Second House committee rejects governor's education cuts toward Blueprint plan
House Ways and Means Vice Chair Jheanelle K. Wilkins (D-Montgomery), left, speaks about her vote in support of amended education bill during a March 3 committee markup session. Committee Chair Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard) listens. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
A second House committee voted Monday to reject cuts proposed by Gov. Wes Moore (D) to the state's sweeping education reform plan, setting up a likely floor fight with Republicans this week and a showdown with the Senate in coming weeks.
The vote by the House Ways and Means Committee mirrors action Friday by the House Appropriations Committee, restoring funds to increase 'collaborative time' for teachers and preserving funding for community schools located in low-income communities. Those are critical parts of the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, the state's multiyear, multibillion-dollar schools reform proposal.
The governor's Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act had proposed delaying those programs in the Blueprint to help the state cope with a projected $3 billion deficit in the fiscal 2026 budget.
It took about five minutes for the committee, which voted along party lines, to vote to keep community schools, collaborative time and per pupil funding intact. The committee also voted to maintain the state's current Grow Your Own teacher initiative and not provide grants to institutions of higher education.
Del. Kevin B. Hornberger (R-Cecil) was one of three Republican co-sponsors on the House measure, but he asked to have his name removed after voting against the amended version of the bill Monday.
'I supported this bill because I thought there were some cost permits in there that were necessary for the financial implementation of program,' he said. 'However, it's been heavily amended, and ask that my co-sponsorship be removed as one of the amendments.'
Moore's bill to rein in Blueprint school reform plan draws fire at hearing
Del. Eric Ebersole (D-Baltimore County), a former teacher, voted in favor of the amended bill, saying he appreciates 'the dedication that this legislature is showing to the Blueprint. It's a long-range plan and we're staying the course.'
Ways and Means Chair Vanessa Atterbeary (D-Howard) said after Monday's voting session that the amendments from both committees are slated to be combined as one bill that could be read on the House floor as early as Tuesday, with debate possibly taking place Wednesday.
Moore administration officials said during a Feb. 19 hearing on the bill that a 'pause' in implementation is needed because a current teacher shortage would make it all but impossible to hire the 15,000 additional teachers that would be needed to deliver the program.
While speaking with reporters Friday after the Appropriations vote, Moore said he remains committed to the Blueprint plan, to addressing the state's teacher shortage and to public school education overall. But it has to be 'sustainable,' Moore said.
'We need to have the best public education system in the country. I support the tenets of the Blueprint,' he said. 'I'm looking forward to working with them [state lawmakers], but I know we've got to be able to invest in the Blueprint in a way that we're actually going to make it work, and in a way that it's going to be sustainable.'
At least two top education leaders, state Superintendent Carey Wright and state Board of Education Chair Joshua Michael, have spoken in support of the governor's plan and several senators have been much more sympathetic to the administration's reined-in version. Those include Senate Majority Leader Nancy J. King (D-Montgomery), who said a pause on collaborative time is needed at a time when the state needs more teachers.
The Senate committees that will be taking up the issue – Budget and Taxation and the Education, Energy and the Environment Committee – were part of last month's joint public hearing on the bill with the two House committees. Sen. Guy Guzzone (D-Howard), chair of the Budget and Taxation Committee, said Monday evening his committee could vote on the Senate version next week.
Riya Gupta, interim executive director with Strong Schools Maryland, who attended the Ways and Means voting session Monday, said she hopes the Senate will follow the House's lead and restore funding and timelines for the Blueprint.
'It's something to be proud of that both House committees stood strong on their promise,' she said. 'The House has set a high standard for education in Maryland. We'll see if the Senate's going to do the same thing.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
9 minutes ago
- UPI
Trump threatens to cut Musk government contracts amid agenda bill spat
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump hold a press conference in the Oval Office at the White House on Friday as Musk ends his tenure as director of the Department of Government Efficiency. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo June 5 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened to cut Elon Musk's government contracts through Tesla amid his departure from his role cutting government spending and opposition to Trump's sweeping legislative agenda bill. Trump threatened to end all government contracts with the Musk-founded Tesla in a post on Truth Social and suggested that would be a fast way to reduce government spending. "The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts," Trump wrote. Tesla share prices declined by more than 14% on Thursday and shed $152 billion in value from the EV maker. Trump on Thursday accused Musk of going "crazy" after the president canceled the federal electric vehicle mandate imposed by the Biden administration. "I took away his EV mandate that forced everyone to buy electric cars that nobody else wanted," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday. "He just went crazy!" Trump said he asked Musk to leave his advisory position with DOGE, although Musk was scheduled to exit the position at the end of May. Musk earlier said Trump would not have won the Nov. 5 election without his help. He contributed an estimated $250 million to Trump's campaign effort. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said Thursday morning in a post on X. Musk has criticized the proposed "one big, beautiful" federal government budget bill as increasing the nation's debt and negating his work with DOGE. The entrepreneur opposes the spending bill that the House has passed and is before the Senate because it removed tax credits and subsidies for buying EVs, Trump claimed. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done that months ago," Trump said in a subsequent Truth Social post on Thursday afternoon. "This is one of the greatest bills ever presented to Congress," he continued. "It's a record cut in expenses, $1.6 trillion dollars, and the biggest tax cut ever given." If the measure is not passed, Trump said it will trigger a 68% tax increase, "and things far worse than that." The president said the "easiest way to save money ... is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts" with Tesla. Later on Thursday, Musk in an X post said it is "time to drop the really big bomb" on the president. Trump "is in the Epstein files," Musk said. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not say in what context Trump allegedly appears in the Epstein files, but ended his post with: "Have a nice day, DJT!" He made a subsequent post that asks: "Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?" Trump and Musk often appeared together at high-profile events in the first four months of the administration.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Associated Press
14 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Federal vs. state power at issue in a hearing over Trump's election overhaul executive order
BOSTON (AP) — Democratic state attorneys general on Friday will seek to block President Donald Trump's proposal for a sweeping overhaul of U.S. elections in a case that tests a constitutional bedrock — the separation of powers. The top law enforcement officials from 19 states filed a federal lawsuit after the Republican president signed the executive order in March, arguing that its provisions would step on states' power to set their own election rules and that the executive branch had no such authority. In a filing supporting that argument, a bipartisan group of former secretaries of state said Trump's directive would upend the system established by the Constitution's Elections Clause, which gives states and Congress control over how elections are run. They said the order seeks to 'unilaterally coronate the President as the country's chief election policymaker and administrator.' If the court does not halt the order, they argued, 'the snowball of executive overreach will grow swiftly and exponentially.' Trump's election directive was part of a flurry of executive orders he has issued in the opening months of his second term, many of which have drawn swift legal challenges. It follows years of him falsely claiming that his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election was due to widespread fraud and an election year in which he and other Republicans promoted the notion that large numbers of noncitizens threatened the integrity of U.S. elections. In fact, voting by noncitizens is rare and, when caught, can lead to felony charges and deportation. Trump's executive order would require voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, prohibit mail or absentee ballots from being counted if they are received after Election Day, set new rules for voting equipment and prohibit non-U.S. citizens from being able to donate in certain elections. It also would condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the strict ballot deadline. The hearing Friday in U.S. District Court in Boston comes in one of three lawsuits filed against the executive order. One is from Oregon and Washington, where elections are conducted almost entirely by mail and ballots received after Election Day are counted as long as they are postmarked by then. The provision that would create a proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections already has been halted in a lawsuit filed by voting and civil rights groups and national Democratic organizations. In that case, filed in federal court in the District of Columbia, the judge said the president's attempt to use a federal agency to enact a proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting usurped the power of states and Congress, which at the time was considering legislation that would do just that. That bill, called the SAVE Act, passed the U.S. House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Trump's executive order said its intent was to ensure 'free, fair and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion.' The Justice Department, in arguing against the motion by the attorneys general for a preliminary injunction, said the president is within his rights to direct agencies to carry out federal voting laws. The order tasks the U.S. Election Assistance Commission with updating the federal voter registration form to require people to submit documentation proving they are U.S. citizens. Similar provisions enacted previously in a handful of states have raised concerns about disenfranchising otherwise eligible voters who can't readily access those documents. That includes married women, who would need both a birth certificate and a marriage license if they had changed their last name. A state proof-of-citizenship law enacted in Kansas more than a decade ago blocked the registrations of 31,000 people later found to be eligible to vote. The two sides will argue over whether the president has the authority to direct the election commission, which was created by Congress as an independent agency after the Florida ballot debacle during the 2000 presidential election. In its filing, the Justice Department said Trump's executive order falls within his authority to direct officials 'to carry out their statutory duties,' adding that 'the only potential voters it disenfranchises are noncitizens who are ineligible to vote anyway.'
