‘Blueprint' gets a trim after session that threatened major cuts
It was one of the first issues to surface this year, and one of the last to be resolved, but lawmakers Monday approved compromise legislation to trim the Blueprint for Maryland's Future while keeping much of the multiyear plan intact.
The Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act passed Monday evening on largely party-line votes in the House and Senate. It delays implementation of 'collaborative time,' preserves funding for community schools and protects students in poverty, those in special education and those in classes for non-English speakers from any potential per pupil funding cuts.
'These are the students who really need help with the Blueprint. There is no pause, cut in funding whatsoever,' said Del. Ben Barnes (D-Prince George's and Anne Arundel), chair of the Appropriations Committee who helped navigate the agreement through a conference committee between chambers last week.
The House voted 101-38 for House Bill 504 on Monday afternoon, and the Senate give the bill final approval a few hours later, on a 34-13 vote.
The final product struck a balance between the plan put forth by Gov. Wes Moore (D) in January, when the state was in the first throes of its fight to close a $3 billion budget gap for fiscal 2026, and a less-severe package proposed by House.
One major part of the agreement Monday deals with the implementation of 'collaborative time,' which provides teachers more out-of-classroom time to plan and work with each other on various subjects and also assess student achievement. School systems are supposed to start implementing collaborative time next year.
House, Senate ratify budget compromise on final day
The Moore administration had proposed a four-year delay in the start of collaborative time, both for the savings and for practical reasons. State school leaders have said that to fully implement collaborative time, the state would need at least 12,000 teachers at a time when the state faces a teacher shortage.
The House wanted to keep next year's implementation date. The House and Senate ultimately agreed to pause the policy requirement for collaborative time for three years, but keep the funding amount at $163 per student for next fiscal year. It would stay at that level until fiscal 2029, when it would jump to $334 per student.
Barnes said Monday evening that keeping the collaborative time funding for next fiscal year but deferring implementation should help local school leaders as they work on budgets for next school year.
Local school officials have continuously sought more flexibility in the implementation of the Blueprint, now in its third year.
Another compromise deals with the Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports, a part of the Blueprint plan that deals with mental health, behavioral and other wraparound services for students.
The governor proposed $130 million for fiscal 2026, but the House proposed cutting it to $40 million a year. The Senate held out for $70 million next year and $100 million a year thereafter, which was approved in the final bill.
Another provision dealt with community schools, which are buildings that receive concentration-of-poverty grants based on students who receive free and reduced-price meals.
One key priority the House was able to secure deals with any funds retained at a school system's central office, money 'must be used solely to support implementation at the school level.'
Paul Lemle, president of the state Maryland State Education Association, released a statement after the passage of the bill that gave it a mixed review.
'While there is a delay to increased funding dedicated for collaborative time implementation, the final bill is a significant improvement over where this conversation began in January,' Lemle said
'We were able to avoid the near-immediate, outsized cuts to expected funding for students in poverty and multilingual learners, in particular, and we protected the critical expansion of community schools and supports for students in concentrated poverty,' his statement said.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Watch: Texas House Democrat Nicole Collier locked in Chamber overnight in protest
Texas House Democrat Nicole Collier spent the night at the state's Capitol, which she live streamed, after refusing to sign a pledge that she would return for a vote on redistricting. Her protest came after House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced that the Texas Democrats would not be allowed to leave the chambers until they signed a document promising to show up the following morning and that they would be forced to have police escorts back and forth. Collier called the requirement "demeaning." 'I refuse to sign,' she told Fox 7 Austin. 'I will not agree to be in [Department of Public Safety] custody. I'm not a criminal. I am exercising my right to resist and oppose the decisions of our government. So this is my form of protest.'
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Indiana's D.C. delegation pushes redistricting as state lawmakers meet behind closed doors
This story was updated to add information. One by one, Indiana's Republican U.S. representatives are coming out in support of redistricting in Indiana, weeks after Vice President JD Vance's visit to Indianapolis. The pressure campaign on X mounted at the same time that state House Republicans met privately off Statehouse grounds to discuss President Donald Trump's push to redraw maps mid-decade, which to date has proven unpopular among the state lawmakers. Gov. Mike Braun, who has the power to call a special session to redistrict, told reporters Aug. 18 he is still undecided and leaning on the will of the legislature. "I'm not going to call them unless there is going to be general agreement that we need to," he said. Nor did the House Republican caucus make any decisions at their two-hour meeting, held at a private office building on the north side of the city. "We're still talking," House Speaker Todd Huston told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. An hour before the House caucused, U.S. Rep. Marlin Stutzman of the 3rd District was the first to post on X that "it's time to redraw Indiana's congressional map." The rest of his Republican colleagues in the Indiana delegation followed suit over the next few hours, some posting on campaign accounts and some on their official ones: U.S. Reps. Victoria Spartz of the 5th, Rudy Yakym of the 2nd, Mark Messmer of the 8th, Erin Houchin of the 9th, Jim Baird of the 4th and Jefferson Shreve of the 6th. All of their posts followed the same formula, framing the desire to redistrict as a response to Democrats' gerrymandering in blue states. Two of those supporters, Messmer and Houchin, voted for Indiana's current congressional maps as state representatives when they were drawn in 2021. Now they are saying redrawing the maps mid-decade could help strengthen conservative representation in Washington. Right now, Republicans hold seven of Indiana's nine seats. Messmer made sure to tag Gov. Mike Braun in his post, in whose hands the decision to call a special session lies. "I am proud to support Hoosier State Legislators and our great @GovBraun in fighting the long history of weaponized voter manipulation in CA, NY, and IL," Messmer wrote. "Redistricting in Indiana will accurately reflect the will of Hoosier voices." This slew of social media messaging is only the latest pressure tactic from D.C. as Indiana lawmakers have come forward vehemently opposing redistricting. Many voters in certain regions of the state received texts and robocalls from a group calling themselves "Forward America," urging them to tell their state legislators to "fight back against the radical left's agenda" and "stand up for redistricting." Moreover, some Indiana lawmakers will be heading to D.C. next week for a previously-scheduled meeting where they will talk about how to "implement President Trump's agenda." While the invitation pre-dates Indiana's pushback and the agenda doesn't explicitly include redistricting, this presents an in-person opportunity for the topic to come up. More: As national conservatives urge Indiana to redistrict, even pro-Trump lawmakers are opposed Contact IndyStar Statehouse reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@ or follow her on X@kayla_dwyer17.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans say they'll sue to block California redistricting plan. Do they have a case?
Gov. Gavin Newsom's plan to ask the voters to redesign California's congressional districts to enable Democrats to add House seats is drawing challenges from Republicans who claim the proposal violates the state Constitution and federal law. But the law doesn't appear to be on their side. As the Democratic-controlled Legislature prepares to vote this week on Newsom's proposed November ballot measure to change districts that were drafted by an independent commission, Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, asked the nonpartisan Legislative Counsel's Office to declare the measure illegal. He said he was also prepared to go to court. 'By concocting this partisan redistricting scam, Gavin Newsom and Democrat politicians are openly violating the California Constitution and their oath of office,' DeMaio said in a news release. 'Any vote … on this corrupt plan would be unlawful and unconstitutional.' He argued that the state Constitution, under a ballot measure approved by the voters in 2008, allows only a bipartisan commission to draw district lines and does not permit them to be redrafted for political purposes. The National Republican Congressional Committee also said Newsom's plan would be challenged in court as well as the ballot box. Newsom 'is shredding California's Constitution and disenfranchising voters to prop up his Presidential ambitions,' Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., chair of the committee, said on X. But Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at UCLA who has written widely on election law issues, said the Legislature can ask California voters to change the state Constitution by placing an amendment on the ballot with two-thirds majority votes in each house. Newsom and legislative Democrats introduced their measure on Monday. 'If it's a constitutional amendment approved by voters, then there is no state law problem with amending the earlier constitutional amendment,' Hasen said. Newsom's November ballot measure, a response to plans by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas to redraw the state's House districts and allow Republicans to pick up five seats next year, would likewise redesign California's congressional districts for the remainder of the decade to enable Democrats to add five seats to their current 43-9 majority in the state if Texas or any other state redrew its district lines. The proposed state constitutional amendment, ACA8, dubbed the Election Rigging Response Act, was introduced Monday with 43 coauthors in the Assembly and 20 in the state Senate, all of them Democrats. They plan legislative votes on Thursday. The ballot proposal would temporarily suspend the state constitutional limits on redistricting that DeMaio cited. But he contended the Legislature has no authority even to ask the voters to remove restrictions they had added to the state Constitution, and that such changes could be made only by an initiative from private citizens. DeMaio said he would actually prefer a U.S. constitutional amendment establishing an independent commission to draw nonpartisan House district lines in every state. Until that happens, he told the Chronicle, Newsom and his fellow Democrats should refrain from asking Californians to 'act like a bunch of toddlers because two wrongs make a right.' Another election law professor, Justin Levitt of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who was a national policy adviser for democracy and voting rights under President Joe Biden, said DeMaio was correct that the California Constitution currently prohibits legislators from redrawing district lines. 'But that's exactly why the Legislature is proposing a constitutional amendment,' Levitt said. 'And I'm not aware of any limitation on the Legislature to propose such an amendment for the voters to consider.' DeMaio also said federal law allows changing district lines only after each 10-year census and prohibits mid-decade redistricting. But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in a 2006 case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, allowing Republican legislators in Texas to redraw House district lines in their favor. 'The text and structure of the Constitution and our case law indicate there is nothing inherently suspect about a legislature's decision to replace mid-decade a court-ordered plan with one of its own,' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a 7-2 court majority. Texas' current Republican majority, and partisans on both sides in other states, have relied on that ruling to propose off-year redistricting for their own advantage. Levitt said he'd prefer to limit the practice to once per decade. 'I wish there were such a law — and Congress could clearly pass one,' the Loyola law professor said, noting that legislation to prohibit mid-decade redistricting of U.S. House seats has been proposed in Congress for more than 20 years. 'But that's not currently where federal law stands.' Hasen of UCLA said Newsom's proposal might be challenged on other legal grounds, such as the rule limiting California ballot measures to a single subject. But he said opponents' strongest argument would probably be a political one — that the voters should reject a plan to suspend the nonpartisan redistricting program they approved 17 years ago. DeMaio appeared to agree on Monday. 'If we stop it in court, fine,' he said at a press conference in the state Capitol. 'But more than likely it will have to be stopped at the ballot box.' Also Monday, DeMaio submitted a proposed initiative for the 2026 state ballot that would ban any legislators from seeking any elected office for 10 years who voted to put Newsom's redistricting measure on the ballot. 'There is no free ride on casting a corrupt vote this week — if a state legislator votes in favor, they better be prepared to get a real job for the next 10 years,' DeMaio said.
