HB1403 would change how Maryland calculates “full-time equivalent enrollment” for State education aid. Under current law, the calculation is based on student counts taken on September 30, plus certain other categories of students. This bill would add additional count dates—December 31, March 31, and the last day of the prior school year—and require the enrollment figure to be the average number of students enrolled on those dates, rather than relying on a single fall snapshot.
The bill is titled the “Truancy Reduction Act of 2025,” and its practical effect is to make school funding calculations more reflective of enrollment across the school year. It would apply beginning July 1, 2025, for education funding calculations in fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2026. The bill amends Section 5-201 of the Education Article, which governs enrollment count, foundation program calculations, and the definition of full-time equivalent enrollment used in State aid formulas for primary and secondary education.
Impact
HB1403 would alter Maryland’s school funding statute by revising the definition of full-time equivalent enrollment in the Education Article, Section 5-201(g). Because enrollment count is used to determine a county’s foundation program and other State education aid calculations, the bill could change the amount of aid received by local school systems depending on how their enrollment fluctuates during the year. It would not change the basic structure of the aid formula, but it would change the data inputs used to calculate funding, beginning with fiscal years after June 30, 2026.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and assigned to the House Appropriations Committee, but there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included here. Based on the bill’s title and structure, it appears intended as a school attendance and funding measure, likely framed as a way to better align funding with actual enrollment patterns and discourage truancy-related undercounting. No direct evidence of support or opposition is provided in the supplied materials.
Contention
No committee debate or vote history is available in the provided record, so specific points of contention are not documented. Potential areas of disagreement, based on the bill text, would likely include whether averaging multiple enrollment dates is a fairer and more accurate funding method, whether it could increase administrative burden for school systems, and whether it could shift aid among counties with different enrollment trends. Any concerns would most likely involve local school systems, education finance stakeholders, and policymakers focused on school attendance and budget predictability.