WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 819

Relating to sex offenders.

2025 Regular Session

Allows counties to adopt open enrollment so students can attend public schools in other counties with rules, capacity limits, and funding adjustments.

In committee upon adjournment.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 819

SB 819 — Public Schools: Open Enrollment — Policies and Funding (Summary)

Status: Hearing scheduled 3/07 (Education, Energy, and the Environment)
Introduced: Jan. 28, 2025 (effective date in bill: July 1, 2025)
Primary topic: Authorizes county boards to adopt open enrollment policies allowing students to attend public schools in counties other than their county of domicile and establishes related application, capacity, and funding rules.

Purpose and intent

Authorize and structure voluntary county-level “open enrollment” policies so that children may attend a public school in a county other than the county where they live, while setting application, capacity, nondiscrimination, enrollment, and funding rules to govern such transfers.

Key provisions

  • Authorization: A county board may adopt an “open enrollment policy” permitting otherwise-eligible students to attend a public school in another county free of charge.
  • Definitions: Establishes terms including “open enrollment policy,” “receiving county/school,” “sending county/school,” and “local current expense per student” (county appropriations for K–12 divided by FTE enrollment).
  • Application process and preferences:
    • County boards must create an application form (electronic and hard-copy) and timelines, with a documented waiver process for deadlines.
    • Reserved space/automatic re-enrollment for students who attended the receiving school the prior year.
    • Enrollment preference for students zoned to the school and siblings of enrolled students.
    • If applications exceed capacity, an “equitable selection process” (e.g., lottery) must be used while preserving the above preferences.
    • Applicants must receive written notification of approval/denial within a reasonable timeframe.
  • Capacity tracking and transparency:
    • County boards adopting a policy must track capacity by school and grade and publish a report on their website, updated at least every four weeks and easily accessible from the homepage.
  • Limitations on receiving schools: A receiving school is not required to alter building layout, offer new programs, or waive established program eligibility criteria.
  • Grounds to deny enrollment: Lack of capacity; lack of appropriate programs/facilities; program eligibility criteria not met; desegregation plan compliance; expulsion/ongoing expulsion proceedings.
  • Enrollment and credits: Students enrolled under open enrollment count as enrolled “for all purposes” (attendance, accountability, graduation); receiving schools must accept credits awarded by the sending county.
  • Transportation: A receiving county may provide transportation; if provided, the receiving county bears the cost.
  • Funding mechanics:
    • For each open-enrolled student, the sending county must send the receiving county an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the sending county’s local current expense per student or (b) the receiving county’s local current expense per student.
    • If the sending county’s local current expense is less than the receiving county’s, the State must provide the difference to the receiving county (consistent with current cross-county student funding practice).
  • Compliance: Policies must comply with applicable federal and State antidiscrimination laws.

Who is affected

  • Students and families seeking cross‑county school options.
  • County boards of education and local school systems (policy, administrative, reporting, and capacity-management responsibilities).
  • Receiving counties/schools (operational, transportation, and funding effects).
  • Sending counties (loss of local expense funding per transferred student).
  • State education finance (may absorb funding differences and must accommodate reporting/IT changes).

Fiscal and procedural effects

  • Effective date listed as July 1, 2025.
  • Fiscal note (Maryland): One-time MSDE enrollment data system upgrade (~$12,700 in FY2026). State and local education funding impacts are indeterminate beginning as soon as FY2026–FY2027 and will vary by adoption levels and student movement. The bill imposes a mandate on local governments to administer policies if they adopt one.
  • Implementation tasks for local boards: adopt policy, set up application/selection processes, maintain capacity reports (updated every four weeks), and account for enrollment and funding transfers.

Practical considerations

  • Actual statewide fiscal impact depends on how many counties adopt open enrollment and how many families participate.
  • The bill preserves local control—counties choose whether to adopt an open enrollment policy and retain ability to deny applicants for specified operational or legal reasons.
  • The funding formula aims to protect receiving counties from uncompensated cost increases, with the State covering differences when sending-county spending is lower.

For full legal text and legislative history, consult the bill file and the Maryland State Department of Education fiscal note.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.