At a business meeting held Monday, Harford School Board President Rick Grambo moved to scrap the text of a 20-page Legislative Platform recommended in November by Superintendent Robert Tomback and replace it with the following:
“Whereas the family unit is where the best decisions are made for children, we support legislation that brings the governance of education as close as possible to the family rather than sending the responsibility for it to State and Federal governments.
-We oppose any legislation that allows international agencies, or governments control of the education process.
-We support legislation that promotes School choice for parents
-We oppose legislation that interferes in any way with a parent’s right to raise their children as they see fit.
-We oppose legislation that allows local Harford County Taxpayer funds to be used in counties other than our own.
-We oppose legislation that trades local control of the education process for funding
-We understand the county’s future responsibilities to the pensioned employees of our schools, and will engage in conversation with county officials on how to fund said responsibilities without relying upon bonds.
-We oppose state legislation that passes the cost of irresponsible promises onto counties.
-We support legislation that promotes Education Freedom. That is, legislation that improves access to a quality education for all students and families.”
Grambo’s motion failed to get a second from his fellow board members.
The Harford County Board of Education votes each year on a legislative platform reflecting its positions on issues such as school funding, board authority and student safety. Under pressure to approve a set of positions in time for the upcoming Maryland General Assembly session, board members moved to vote on the 2013 platform at the December 17th meeting where Grambo made his motion.
The action on the platform came after the board delayed an earlier vote scheduled for November 19th, when Tomback first presented a proposed 2013 platform to the board.
While many of the positions in the 2013 proposal were carried over from previous years, Kathy Carmello, HCPS facilitator of governmental relations, acknowledged on November 19th that next year’s platform was put together in the board’s name without input from current board members, or the public. Board members delayed a vote at the time to allow for further review.
After Grambo’s motion failed at the meeting Monday, Board Vice-President Nancy Reynolds suggested a compromise to address a sticking point for Grambo in Tomback’s proposed platform: opposition to school choice. Reynolds’ amendment removed any reference to the topic, such as how charter schools are to be funded and regulated. Reynolds’ amendment passed unanimously.
Board members later passed the proposed 2013 Legislative Platform as amended – minus the school choice references and with the addition of an executive summary – with Grambo casting the only no vote.
Armed with the school board’s freshly approved platform, Ms. Carmello will head to Annapolis in January to weigh in on the board’s behalf on bills affecting education. When bills arise that involve school choice, she will return to the Harford County School Board to ask for their position, be it thumbs up, or thumbs down.
Thank you Mr. Grambo for your attempt to support the most important link in the education chain; the family. For too long I have watched the government education system devolve as it embraced various social experiments. I anticipate more to come down the pike. Mr. Tomback opposes school choice. Is this because he believes that government run schools are in the best position to educate our children? Or is it because he believes that school choice would return control to parents and threaten the stranglehold that state run education has on our taxes and the indoctrination of our children? Shame on the elected board members. You are there to support parents not thwart them. Apparently choice is something to be practiced only when a parent wishes to exterminate their offspring but not when they wish to nurture them.
Interesting read. Lets look at Mr. Grambo’s recommended platform one piece at a time.
“Whereas the family unit is where the best decisions are made for children, we support legislation that brings the governance of education as close as possible to the family rather than sending the responsibility for it to State and Federal governments.”
I can agree that active parental involvement in a child’s education is preferable but not all parents are as engaged as they should be. The truth is that there are many ways for parents to partner with the school system regarding the educational opportunities for Harford County students not only on an individual basis but also county wide.
“-We oppose any legislation that allows international agencies, or governments control of the education process.”
I don’t think that too many people in Harford County would disagree with this statement. Maybe I am ill informed but I do not recall nor am I aware of any foreign governments, agents thereof, or international organizations dictating curriculum or education policies.
“-We support legislation that promotes School choice for parents.”
This is clearly a reference to charter schools. There are many that believe charter schools are nothing more than private schools funded with taxpayer money. Charter schools take money out of the school system and lessens that which is left to be used for those students that remain in public schools. These are usually the same people that oppose taxpayer support for private schools. I find this rationale in support of charter schools inconsistent.
“-We oppose legislation that interferes in any way with a parent’s right to raise their children as they see fit.”
What does this have to do with the duties of the school board? If you take this statement literally parents should not be required to educate their children either through the public schools, private schools or homeschooling. I am not aware of legislation that takes this right away from parents.
“-We oppose legislation that allows local Harford County Taxpayer funds to be used in counties other than our own.”
Then I must believe that Mr. Grambo is also apposed to accepting tax dollars from people living in other Maryland counties or collected in other states which come to Harford County as Federal funds used by the school board to run our local school system. When voting on the school budget will Mr. Grambo also recommend that Harford County reject those funds which account for nearly half the school systems overall budget.
“-We oppose legislation that trades local control of the education process for funding.”
I think most would agree with this. The strings attached for money issue is pervasive at all levels of government. Part of the problem is that the same people that that decry this practice are frequently those that resist raising taxes of any kind needed to support the legitimate functions of government and services citizens want like good roads, safe water, sanitation, fire, police, schools, and so on. When the local tax base in unable or unwilling to support those services local and state governments must look elsewhere which make them susceptible to the addictive habit of taking strings attached funds.
“-We understand the county’s future responsibilities to the pensioned employees of our schools, and will engage in conversation with county officials on how to fund said responsibilities without relying upon bonds.”
A reasonable statement but bonding authority and how to pay for pension obligations is not the purview of the school board. That authority rests with the County Executive and County Council.
“-We oppose state legislation that passes the cost of irresponsible promises onto counties.”
Based on whose definition of “irresponsible promises”? These types of broad rhetorical statements without specifics serve no purpose.
“-We support legislation that promotes Education Freedom. That is, legislation that improves access to a quality education for all students and families.”
Who wouldn’t agree with that, other than this is another attempt to define “access” as supporting charter schools? Analysis of charter schools has shown a very mixed bag when it comes to their success. They are not the panacea some claim and many have closed voluntarily or been shut down because they have not met the needs of attending students. Harford County had a charter school. It failed miserably and was shut down by the school board. Save for a relative few around the county there is no appetite to try again anytime soon.
Considering Mr. Grambo did not even get a second from his colleagues to his motion says a great deal. This appears to be nothing more than a use of his public position on the school board to go off on a political rant. The motion had more to do with political philosophy than recommending a legislative platform to represent the views of the school board. Anyone that pays attention to local politics knows that Mr. Grambo is a vocal member of local Campaign for Liberty group. Perhaps he should run for higher office where his political philosophy may be better received than it was by the school board.
@vseitz
“Apparently choice is something to be practiced only when a parent wishes to exterminate their offspring but not when they wish to nurture them.”
Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the school system and is completely out of line.
Not out of line at all. Left leaning individuals appointed by statist officials as a rule support womens’ choice as well as government schools and the unions that grow them. Anything that threatens this monopoly must be challenged. I feel that my pointing out this bit of hypocrisy relative to choosing the path your child’s future may take is appropriate but I will give you that is was a provocative statement. Mr. Grambo may not have gotten a second from the mostly appointed board but I dare say the parents of Harford County would support him on this. He was elected by them and seeks to serve them.
Your injecting abortion into a discussion about school board policy does nothing to bolster your position. Quite the contrary, it paints you as a bomb thrower and undermines you own credibility.
I concur with all remarks posted by vseitz.
Thank you for your service and commitment to families and parental rights, Mr. Grambo.
For the rest of the board – I’m shaking my head over your decision. Shame on you.
I disagree, parent/taxpayer. A platform is not designed for specifics, it is designed to declare the principles to which the group will adhere. But if you read between the lines you’ll have your specifics – standardized curriculum like Common Core Standards and Race to the Top take autonomy away from local boards in return for money for training, resources and new materials. Common Core is nothing short of federal mandates forced upon local schools. I’m in favor of seeing Harford County schools concentrate instead on parent-teacher relationships, allowing for children’s diversity, and rewarding teachers who actually teach critical thinking, not standardized memorization.
We shall have to agree to disagree. A platform is made up of specific positions on defined topics.
I too disagree with Common Core which is as you say an attempt to dictate a national curriculum. Unfortunately a great many States with conservative governments support this program of instruction.
However, I would add that conservatives have been those responsible for pushing those standardized memorization tests in part to measure teacher effectiveness.
@Bel Air Mom – well said.
VSEITZ
He didn’t get a second from the other elected individuals either. Grambo was not elected by the whole county simply one council district.
My issue with him is he is advocating for not charter schools, which I don’t mnd although the record on them is not good. He is advocating vouchers and that is not acceptable. Parents have a choice to send their kid to private schools as it is. If they want to do that than they can pay for it. I am not paying for religious indocternation of kids.
@CDev, would you be opposed to vouchers if they were used to send a child to a secular private school? Theoretically, of course, because those are few and far between in Harford County. It is my understanding that Harford Day School (K-8) has no religious affiliation nor does it offer or require religious instruction. Over in Cecil County, I’m quite sure that both West Nottingham (9-12) and Tome (K-12) are non-religious schools, although according to their website WNA does require seniors to take a one-trimester course in Religion. So if there were a completely secular, in no way religious, college preparatory school in Harford County, something akin to Boys Latin or Gilman or McDonogh, would you support a voucher program that would pay part of the tuition (equal to the annual per-pupil cost of a public school student) for a student able to earn entry to the school? To be honest, I’m not sure if I would or not. I’m just inquiring because your argument against vouchers seems to be based on public funding of religious education.
Cdev –
So you don’t have a good argument against vouchers do you?
Vouchers are funding of education choice not religion.
Concerned TEacher and Common Sense
My primary concern with vouchers is the Seperation between Church and state issue. Government funded religious indocrination is not OK. Publicly funded education is mandated by our state Constitution. My other concerns are more with implementation.
Any voucher program should NOT use the standard PPE. PPE divides special ed costs equally amongst all children even though that is not how the actual services are divided. Since complying with Special Ed law is not voluntary if you do not exempt SE costs from the calculation you will actually up the cost to the tax payer. Additionally few if any private schools for normal children actually pay for their own special ed services they dump them back on the public School system. A kid needing speech from John Carroll will go to a public school to recieve those services. This would drastically reduce the value of a voucher. Leaving a larger burden on the user to cover. Under that circumstance I am fine with a voucher system at a non-religious school.
My third concern is the use of vouchers at schools which serve as nothing more than a diploma mill and offer no real education. There would need to be some accountability factor.
Cdev –
Vouchers do not establish a state religion.
And educational choice through vouchers does not
violate the US constitution in any way.
Your other opinions are just your opinions.
Common Sense: This is not an argument about establishing a state religion. His point, and one that is well made, is that he is not in favor of publicly subsidizing a religious education. In Harford County, I can think of only one private school that is NOT religiously oriented, so allowing vouchers in this county would be, in fact, a public subsidizing of religious education.
Also, to state that “[y]our other opinions are just your opinions” is just ridiculous. Of COURSE they are his opinions. I was asking him for his opinions. Sheesh.
CDev: Your strong opinions about the purpose and the implementation of vouchers are noted. However, you did not answer my question. If highly effective private, non-religious schools on par with Boys Latin, Gilman, and McDonogh existed in Harford County, would you be opposed on a philosophical basis to vouchers being used to offset some portion of the tuition to those schools?
Yes but allowing my tax dollars to be spent on religion is forcing me condone it!!!!!
Would you be OK if the voucher was to be used at a school that taught Islamic Extermism? Or a school that taught a religious view which you morally objected too? What are your thoughts on my other two concerns?
Cdev –
Allowing people to use vouchers has no impact on you whatsoever.
Once the voucher is in the hands of parents its their choice of how
to use it for education, not yours.
Your other issues are red herrings meant to obfuscate and misdirect
by complicating the question of vouchers.
Your primary argument is government establishment of a state religion
which does not happen as a result of voucher use.
What you’re afraid of his public schools and unions can compete with
private schools.
Competition will make all schools better and break the stranglehold unions
have on education.
Common Sense: You are manipulating CDev’s argument to suit your own purposes. At no time did he ever make any argument concerning government establishment of a state religion. His argument was against his tax dollars being used to subsidize religious education. In addition, your introduction of teacher unions into the argument clearly shows your prejudices and reduces the effectiveness of your argument, feeble as it was.
Concerned Teacher: Unions are a well documented part of the discussion when it comes to charter schools and/or vouchers. That CDev did not introduce this to the discussion is extraneous. Dismissivly denouncing one’s thought as prejudice may be seen to say more about your own bias than that of those to which you speak.