St. Mary’s County Board of Education holds first reading of redistricting policy JCAA; no boundary changes for 2025–26

St. Mary’s County Board of Education members reviewed a first reading of proposed revisions to policy JCAA on school boundary realignment and redistricting and were told there will be no boundary realignment for the 2025–26 school year.

The proposal would remove references to the School Boundary Advisory Committee (SBAC) from the policy text and move committee details into a superintendent’s regulation; add budgetary constraints, efficiencies and emergency situations as explicit triggers for realignment; and require the superintendent to develop procedures that ensure fair notice and opportunity for public comment.

Board members pressed staff for clearer publication requirements and timeline language. One board member said, “There can be no boundary realignment or change for the upcoming 2025–26 school year. Nothing. Nothing can be done,” as the board discussed timing. A staff presenter summarized the policy language change, saying the procedures “shall ensure fair notice and an opportunity for comment to all members of the community.” Another board member noted, “There is nothing in this paragraph that indicates publication of the timeline to the community,” and asked that the superintendent be directed to publish any redistricting timeline in an accessible way.

Board staff said the goal of the rewrite is to streamline policy wording that duplicates regulation and to leave operational details — such as timelines and committee membership — to the superintendent’s regulation (JCAAR). Staff described examples that historically have triggered redistricting or realignment: new school construction (Evergreen Elementary; Captain Walter Francis Duke Elementary), overcrowding (Leonardtown High School cited as over state-rated capacity), emergency loss of capacity (Spring Ridge Middle School fire; Esperanza Middle School), and school closures. Staff also described recent changes to state per-pupil funding (referred to in the meeting as the Blueprint) that allocate a base amount per pupil plus additional factors for economically disadvantaged, multilingual and special-education students; those funding rules, staff said, affect long-term planning because funding must be spent at the school site for the identified student.

On advisory committees, staff said membership will be determined by the superintendent and may include parents, students, community representatives and school support departments; the board discussed the importance of avoiding “groupthink” and of ensuring diverse representation, but did not set a fixed membership method in policy. Board members asked that the policy explicitly allow for additions or renovations that increase capacity (not only entirely new schools) and asked staff to reinsert clarifying language on that point when the policy returns.

Next steps, as discussed in the session: staff will revise policy JCAA to (1) add clearer language on publishing the redistricting timeline and where it will be made available to the public, (2) add wording to address renovations or additions that increase capacity, and (3) move detailed timelines and committee processes into the superintendent’s regulation while keeping a short policy statement about the board’s responsibility. The item was a first reading; no formal vote or final policy action occurred at the meeting.

The board’s presenters and members repeatedly emphasized that any actual boundary changes would follow community engagement and the superintendent’s published timeline; they also noted that statutory notification rules require parents be notified by April 30 of the year preceding a redistricting or school closure, and that the policy/regulation package will be returned to the board with the requested publication and timeline language.