PGCPS board pauses new Imagine charter vote as finance staff outline funding changes for county charters

Prince George—s County Board of Education members spent much of their April 24 meeting on charter school funding, hearing a presentation from the district—s finance team, sustained public comment from charter parents and leaders, and agreeing to postpone a vote on a new Imagine-branded charter application until the board receives a needs assessment and more details.

The discussion centered on the implementation of Maryland—s —blueprint— per-pupil funding method and the district—s plan to reclassify and price centralized services that have been withheld from charters under a longstanding administrative fee. Chief Howe, the district—s chief financial officer, told the board that the switch to the blueprint methodology and the blending of legacy transportation revenue produced winners and losers in the 2025 allocations: —Seventy percent of our charters were receiving less funding in 2025 than they would have in the previous year. The district provided an additional funding subsidy, also known as a hold harmless, of around $6,000,000 to keep the per-pupil levels consistent for those 7 schools,— the chief said, adding that the hold-harmless was intended as one-time support during transition.

Why it matters: charter schools in Prince George—s County educate thousands of students and receive per-pupil allocations that now depend more explicitly on student demographics under the state—s blueprint. Changes to how centralized services are billed and to the administrative fee could materially reduce operating budgets at some charter schools, board members and public commenters warned.

Most important details

Chief Howe said the district moved to the blueprint allocation model in 2024 and told operators the district would reexamine the legacy administrative fee (historically 2 percent). He summarized three central points from a Maryland State Board of Education ruling issued Dec. 3 that the district used as guidance: the legacy administrative fee needed rethinking, the designation of mandatory versus optional centralized services should be negotiated in good faith with operators, and the treatment of the county—s special education (SPED) —spread overage— requires clarity.

The finance presentation included these figures and givens from the district—s review: a districtwide SPED overage (the gap between SPED revenue and district SPED costs) of about $178,000,000; the portion of that calculation attributable to charters that is not being allocated to them was described as roughly $1,600,000; a transition grant tied to blueprint implementation that declined from about $20,000,000 last year to about $13,000,000 this year; and an —average— administrative fee for FY2026 that the district told operators would be about 6 percent in preliminary calculations (Chief Howe emphasized the number could change before the budget is finalized). The district also said it would present a formal inventory of centralized services and distinguish mandatory services (payroll, benefits, risk management, workers— compensation) from optional supports that operators could elect to buy.

Public comment and operator concerns

Parents and charter leaders told the board the planned changes threaten operations for some schools. Courtney Hall, a District 6 resident and parent of a College Park Academy student, warned that a higher administrative fee would —drastically hurt all charter schools and cause some to close over time,— and said her school faces a potential $500,000 reduction under the proposed changes. Stephanie Lomax, a parent and North Public Charter School supporter, said the district—s earlier proposed budget adjustment had already risen in the receiving schools— estimates from $1,000,000 to $2,300,000 and urged more engagement and transparency.

Some charter leaders said the —admin fee— conversations reflected misunderstanding or uneven messaging. Chief Howe told the board that while some operators reported hearing a 7 percent figure, the district—s current, preliminary FY2026 average estimate was roughly 6 percent and that the percentage could fall as centralized services are formalized and negotiations proceed. He said the district was still finalizing centralized-service inventories and expected to engage operators in good-faith discussions before the budget is finalized.

Board discussion and next steps

Board members repeatedly asked for clearer, itemized information showing exactly what services are being counted as district-provided and which could be optional. Several members pressed for more regular engagement; the charter office and finance teams described quarterly or monthly meetings they have held with operators and said they had piloted budget walkthroughs for Q4 reconciliations.

Shavon Hall Smith of the charter office, joined by associate superintendent Coleman and charter liaison Jubilee Ransom, summarized operational outreach: monthly operator meetings, quarterly site visits, regular principal contact, and pilot budget walkthroughs this quarter to identify what operators said they still needed to see.

On the new charter application: the charter office presented an application from Imagine Rock Creek, a proposed K''5 elementary school in Upper Marlboro (District 9). The office recommended conditional approval pending a full PGCPS needs assessment to analyze elementary instructional needs, the value-add of additional seats in Upper Marlboro, and a plan for monthly progress monitoring if the school opens. Board members expressed concerns about under-enrolled nearby schools and asked for community input. The board did not vote to approve the application on April 24 and the trustees agreed to postpone a vote until the May meeting when the charter office will return with the needs assessment and additional information.

What was not decided

No final policy change or new administrative-fee rate was adopted at the meeting. Chief Howe framed the work as two parallel processes: the district—s internal FY2026 budget finalization (which affects what percentage might be withheld from charters for centralized services this year) and a larger state-level working group that MSDE is convening to recommend rules and regulations for funding formula implementation going forward. The board directed staff to continue negotiations and return with more detailed, itemized information and the charter office—s needs assessment on the Imagine Rock Creek proposal.

Ending

The district scheduled the charter work group to reconvene in May; the board asked staff to provide clearer, itemized budgets to operators and to share the centralized-services inventory before the budget is finalized. The Imagine Rock Creek application will be brought back for board action after the charter office completes a county needs assessment and provides the requested detail.