We hate to say we told you so.
But we told you so.
We weren't the only ones. County superintendents told you. Teachers told you. Some state legislators told you. They begged for changes in the Blueprint for Maryland's Future funding mandates.
Please follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Truth Social, Gettr, Twitter, Youtube
It's simple, the State shouldn't force school districts to stretch funds to maintain programs they don't need, pay administrative staff that are unnecessary, and pay teachers a starting salary their county can't afford. If they have to do that, the end result will be reductions in teaching and other staff.
This is what happens when policy makers at state level policy "gurus" make decisions which override local district means and needs.
Here is Carroll County Superintendent of Schools Cynthia McCabe in August of 2023:
On August 19, Carroll County School Superintendent Cynthia McCabe explained to parents that they were "not going to like the changes" the Blueprint would cause in their schools. As a consequence of the new funding formula, schools that were successful would lose staff, funding and programs to other county schools based solely on student demographics, causing large class sizes, fewer teachers, and undoubtedly lower achievement in schools that were doing well. Again, the students become a source of funding, not children in need of education. If the goal is system wide mediocrity, they will achieve it.
She said it again in 2025.
She echoed those words in a Carroll County School Board meeting on January 8, 2025 (her recent comment on the Blueprint begins as 27:59):
CCPS Board of Education Meeting 1-8-2025
The EASTON GAZETTE wrote about it:
During her two comments, McCabe described how forced staffing changes in county schools would cause staffing shortages in some schools. And, while she touched on the base salary for starting teachers and its detrimental effect on district budgets, she did not explicity say that many counties, in order to meet the July 1 Blueprint mandate would have to cut staff.
Now, in an article from MARYLAND MATTERS, we see that the many smaller counties are risking teaching staff cuts because of the mandate.
Smaller school districts in Maryland are finding that even with the expansive budgets they have been given, they cannot afford to boost the starting salary of teachers to $60,000 a year without cutting positions.
They are having to implement reductions in force, larger class sizes, and even the use of part-time employees to fill the gap, particularly in specialized areas such as special education. Some have applied for a waiver from the July 1 deadline for the increased starting salary, only to have that rejected from the Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Director Rachel Hise.
Rachel is a a legislative policy analyst who was appointed to this position in January 2022. She was appointed after a nationwide search.
More on her and the AIB later.
At the county level, here are what some counties are doing:
Cecil County - cutting 104 positions, 60 teachers, 30 support staff, and 14 administrators.
Dorchester County - increased class sizes from 18-22 and reduced positions. * Dorchester led the state in percent increase in reading on the 2025 MCAP. One wonders if this will set their improvement backwards.
Other Eastern Shore Counties such as Talbot, Caroline, and Somerset, are scrambling for answers to the problem. You see, when you raise the beginning teacher salary, you have to implement a comparable raise all the way up the experience ladder. Smaller rural counties don't have the tax base of bigger urban counties to do that. They have to watch their budgets more closely.
In counties like Talbot, where there is a voter mandated limit on property tax increases, the problem is more critical. Talbot does have a tax assessed strictly for education. Somerset County, one of the poorest counties in Maryland, has to struggle just to meet basic educational needs.
Since the AIB will NOT issue a waiver, difficult decisions will be made. What is interesting is that from 2018-2019 to 2024-2025 central office administrative positions in Maryland, which do not generally impact classroom instruction, have increased extensively while teacher hiring has been anemic:
Notice that the state lost 5,302 students during that time. If you combine paraprofessionals, non-teaching school based certified employees and district administration and Central office staff, those categories have grown to 7,912 employee additions statewide while teaching positions increased by 2,371.
Non-classroom employee hirings were 70% of the new hires made during this time, leaving new teaching hires to make up 20%. Systems hired more than three times more non-classroom employees than teachers. These positions also tend to have higher salaries than classroom teachers, yet classroom teachers have the most direct impact on the achievement of students. The data quote above does not include hiring in transport, food services, etc.
WANDA: K-12 Workforce Data Tool - Edunomics Lab
Here is Talbot County, one of the districts trying to figure out how to meet the mandate of $60,000 a year for a starting teacher:
72% of the new hires in Talbot County Public Schools from 2018-2019 to 2024-2025 were non-classroom employees. Twenty-seven percent were classroom teachers.
Because of the Blueprint salary mandates, TCPS has overhauled it's salary structure: This list is for teachers with Bachelor of Arts Degrees.
This is why TCPS faced a $10.4M budget gap and had to make staffing cuts and program reductions.
Is it time for these districts to send their central office staff back to the classrooms or to just cut these administrative positions altogether?
Clearly, the burden of the Blueprint salary minimum is uneven in how it affects Maryland counties. Wealthier counties absorb the cost, smaller counties have to restructure, cut staff or increase class sizes.
Sadly, local school boards and superintendents aren't pushing back very hard. Why? They are afraid that the state funding will go away. While the Eastern Shore counties seem to be the most negatively affected, other counties such as Harford, Frederick, and Garrett Counties are also struggling.
But, remember, Ms. Rachel Hise, as the Executive Director of the Blueprint Accountability and Implementation Board has put her foot down on any waivers. As a point of reference, Rachel Hise earns $185,000 per year as the Executive Director of Maryland’s Accountability & Implementation Board (AIB). When we searched her name, this is the information we found:
Rachel Hise is one of Maryland’s most experienced education‑policy analysts. Before becoming the AIB’s first Executive Director, she spent nearly 30 years at the Maryland Department of Legislative Services (DLS), where she was the lead staffer to the Kirwan Commission — the group that designed the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. Her background is deeply rooted in legislative analysis, school finance, and long‑term education reform strategy.
She is not an educator.
From 2022–present, Ms. Hise has been:
- The first person ever appointed to lead the AIB.
- An overseer of statewide compliance with Blueprint mandates, including teacher pay scales, career ladder, early childhood expansion, college‑and‑career readiness, and governance reforms.
- Well known for her deep expertise in Blueprint policy architecture and implementation.
From 1993–2022 she was a senior legislative analyst and lead staffer to the Kirwan Commission (the precursor to the Blueprint), the task force to study college readiness for disadvantaged and capable students, and the 21st Century School Facilities Commission. She is said to be well respected among legislative leaders. Current Maryland Senate Leader Bill Ferguson and former Maryland House of Delegates speaker described her as "integral" to Maryland's education reform efforts.
Here is what is interesting. She is one of the architects of the Blueprint. She understands and is strongly devoted to the intent behind each Blueprint provision. She is responsible for AIB guidance, implementation guidelines, and compliance determinations. But, would that kind of devotion mean there is no room for practical compromise on those policies which adversely affect some counties?
Actions speak loudly on that issue.
It probably would not be a stretch to say that she is the most powerful person in Maryland education; even more than the State Superintendent, since she seems to have final authority over many issues such as salary waivers. Hise told a House subcommittee in March that there would be no waivers on the minimum salary requirement.
From MARYLAND MATTERS; “We got questions from the LEA [local education agencies] like, ‘Is there a waiver process? How could we get an exception?’” said Hise, “And the answer was, ‘No, there isn’t a waiver process. This is a statutory requirement by July 1 of 2026.” Half of Maryland’s school districts still not at $60K teacher salary threshold - Maryland Matters
Districts who don't meet the requirement could have state funding withheld, thus further complicating their tenuous budgets.
While there are no alleged conflicts of interest with Ms. Hise, the AIB itself has been soundly criticized for the concentration of power the group holds. It has the sole approval of district Blueprint plans, can unilaterally withhold state money from districts who don't meet AIB and Blueprint demands, and can override local practices in education. There have also been complaints that districts who wish to implement creative solutions for student achievement are stymied by Blueprint mandates.
Accountability & Implementation Board, Maryland - Origin & Functions
Accountability & Implementation Board, Maryland - Members
What is that quote about absolute power?
Up until last legislative session, there has been no independent oversight of the Accountability and Implementation Board. HB 1555 changed that and now granted oversight to the Office of the Inspector General for Education to investigate the AIB for any waste, fraud or abuse. The Office of Administrative Hearings can also now adjudicate appeals from school districts who lose funding because of Blueprint mandates that are not met. Also, the Office of Legislative Audits will be auditing the AIB every three years.
Also, it was determined that there needed to be more representation from small counties from different parts of the state and more input from school systems.
It's interesting that these reforms were just passed this year while the Blueprint has been in place for almost five years. The future, no doubt, will still include conflicts between districts and the AIB as locals struggle to meet what many consider are unfair and unproductive mandates.
And let's not forget that during Blueprint implementation, achievement scores in most districts have either remained flat or have dropped. It doesn't seem to be meeting its articulated goals. Or maybe it is.
As Superintendent McCabe said, "If the goal is system wide mediocrity, they will achieve it."
