Gazette Editorial on Maryland Board State Board of Education Opinion

regarding Montgomery County Public Schools Charter School Application

Frederick Stichnoth (fred.stichnoth@yahoo.com)

February 15, 2011

Introduction: Charter schools and Apple Ballot Endorsements

(published February 23, 2011 in the Gazette.
http://www.gazette.net/stories/02232011/montlet184447_32538.php)

The Gazette’s February 2 “Endorsement interference?” editorial supports a world

safe for the Apple Ballot. But the Maryland State Board of Education would not assume
that the Global Gardens charter school application was rejected for the rights reasons
when MCPS Board members Docca, Durso and O’Neill promised the Montgomery
County Education Association, in soliciting its powerful Apple Ballot endorsement, to
consider charters based on illegal reasons or no reasons at all. Why did the Gazette not
even name MCEA or refer to its Apple Ballot?

We need the MCPS world shaken loose from the Apple Ballot, its enablers and
panderers. Charter schools, and the Gazette’s promised exploration of the relationship
between the MCPS Board and MCEA endorsements, would be a start.

Frederick Stichnoth, Silver Spring

The Gazette’s Editorial

The February 2 Gazette editorial “Endorsement interference? Election year

questionnaires raise concerns about fairness (A-8.
http://gazette.net/stories/02022011/montedi184819_32533.php)” criticizes the January 25
opinion of the Maryland State Board of Education in Global Gardens Public Charter
School, Inc. v. Montgomery County Board of Education (Maryland State Board of
Education 2011. Opinion No. 11-01 (January 25).
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/58D6A529-7AEB-41AA-BE29-
52AC5B1BC2B9/27374/GlobalGardens1101.pdf).

The State Board was “extremely concerned” with “Board Member Bias (15):”
that three MCPS Board of Education members expressed their negative general views on
charter schools in response to a Montgomery County Education Association
questionnaire during the fall 2010 reelection campaign, only weeks before the MCPS
Board’s negative Global Gardens decision (MCPS BOE Resolution No. 312-10, Minutes
pages 42-45.
http://montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/minutes/2010/060810.min.pdf).
 The Gazette criticizes the State Board for “cherry-picking the [MCPS] board
members’ comments” and interfering both with the public’s “right to know where
candidates stand philosophically” and with interest groups’ use of questionnaires in their
endorsement decisions.

Cherry-picking MCPS Board members’ comments

The State Board described the three MCPS Board members’ questionnaire
comments as follows:

In short, Judith Docca stated that she opposes charter schools. Patricia O’Neil
[sic] stated that she is “skeptical about charter schools” and the she “worr[ies]
about the draining of funds from MCPS.” Michael Durso expressed that he
“would be interested in the cost and impact on the local schools, especially with
the current budget challenges before [he] stated that we should try charters in
Montgomery County (15).”

The Gazette complained that:

[T]he quotes cited by the state board are not complete and the members qualified
those comments in their questionnaire responses. Durso noted his presidency of
the board of a Washington, D.C. charter school, Hospitality High School. He also
wrote that he support the concept, with appropriate monitoring. O’Neill wrote, “I
would only support a high quality charter school held to the same accountability
standards of [the school system].” Docca had the clearest resistance, writing, “I
simply oppose public school charters.”

The Gazette’s quotation is selective, like that of the State Board. The complete
question and responses from the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA)
and the three criticized MCPS Board members are:

MCEA Questionnaire: Do you support or oppose public school charters? If you

support them, under what parameters should they operate?

Mr. Durso: I currently serve as the President of the Board of a DC Charter High
School (Hospitality HS), and must admit a shift in my thinking on charter schools,
since their arrival on the education scene some years ago. In some circumstances
(as in DC ), I support the concept, along with appropriate monitoring. As to the
feasibility of coming to Montgomery County, I would be interested in the cost and
impact on the local schools, especially with current budget challenges, before I
stated that we should try charters in Montgomery County.

Ms. O’Neill: I am skeptical about charter schools. I would only support a high
quality charter school held to the same accountability standards of MCPS. The
BOE Charter school policy calls for a “unique” program. This is the lens I will
review proposals to MCPS. I worry about the draining of funds from MCPS.

2
 Dr. Docca: I simply oppose public school charters. It is our job as a school
system to continue to provide signature programs, innovative activities to keep
parents as partners in public education, reaching out to parents, truly keeping
parents as partners and not adversaries is a goal we have to continue to embrace.

The outreach by staff and each school to each home-visiting, attending

community meetings. Keeping the school as a welcoming place where parents are
considered partners, while maintaining parent's respect for the professionalism of
all staff. Every staff member is part of the school team-clerical, cafeteria, building
service, instructional assistants, drivers, teachers. It is important to find ways' to
include those workers who have schedules which do not permit them to meet after
school hours. http://mcea.nea.org/candidatequestionnaires.php

Mr. Durso is concerned as to the cost and impact, as the State Board properly
stated; the Gazette states that the State Board opinion should have noted his charter
school presidency and that “he supports the concept, with appropriate monitoring;” in
fact, Mr. Durso is more limited and ambiguous when he states that “in some
circumstances (as in DC), I support the concept….” Ms. O’Neill is skeptical and worried
about draining funds, as the State Board summarizes; the Gazette would have added that
she would not support a charter unless it was accountable (it omits her insistence on
“uniqueness,” which the State Board finds illegal—see below); nevertheless, her overall
position is one of skepticism. Dr. Docca’s flat opposition is properly characterized by the
State Board, as the Gazette acknowledges.

I believe that the State Board’s brief summary is fair and justifies its concern with
bias. The State Board’s concern is not undermined by a review of the complete
questionnaire responses. The Gazette’s complaint that the summary is insufficient is
unfounded and inexplicable, and the Gazette’s cherry-picking is itself misleading.

Law to be applied by MCPS’ Board

The Gazette again quoted selectively from the State Board’s rationale for its bias
concern (a rationale stated immediately following the State Board’s brief summaries of
the MCPS Board members’ election comments quoted above). The Gazette quoted the
second, but not the first, sentence of the State Board’s rationale:

We remind the local board that the General Assembly has determined that public
charter schools shall exist in the State of Maryland that that these schools are a
part of the public school system. Md. Code Ann., Educ. Section 9-102 et seq.
[http://www.michie.com/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0].
Members of a local board have a duty to evaluate public charter school
applications based on the sufficiency of their contents, and not on the board
member’s own personal view of whether charter schools should exist (15).”

3
 It is the law of Maryland that “There is a Maryland Public Charter Program (MSA
Education Article, Section 9-101(a)).” The local board must “carry out the applicable
provisions of this [Education] article and the bylaws, rules, regulations, and policies of
the State Board (MSA Education Article, Section 4-108(1)).” Maryland’s charter school
statute requires that each county board “develop a public charter school policy…(Section
9-110(a)(1)).” The MCPS Board adopted Policy CFB; its general purpose is “to establish
criteria for the evaluation of proposals for public charter schools…(Policy CFB A.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/cfb.pdf).” The Policy
recognizes that “The Board of Education needs to have criteria with which to consider
proposals for public charter schools…(Policy CFB B).” Criteria (20 or more, depending
on how they are counted) are specified by Policy CFB C (10) and (11) (and by
Regulation CFB-RA
(http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/cfbra.pdf) and MCPS’
Charter School Scoring Sheet
(http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/deputy/charterschool
s/Charter-School-Rubric.pdf)).

The Policy evaluation criteria encompass fiscal concerns. The Superintendent is

to submit to the MCPS Board “a fiscal impact statement (Policy CFB C.6).”
Implementation “is contingent upon adequate financial resources (Policy CFB C.7).”
“The total costs to MCPS for operating the proposed public charter school will not
exceed the equivalent costs for like students in MCPS (Policy CFB C.10(d); see also
C.11(a)(10)(a)).” Ms. O’Neill and Mr. Durso do not restrict their financial concern to
equivalent student costs, but rather object generally to charter funding because it
diminishes funds available to traditional MCPS schools. They thus apply a personal rule,
not that established by the Policy. (The State Board questions, without deciding, how any
consideration of fiscal impact comports with the State charter school law (8).) If the
personal O’Neill-Durso rule governed then no charters could be established, in
contravention of State law.

The State Board therefore reminded the MCPS Board that the State had
established a binding policy in favor of charter schools, and that the MCPS is required to
apply the legal criteria established by MCPS Policy CFB, not its members’ personal,
thereby lawless, preference for funding only traditional schools.

The Gazette’s partial quotation suggested that the “sufficiency” of the application
was at issue, when in fact the unlawfulness of the personal criteria was the fundamental
problem with the questionnaire responses. The Gazette concurs with the State Board that
the MCPS Board “should have an open mind;” the State Board nowhere makes this point.
The Gazette seems to mean by this that the MCPS Board should be uncommitted
subjectively. But more precisely, the MCPS Board should not be so subjectively
committed that it is unable to govern its evaluation by an objective application of the
legal criteria to the facts of each proposal.

Public’s right to know candidates’ stands

4
 The Gazette understands the State Board’s determination as indicating that
candidate responses to questionnaires, in general, “could be problematic;” this would
interfere with the public’s “right to know where candidates stand philosophically.” The
Gazette seems concerned with freedom of the press: the Gazette’s use of questionnaires.

However, the State Board did not criticize questionnaires in general, and in
particular candidate/Board member Shirley Brandman’s questionnaire response:

I support public charter schools to the extent authorized by law in the State of
Maryland. The willingness to experiment with well-defined, high-quality public
school charters is one way to explore innovative learning opportunities. Some
measure of experimentation is possible within traditional schools, as evidenced by
the success of the Broad Acres Elementary School reorganization. However,
charters may be better suited to trying other types of innovations that if successful
can then be replicated in traditional public schools for the benefit of all children.

While I am prepared to support a process that is inclusive of public school

charters, I believe that we must commit to holding any public charter schools
accountable for demonstrating improved educational outcomes through evidence-
based trials. A public school charter must identify the innovative nature of its
program and provide assurances that it is open to all children. A charter school
must also identify how it will demonstrate improved student performance. The
flexibility granted to charter schools is offered only in exchange for strict
accountability. Finally, charter school funding must not disproportionately divert
resources from traditional public schools
(http://mcea.nea.org/candidatequestionnaires.php [italics added]).

The State Board’s allowance of Ms. Brandman’s response indicates that the State Board
does intend to restrict questionnaire responses or the public’s right to know.

Comparison of the acceptable and unacceptable response should clarify further

the State Board’s concern. Ms. Brandman’s response differs from the biased responses in
two crucial respects. First, Ms. Brandman acknowledges in her first sentence that she is
bound to follow and will follow State law. Second, while Ms. Brandman expresses
concern with the financial impact, she follows Policy CFB in opposing only
“disproportionate diversion,” not any diversion whatsoever. (The phrasing of her opinion
that charters should not “disproportionately divert resources” suggests that it is derived
from the NEA Policy on Charter Schools cited below.)

The State Board found that “The [MCPS Board] decision fails to convey any
understanding of how the local board reached its conclusion…. It is the local board’s
responsibility to state in a clear and understandable way the reasons that serve as the
basis for its decision (6).” The three Board members’ questionnaire responses indicated
that they were not following established MCPS Policy in evaluating the application.
Contrary to the Gazette’s criticism, the State Board does not oppose questionnaires.
Extrapolating from the difference between Ms. Brandman’s permissible statement and

5
the three members’ biased statements, it seems that the State Board only opposes the
apparent undertaking to ignore the Policy criteria in a situation where the MCPS Board
does not state its rationale. The Gazette ignored the lack of State Board criticism for Ms.
Brandman.

Interest group questionnaires and endorsements

The Gazette states that “The question worth exploring here, however, is the
relationship between elected county board members and organizations or businesses that
endorse them.” That question is well worth exploring, but the Gazette does not do so.

MCEA’s questionnaire and its response serve as the basis for MCEA’s “Apple
Ballot.” MCEA’s endorsement, in its Apple Ballot, is considered one of the two most
important endorsements in Montgomery County politics (Maryland Politics Watch 2010,
Politicians debate endorsement value of Post vs. Apple Ballot (March 31).
http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2010/03/politicians-debate-endorsement-value-
of.html). MCPS Board member Laura Berthiaume, outlined MCEA’s reach and power:

I would not be in my seat on the Montgomery County Board of Education but for
the Montgomery County Education Association….While it is true that all current
board members have gotten their seats with some level of union blessing, I do not
believe a single one of them calls the MCEA for marching orders. Like me, my
colleagues act out of a sincere desire to achieve real policy goals. Most board
members are favorably inclined to the union, understandable given that the union
carefully vetted the candidates’ compatibility with the union’s ideology before
encouraging them to run, guiding their campaigns as far as possible within legal
limits, clearing the field of competition and using its political power to steer
endorsements (Laura V. Berthiame 2010. C5 “Who really controls the
Montgomery schools,” The Washington Post (July 25)).

In Ms. Berthiaume’s opinion, MCEA is a gatekeeper: its support is necessary for

election. That support is granted only after vetting via its questionnaire for
“compatibility with the union’s ideology.”

MCEA’s support also may be sufficient for election. Each of the four Board
candidates endorsed by MCEA through its Apple Ballot was reelected. No Board
candidate not endorsed by MCEA was elected.

Board members’ questionnaire responses establish an expectation in the endorsing

organization that the Board member will perform in future cases in accordance with the
pre-election, pre-case, questionnaire response. Questionnaire respondents likewise must
feel some obligation, ethical and/or pragmatic political, to perform in accordance with
their responses. Responses revealing where the candidates “stand philosophically” are
neither based on particular charter applicant characteristics nor on the complex criteria
specified by Policy CFB. The philosophical stance response creates an expectation in
each of the interest group and the respondent that the outcome in a particular case will

6
accord with the philosophical stance. The philosophical stance response tends to
substitute the mutual expectation (quid pro quo) for the law and its criteria.

Ms. Berthiaume responds that Board members do not call MCEA “for marching
orders.” The call would be superfluous. In responding to a questionnaire, Board
candidates sign an agreement to follow the “marching orders” implicit in the response.
So MSEA/MCEA warns:

The following are MSEA position statements on critical issues in the MSEA
Legislative Program [including the charter school position statement set forth in
the following section]. For each issue, please indicate whether you agree or
disagree with the MSEA position. Be certain each comment clearly indicates your
position. There is space provided for you to elaborate on your positions.
Agree with the MSEA position statement – Would support legislation that
reflects the MSEA position
Disagree with the MSEA position statement – Would oppose legislation that
reflects the MSEA position (Questionnaire For Candidates for Maryland Senate.
page 2 [bold and italics in original]. http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Candidate
%20Questionnaire%202010%20(Karen%20Montgomery).pdf).

The questionnaire, response and endorsement bind the endorsed Board member to the
marching orders.

At least Ms. Brandman informed MCEA that she would apply the law; thereafter,
neither MCEA nor Ms. Brandman would expect otherwise.

The Gazette acknowledges that “some measure of restraint is needed to prevent

pandering….” What qualifies as “pandering?” The Gazette apparently considers the
statement of subjective philosophical stance that ignores the law, made to one of the two
most powerful endorsers in the County (which the Gazette does not identify), to be the
requisite restraint.

This application of respondent-organization marching orders would not “ensure a

fair hearing of those with business before the board,” which the Gazette finds important.
Fairness would be impaired by the intent to substitute both stance for legal criteria, and
pre-existing understanding with the endorser for the business before the board.

MCEA selects the Board and MCPS’ policies.

MCEA’s position on charter schools

The Gazette never identifies MCEA as the interest group behind the
questionnaire. The Gazette buried the vague information that the questionnaire was
“produced by the county teachers union.”

7
 I have not located a direct MCEA statement of position on charter schools. The
best available evidence of position is the following statement derived from what appears
to be a joint Maryland State Education Association/MCEA election questionnaire
(MCEA as an affiliate of MSEA and the National Education Association):

MSEA opposes public funding of religious and private for-profit charter schools
and kindergarten programs. MSEA does not oppose public charter schools that
meet the following criteria.
• Are under the control of local school boards
• All students are eligible
• Are held to the same standards as other public schools
• Staff members have the same collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in
mainstream public schools and
• Must be qualitatively different from what is available in mainstream public
schools and not just an avenue for parental choice (Maryland State Education
Association, Montgomery County Education Association – NEA 2010
Questionnaire For Candidates for Maryland Senate. Question 7, page 5;
described as an MSEA position statement on a critical issue in the MSEA
Legislative Program. Questionnaire For Candidates for Maryland Senate. page 2.
http://mcea.nea.org/pdf/Candidate%20Questionnaire%202010%20(Karen
%20Montgomery).pdf).

See also the National Education Association’s more extensive “Policy on Charter
Schools” (http://www.nea.org/home/18132.htm), from which portions of the
MSEA/MCEA position seem to be derived.

Note on Illegal “Uniqueness” Standard

One interesting dispute implicated by Ms. O’Neill’s response though not raised by
the Gazette concerns innovation and uniqueness.

The State statute contemplates that charter schools will provide “innovative
learning opportunities (MSA Education Article Section 9-101(b)).” MCPS Policy CFB
requires that an applicant identify the “innovative nature of its program (C.10(c)),” with
the desired outcome of “innovative and creative approaches.” D. Ms. Brandman
likewise looks to “innovative learning opportunities.” By contrast, NEA and
MSEA/MCEA (in their position quoted above) would require an educational experience
that is “qualitatively different.” MCEA President Doug Prouty, in his Affidavit quoted by
the State Board, states that “one criterion for prospective charter schools is that the
intended program is unique (14).” Ms. O’Neill states that the “BOE Charter school
policy calls for a ‘unique’ program. This is the lens I will review proposals to MCPS.”
While, however, the charter Policy requires only an “innovative” program, the MCPS
Application requires that the applicant “Describe the uniqueness of the program (Public
Charter School Application, 4
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/deputy/charterschools

8
/Charter-School-Application.pdf) and the Rubric requires the review to determine
whether or not the application adequately describes “the uniqueness of the program (4).”

The State Board determines that “applying a uniqueness standard would be

illegal.” Citing the dictionary, the State Board says “‘Unique’ means ‘distinctively
characteristic’ or ‘without a like or equal’ and ‘innovative’ means having the quality of
being new (14).” As Mr. Prouty’s affidavit suggests, MCEA’s “qualitatively different” is
similar to the dictionary’s “distinctively characteristic”--the definition of the
“uniqueness” that he, Ms. O’Neill and the MCPS Application and Rubric apply and that
the State Board finds illegal.

Use of the illegal “uniqueness” criterion indicates the importance of a complete

review of State statute, MCPS Policy and MCPS Application/Rubric compatibility. The
Application/Rubric uniqueness requirement somehow differs from the Policy; Ms.
O’Neill incorrectly believed that uniqueness was the Policy criterion. Likewise, it should
not be assumed that the many criteria of the Policy (each a restriction on charter
programming) comport with the minimal criteria of the permissive State statute.

CONTACTS

February 15, 2011

Board of Education boe@mcpsmd.org

Policy Committee Members

Patricia O’Neill, Chair Patricia_O’Neill@mcpsmd.org

Shirley Brandman Shirley_Brandman@mcpsmd.org
Christopher S. Barclay Christopher_Barclay@mcpsmd.org

Committee on Special Populations

Shirley Brandman, Chair Shirley_Brandman@mcpsmd.org

Laura Berthiaume Laura_Berthiaume@mcpsmd.org
Phil Kauffman Phil_Kauffman@mcpsmd.org

Strategic Planning Committee

Judy Docca, Chair Judy_Docca@mcpsmd.org

Michael Durso Michael_A_Durso@mcpsmd.org
Patricia O’Neill Patricia_O’Neill@mcpsmd.org

Montgomery County Public Schools

Executive Leadership Team

9
 Dr. Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent
Dr. Frieda Lacey, Deputy Superintendent
Jody Leleck, Special Advisor
Dr. Frank H. Stetson, Chief School
Jerry_D_Weast@mcpsmd.org
Suzanne_Peang-Meth@mcpsmd.org
Frieda_Lacey@mcpsmd.org
Jody_Leleck@mcpsmd.org
Frank_H_Stetson@mcpsmd.org

Performance Officer
Erick Lang, Associate Superintendent Erick_J_Lang@mcpsmd.org
Larry A. Bowers, Chief Operating Officer Larry_Bowers@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Renee A. Foose, Associate Superintendent Renee_A_Foose@mcpsmd.org
Sherwin Collette, Chief Technology Officer Sherwin_Collette@mcpsmd.org

AEI Advisory Committee Members

Elizabeth Alcoba Elizabeth_C_Alcoba@mcpsmd.org

Marty Creel, DEIP Director* Marty_Creel@mcpsmd.org
Dr. Monique T. Felder, AEI Director Monique_T_Felder@mcpsmd.org
Donna Graves Donna_Graves@mcpsmd.org
Stephanie Holloman Stephanie_Holloman@mcspmd.org
Ebony Y. Langford Ebony_Y_Langford@mcpsmd.org
Margie Lopie, AEI Supervisor Marjorie_D_Lope@mcpsmd.org
Jennifer Lowndes Jennifer_H_Lowndes@mcpsmd.org
Douglas E. Nelson Douglas_E_Nelson@mcspmd.org
Cheryl D. Pulliam Cheryl_D_Pulliam@mcpsmd.org
*Committee co-chairs

Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations

Kristin Trible, President president@mccpta.com

Laurie Halverson, VP, Educational Issues vpedissues@mccpta.com
Ted Willard, Co-Chair, Curriculum Committee twillard@aaas.org
Kathy Boehlert, Co-Chair, Curriculum Committee skboehlert@msn.com
Michelle Gluck, Chair, Gifted Child Subcommitte gluck.michelle@yahoo.com
Your school’s PTA President and parent GT liaison

Additional contacts

Montgomery County Council Education Committee

Valerie Ervin, Chair councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov

Phil Andrews councilmember.andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov
Craig Rice councilmember.rice@montgomerycountymd.gov

Other County Council members

10
 Marc Elrich councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov
George Leventhal councilmember.leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov
Roger Berliner councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Floreen councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov
Hans Riemer councilmember.riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Navarro councilmember.navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov

Maryland State Department of Education

State Board stateboard@msde.md.state.us

Dr. Jeanne Paynter jpaynter@msde.md.state.us

Maryland State Legislature

Senator Richard Madaleno Richard.Madaleno@senate.state.md.us

Montgomery County Education Association

Doug Prouty, President dprouty@mcea.nea.org

Press

Michael Birnbaum, The Washington Post birnbaumm@washpost.com

Lisa Gartner lgartner@dcexaminer.com
Andrew Ujifusa, Gazette aujifusa@gazette.net
Liz Bowie, Baltimore Sun liz.bowie@baltsun.com
Sean Sedam, Rockville Patch sean.sedam@patch.com

53627798.doc

11