Senate OKs Blueprint bills after debate over transgender scholastic athletes
The Senate gave final approval Tuesday to its version of a bill making changes to the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, the state's 10-year, multibillion-dollar education reform plan.
The 33-13 vote sets up a conference committee with the House, which has approved its own version of the Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act. The Senate also amended the House bill Tuesday to mirror its own version and now sends both bills to the lower chamber.
While it was largely expected, Tuesday's party-line Senate vote was delayed for almost 25 minutes while senators debated an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to add language to the House bill that would prohibit transgender females from participating in women's sports in school.
'This amendment is to simply ensure that there is a level playing field for girl's sports at the high school level by allowing only biological girls to play on a high school interscholastic or intramural varsity or junior varsity team that is designated as a girls, female, or women's team or sport,' said Sen. Justin Ready (R-Frederick and Carroll), the Senate minority whip and sponsor of the proposed amendment.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
'We want to protect the crucial role that women's sports have played in development of young women,' said Ready, who said his wife participated in track and field in high school and at Salisbury University, where they met.
Sen. Ron Watson (D-Prince George's), the floor manager for the bill, said he supported the concept of Ready's amendment but that 'it's not germane to this bill.'
But Sen. Mary Beth Carozza (R-Lower Shore) supported the amendment, talking about her time as a tennis player in high school and at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. She also read a letter from a volleyball player at her alma mater, Stephen Decatur High School in Berlin.
'While the other team was warming up, my teammates and I immediately noticed the strength and speed with which the biological male hit the volleyball,' Carozza read. 'It was apparent that the skills of the biological male surpassed anyone else on the court. My teammates and I were not only intimidated, but we feared for our safety.'
Sen. Mary Washington (D-Baltimore City and Baltimore County), the first openly gay African-American member of the Maryland General Assembly and still only one in the Senate, also read a letter from a high school student. But this one highlighted came from the only female player on a co-ed soccer team who said she was 'bullied, ridiculed and harassed for six years.'
'If you want girls sports to be more fair, there are other ways to do it. But it's my belief that the people who don't want transgender women in sports and pass bills … should instead focus on providing more support for women in these other spaces,' Washington read, before voting against the amendment.
'In not allowing transgender girls to participate in women's sports, we continue a long history of policing women's bodies,' Washington said.
Even Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) offered a few words before he voted against the amendment.
'When I've had conversations with transgender young people who are trying to find themselves and live in a community, the pain and suffering that so many of them have felt, feeling out of place and not having a spot in this world is unbelievably painful,' he said. 'So, when I think about how we should be educating kids, it should be about what is in the best interest of children.'
The Senate voted 27-17 to reject the amendment, before voting to make the House bill conform to the Senate version.
Local school officials have long asked for more flexibility in the implementation of the Blueprint, now in its third year, and with the state facing a $3 billion budget shortfall this year, many targeted the school reform plan as an area for savings. Gov. Wes Moore (D) in January proposed a bill that deferred the start of some programs in the Blueprint and would slow the pace of some budget planned budget increases.
The House approved its version of the Blueprint reform bill earlier this month, rejecting cuts in per pupil funding and eliminating a four-year pause on the implementation of teacher collaborative time, both elements in the governor's plan. The House voted for a one-year pause in the start of collaborative time.
The Senate bill is more closely aligned with the governor's bill on the per pupil funding and collaborative time provisions.
House members are expected to reject the Senate's changes to the House bill, creating the need for a conference committee to work out compromise language between the two chambers. That agreement will need to come before Monday night, the closing day of the 2025 General Assembly session,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
24 minutes ago
- Politico
Inside Trump world's reaction to the Zelenskyy reset
3. Trump offered to go straight to a trilateral meeting. The senior administration official told POLITICO that when Trump called Putin to offer his presence at a meeting between Zelenskyy and the Russian leader, Putin said, 'You don't have to come. I want to see him one on one.' Trump's team 'started working on that,' the official said. 'Steve Witkoff has the assignment to get it figured [out].' 4. Alaska paved the way for the 'security guarantees' discussion. If there was any concern within the administration about how the Putin meeting in Anchorage went down, Monday all but evaporated it. 'After Alaska, we were excited that Putin was at least talking and there were signs we could negotiate,' a second senior administration official told POLITICO. One of those signs came on the topic of security guarantees: Putin was 'engaging on a conversation about security guarantees instead of, 'Nyet, nyet, nyet,' this second official said. 'If Alaska was not successful and Putin didn't give us a little bit of an opening, we wouldn't have [had] the Europeans at the White House.' Of Putin: 'He'll drive a hard bargain, but that opening is huge.' 5. Those security guarantees could be a sticking point internationally. It remains unclear just how big a commitment the U.S. has on the line here. 'We haven't even started [that discussion] other than a commitment,' the first senior administration official told POLITICO. 'The question is, 'Who participates to what percentage?' But the president did commit that we would be a part of it. No specifics. And then he said he would also help it get organized. And he alone could sell that to Putin. I don't think Putin would pay any attention to the others, and I'm not sure the others would do it without him.' 6. And those same guarantees could be a problem for Trump domestically. Does the administration have a red line when it comes to committing U.S. troops to keep a peace in Ukraine? 'I don't think there's a red line,' the first senior official told POLITICO. 'So I think it just kind of remains to be seen. [President Trump] would like the Europeans to step up. But I think if the last piece of the puzzle was for a period of time to be a part of a peacekeeping force, I think he would do it.' Meanwhile, as European leaders arrived at the White House, MAGA coalition minder Steve Bannon took to his influential 'War Room' podcast to warn about the U.S. security guarantees in Ukraine. 'I'm just lost how the United States offering an Article 5 commitment for a security guarantee to Ukraine is a win for the United States,' Bannon said on his show Monday morning . 'President Trump has done more than enough to bring the parties together,' Bannon told POLITICO late Monday night. 'Once again, this is a European problem; we have all the leverage here. If we don't fund this, it stops happening. The only way this goes forward — the only way this continues every day — is American money and American arms. The Europeans don't have enough either military hardware and/or financial wherewithal.' Bannon said he hopes Trump 'eventually stops listening to the [Sens.] Lindsey Grahams and Tom Cottons and the Mitch McConnells, and realizes that there can't be any guarantee here from the United States, because that's going to inextricably link us to this conflict.' In a Truth Social post on Monday about the next steps, Trump said 'Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, are coordinating with Russia and Ukraine.' That callout was striking. 'That's the first time JD and Marco have been dragged into a big foreign policy issue together,' the second senior administration official told POLITICO. 'If it's JD and Marco and Witkoff, who gets the credit and who gets the blame if it fails? This could be the first test of 2028.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jonathan Zimmerman: Liberals have also censored history
In 1874, during the brief era of Reconstruction, white people staged a racist uprising in New Orleans. Angered by the presence of African Americans in law enforcement and other government posts, members of the Crescent City White League stormed the local customs house and killed 11 police officers. Two years later, a contested presidential election led to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the South and the end of Reconstruction. In 1891, New Orleans erected a memorial to White League members who died in the 1874 riot. And in 1932, the city affixed a plaque to the memorial stating that the 1876 election 'recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.' But you can't see the memorial — or its plaque — in New Orleans any longer. It was taken down in 2017, following years of protest by civil rights advocates. I've been thinking about that episode over the last few months, as President Donald Trump's administration steps up its efforts to purge our historical landscape of anything remotely negative about the United States. In March, it ordered the Smithsonian Institution to eliminate 'improper, divisive or anti-American ideology' from its museums. And in my hometown of Philadelphia, over a dozen displays about slavery at Independence National Park — including an exhibit describing George Washington as an enslaver — have been flagged for review. Like other liberal historians, I'm outraged by Trump's cowardly attacks on our guild. A nation that really believed in its 'greatness' — a term the president loves to use — wouldn't be afraid to confront its worst chapters. But I think my fellow liberals have been complicit — to borrow the term du jour — in historical censorship too. Nobody on my side of the political aisle objected when the New Orleans monument came down. Instead, we celebrated a victory over hate and bigotry. I'm not saying that racist memorials should remain on their pedestals. But when they're pulled down, they should be placed somewhere else where we can see them. Otherwise, we won't learn the awful history they embody. Consider the fate of Silent Sam, the Confederate statue that stood for over a century on the campus of the University of North Carolina. It, too, was built to extol white supremacy: At its unveiling in 1913, a UNC trustee said that Confederate soldiers had 'saved the very life of the Anglo Saxon race in the South.' But in 2018, demonstrators pulled down SIlent Sam. And when UNC Chancellor Carol Folt proposed that the statue be displayed in a museum, the university erupted in yet more protest. In a statement, the university's psychology department said that preserving Silent Sam in any form on campus would 'create a hostile learning environment for black students.' The monument 'undermines our shared community values of equality, respect, and acceptance of all people,' the department added. A few months later, Folt caved and declared that Silent Sam would be removed from campus. Its presence at UNC — even in a museum — posed a threat to the 'well-being of our community,' she said. Sound like anyone you know? In his fulminations against allegedly 'divisive' history, Trump insists that it threatens the entire American community. By casting the United States 'in a negative light,' Trump warns, historians are promoting 'a sense of national shame.' Instead, we should be 'instilling pride in the hearts of all Americans.' In other words: smiley faces only, please. Some things are just too troubling to see. So let's take them down, or blot them out, so we can all feel better. False equivalence alert: Trump is clearly seeking to suppress knowledge of white racism, while the statue protesters were trying — in good faith — to protect nonwhite races from hateful symbols. And he's the president, of course, so he has vastly more power than anybody else. But the upshot is exactly the same: History gets censored. And we condescend to Americans when we imagine they can't handle it. We see a similar dynamic in the ongoing debate over book bans in schools and libraries. I am appalled by recent efforts by right-wing ideologues to remove works by Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and many others. But where were my fellow liberals when schools were dropping 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' because it uses the N-word 200 times? Sitting on their hands or cheering from the sidelines, as another reminder of racism bit the dust. That was the 'good' kind of censorship, because we did it. And we are good. But every act of historical suppression is bad news, for all of us. That's why I was glad to read that the New Orleans monument will be part of forthcoming exhibit at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. The exhibit 'reflects on the histories and legacies of post-Civil War America as they continue to resonate today' by displaying 'monuments in the exhibition will be shown in their varying states of transformation,' a museum news release declares. That's precisely why we need to see these symbols: to understand who we are, how we got here and where we need to go. We are in a state of transformation, too, and we must not look away. That's what Trump wants us to do.
