Marylanders Can't Afford Kirwan's Myths
A Dose of Reality: Kirwan is Expensive, Ineffective, Misguided
Myth |
Reality |
Maryland’s schools are underfunded |
Per pupil, Maryland spends 22% more than the national average (as of 2017, the latest year for which nationwide data are available)
|
Maryland’s teachers are underpaid |
Per pupil, Maryland teachers are paid 28% more than the national average
|
Maryland’s poorest jurisdictions are inadequately funded and unfairly treated by current school funding formulas |
Per pupil, Baltimore City spends 10% more than the state average and gets 79% of its budget from federal/state sources; Prince George’s County spends 5% more than average and gets 64% of its budget from federal/state sources.
|
The Kirwan reform plan (“Blueprint for Maryland’s Future”) would “cost $4 billion over ten years” |
Kirwan’s estimated costs total $32 billion over ten years, rising to $4 billion per year by the plan’s tenth year. And that’s optimistic, reflecting billions in hoped-for “savings” and “offsets” unlikely to eventuate.
|
The Kirwan Commission’s spending recommendations are new ideas. |
In 2002, the Thornton Commission recommended hiking state aid to education by 60% to create a “Bridge to Excellence” in schools. Billions in spending later, Maryland students’ test scores have been virtually flat – yet Kirwan advocates say again that more money is the key to “excellence.”
|
The Kirwan recommendations can be implemented without significantly raising taxes.
|
The 2020 Maryland General Assembly is considering a 51% increase in the sales tax burden – a highly regressive tax – as well as possible income, estate, and digital tax hikes to come up with the money for Kirwan.
|
The Kirwan reforms would not impose heavy financial burdens on Maryland’s local jurisdictions.
|
About 1/3 of Kirwan’s eventual costs will fall on localities; the most cash-strapped (Baltimore City, Prince George's County, others) simply can’t afford Kirwan without major increases in local tax rates.
|
The Kirwan recommendations are necessary to reduce education inequality and opportunity gaps in Maryland. |
Kirwan ignores school choice, which is the key to empowering poorer parents and addressing education inequality.
|
The Kirwan reform would certainly improve student outcomes. |
Thornton’s payoff was almost imperceptible; Kirwan would continue Maryland’s legacy of high spending and poor student outcomes by limiting parental choice and encouraging education bureaucracy to grow.
|
Kirwan would make Maryland’s education system more transparent and accountable. |
There’s very little accountability in Kirwan: annual spending for “Governance and Accountability” is less than one-tenth of one percent of the plan’s budget (per Kirwan Exhibit 5.1).
|
Kirwan recommends expanding pre-K programs; universal pre-K is very popular, and it would improve student outcomes. |
Studies show that pre-K does not improve student outcomes beyond kindergarten. Survey shows that over 70% of Marylanders do not want to expand pre-K at the expense of other spending priorities.
|
The Kirwan proposal is very popular. |
Polls that show support for Kirwan often fail to disclose the taxpayers’ cost of the plan; when costs are mentioned, the majority of Marylanders turn thumbs down.
|