Was Thornton Fully Funded?

The Ehrlich Administration's FY 2005 budget proposal to the General Assembly in 2004 included approximately $315 million in increased funding for k-12 education. With this increase, the administration claimed that it had met its obligation to "fully fund Thornton."

While the Administration's budget may have met the legal requirements for funding, several factors indicate that the "spirit" of the legislation may not have been fully addressed:

The Geographic Cost of Education Index This component of the Thornton law would have provided nearly $50 million in FY 2005 to jurisdictions that have higher costs of education for reasons that are beyond their control.

Through a legal technicality the Administration claimed that funding for this portion of the Thornton legislation was not mandatory and therefore was not included in the budget. Failure to provide this funding resulted in lower than expected aid for 13 jurisdictions: Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Charles, Frederick, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's and St. Mary's counties.

Cuts to Educational Grant Programs The Thornton law phased out many targeted education grants at the same time that Thornton funding was being phased in. However, in each of the last two years aid to education was cut by prematurely reducing or eliminating these other grant programs. For example, policymakers eliminated a $21 million program for local governments to increase teacher salaries. For FY 2005 policymakers cut approximately $37 million in local education funding that existed outside of the Thornton funding stream.

Other Cuts to Local Governments At the same time that Thornton funding is being phased in to increase the state share, the state is reducing other forms of aid to local governments.

This fiscal sleight of hand allows state policymakers to take credit for fully funding Thornton, but makes it more challenging for local elected officials to meet their budgetary needs (including providing local funding for education). For example, in FYs 2004 and 2005, the state cut approximately $150 million in aid to local governments that is generally targeted for transportation. The state has also cut funding for community colleges and some aspects of public safety.

Cuts to Other Types of Family Supports The state has also cut funding for other programs that promote child and family well-being. For example, in FY 2004 the state cut child care and after school program funding by approximately $30 million, and sustained these cuts through FY 2005. The state also made cuts to its child health insurance program. While these and other cuts are not directly related to k-12 education, they likely impact student achievement and health.

Overall, money for k-12 education increased substantially in the FY 2005 (current year) budget. However, the increases were approximately $80 million less than expected based on the Thornton law as passed. Further, at the same time that education aid was increased, state aid for other local services was cut substantially. These other cuts make it more difficult for local governments to meet other service needs and maintain local funding commitments to k-12 education. Finally, substantial other cuts were enacted at the state level that will impact child and family well-being. These cuts include limited access to child care, major reductions for after school programs and eligibility limits for the child health insurance program.

Related Reports:

Back to the Basics on Thornton (full report)
Other Thornton links