[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6546018,"mediaKeyId","5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868","parentId",5046262,"title","Votes at a glance: Personnel approvals, appointments, course changes and special projects cleared; one contract fails","audioSeconds",9614,"startMs",423000,"endMs",10037000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868&start=423&end=10037","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868/thumbnail_423000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6546018/Maryland/Votes-at-a-glance-Personnel-approvals-appointments-course-changes-and-special-projects-cleared-one-contract-fails","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546018-a6fe3091786bab45e29e1647b5ce6e4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191984&Signature=M1c-Ij~6VUNRNnVX4nInVUewJuaWktRDkLu1EzVmbBqtXWZ5NvQN-4p0dZAaWsa2jAXrbCNqB1~ckSMkxq3G7X~sAvA3WpRWL1quq3g9QoYoRBMG1bPGXrtbIW5uL2uaWFuPxGs0MQgAbAY-56~MtLhdeORW63T27G0AK01zRVCiI-eRPzoKT4E01G8ax3PoFi2nHxpUSH8RLjh2xuFWZ4USq3Srt0qxPQ0l2EJ0h3aufuwDmlq302FX0JT3RiM~GhH1I~Jw7YhJtH2BHnQwGR3GzTE0s709XxWH48QjTdkIRrXIepNOTvj46Uknpu-kzj3s4K~HVh18Xqq8eMC5dw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Baltimore County Public Schools","date","2025-06-10T00:00:00Z","article","Here is a concise summary of formal actions taken at the June 10 meeting of the Board of Education of Baltimore County.

Passed (consent and committee items)
- Personnel matters (Exhibits E1–E4): retirements, resignations, leaves and advisory appointments were approved by roll call as presented.
- Administrative appointments (Exhibit FF1): principals and department appointments (Lock Raven HS principal; Oakleigh Elementary principal; Executive Director, Fiscal Services; Senior Operations Supervisor, etc.) were approved by roll call.
- Policy Review Committee recommendations (multiple items): Board Policy 55‑50 (student behavior code) was adopted (final reading); Board Policy 54‑40 (telehealth and in‑person services from external behavioral and physical health providers) was forwarded as a first reader as presented.
- Course changes for the 2025‑26 school year (Exhibit P): The board approved a large set of course catalog updates, renumbering and clarifications for secondary and middle school courses, including additions, deletions and AP course adjustments.
- Special project (73.30) approvals: Jacksonville Elementary outdoor classroom and Stoneleigh Elementary memorial garden (privately funded, PTA projects) were approved.
- Building & Contracts committee referrals: Items Q1, Q2 and Q4–Q21 were approved by the full board after committee recommendation.

Failed
- Contract award Q‑3 (combined solicitation for reading intervention products including HMH Read 180 and Savvas/iLit): After discussion about per‑student costs, school selection and whether a single combined contract was appropriate, the board did not approve the item (vote failed). See separate article on the reading intervention decision for details.

Other notable procedural actions
- The board received the FY2026 operating budget as adopted by Baltimore County Council (information presented by district staff); the district confirmed the budget categories are fixed at the county level and described planned future supplemental appropriations to add state aid and fund balance items.
- The board approved several closed‑session hearing examiner decisions as presented.

Why it matters: These routine approvals move hiring, appointments, curricular updates and school projects forward for the coming year. The failed contract halts a combined procurement for reading interventions and requires staff to provide a more detailed, separated procurement plan.

Ending: Staff will return to the board on specified items (procurement revisions, implementing rules for updated policies, and budget supplements) in upcoming meetings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Board of Education Meeting - Jun 10, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Board approved multiple consent items including personnel matters, administrative appointments, course catalog updates, and two privately funded school projects, while declining a proposed reading‑intervention contract; several other committee referrals and policy first readings advanced.","taxTitle","Baltimore County Public Schools, School Boards, Maryland","taxId",17213,"location","Maryland","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6546025,"Board adopts revised student behavior code after committee debate over culturally responsive language",831,7131000,7962000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868&start=7131&end=7962","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868/thumbnail_7131000.jpg","/articles/6546025/Maryland/Board-adopts-revised-student-behavior-code-after-committee-debate-over-culturally-responsive-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546025-c5b55af35601e7e7d20253e34251fc44/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191984&Signature=A4Uq-vQBq4TxebI4aNiYgZ8C5RI0zCBmHSsn-dgDqCSVk1YyrBvQxjde1m-x6IEeTBpbl7rkWA6yJNWgLrVz0nXH84YvCYygalrvYRTS6ODrPpmCVbIqKaS3tlx6yTuJ4sEKv03eGW05DWdLbW7ho~Q1wLWpe3POR0-bjj1gKaQrlgZHuGn6SgmW6Qq6r52fv~~qnAYPGvwXh0RmGLNzfYqi8CUgQZNfzeZte-owV6tXBbF-e7OPtPjPyS7bIDF9gE3V0YLiWSTaPdTWl5O6~gvQusUlDCF1slVTpBxRGkDni6zMATNl-WuWYiprpwMXLxGuVnbpV2lUERBsj-cWmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Education of Baltimore County voted June 10 to accept revisions to Board Policy 55‑50, the district student behavior code, after the Policy Review Committee recommended changes and trustees held several clarifying exchanges about training, definitions and how the policy will be implemented.

Policy Review Committee Chair Christina Pumphrey presented the committee recommendation and the board discussed several elements, including the scope of required trainings and where the policy should define terms such as \"culturally responsive practices.\" Board member Julie Domonowski asked whether the \"trainings\" referenced in the policy applied to teachers, administrators or students. Safety staff (Mister Knox) responded that training is required for administrators and that the district provides a range of school‑safety trainings beginning over the summer and continuing into September.

Trustees also debated whether the policy should include a standalone definition of \"culturally responsive\" or reference a central definition maintained in BP 100 (Equity). Board member Suzanne Hen clarified that culturally responsive instruction is defined in policy 0100 and recommended the implementation rule for 55‑50 carry further operational details about how the concept applies to disciplinary decisions.

After the discussion the board approved the committee recommendation on a roll‑call vote. Chair Lichter said the board must be careful with amendments to ensure the handbook is released for the coming school year; the policy team confirmed that the rule will include implementation details and that legal counsel had been consulted in committee.

Why it matters: The student behavior code governs disciplinary practices, school‑sponsored activities and how the district addresses conduct that occurs off campus but is related to school situations. Trustees stressed the need to both ensure consistent application across schools and to avoid creating ambiguity in definitions that would hinder consistent implementation.

Next steps: The administration will finalize the implementing rule for 55‑50, including clarifications about discretionary vs. nondiscretionary actions, and distribute the revised code in the student handbook for the upcoming year.

Ending: The board approved the policy changes as presented by the Policy Review Committee; implementation details will be clarified in the corresponding rule and handbook materials.","After discussion about definitions and implementation, the Board of Education of Baltimore County approved revisions to Board Policy 55‑50 (Student Behavior Code). Members asked that culturally responsive practice definitions be centralized and implementation details be set in accompanying rules.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6546029,"Board declines proposed multi‑year reading‑intervention contract after debate over program effectiveness and cost",1556,7322000,8878000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868&start=7322&end=8878","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868/thumbnail_7322000.jpg","/articles/6546029/Maryland/Board-declines-proposed-multiyear-readingintervention-contract-after-debate-over-program-effectiveness-and-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546029-e074e924357bce324eccb489afa71647/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191984&Signature=odT~FOm1QgGrf4tUrQ4JwhgO86ElyCyy4elUDCv2p~fwl9iWnMtFqIpMMa8rBgSFYKKUo82~HQpQofhpK1wOlp2FuGKoP26jvI6KMRN1arCaj7uOKihsnyNWNIlSSzQ8qHyp0TeXgrLsxyglin57yX02UyI3bb-AzNoa8zRpgxiao4V4aK1-rFJ9agWiyDK8wLa4KX0jLNHZOMoVj4cCRBUny0fdKQA28D6gTxNqSF3rRabF09DOtRWV0PeHvb8umbHy33qSC1rEg24WQ0TlrIWVbTIXpaSMlQlghJSQpJsYZHfoRxDB8~1K~qbMbREVNEDEIBYrW7LW9oYE1XBCJw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Baltimore County Board of Education on June 10 voted not to approve a proposed multi‑year contract that would have funded licensed reading intervention programs (Read 180 and iLit) under a single solicitation.

At a building and contracts committee meeting the previous day the committee forwarded the item to the full board without a recommendation. During the June 10 meeting instructional staff and procurement officials described how the district planned to scale use of the two programs, the expected per‑student license costs and how the programs would be targeted to schools showing growth with specific interventions.

Dr. Kraft, an instructional official, told the board the district was proposing to scale back Read 180 in favor of iLit in many schools because iLit showed larger historical gains at targeted sites. Dr. Kraft said roughly 3,300 students were receiving Read 180 in the current year and the district anticipated far fewer next year as part of a refocusing effort. She also said that iLit provides ELL supports and translation options that can help multilingual learners.

Despite those explanations, several trustees expressed concerns about the contract as presented: the aggregate contract spending authority in the exhibit (revised during the meeting), lack of clarity about which schools and student counts the request covered, and whether a single combined contract for two distinct products was appropriate. Board members asked for separate, more specific contracts or a clearer breakdown by vendor, by school and by per‑student cost.

The board voted on the single contract as presented; it failed (favor 5, not passing). The board asked staff to return with revised procurement proposals that separate the products or otherwise specify precisely how district funds would be used and to include a clearer breakdown of per‑student costs and the list of schools to be served.

Why it matters: Reading intervention programs provide targeted support for students below grade‑level in decoding and comprehension. The contract had financial and programmatic implications for which schools would receive specific interventions and how licensing dollars would be allocated.

What happens next: District staff said they will rework the procurement approach and bring back revised proposals that either separate vendors into distinct contract actions or provide clearer line‑item breakdowns and school‑by‑school student counts. Board members urged district staff to ensure programs remain aligned with demonstrated student outcomes and to protect teacher training continuity in schools where interventions are retained.

Ending: The board’s rejection halts the proposed contract; the district will revise the procurement and return to the board with more detailed, separated options for intervention purchases and implementation plans.","A proposed multi‑year contract covering Read 180 and iLit reading intervention licenses and services failed to win board approval; trustees asked staff to rework the procurement and return with clearer, separate proposals and itemized costs.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6546034,"Baltimore County board asks staff to cost one‑time retroactive payments after delay to negotiated raises",4629,5087000,9716000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868&start=5087&end=9716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5046262-51c8bb89b901787da72db2e4af3c8868/thumbnail_5087000.jpg","/articles/6546034/Maryland/Baltimore-County-board-asks-staff-to-cost-onetime-retroactive-payments-after-delay-to-negotiated-raises","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546034-1fb03c413ae5ce0c7ca62c608b9beb4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191984&Signature=QfWDj3KvuwzOIherltuif4S0BMeWDeDSdtMf48Ejqe8ps2mlu2mpXOjfxZdd-bJItCJlHfDQfCShEtncC76s-gXPR7b-E0B2uidH5MwqxT-zAn~BSdHXi23EF1Dn-mN4SjR-dgjgW5PAxT0bVNo~4rAFQXMa9eCkKaF8n72fIknR~dgI581QFQou8I7z4KUzao9VKeht-DeJZ4hXYeUnTtsRLcooUQmVRUPHXa4tpR4rVUMFkz~zUzlPTR9wiGix7wCeqe7HkNR9wK8IpB-pvXmbnlDfC5oluOs3jrOIla67EIttQM4bXLQbZHemIsMu1LTT8owkPZwQvXeVmgSovw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Education of Baltimore County on June 10 directed Superintendent Miriam Rogers to cost and consider including one‑time retroactive payments to school system employees in the FY 2027 and FY 2028 proposed budgets after the district delayed negotiated raises previously scheduled to start July 1, 2025.

Board member Nadine Hem moved the request, which the board amended and approved in a roll‑call vote. The final motion asks the superintendent to prioritize funding in the next two operating budgets for one‑time payments that, if fully funded, would be issued Dec. 1, 2026 (retroactive to FY26) and Dec. 1, 2027 (retroactive to FY27) and would equal the difference between the negotiated salary schedules and the actual pay realized by employees for those fiscal years.

The motion does not appropriate funds; it asks staff to cost out options and to include the request for consideration in the FY27 and FY28 budget submissions. The board passed the motion as amended by roll call (Yes: McMillan, Pumphrey, Young, Domonowski, Hem, Booker Dwyer, Harvey, Chikakalu, Lichter; Abstain: Frempong, Stoleski).

Why it matters: Superintendent Rogers and board members described a rapidly changing fiscal environment driven by federal and state funding uncertainty and county budget limits. Superintendent Rogers told the board that the system faces a combination of a slowed rollout of state Blueprint funds, possible changes to federal Title funding, and a county budget that did not fully fund the district's request. Rogers said the system is projecting a fund balance of about $65 million for next year and plans to use $35 million of fund balance, while also noting a $29 million shortfall relative to the board's original compensation request.

Board debate: Supporters of the motion framed it as a promise‑keeping step and a way to prepare concrete cost estimates for advocacy with county and state funding partners. Hem and other supporters emphasized that costing and planning are not the same as obligating funds now; they said the board needs to show it is prepared to make employees whole if future revenue becomes available.

Opponents and cautious members raised procedural and legal concerns about implying commitments without secured funding. Some board members said they preferred to pursue parallel advocacy to request additional county funding and to press county executive and council candidates to prioritize school funding. Several members also stressed the legal reality that the district does not control its full revenue base and that any final payments would depend on external appropriations.

What the motion asks staff to do: The superintendent was asked to calculate the cost of one‑time payments covering years 2 and 3 of the previously negotiated multi‑year compensation agreement, to include those costs as a priority request in the FY27 and FY28 budget proposals, and to report back to the board. The motion was amended during debate to explicitly make the proposal contingent on sufficient external funding (\"if fully funded\").

Context and next steps: The district said it will continue advocacy with county and state officials and will return to the board with cost estimates and recommended priorities. Board members and several public speakers — including union representatives and elected state delegates who addressed the meeting during public comment — urged continued advocacy to secure sustained revenue so negotiated compensation schedules can be honored on the timeline originally agreed.

Ending: The motion sets a formal budgeting and planning step; it does not by itself change pay or appropriate funds. The superintendent will return to the board with cost estimates and, if requested by the board, include the one‑time payments as a budget priority in FY27 and FY28 presentations.","Facing state and local funding shortfalls, the Board of Education of Baltimore County voted to ask the superintendent to cost out and plan for one‑time retroactive payments to employees in FY27 and FY28 to make staff \"whole\" for delayed raises; the request is contingent on future funding.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Personnel approvals, appointments, course changes and special projects cleared; one contract fails

Board adopts revised student behavior code after committee debate over culturally responsive language

Board declines proposed multi‑year reading‑intervention contract after debate over program effectiveness and cost

Baltimore County board asks staff to cost one‑time retroactive payments after delay to negotiated raises