Concentration of Poverty School Grant Program - Personnel and Per Pupil Grants - Eligible Uses
Summary
HB352 amends Maryland’s Education Article provisions governing the Concentration of Poverty School Grant Program. The bill removes a sunset-like limitation that had restricted the use of personnel grants and per pupil grants for certain required programs, including fine arts instructional programs, through fiscal year 2027. As amended, eligible schools may continue using these grant funds for the specified programs without that fiscal-year cutoff.
The bill does not change the structure of the grant program itself. It keeps the existing Concentration of Poverty School Grant Program in place, including its personnel grant and per pupil grant components, but broadens the duration of allowable uses by repealing the end date. The act takes effect July 1, 2026, and applies to the ongoing administration of school grant funding under Education Article § 5-223.
Impact
HB352 affects Maryland Education Article § 5-223(c)(9) by deleting the fiscal year 2027 limitation on how long personnel and per pupil grant funds may be used for programs required under COMAR Title 13A, Subtitle 04, including fine arts instructional programs. In practical terms, it preserves local schools’ flexibility to use concentration-of-poverty grant dollars for these required educational programs beyond the prior deadline, which may support staffing and program continuity in high-poverty schools.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 114 yeas to 9 nays, indicating that most members viewed the change favorably. No committee transcript was provided, but the favorable committee report and strong floor vote point to a generally positive reception.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether the grant funds should continue to be available for these program uses without a time limit. Supporters likely favored extending flexibility for schools serving high concentrations of eligible students, while the small group of nays may have objected to removing the fiscal-year restriction or to the broader use of grant funds for these purposes. No specific arguments were recorded in the provided materials.