Lawmakers Hear Broad Debate Over HB 14-30, a Charter School Facilities Funding Proposal

The Budget and Taxation Committee considered House Bill 14-30 on [date], a cross‑filed measure proposing a per‑pupil facilities allocation for Maryland’s public charter schools.

Delegate Mark Chang, presenting the cross‑filed bill, said the measure would bring fairness to charter students who now use operating dollars to pay for facilities while traditional public schools receive state and county construction support. Mark Chang (Member, Maryland House of Delegates, District 32) told the committee the House amended the bill to $200 per pupil but that a higher level would better position the state to access a federal school facilities incentive grant.

Proponents framed the bill as an inclusion and equity measure. “HB 14 30 is about fairness,” said Mackenzie Allen of the Maryland Alliance of Public Charter Schools, who urged the committee to raise the per‑pupil level and to remove language that excludes Baltimore City and potentially Prince George’s County. Erin Lessard, managing director of development and external affairs at KIPP Baltimore, told the committee that the House amendment would effectively shut Baltimore City schools out of funding and that “these are predominantly black and brown students, many from low income communities who stand to lose the most.”

Yilmaz Zane Akh, CEO of the Chesapeake Lighthouse Foundation, gave stark testimony about the financial stakes for operators. “I’m currently looking at closing 2 of my best performing high schools in Prince George’s County,” he said, adding that meaningful per‑pupil funding—he cited a minimum of $800 per pupil—would keep schools open for years.

Supporters stressed a federal matching opportunity. Mark Madema, a national charter finance professional, said the state could pursue the federal facilities incentive grant, which proponents estimated could bring roughly $10 million per year for five years if Maryland established a uniform statewide facilities program.

Opponents said the bill would create a competing, non‑need‑based funding stream and divert attention and dollars from the state’s prioritized school construction process. Mary Pat Fannin, executive director of SAM, said the state already has almost $400 million in unfunded and unmet facility needs and warned that HB 14-30 “walks away from” the need‑based principle built into Maryland’s school construction system. Lisonbee Perkins Cohen, speaking from experience as a former Baltimore City public schools chief of staff and former charter operator, said the bill would prioritize charter students “at the expense of other students.”

The Maryland State Education Association raised fiscal concerns about creating a permanent state obligation tied to general funds. “The federal program is not a grant. It is a bait and switch,” Sean Johnson said, noting federal incentives are temporary and would require replacement by state dollars in later years.

The committee’s discussion also included detailed Q&A about eligibility, whether charter schools already benefit from local facilities, and how federal reimbursement rules interact with a state program. Proponents repeatedly said the bill would be additive, not subtractive, to existing school construction priorities; opponents disputed that framing and asked the committee to protect the needs‑driven allocation process.

The committee did not take a final vote on HB 14-30 at this hearing and moved on to other agenda items. Committee members signaled interest in amendments addressing eligibility language and funding level before any final recommendation.

The Budget and Taxation Committee is expected to continue consideration of school‑funding and related measures on subsequent committee days or at workgroup meetings if sponsors and members seek to negotiate changes.