This article is part of MACo’s Policy Deep Dive series, where expert policy analysts explore and explain the top county policy issues of the day. A new article is added each week – read all of MACo’s Policy Deep Dives.
Maryland’s landmark “Blueprint for Maryland’s Future” education plan sees an early-stage challenge, as one school system argues it cannot fulfill the Blueprint’s programmatic mandates without severely cutting other school functions. The State’s Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB), charged with overseeing the roll-out of the Blueprint, heard a request from Carroll County about its insufficient funding to reach the program’s requirements. This comes at a time when local education funding in Carroll County is at a historic level: $75M more than what the Blueprint should cost according to the State’s most recent estimates. Their decision, coming soon, on the functional waiver should serve as an early barometer on the program’s roll-out amidst higher-than-expected costs.
During a 90-minute deliberation last week, the AIB heard from representatives of Carroll County Public Schools. The exchange concerned the Carroll County Superintendent Cynthia McCabe’s request for a deadline extension to comply with the minimum school funding requirements set forth by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (Blueprint). This is Maryland’s visionary education reform plan, still amidst its ten-year rollout. If granted, the extension would only apply to funding requirements for multi-language learners and compensatory education and would be the first of its kind since the start of Blueprint implementation. The AIB will announce their decision by May 1.
In previous Conduit Street coverage, Carroll Schools, Citing Blueprint Pressures, Seek $57M, a 23% Increase, the school system’s funding request to the Carroll County Commissioners was detailed – with the dramatic consequences of full Blueprint compliance laid out in an eye-popping budget request likely beyond the means of the county government. Additional pressure is looming with the State being authorized to withhold funding from the local school system if the compliance standard is not met and they have not received a waiver.
Widespread concerns over cuts in the proposed school budget, arising from the Blueprint mandates
As detailed in supporting documents from the meeting, Carroll County schools are asking for more time to meet the minimum school funding requirement for two of the at-promise categories identified in the Blueprint: compensatory education and multi-lingual learners. According to school system officials, who have been collaborating extensively with State-funded consultants, achieving compliance in these two categories by the beginning of FY26 would deplete staff and resources in schools with lower populations of these categories of at-promise students. School data shows that in some instances, class sizes could rise to as many as 40 students.
This potential for alarming reductions in service levels triggered significant public outcry and coalition building among local stakeholders, leading to the application for a waiver. The formal request from Superintendent McCabe included about twenty minutes of opening remarks during the meeting that were accompanied by more than 60 pages of required data and documentation, as well as a spreadsheet with more than 40 tabs of information detailing funding distributions by school. Additional community members, local government officials, union leadership, and parent-led non-profits supported the request with oral and written feedback.
Key question: Does the State’s formula cover actual Blueprint costs in 2025?
During the meeting, boards members referenced the hundreds of letters they have received from concerned residents and took turns asking clarifying questions of school leaders. Much of the discussion focused on why it is necessary to drain resources from some schools in order to meet the requirements in another. To this end, two primary challenges were articulated in the discussion.
One problem predated implementation of the Blueprint, that due to enrollment and State funding dropping for the period before the Blueprint began implementation, the schools in Carroll County were already running at a bare minimum. Therefore, moving any resources from one school effectively eliminates them from the originating school. This shift includes teachers and has contributed to an alarming projected increase in class sizes in schools targeted to lose staff in order to fulfill Blueprint mandates.
The second major challenge seemed to be around why the statutorily defined, per-pupil foundation funding does not appear to be sufficient for the schools with fewer at-promise students. This is a problem also discussed in a 12-page, 30 point letter from the statewide superintendent’s association. The collaboration between Carroll schools and State-contracted consultants is intended to shed more comprehensive light on this question by analyzing the adequacy of the per-pupil funding amounts that predated the pandemic’s effects, recent dramatic inflation, and jarring labor market trends. The consultants and school leaders shared that having time to better understand the current baseline of the schools will inform what the gap is and why it exists. Sufficiency of funding to meet the demands of the Blueprint has been reported as a cause for concern in a number of jurisdictions as local funding requests continue to balloon year over year even as counties are funding schools at historic levels, many of which far exceed the State-set minimum funding requirement.
The State laws that make up the Blueprint were built around the findings of a multi year Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, created in 2016. In the legislation, dollar amounts for base per-pupil “foundation” funding were established for each year of a ten-year roll-out, with various multipliers used to effect specific funding streams for specific categories of students requiring additional resources. Of central importance for the current debate, however, the State law adopted in 2019 and 2020 specified the dollar amounts for each year as numbers, not as formulas based on actual data. In essence, the Commission, and the General Assembly, pinned the funding levels to projections of general inflation and cost factors, rather than make the program responsive to actual costs of living changes through its implementation. The result: the State funding formula is based on far lower cost assumptions than school systems encounter today in the actual labor and materials markets.
The look ahead: Board’s decision will come soon
To close out the discussion, AIB Chairman Ike Leggett and Vice Chair William Kirwan requested verbal confirmation from the local leadership that they intend to and will continue to work towards compliance regardless of the Board’s decision on the waiver. Chairman Leggett also went on to reiterate the importance of partnership and trust between State and local officials as Blueprint implementation continues. He highlighted that trust as a necessary consideration as the Board deliberates over the waiver request. The AIB intends to make a final decision by May 1.
