Liberals missed the boat on school spending accountability; Maryland aims to get on board
Baltimore City pre-K instructor Berol Dewdney, the 2022-2023 Maryland teacher of the year, works with her students. (Photo by Shannon Clark/Capital News Service)
We liberals have failed to learn the lesson that more money isn't enough for schoolchildren to succeed. We must pay equal attention to accountability for how efficiently and effectively the money is spent.
Liberals' failure goes back about 50 years when federal funds started to flow, particularly to assist low-income students and students with disabilities. The money came but the expected results didn't. Students made little progress, which is what happens when accountability is absent from school.
Nationally, the message has still not sunk in. A milestone in the retreat from accountability was Congress's revocation of the tough requirements in the landmark No Child Left Behind law. Instead of good faith efforts to raise their standards, state and local districts lobbied the Congress, fiercely and successfully, to let them off the hook.
In NCLB's place, Congress, with liberal backing, passed the Every Student Succeeds Act that is widely considered 'the largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century.' Student progress has declined. And to make things worse, Trump wants to eliminate the federal role altogether.
Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@marylandmatters.org.
We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.
Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.
Views of writers are their own.
Which brings us back to the reason for NCLB in the first place: State and local school systems were defaulting on their duty to ensure accountability then, and they're still doing it now.
Summarizing the problem, eminent policy analyst Chester E. Finn, Jr. writes that, 'The country's multi-decade commitment to results-based accountability has badly eroded and may not be recoverable.' Finn was an influential member of the Kirwan Commission which was boldly determined to buck the tide.
The commission drafted the Blueprint for Maryland's Future accountability scheme. It's anchored in the Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Board, a national model for holding state and local educators responsible for how well funds are spent and how well students are achieving.
The Blueprint includes intricate accountability measures, among them specific outcomes to be achieved, data collection, frequent reports, and evaluation. It's a giant leap forward. Still, it has a distance to go.
For starters, accountability is undermined if state standards aren't genuinely high. Yet, many states are doing the opposite and lowering the bar instead of raising it. In contrast, the Blueprint calls for career and college standards to be raised, and that's in progress.
Fortunately, our state schools superintendent is doing all she can: A national article reported that 'Maryland's new education chief, Carey Wright, an old-school champion of rigorous standards, is pushing back against efforts in other states to boost test scores by essentially lowering their expectations of students.'
Also, accountability suffers when test scores are inflated by easier questions and grading policies. The result of lower standards and easier tests is the national scandal of grade inflation. Parents are deceived into thinking their children are succeeding when, in what's known as 'social promotion,' many are passed from grade to grade despite being far below meeting grade-level standards.
One further note. Though the connection is not readily visible, the inadequate funding of the Blueprint (which is now well recognized) makes it hard to hold state and local educators completely responsible for student outcomes. When students don't succeed, how much is attributable to poor funding and how much to poor management? In any event, school systems must not be allowed to evade accountability. They must be held completely responsible for whether there are maximum returns on available resources.
The Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Board is supposed to be the primary guardian of rigorous accountability. However, while the AIB has done much excellent work, it's way overworked and has neglected what should be its core function: evaluation that is the ultimate measure of accountability.
Unless the AIB steps up on evaluation, the Blueprint's promise of accountability probably will be broken. And Maryland will lose the chance to be a national model and steer the boat of accountability in the right direction.
Our schoolchildren will suffer. Let's not let that happen.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions
All members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board announced their resignation on Wednesday, releasing a statement accusing President Donald Trump's administration of political interference in the prestigious exchange program. The 12-member board alleged the Trump administration "usurped the authority of the Board" by denying Fulbright awards to "a substantial number of individuals" who were selected for the 2025-2026 academic year. The board also alleged the administration is currently "subjecting" an additional 1,200 international Fulbright recipients to "an unauthorized review process and could reject more." "We believe these actions not only contradict the statute but are antithetical to the Fulbright mission and the values, including free speech and academic freedom, that Congress specified in the statute," the board said in its statement. MORE: State Department delivers crushing news to Fulbright scholar hopefuls in Afghanistan The board oversees the Fulbright Foreign Student Program, which offers international graduate students, young professionals and artists the opportunity to study and conduct research in the United States. The government-funded, non-partisan program -- which was established by Congress in 1942 under then-President Harry Truman's administration -- operates in more than 160 countries worldwide, providing scholarships to approximately 4,000 foreign students annually. In the joint letter on Wednesday, the board said the awards that were overridden by the administration were concentrated in biology, engineering, architecture, agriculture, crop sciences, animal sciences, biochemistry, medical sciences, music and history. MORE: State Dept. suggests Afghan Fulbright hopefuls seek other options as program stalls The board claimed it has raised "legal issues and our strong objections with" senior Trump administration officials "on multiple occasions," including in writing, but says the concerns have not been acknowledged. In a statement to statement to ABC News after the board announced its resignation, a senior State Department official called the decision "a political stunt attempting to undermine President Trump." "It's ridiculous to believe that these members would continue to have final say over the application process, especially when it comes to determining academic suitability and alignment with President Trump's Executive Orders." the official said. The board, however, said in its statement that the decision was not one "we take lightly," woth the board calling on Congress, the courts and future Fulbright Boards to "prevent the administration's efforts to degrade, dismantle, or even eliminate one of our nation's most respected and valuable programs." "Injecting politics and ideological mandates into the Fulbright program violates the letter and spirit of the law that Congress so wisely established nearly eight decades ago," the board concluded in its statement. Entire Fulbright Scholarship board quits, citing Trump admin actions originally appeared on
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress Agrees on One Thing: National Seersucker Day
Congress can't seem to agree on anything these days with Republicans and Democrats seemingly at loggerheads over every piece of legislation. But Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, and Rev. Raphael Warnack, a Democrat from Georgia, have put aside party politics to partner on a resolution marking Thursday, June 12, National Seersucker Day. This is the 12th year that Cassidy has championed the cause, which celebrates the summer fabric, since he revived the tradition in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014. More from WWD Ray and Charles Eames' Furniture to Be Focus of New Exhibition Gaurav Gupta Talks Bollywood Star Kiara Advani's Met Gala Gown - It's a Loaner Tarun Tahiliani Offers a Modern View of India-made Fashion 'Seersucker Day honors the New Orleans invention that's made America fashionable — and the summer heat bearable — since 1909,' Cassidy said. 'For one day a year, the Capitol looks a little more like the French Quarter. We might not always agree on policy, but we can all agree: wool in June is a mistake.' 'I'm excited to return as the co-chair for the annual Seersucker Day in our nation's capital and continue celebrating this iconic Senate tradition,' said Warnock. 'Seersucker is more than just a fabric, it is a material deeply woven into Southern culture. National Seersucker Day is a proud bipartisan tradition, and I look forward to working alongside Senator Cassidy to carry it on.' The use of seersucker was popularized in 1909 by New Orleans businessman Joseph Haspel Sr., who brought the puckered cloth popular in India to his home town and created suits that would stand up to the city's scorching summer heat and humidity. Haspel's great granddaughter Laurie Haspel Aronson still runs the company today. In 1996, former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott brought Seersucker Thursday to Congress, where it was observed for several years. After falling by the wayside in 2012 and 2013, Cassidy revived it. The senator has invited other members of Congress to don their seersucker outfits for an official photograph at the Ohio Clock in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday at 12:30 p.m. ET, and he also encouraged all Americans to wear the fabric as well. Best of WWD Young Brooke Shields' Style Evolution, Archive Photos: From Runway Modeling & Red Carpets to Meeting Princess Diana The Most Memorable French Open Tennis Outfits With Serena Williams, Naomi Osaka & More [PHOTOS] Beyoncé's 'Cowboy Carter Tour' Outfits, Live Updates: Schiaparelli, Burberry, Loewe and More

USA Today
40 minutes ago
- USA Today
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law
Major student loan changes just came one step closer to becoming law A 71-page bill released by Senate Republicans would cut down on repayment plans and deem certain college programs ineligible for federal financial aid. Show Caption Hide Caption Senators grill Education Secretary Linda McMahon over proposed cuts Education Secretary Linda McMahon testified to Congress over proposed budget cuts. WASHINGTON – Congress is closer than it's been in a long time to massively reforming college financial aid. On June 10, GOP lawmakers in the U.S. Senate proposed their version of the higher education section of President Trump's tax and spending megabill. The 71-page portion of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would set new caps on student loan borrowing while drastically cutting the number of repayment plans. Read more: Republicans propose massive overhaul of student loans, Pell Grants The Senate's version of the legislation is less aggressive than the bill that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced in late April. While it will likely be further watered down due to congressional budget rules, the scope of the legislation indicates big changes will be enacted soon to how Americans pay for college. Student loan caps proposed When President Donald Trump asked Republicans to find billions of dollars in federal spending cuts, GOP lawmakers in the House drew up measures to eliminate or dramatically curb many student loan programs. In April, they proposed cutting subsidized loans altogether for undergraduates. When students take out a federal direct subsidized loan, the government pays the interest while they're in school (and for a short grace period after the students complete their studies). That idea didn't survive in the Senate version of the bill, which was expected to be slightly more moderate than the House proposal. Read more: Could Trump fail on tax bill? Why going 'big' doesn't always work out as planned Other elements of the House version remain, however. Like the House bill, the Senate measure proposes cutting the number of student loan repayment plans to just two. That change would kill President Joe Biden's Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, program, which former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona repeatedly called the "most affordable repayment plan ever." SAVE has been stalled in court for months, placing roughly 8 million people in forbearance. The Senate bill would also dramatically curb lending for graduate students and parents (though at lower caps than House Republicans wanted). Ben Cecil, a senior education policy advisor at Third Way, a center-left think tank, said he was pleased to see the bill appeared to make compromises. "These loan limits are much more reasonable," he said. Melanie Storey, president of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said she was "relieved" some of the "most harmful" provisions of the House bill had been nixed. "Still, there are several concerning aspects of this bill that would ultimately make college less affordable for students," she said, including changes that "may drive borrowers to riskier private loans, which are not available to all borrowers." Less concern over Pell Grants One of college access groups' biggest criticisms of the initial bill was a significant change to Pell Grants, federal subsidies that help lower-income students pay for college. House Republicans wanted to increase the number of credits students would need to take each semester to be eligible for Pell Grants. The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank, estimated that two out of three Pell recipients could've lost their grants or received smaller ones if that requirement were enacted. The Senate version takes a softer approach, codifying a provision to more fully exclude higher-income students qualify for Pell funds. At the same time, the bill expands Pell Grants in ways that could waste money, according to critics such as Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, a college affordability group. 'While the Senate nixed most of the House's proposed cuts to the Pell Grant program and averts a looming funding shortfall, it regrettably threatens the program's long-term stability by extending Pell eligibility to unaccredited programs that are unlikely to pay off for students," Gadkaree said in a statement. New accountability rules One of the biggest distinctions between the House and Senate versions of the bill is that they lay out two entirely different sets of new accountability rules for colleges. The House proposal would fine colleges for leaving students on the hook for unpaid student loan debt. The Senate's framework suggests taking federal financial aid away from college programs if they can't prove that students who graduate are earning more than they would have without a degree. Mike Itzkowitz, who served in the Education Department under President Barack Obama, said that concept has bipartisan support. "I don't know anyone who would be willing to fork over their time to take on loans to earn less than a high school graduate," he said. But it's possible that particular provision won't survive special Senate rules. To avoid needing the support of Democrats, Republicans are trying to pass Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" using the budget process. That strategy comes with challenges. However, the bill must only make changes that spend money or save money. Significant reforms to college oversight might go too far, said Jon Fansmith, the senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, the main association for colleges and universities. "This process isn't designed to do complicated policymaking," he said. "I really do worry about rushing something through without understanding what we're doing." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @