MSDE advances draft rule on "commensurate funding" for charter schools; formula, deductions draw scrutiny
Loading...
Summary
Maryland—s State Department of Education moved a draft regulation to the full board that would implement statutory "commensurate funding" for public charter schools, laying out a formula based on state aid, subgroup allocations and deductions (retiree benefits, special-ed overage) and a 2% administrative fee (cap 5%). Staff estimates show substantial variation in net per-pupil allocations and prompted questions about data gaps and fairness.
Maryland—s Education Policy Committee voted to forward a draft regulation implementing statutory "commensurate funding" for public charter schools to the full State Board for additional review and public comment.
MSDE presenters said the regulation translates statute into a step-by-step formula: calculate a preliminary total public allocation using state (and where available local and federal) revenue buckets, divide that by district enrollment to derive per-pupil amounts, then apply subgroup-specific calculations (for multilingual learners, students with disabilities, etc.). From the preliminary allocation the regulation allows negotiated shared-cost deductions (retiree benefits, adult education, special-education overage) and an administrative fee applied to each charter—s preliminary per-pupil allocation (default 2%; local boards may request up to 5% with state-board approval).
"The commensurate funding has the sections that you see before you," Carol Beck, Director of School Innovation, said while walking the committee through the draft. MSDE said the regulation excludes concentration-of-poverty funding from the formula because that grant is allocated separately.
MSDE staff ran illustrative calculations using the fiscal-26 state aid workbook and other available inputs. Using consistent assumptions (including a placeholder special-education per-pupil amount used in the workbook), staff—s internal examples showed that shared-cost deductions plus a 2% administrative fee could reduce the preliminary blueprint allocation by roughly 10—17% in many sample scenarios; in some permutations the withholding could be larger depending on which deductions a district applies.
Carol Beck cautioned that the estimates are "relative" not absolute: the agency lacks consistent, comparable local- and federal-revenue data across LEAs and used uniform assumptions to make apples-to-apples examples. "These calculations—are based on the data that's available," she said. "They don't represent an absolute full accounting of money."
Committee members pressed MSDE on several points. Doctor Michael said stakeholders had proposed administrative-fee values as high as 7%; MSDE staff said 7% emerged in some district feedback, but the draft settled on a 2% default with a 5% cap after workgroup deliberations. Doctor Michael asked whether districts provide comparable accounting to justify a specific cap; staff replied reporting varied across LEAs and that consistent statewide categories for administrative overhead were not available for every district.
Several members asked for additional transparency and verification steps. A committee member asked that MSDE publish the number of representatives from each stakeholder category who participated in the workgroup; Carol Beck agreed to provide counts. Another member proposed random site reviews of schools in each LEA to ensure fidelity of local calculations; MSDE said that could be considered.
The committee motioned to send the draft regulation to the full board for further input and public comment; the committee voted to advance it. MSDE said the department will publish requests from local boards to charge more than 2% on its website and allow charter operators to file objections before the state board considers any fee above 2%. The regulation also includes appeal rights to circuit court for local boards or charter schools within 30 days of a contested decision.
What comes next: the draft will go to the full State Board for consideration and a public comment period before the regulation is finalized. MSDE told the committee it will continue refining examples and gathering missing local and federal revenue data to make public comparisons between current funding and the draft formula clearer.
Sources: Committee meeting presentation and discussion on draft COMAR 13A.02.10 (commensurate funding) presented by MSDE staff (Carol Beck and Mary Gable).
