.png){kind=small}
HB 772 (Crossover) Education - Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students - Alterations
- PSSAM Staff
- Apr 7
- 4 min read
BILL: HB 1127
DATE: April 02, 2025
POSITION: Favorable with Amendments
COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and the Environment Committee
CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM
The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports House Bill 772 with amendments.
This bill extends the existing funding mechanism for the Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students for two years, through fiscal 2028. The bill likewise extends the program’s reporting requirements by two years. The Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) must report to the Governor and the General Assembly on the effectiveness of the Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students, as specified, by January 1, 2027.
PSSAM appreciates this Committee’s thoughtful consideration of our common-sense amendments that will improve this initiative before granting its extension through the 2027–2028 school year, and without an evaluation until January 2027.
First of all, the LEAs are very committed to career counseling and want to see the vision of individualized career plans for students honored and achieved.
When the 24 local superintendents undertook a comprehensive review of each pillar of the Blueprint last fall, the career counseling program stood out as a top priority in need of adjustment. This program represents a significant investment—$55 million annually in new Blueprint funding—and yet is not universally serving students effectively across the state. Further, we would contend that in districts where it is working well, it is being managed directly by the school systems.
We strongly agree and believe that career counseling is a critical component of the Blueprint, and collaboration with Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) is important. However, the current structure—embedding the funding in the Foundation formula and mandating direct transfers to WIBs without checks or oversight—is poor policy and fiscally irresponsible.
In addition, the program was crafted without an analysis of existing career counseling programs within LEAs and pushed forward without a needs assessment to target effective implementation. Many career counseling programs existed in LEAs predating the Blueprint and already included robust offerings like CTE, apprenticeships, dual enrollment, early college, and more. There was also no consideration on capacity or expertise of local WIBs to implement this initiative and many have acknowledged they are ill-equipped to take this on alone.
Career preparation and readiness were not new ideas or concepts uncovered by the Kirwan Commission, but the Blueprint rightfully elevated the importance of this work. LEAs greatly appreciate the State’s dedicated funding to leverage both historic local investments and to expand partnerships. However, these expansions must recognize local context and strengths, and honor the feedback from educators who have the professional experience to build the most effective programs for middle and high school students’ developmental and academic abilities.
As it stands, in non-LEA-led districts, the career coaching program is siloed, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It operates as a top-down, box-checking exercise rather than a tool for real transformation. The return on investment is low, and with thoughtful course corrections, this funding could be a powerful driver of student success.
Importantly, the Blueprint holds LEAs accountable for ensuring students are college and career ready by 10th grade or by graduation—not the WIBs. Yet in many cases, LEAs have little to no role in overseeing this counseling work. This disconnect undermines our ability to meet Blueprint expectations. Counseling must be fully integrated into the broader efforts underway to prepare students for life after high school.
There is currently no accountability mechanism for the WIBs. LEAs must track Blueprint funds by month, school, and category—down to the student level. By contrast, WIBs are not held accountable to share budgets or provide documentation of services rendered. This is unacceptable for an entity tasked with providing a single service: career counseling.
Therefore, we respectfully request the following:
1. Delay the ratification of the FY 2026 MOU if requested by any partyIf requested by one of the parties to the MOUs, a new FY 2026 MOU will not be ratified by the appropriate state agency until the following actions are completed, or by mutual consent and approval by the appropriate state agency:
A comprehensive review of existing LEA and WIB programs;
A district-specific needs assessment, including school-level needs as applicable;
A service delivery plan outlining:
The entity that will hire and manage career coaches;
Hiring timelines; and
Service models appropriate for each grade band.
A provision that would allow for the appropriate state agency to enforce the terms of the MOU by withholding funding to the noncompliant party.
2. Unified Training and Information Sharing LEAs shall provide training for all career coaches—whether employed by LEAs or WIBs—to ensure they can clearly articulate each district’s college and career pathways, including academic, CTE, apprenticeship, internship, dual enrollment, early college, AP, IB, and other unique opportunities.
3. Fiscal Accountability for WIBs WIBs must be held to the same standards of fiscal and programmatic accountability as LEAs. MOUs should require:
Annual budgets aligned with the service delivery plan;
Quarterly expenditure reports to LEAs;
Annual program reports to the appropriate state agency.
4. Evaluation and Oversight The legislation should require:
An interim evaluation report to the Governor and General Assembly by May 31, 2026.
A final report and recommendations by December 15, 2026
Ideally, these evaluations should be conducted by an independent third party with no vested interest in the program.
We believe these recommendations strike a balance between accountability, collaboration, and student-centered design. We welcome continued partnership with the Committee and urge a favorable report with amendments to ensure this program is as effective, efficient, and equitable as it was intended to be.
Comments