entirely by th e county.

OPPORTUNITY

In contrast to federal fun ding streams w hich are capp ed, there are a few fund ing streams that are u ncapped or open-end ed. That is, the federal governm ent will pay a fixed portion of the total expenditure incurred by

the system. Although thepercentage of total costs that are reimbursed is fixed, the absolute d ollar am ount has no

limit. An examp le of an u ncapped federal fun ding stream is medical assistance, comm only referred to as

Medicaid.24

Federal financial participation (FFP) ranging from 50% to 75% is available und er Med icaid. Examples of

expenditures th at are p otentially eligible for Medicaid reimbu rsement include:

providing health/ mental health services contained in an Individu alized Education Program (IEP),

providing medical/ health assessments/ evaluations and diagnostic testing,

providing health care/ personal aide services,

providing speech, occupational, physical and other therapies,

administering first aid, or prescribed injection or m edication to a student,

providing direct clinical/ treatment services,

performing d evelopmental assessments,

providing counseling services to treat health, mental health, or substance abuse conditions,

performing routine or mand ated child health screens,

providing immunizations,

providing case management,

providing transportation, and other costs that are necessary for the proper an d efficient administration of the Medicaid State Plan.25

22Superintendents Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal 2001, p. 8.

23Ibid., pp . R-24-27.

24Other op en-ended federal fund ing streams includ e Food Stamps, Child Sup port Enforcement, Foster Care and Ad option (Title IV-E).

25Health Care Financing Adm inistration,Medicaid School-Based Administ rative Claiming Gu ide (Draft Febru ary 2000), pp. 23-36.


16/47


16

The experience of school districts across the country suggests that the system is incurring significant, potentially

reimbursable, costs associated with psychological services, health services (including vision and hearing), and

special education services that are not now being reimbu rsed . Ann ua l costs for these services exceed $42 million

a year. Med icaid fun ding actually received by the system for these services amounts to less than 1% of these

costs.26

School districts that are p articularly successful in securing Medicaid fund ing tend to ma ke aggressive use of the

Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) provision of Medicaid. EPSDT allows

authorized screeners (including school districts themselves) to determ ine the n eed for a wid e variety of services

related to a childs ph ysical, men tal, and social health need s. Once identified as a result of an EPSDT screen,

Medicaid funding is made available for Medicaid-eligible services, even if those services are not included in a

Medicaid State Plan.

Although Medicaid reimbursement is only available for low-income children w ho a re eligible for Medicaid, the

new Maryland Ch ildrens Health Program auth orizes federal fund ing for services provided to un insured

children who are not eligible for Medicaid.

The Maryland Ch ildrens Health Program p rovides comprehensive health benefits to children through the age of

18 wh ose parents work and earn up to twice the federal poverty level, but cannot afford insuran ce. Pregnantwomen of any age also are eligible. Services covered includ e prenata l care and d elivery, doctor visits and

checkup s, hospital care, imm un izations, dental an d vision care, prescription med icines, and m ental health and

substance abuse treatment.

Finally, the system m ay also be eligible for reimbu rsemen t for costs incurred on beh alf of children from fam ilies

with h igher incomes (that is, not eligible for reimbursement un der either Medicaid or the Maryland Child

Health Program) from private insuran ce and other third parties.27

Importantly, Medicaid fund s received wou ld be a reimbursementfor costs already incurred by th e system. That

is, wh en received, the add itional federal fund s wou ld release local fun ds that m ay be used for other p urp oses,

especially school equ ity.

Based u pon the experience of other jurisdictions, we estimate th at an aggressive revenu e maximization strategy

could result, within tw o years, in at least a 50% increase in th e amou nt of federal and other fun ding received

by the school system. This wou ld generate more than $2.8 million ann ually in add itional funding p er year that

could be used to prom ote edu cational equity.

RECOMMENDATIO N:

13. The syst em should undertake an aggressive revenue maximiza t ion initia tiv e to s ecure appropriat e

reimbursement under Medicaid and ot her funding st reams.

Such an initia ti ve should be undertaken by departmental st aff w it h or w it hout the assist ance of

consult ant s t hat speciali ze in school-based Medicaid cla iming.

The addit ional funds freed up as a result of t his initia ti ve should be reinvest ed to promote school

equity.

26The system estim ates tha t it w ill receive $401,000 in federal Med icaid reimbu rsemen t for special edu cation services dur ing FY 2001(Superintendents Budget, p. R-23).

27The Leadership Comm ittee does not, however, support the pu rsuit of third-party liability wh en such efforts would cause a hardship tochildren with disabilities and their families.


17/47


17

The Leadership Comm ittee devoted substantial attention to th ose programs, resources, and services most

central to ou r definition of equ ity.

Of the man y issues add ressed by the Comm ittee in this area, we selected seven th at merit immed iate attention:

systematic planning for capital improvements,

communications systems,

p layground equipment,

t echnology,

site-based instructional decision making,

focus school designation, and

educational options for non-college bound stud ents.

4.1 Systematic Planning for Capital Improvements

The school sy st ems current p lan for capital improvements does not include all s chools, nor does it

identify factors that may cause one school t o require more renovat ion than anot her.

BACKGROUND

The school system p rovided th e Leadership Com mittee with its capital improvem ent plan. According to the

office of the assistant su perintend ent for finance and operations services, schools are scheduled about every

fifteen years for renovations/ add itions. Maintenance of essential equipm ent and facilities is ongoing an dinclud ed in the systems operating bud get.

Although th ere is a systemic capital imp rovement p lan, the current p lan does not includ e every school. The

items that are evaluated are not evident on the current, systemic school plan. For examp le, dep ending on the

materials used in bu ilding th e school, an individu al school may requ ire more frequent renovation tha n an other.

OPPORTUNITY

The Leadership Comm ittee believes that p ublic perceptions of inequity can be substantially redu ced by show ing

parents and th e comm un ity annu ally where each school is on the renovation/ replacement schedule and the

rationale behind differential investments.

The Committee believes that there is an opportunity to develop a capital improvement plan that is systematic as well

as systemic. A systematic plan would includ e each school every year so that parents and the commu nity wou ld

know wh en their school(s) will be evaluated for renovations/ add itions. The Committee realizes that a systematic

plan has latitud e to cover emergency capital repairs and repairs required for the safety of the stud ents and staff. It is

to be expected, too, that a systematic plan wou ld need to be changed and up dated periodically.

4. PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES RELATED TO EQUITY


18/47


18

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

14. The school syst em should develop a sy st ematic plan and schedule for evaluat ing schools and

providing for ca pi tal improvement s a nd fa cil it ies /maint enance needs beginning w it h t he fis cal

2002 capi tal and operat ing budgets.

Such a plan should show w hen a school w as last evaluated and w hat capital improvements o r

faci li t ies /maintenance w ork took p lace si nce t hat t ime. The capi tal improvement and the

faci li t ies /maintenance pl ans should hav e each scho ol on t he plans ev ery year so t hat it is eas ily

det ermined w hen a school is scheduled for capi tal improvement s o r faci li t ies /maint enance w ork.

15. Beginning in 2003, the school sy st ems capit al and operating budgets should reflect that previous

years actual act iv it y and expend it ures compared w it h t he approv ed budget . Current and future

budgets shoul d be more aggressive in addi ng funds t o t hese areas .

4.2 Communication Systems

Despi te t he importance of co mmunica t ion bet w een parent s a nd t he t eachers o f t heir children, t he current

t elephone sy st ems in s everal school s are not cond uciv e t o t he easy and open communica t ion essent ia l t o a

st udent s success .

BACKGROUND

The Leadership Com mittee heard frequent testimony from commu nity members and some school

adm inistrators that comm un ication among school, home an d the commu nity at large could be improved . We

heard reports that p hone lines into and out of schools, especially at the midd le and high school levels, are

consistently busy. As a result, too often the teacher or ad ministrator that the p arent or guard ian or commu nity

member w ishes to speak w ith cannot be reached.

We also heard testimony as to the value, to both teachers and parents, of homew ork hotlines that had been

established in several of the countys middle and high schools.

In a survey condu cted by th e Leadership Com mittee we found that some schools have recognized this issue. It

has been add ressed by u sing automated a nswering systems ranging from a single telephon e answering machine

that is only on w hen th e office is closed to au tomated homew ork telephone lines to automated voice mail

systems. Currently, it is left to each individual school to secure the fund ing for imp roved comm un ication in the

absence of financial sup port from the school system.

Of the forty-seven schools that respon ded to this survey, nineteen reported having som e sort of automated

teleph one system. Nine of the schools fun ded their systems prim arily through the use of PTA monies. The

remaining ten fund ed th ese systems w ith monies from school pictures, vending m achine revenue, school

fund raisers, and d iscretionary ad ministrative fund s. Less than one h alf of the schools returning the survey

reported being able to keep in touch with parents, students and other comm unity mem bers on a continuou s basis.

During interviews, teachers and adm inistrators voiced their frustration w ith the lack of accessible telephon e

lines and an au tomated telephon e system within the schools. This is especially true in the midd le and high

schools where there are a larger num ber of students an d each stud ent has a n um ber of different teachers.28

28The central offices of the school system also d o not hav e autom ated t elephone system s, decreasing the accessibility of central officeadministrators to staff and the public.


19/47


19

OPPORTUNITY

This inequity can also be addressed in a variety of way s. The school system could p rovide in the capital bud get

mon ies for a ph ase-in of improved commu nications systems (beginning in fiscal 2002 and continu ing m ore than

three years), placing a pr iority on those schools with greatest needs. Alternatively, the school system could

continu e to rely on PTAs and school administrators to raise monies to fund autom ated telephone systems w ithineach individu al school.

Should the school systems finances be severely constrained, instead of a phase-in of all schools, phone systems

could be up graded at the midd le and high school levels first. Either w ay, maintenance costs for improved

commu nications systems wou ld need to be included in the operating bud get.

A more aggressive app roach w ould be to includ e monies in the capital budget for start-up costs for the entire

system and then includ e a line item in the annu al operating bud get to include m aintenance and m onthly fees for

the au tomated teleph one system, wh ich could includ e the central office. Ideally, each teacher and each

adm inistrator wou ld have their ow n voice mailbox and school teachers, adm inistrators, and staff wou ld be

more accessible to parents and other mem bers of the comm un ity.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

16. The school sy st em should invest in an automated t elephone syst em that allow s each teacher and

adminis t rat or t o hav e t heir ow n voi ce mailbox.

If this recommendat ion is too cos t ly , the Commit tee recommends t hat each depart ment /t eam

hav e it s ow n voice mailbox. At the very least , the Commit tee recommends t hat each

adminis t rat iv e office have an aut omat ed telephone sy st em w it h voice mail for t he v arious

adminis t rat ors .

17. Homew ork hot lines should be establ ished in each middle and high school.

4.3 Playground EquipmentThe failure to replace play ground equipment removed from schools for safety considerat ions creat es an

inequit y among schools. The quality and safety of stadiums also v ary w idely among the county s high

scho ol s.

BACKGROUND

At present, new schools are given new playgroun d equ ipment. That equipment is only replaced by the school

system if the school is renovated an d this equipm ent is chosen by the ad ministration of the school to be replaced

as part of the renovation.

The school system h as a safety comm ittee that inspects playgroun d equ ipment. If equipm ent is foun d to be

un safe, the equipm ent is removed . Fund s have not been provided rou tinely to replace the equipmen t. If theaffected schools wou ld like add itional or replacement equipm ent and do not h ave enough renova tion fun ds or

are not in line for renovation, the ind ividu al school is forced to fun d th is equ ipm ent. The office of the assistant

sup erintendent for finance and operations services states that they often w ork w ith individu al school PTAs to

install new equipm ent and , thus, help d efray the cost of installation.

In a survey of elementary schools in How ard Cou nty, eight ou t of the twenty-eight schools respon ding to th e

survey reported that they had replaced or received new p layground equ ipment in the last three years. Of the

eight schools, one was a new school, two received equipm ent as part of a renovation/ add ition, and th e

remaining five replaced p layground equ ipment u sing PTA fun ding.


20/47


20

Seven of the respond ing elementary schools reported that they had playgrou nd equ ipment removed . Three of

this seven had equipm ent replaced by PTA fun ds, one had equ ipment replaced with a new add ition, and the

remaining three (all focus schools) have been un able to replace their equipm ent.

The Leadership Comm ittee believes strongly that safe, adequ ate playgroun d equipm ent is essential for children

to develop social skills and ph ysical fitness. After all, play is a childs wor k. The Comm ittee is also concernedabout the d eteriorating conditions, and associated risk, reported for several of the countys high school

stadiums.

OPPORTUNITY

There are several ways in w hich this issue may be add ressed to p romote edu cational equity.

The school board could, as it did this year, include in the school systems operating bu dget a special

appropriation for replacing playground equipment.

Alternatively, partnerships w ith area businesses and comm un ity organizations could be established with a

priority placed on neighborhood schools with greatest need an d replacement of equipm ent could be realized in

this manner.

RECOMMENDATIO N:

18. The school sy st em should include a line it em in the fiscal 2002 capit al budget for replacement of

unsafe/obsolete play ground and stad ium facilit ies.

19. The school sys tem should include wit h its fiscal 2002 operating budget a plan for a sy st ematic

maint enance cycle for p layground equipment and high school st ad iums.

4.4 Technology

The uneven procurement, deployment and maintenance, and applicat ion of t echnology w it hin the school

sy st em promot es i nequi ty among schools.

4.4.1Procurement of Technology Resources

BACKGROUND

The availability of technology resources (including internet access and accomm odating hard ware, instru ctional

and administra tive software) varies widely from school-to-school. Skyrocketing growth in technology,

networking, fund ing, and fund raising are some of the reasons technology equity disparities exist.

Funding for additional equipm ent, the primary m eans for schools to acquire computer equipm ent wasapp roximately $0 in 1993 and $8,000 in 1994. This relatively late start in technology investment has m eant that the

school system has been forced to p lay a game of seemingly end less catch-up . The school systems technology

equalization initiative (beginning in fiscal 1998 and fiscal 1999) has provided for app roximately twenty new

compu ters per school for about twenty schools. A similar level of purchasing th rough fiscal 2003 is planned .


21/47


22/47


22

The Committee also heard reports that years of slow respon se by the school system are imp roving. How ever,

the complexities associated w ith the installing and operating netw orks versus the d aily operation of netw orks

for instru ction are very d ifferent and requ ire d ifferent expertise. No longer can a single sup port team efficiently

maintain m ulti-levels of ad ministration, instruction and e-mail netw orks.

A normal bu siness practice wou ld be to track the costs associated w ith all maintenance and rep air. Whenasked abou t costs associated with the repair and maintenance of comp uters returned by staff during th e summ er

of 1999, the school systems response was it did not have such information.

Much of the emp hasis on technology supp ort and equipm ent d istribution at the local school level rests with the

med ia center specialists. Interviews w ith med ia center specialists and principals have un covered a variety of

inequities in m edia centers across the county in relation to h ardw are, software, staffing, technology su pp ort, and

book collections.

OPPORTUNITY

The school system has an opp ortunity to bu ild technical teams to make certain technical resources arrive at

schools ready to sup port instruction. Technical resources can be reshap ed to better fit the needs of the stud ents

instead of the building.

The effectiveness of the d eployment process begins w ith a technology p lan aligned to stud ents academic

performance and allows classroom teachers to train, be trained, and teach.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

22. Computers shoul d o nly be delivered, configured and ins tal led duri ng after school hours.

Computers must not be turned ov er to schools until t he curriculum-based so ftw are is

demons trat ed t o be opera t ional .

23. The schoo l s yst em shoul d exp lore the dev elopment of out side t echnica l and netw ork support .

The school sy st em may incur sav ings as a result of contracting out services, comput ermaint enance, and netw ork and technica l support . Sav ings coul d be used to promot e great er

equality in t he technology resources amo ng schools.

24. Repai r processes shoul d be managed and coordinat ed betw een t he principal and a s choo l s yst em

net w ork manager. Communica t ion and t rouble t icket s shoul d be handl ed el ect ronical ly .

The school sy st em should not lose focus and should remain account able for the equipment it

purchases , the v endors i t al low s schoo ls to purchase from, and the enforcement of t he serv ice

cont ract s i t enters i nto.

25. The schoo l s yst em shoul d co nduct a thorough study of t he apparent inequit ies that remain a t al l

media cent ers across t he count y in t he areas o f hard w are, soft w are, s taffing, t echnol ogy support ,

and book col lect ions.


23/47


23

4.4.3. Application of Technology Resources

BACKGROUND

The benchmark used by the school system to a ssess the effective use of technology resources in ed ucation seemsto be the stud ent to comp uter ratio. The school system provid ed the Leadership Comm ittee with d ata that show

stud ent to comp uter ratios for each school, student capacity to comp uter ratios, and plans to equalize access

to technology based u pon m ore equitable studen t to comp uter ratios.

Student to compu ter ratios only tell pa rt of the story. The key limitation of relying solely on such ratios is that

they create the imp ression that m ore technical equipm ent imp roves the quality of the school and, thu s, our

children will learn m ore. As one m ember of the Board of Education remarked , the school system has an

equipm ent plan on ly at this time.

Indeed, w e need to integrate technology into our curriculum an d p repare our children for the information age.

As reported by the Maryland State Departmen t of Edu cation, How ard Cou ntys school system is currently

sixteenth out of twen ty-four jur isdictions in a comparison of classrooms w ired for the internet. Only 54% of the

systems classrooms are wired for the internet.

Living in an information age m eans our children n eed to learn how to find information an d access the worlds

electronic libraries. Continuou sly, teachers need to seek new w ays to deliver and sha re instru ctional pr actices if

our children are to compete and hope to achieve academic excellence in the surrou nd ing high-tech w orld.

App lication of technology regarding e-mail comm un ication does not simply mean one has an ad dress. It means

you u se it to comm un icate, you use it to learn, and you use it to better serve your customers.

The Leadership Comm ittee believes that the u se of technology in comm un ication, assessment, and improving

instruction is a significant issue in assessing equity in the countys educational system.

OPPORTUNITY

How ard Cou nty is one of the most affluent commu nities in the nation, with a mean an nu al household income of

more than $64,000. The digital divide is evident here in How ard Cou nty, even with the app arent wealth of some

citizens. There are still families and stud ents withou t access to home compu ters and the internet.

How ard Coun ty is a high-tech corridor surrou nd ed by more than seven million people. Comp anies and

businesses within our community have relied on e-mail, electronic training resources and efficient well-

maintained netw orks for more than a decade. Wireless companies and indu stry core comm un ication giants

exist within approximately forty miles of every single school in the county.

The school system is missing a significant op portu nity if it d oes not imm ediately seek new ways to learn and

partn er with the technical experts in ou r own backyard. The opp ortunities and p otential are limitless, but we

need to center our technology p ath on app lication, teacher training and efficient commu nication, not only on the

nu mbers of types of compu ters in each school. Hav ing pencils in a classroom d oes not guarantee our childrenwill learn. Hav ing calculators in classrooms does not gu arantee our children w ill learn. It is how those tools are

actually used that prom otes education. Hav ing well-trained teachers, teaching a w ell-balanced curriculum,

efficient home to school communication, and the use of the resources of today will best help prepare all children

for tomorrow.


24/47


24

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

26. The schoo l s yst em shoul d develop a technol ogy pl an t o be submi t ted w it h t he fis cal 2002 budget .

Firs t and foremos t , such a p lan w oul d be based on v ery specific goa ls for i nt egrat ing a nd

apply ing t echnol ogy at the st udent , t eacher and adminis t rat ion lev el. If curriculum so ftw arew ont run on an old comput er it needs to be replaced.

27. The schoo l s yst ems t echnol ogy plan s hould include speci fic component s relat ed t o t he effect iv e

use of teaching wi th t echnology and, at a minimum, address:

application of technology relative to t he syst ems curriculum,

access to technology,

inter and intra connecting resources,

improving performance assessment,

using technology for home to school communication,

the mobilization of technology resources,

equitable distribution of new t echnology,

training with technology,

operation and maintenance of computers and netw orks, and

keeping pace w ith technology.

28. The schoo l s yst em shoul d consi der adopt ing a po licy prov iding for access to t he use of comput ers

bey ond the schoo l day . Such a po licy w oul d encourage st udent s, t heir parents, and st aff t o use

comput ers a fter school hours and during summer months.

4.5 Site-Based Instructional Decision Making

The failure of certain management strategies, including Site-Based Instructional Decision Making

(SBIDM), in schools that consistently under-perform may perpetuat e inequitabl e educat ion.

BACKGROUND

The Leadership Com mittee was given a charge to recomm end an app ropriate foun dation level for program s in

all schools. The Committee was also asked to recommend a standard for determining wh en resources beyond

the found ation level were warran ted d ue to the exceptional needs of the children served.

The How ard Cou nty School System, with its annu al operating bud get of over $299 million, ranks second in theState of Maryland in per p up il expenditures. Our school system ranks second in th e State according to th e latest

MSPAP test scores overall. But, more impor tantly, we have som e of the high est achieving schools in the en tire

state. Given these facts there w as little dispute tha t the currently established found ation level for p rograms in

How ard Cou nty schools is adequate for providing a qu ality edu cation for a large percentage of the stud ent

pop ulation. As for the second question of recomm end ing a standard for determining w hen resources beyond

the found ation level are warranted , the system currently has in place a process for d esignating a focus school

based u pon poor p erformance on MSPAP test scores. We believe this process adequately performs its

recognition function.

It is the focus schools issue the d esign a nd implementation of their curricula, the p roper role of

adm inistration and staff, and other closely associated issues that th is report p resents as its strongest

recomm end ations for reform.


25/47


25

The Combined Comm ittee on Schools report contains a most comp elling statement:

Each [lower-achieving] school should be looked at ind ividu ally to d etermine needs for its pop ulation.

The Board of Education has com mitted to Site-Based Instru ctional Decision Makin g (SBIDM) as the overa ll

framework for implementing curricula in our schools. Whereas this app roach has d istinct adv antages, wequestion continued use of the policy in th e case of troubled schools.

In such schools, performance assessments an d other objective factors that make it evident that instruction is not

ad dressing all of the need s of the stud ents. Consequ ently, we believe that instead of relying totally on SBIDM,

each lower-achieving school could be required to d evelop a p lan for improvement with the aid of a specially

trained staff of facilitators who utilize proven, p redictable method s for add ressing low er-achievement. The

Committees research suggests that the offices of academic support and instructional support can fulfill this role.

OPPORTUNITY

The Comm ittees research reveals that a myriad of educational theories exist to add ress lower-achievem ent. We

found one theory p articularly compelling:

If America is to educate all of its children to higher levels, then Am ericans m ust be willing to embrace a

major paradigm shift in our beliefs about h ow stu den ts learn. Currently, students are required to adapt

to adap t to the p revalent teaching p ractices and instructional materials and assessment instrum ents that

are used in the school. Those who cannot adap t are rarely accommod ated in most classrooms. Instead,

they are viewed as being deficient in their ability to learn. 29

The expectation that all stud ents can achieve at high levels, under the right circumstances, should be

the gu iding p rinciple of every school.30

Similarly, the ed ucation section o fHoward Coun ty: A Unit ed Vision mad e the following recommend ation to the

school board:

Supp ort and expand asset-based education (ABE) initiatives . . . every child brings within h im/ her a

myriad of cognitive, social, emotional, ethnic, gender and socioeconomic resources that can be utilized

for the achievem ent of acad emic excellence.

Begin to think of all children as being at promise. The first requirement for a p olicy designed to ensure

the school success of all children is to change the mind set of educators and policymakers. . . we n eed to

move aw ay from seeing children as being at risktoward seeing them as being at promise. We identify

and bu ild on cultural and p ersonal strengths, and accept nothing less than ou tstanding p erformance.

Rather than th inking in terms of remediation or comp ensation, we insist on high-quality instruction

sensitive to studen ts needs from the beginning of their time in schools and respon d im med iately and

intensively if children start to fall behind.31

The effective teaching trad itionally provided to the m ost privileged stu den ts needs to also be provided to

stud ents wh o have, until now, been academically marginal. Educators need to look beyond ra ce and class tomeet ind ividual stud ents needs an d that stu dents ind ividu al differences require alternative instructional

strategies. This ph ilosophy is consistent with the m ission and g oals of the How ard Cou nty School System. The

professed n um ber one mission of our school system is to ensure tha t each student m eets or exceeds rigorous

performance and achievement stand ards. To achieve this mission, a goal has been set to have academic

achievement data free from patterns associated with gender, ethnicity, learning styles, and socioeconomic status.

29Robert W. Cole, Ed. Educating Everybodys Children. Alexand ria, VA: Association of Cur riculum and Developm ent (1995), p. 6 .

30Ibid., p. 10.

31Howard County: A U nited Vision.


26/47


26

The Committee and noted that there is a focus school restructuring project whose report w as released on

December 9, 1999. Recommen dations contained w ithin that repo rt called for the selective use of ad ministra tive

transfers of staff along with the following major, critical components of a new focus school restructuring

pilot project. The cost for the restructuring p roject included in the sup erintendents prop osed bu dget w as

approximately $250,000 per year, excluding the cost of transportation.

The Committee recognizes the need for an individu al schools adm inistration to have its autonom y. Morale and

performance will most certainly suffer if central administration were to have iron resolve over all of the

decision-making in the schools. The Comm ittee does not advocate that this occur. The Comm ittee recognizes

that there is talent and a reservoir of key ideas amon g the staff current ly in the schools. The goal is not to quell

that sou rce. Instead , the inten tion is that an effective balance can be achieved one tha t recognizes the

strengths of the personn el in the schools and sup plements those strengths with p ositive sup port from central

adm inistration. Role dispu tes are a possible byprod uct of this approach, but w here the topic of concern is a

troubled school and a struggling student and in the matters of instruction d esign and implementation, the

Comm ittee wou ld overw helmingly prefer the scale of du ty and responsibility be tipped in favor of the entity

that h as sup ervisory responsibility an d ultimate accoun tability for stud ents achievement.

RECOMMENDATIO N:

29. Each underachi ev ing schoo l shoul d be required t o d evelop a plan fo r improvement by w ork ing

w it h a specially t rained sta ff of facilit at ors from central administ ration w ho util iz e proven,

predict able met hods fo r addressing underachievement .

4.6 Focus School Designation

The term focus school, whil e serv ing as a convenient label for school s w it h high percentages of children

w it h mult iple needs that merit addit ional resources, is w idely perceived by t he public as a negativ e label

that conv eys t he impression of a school to be av oided .

BACKGROUND

In its report to the H oward Coun ty Coun cil, the Combined Comm ittee on Schools reported the following:

One obvious theme w hich has come throu gh th is process is that the labeling of certain schools as

focus schools is not a p ositive reaction to m eeting th e needs of a p articular school, and in m any cases

builds and feeds negative stereotypes about an individu al school and its children. We strongly

recomm end th at the label focus schools be removed from a school. Labels harm the children w ho

attend th ese schools and impact the integrity of our n eighborhoods.32

The Board of Edu cation is clear that the d esignation of focus school is not meant to impact negatively up on a

school and its comm un ity. Rather, the intent of the board is simp ly to designate the school as one that is

receiving additional resources in order to bolster that schools performance.

Despite the best intentions of the school board, the term focus school has three significant limitations:

Under the current approach to la beling, a school is either a focus school or it is not a focus

school the disparate p erforman ce of the countys schools lend s itself more to a continuum than

an either-or dichotomy.

32County Council Combined Committee on Education, Final Report, p. 8.


27/47


27

Budget ing fo r focus schools creates a di sincent iv e for schools w it h high concentrat ions o f

children w it h mul t ip le educat ional needs to i mprov e performance schools with dem ograph ic

characteristics that w ould lead to the designation of focus school are den ied ad ditional

resources when their performance improves.

The term focus school has been unevenly applied some schools that wou ld otherw ise meritthe ad ditional resources that go w ith focus school designation are not receiving som e of those

resources.

OPPORTUNITY

Eliminating the focus school designation would provide an opportunity for the school system to re-examine its

definition of what constitutes an und erachieving school. There are two basic categories of schools in our system:

focus schools, wh ich are recognized to have a need for enhanced resources, and non -focus schools. The Committee

prefers to recognize that each of our 67 schools has need s. Those needs are varied, by both typ e and degree.

More importantly, the needs of schools and the children they serve exist on a continuu m. A school wh ich

approaches the focus school of being cu toff is most pr obably in need of vital assistance, despite the fact that it

does n ot meet the established criteria. In this regard, the elimination of the focus school d esignation allows

for an opp ortunity to erase the line between schools that qu alify for enhan ced resources and those that d o not.

This is a positive direction toward improving all schools.

RECOMMENDATIO NS:

30. The scho ol sy st em shoul d el imina te t he t erm focus s choo l.

31. In pl ace o f t he t erm focus s choo l, t he scho ol sy st em shoul d d evelop a formula for a llocat ing

resources t o s choo ls that recognizes t hat the needs o f school s can be array ed o n a cont inuum.

32. The revised fo rmula shoul d be t he basi s for t he school s yst ems proposed budget for fi sca l 2002.

4.7 Educational Options for Non-College Bound Students

Educat ional /career opt ions for 20% of t he count ys no n-college-bound seniors are no t clearly defined.

BACKGROUND

The school system has a very h igh ratio of college-boun d stu dents; however, twenty p ercent do not hav e plans

to continu e their education. Currently 932 high school students are in the technology magnet program at the

Applications and Research Laboratory; 250 of those students are seniors.

How ard Comm un ity College (HCC) also offers non-credit career program s such as veterinary assistant training,med ical assistant, pa tient care technician, certified n ur sing assistant, d ay care certification, fiber optic technician,

and med ical/ health care office assistant, which are not articulated w ith the high schools.

The school system and HCC coordinate various programs and courses through the tech prep project. Amon g

these are: art; biomed ical engineering technology; biotechnology; CAD; comp uter supp ort technician; early

childh ood edu cation; electronics technology; engineering; health an d fitness; four new health agreemen ts, two of

wh ich includ e emergency m edical technician and cardiovascular technology; health and fitness; information

systems mana gement; network ad ministration an d telecommu niications technology. A blanket articulation

agreem ent is curren tly being ap proved for CMSY110 Softwar e App lications for Micros.


28/47


28

HCCs Commission on the Future, completed in 1999, noted that jobs are available in automotive, hospitality,

man ufacturing and construction areas, but job prepara tion is not available in H oward County pu blic schools or

the comm un ity college. In spring 2000, HCC is conducting furt her study to d etermine specific job skills, and job

availability, and types of job prepar ation necessary to meet emp loyer needs.

OPPORTUNITY

How ard Comm un ity College and the school system h ave the expertise to create a collaborative, innovative

app roach to offering skilled trades programs in cooperation with H oward Coun ty businesses. When the needs

assessments that H CC is cond ucting are comp leted, the college and the pu blic school

hcpss equity report 2000

Documents