Prince George’s County Public Schools officials warned Feb. 6 that changes in a Maryland Senate bill implementing parts of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future would reduce the district’s state revenue for fiscal 2026 and delay several programmatic funding streams.

The change in the foundation per‑pupil amount and a multi‑year pause on elements of the Blueprint’s collaborative‑planning and community‑school grants, together with a shift of oversight to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), will lower Prince George’s County’s unrestricted state and local revenue by about $22,000,000 for FY26, Chief Howell told the board.

Why it matters: The foundation amount is the base per‑pupil figure that underpins other targeted funds (for compensatory education, multilingual learners and special education). Chief Howell said a reduction in the foundation will ripple into those targeted allocations and to school budgets, and several board members and former board member Alvin Thornton urged a public response to protect the long‑term integrity of the Blueprint.

What the district leaders said

Robin Welsh, who opened the committee’s legislative update, summarized the bill’s main components as presented to the committee. She told members that the bill reduces or delays several expected increases under the Blueprint, moves oversight and some administrative funds to MSDE, and authorizes MSDE to set requirements for community‑school implementation plans and to withhold funds for noncompliance.

Chief Howell (identified in the meeting as Chief Howell) said the district is still modeling the out‑year effects but that for FY26 the combined impact on foundation, compensatory education and multilingual‑learner funding amounts to a projected revenue shortfall of about $22,000,000 compared with current law. "That impact to us is lower revenue of $22,000,000," she said.

How the bill would change funding and administration (as discussed in the meeting)

- Foundation and per‑pupil changes: The bill, as described in the meeting, lowers the growth in the foundation per‑pupil amount for the upcoming school year and converts some scheduled percentage increases into set rates for special education beginning in FY26.

- Collaborative planning: A per‑pupil allocation intended for teacher collaborative planning (described at the meeting as $163 per pupil for FY26, rising in later years) has been delayed. Committee members and staff said the pause moves the start of that funding from FY26 to FY30, reducing the near‑term foundation total and therefore related targeted funding.

- Community‑school grants: The bill pauses increases to the per‑pupil community‑school grant for FY27 and FY28. Chief Howell said PGCPS has 19 new community schools for FY26; 11 of those met the poverty threshold to be eligible for the per‑pupil grant but "those 11 schools would not receive the per pupil grant for fiscal year '27 or '28. They would not get it until fiscal year 2029," she said. The personnel grant that funds a community‑school coordinator and a health practitioner would continue.

- MSDE oversight and administration: Meeting presenters said the bill shifts substantial oversight responsibilities to MSDE, including authority to "require implementation plans to include measurable goals" and to review them annually instead of every three years, and that MSDE is authorized to hire additional staff to administer these programs. Ms. Welsh told the committee that if a school system fails to meet MSDE guidance, MSDE "is authorized to withhold funding."

- Grant structure and eligibility: The bill would create a competitive collaborative‑time grant program administered by MSDE for FY26–FY29. To be eligible for that grant, the legislation (as described in the meeting) requires local employee‑organization sign‑off on an application (the committee referenced PGCEA). The bill also authorizes MSDE to run a Maryland School Leadership Academy, an academic excellence program using MSDE‑managed instructional coaches, and a national teacher‑recruitment campaign including incentive grants. The Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact was mentioned as easing hiring of out‑of‑state certified teachers.

Local and long‑term impacts described by staff and witnesses

- Immediate FY26 effect: Chief Howell said the district’s FY26 projected revenue shortfall tied to the changes in foundation and associated targeted funds would be about $22,000,000, a figure she presented as additional to the district’s existing budget gap.

- Multi‑year and statewide effects: Committee members and Chief Howell warned the cumulative effect over the Blueprint implementation period could be substantially larger. Chief Howell said district modeling showed a potential loss "north of a billion dollars" over the implementation window when foundation, compensatory education and multilingual‑learner funding are combined.

- Community‑school programming: Board members pressed staff for concrete examples of how the paused per‑pupil grants would affect services. Chief Howell said each community school prepares a needs assessment and that per‑pupil funds are used differently by school; the personnel grant would allow a coordinator in place but the affected new schools would lack per‑pupil funds for wraparound services during the pause.

Reactions and broader context

Former board member Dr. Alvin Thornton urged aggressive public advocacy to protect the foundation concept that underlies Maryland’s school funding system. "The foundation concept said that this is what you need to adequately and equitably fund the education of our children," Thornton said, arguing that the foundation is the statutory mechanism that equalizes funding across counties and warning that rolling it back would reintroduce funding disparities.

Board members asked about practical steps for communicating with legislators and constituents and about the relationship between the state changes and PGCPS’s local budget gap. Chief Howell said the $22 million reduction for FY26 is in addition to the district’s existing shortfall and that the administration is still validating the longer‑term numbers.

What the district said it will do next

Staff said they are continuing detailed modeling of the bill’s fiscal effects and will follow up with board members. The committee discussion closed with members discussing outreach to the county’s legislative delegation and public‑facing advocacy.

Ending

Committee chair Dr. Felton Moss closed the meeting by reminding the public that the next virtual Policy and Governance Committee meeting is scheduled for Feb. 25, 2024. There were no formal votes recorded on the legislative item during the Feb. 6 meeting.