Author: carolineboice_x5gxjq

Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee (EEE)

In the 2025 legislative session, the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee received the highest volume of education bills, with 81 bills assigned. Of these, 54 bills (67%) died in the Senate and did not advance.

The remaining 27 bills (33%) were reported out of EEE and referred to other committees or advanced in the legislative process:

  • 7 bills were referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, and all 7 passed — resulting in a 100% passage rate.
  • 1 bill was referred to the Senate Health and Government Operations Committee, which also passed — a 100% passage rate.
  • 10 of the 18 bills that originated in the House Ways and Means Committee and were later assigned to EEE passed — a 56% passage rate for that subset.
  • 1 bill was referred to the Senate Rules and Executive Nominations Committee, where it died.

Overall, 18 of the 81 education bills (22%) assigned to the Senate EEE Committee passed both chambers, were signed by the Governor, and became law.

Senate Budget and Taxation Committee (B&T)

In the 2025 legislative session, 11 education bills were assigned to the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee. Of those, 5 bills (45%) died in the Senate and did not advance.

The remaining 6 bills (55%) were referred to other committees or moved forward in the legislative process:

  • 5 bills were referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee — 2 of those passed (40% passage rate).
  • 1 bill was referred to the Senate Rules and Executive Nominations Committee, where it died.

Overall, 2 of the 11 education bills (18%) assigned to B&T ultimately passed both chambers, were signed by the Governor, and became law.

Senate Finance Committee

In the 2025 legislative session, 3 education bills were assigned to the Senate Finance Committee. All 3 bills failed to become law:

  • 1 bill was referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it died.
  • 1 bill was referred to the Senate Health and Government Operations Committee, where it also died.
  • 1 bill died in the Finance Committee without advancing.

Overall, the Finance Committee had a 0% passage rate for education bills in 2025.

Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee

In the 2025 legislative session, 1 education bill was assigned to the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. The bill died in committee and did not advance.

Overall, the Judicial Proceedings Committee had a 0% passage rate for education bills in 2025.

Senate Rules and Executive Nominations Committee

The Senate Rules and Executive Nominations Committee plays a procedural role by reviewing legislation introduced after the bill introduction deadline and determining whether to re-refer those bills to the appropriate standing committees.

In the 2025 legislative session, 4 education bills were assigned to the Senate Rules Committee. None were re-referred or advanced, and all died at that stage—resulting in a 0% passage rate.

As co-leader of the education workgroup, I’m trying to better understand workloads and what happens to education bills. This is just a simple write up based on the education bills from the 2025 session. 

Ways and Means Committee

A total of 121 education bills (coded F1–F5) were assigned to the House Ways and Means Committee, the most of any House committee. Of these, 81 bills (67%) died in the House and did not advance to the Senate.

The remaining 40 bills (33%) crossed over and were all referred to the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee (EEE). Of those, 22 bills passed both chambers (55% Senate committee passage rate).

However, 1 of the 22 passed bills was vetoed by the Governor for policy reasons, and therefore did not become law.

In total, 21 of the 121 bills (17%) assigned to Ways and Means were enacted.

Appropriations Committee

In the 2025 legislative session, 43 education bills were assigned to the House Appropriations Committee. Of those, 27 bills (63%) died in the House and did not advance to the Senate.

The remaining 16 bills (37%) crossed over to the Senate, where they were divided between two committees:

  • 12 bills went to the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee (EEE) — 5 of those passed (42% passage rate).
  • 4 bills went to the Budget and Taxation Committee (B&T) — 3 of those passed (75% passage rate).

Overall, 8 of the 43 bills (19%) assigned to Appropriations ultimately passed both chambers, were signed by the Governor, and became law.

Environment and Transportation Committee

The House Environment and Transportation Committee received 2 education bills. 1 bill died in committee, while the other advanced to the Senate.

The single crossover bill was referred to the Judicial Proceedings Committee, where it passed—resulting in a 100% passage rate for Senate-assigned bills from this committee.

Overall, 1 of the 2 bills (50%) assigned to Environment and Transportation became law.

Health and Government Operations Committee

Three (3) education bills were assigned to the House Health and Government Operations Committee. 1 bill died in the House, and 2 bills (67%) crossed over to the Senate:

  • 1 bill went to the Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee (EEE) — it passed.
  • 1 bill went to the Finance Committee — it also passed.

Overall, 2 of the 3 bills (67%) assigned to HGO became law.

Judiciary Committee

Only 1 education bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It advanced to the Senate, passed both chambers, and was signed into law—resulting in a 100% passage rate.

Rules and Executive Nominations Committee

The House Rules and Executive Nominations Committee serves a procedural role by reviewing legislation introduced after the bill introduction deadline and deciding whether to re-refer those bills to the appropriate standing committees. In the 2025 session, 5 education bills (coded F1–F5) were initially referred to the Rules Committee. None of these bills advanced, either because they were not re-referred or were ultimately withdrawn—resulting in a 0% passage rate.

What Can Nearly a Decade of Education Bills Tell Us About Legislative Trends?

A look at nine years of bills—introduced, passed, and what it says about the landscape.

Every year, the Maryland General Assembly introduces between 200 and 300 some education-related bills—bills assigned to one of the “F” file codes. As a fiscal and policy analyst, I read and review many of them. When we write the annual 90 Day Report or the Major Issues Review every four years, I reflect on what passed at a policy level—but I’d never actually looked at the full dataset.

To be honest, I didn’t even realize until recently that the General Assembly publishes downloadable data on all introduced legislation going back to 2017. Once I found it, I realized that some of the questions I’ve had—questions that have been simmering since I became a workgroup leader—were just a pivot table and a few filters away.

So I decided to dig in and explore a few basic questions:

  • How many education bills are introduced each year?
     Is volume part of why some years feel harder than others?
  • Which bills actually pass?
     Is the success rate consistent, or does it vary based on category or session dynamics?
  • Are some education categories more productive than others?
     Where is legislative attention translating into results—and where is it stalling out?

Using data from 2017 through 2025, I organized bills by file code, which is how the Maryland General Assembly categorizes legislation by subject area. Each bill in this dataset has only one file code, which helps avoid double-counting and makes trend analysis easier.

Technically, bills can be assigned more than one file code, but they are supposed to have a primary file code, which is what this dataset reflects.

I started in 2017 because that’s when the publicly available dataset begins. The result isn’t a perfect map of education policymaking—but it offers a useful window into what’s introduced, what moves, and where patterns start to emerge.

Education is assigned five file codes. F1 through F5.

What Members are Introducing

Here’s the number of unique bills introduced in each education category over the last nine sessions:

File CodeDescriptionRange (2017–2025)Typical Volume
F1Primary & Secondary Education117–156 billsHighest volume
F2Higher Education36–97 billsModerate
F3Education – Local Bills22–45 billsLow–moderate
F4Community Colleges – Local Bills0–5 billsVery low
F5Education – Miscellaneous16–49 billsRising

Primary and Secondary Education (F1) bills consistently dominate the education bills docket. The number of K–12 proposals introduced each year has stayed high—even during COVID disruptions—reaching a second peak in 2024. It is unsurprising that this category remained high during COVID disruptions because

Meanwhile, F5 (Miscellaneous) has quietly grown. These are often bills that touch multiple issues, create new programs, or fall outside the traditional boundaries of K–12 and higher ed. For example, in 2025 it included bills related to child care, data and infrastructure, libraries, adult education, security, and education finance policy.

What Actually Passed?

Not everything introduced becomes law. In fact, many bills stall in committee or get absorbed into larger omnibus legislation. Here’s what passed each year by file code, along with calculated passage rates:

File CodeWhat Stands Out
F1 – Primary & SecondaryHigh volume, low pass rates. Often 20–30%. Only 9% of F1 bills passed in 2020, and just 12% in 2025.
F2 – Higher EducationConsistently stronger pass rates—often 40–50%. Possibly due to narrower scope, stronger stakeholder alignment, or less controversy.
F3 – Local BillsMixed. When local delegations are aligned, they move. In 2023, 50% of F3 bills passed. In 2025, only 18% did.
F4 – Community CollegesAlmost nothing moved until 2024–2025, when 3 and 2 bills passed respectively. This file code remains very low-volume.
F5 – MiscellaneousSurprisingly effective. With passage rates as high as 81% in 2017, and 40–50% in later years, these bills may be noncontroversial, flexible, or bipartisan in nature.

What This Tells Me

  • K–12 (F1) has political energy, but not policy consensus. Every session is full of K–12 ideas—about funding, accountability, curriculum—but relatively few make it into law. Some are ambitious. Some are messaging bills. Some get lost in committee. All together, they show how contested this space remains.
  • Higher Ed is quieter, but more productive. Fewer bills, but more passage. That seems to be the pattern—suggesting a space where smaller fixes and targeted reforms are the norm.
  • Miscellaneous (F5) is worth watching. Some of the most flexible or forward-looking proposals may be hiding here. These bills don’t always fit the traditional education silos—but they may be more nimble as a result.
  • Volume ≠ Impact. This exercise reminded me that tracking legislation isn’t just about how much is introduced. It’s about understanding what makes it through and what that says about the underlying policymaking dynamics.

What I’d Like to Explore Next

This is just a snapshot. I’d like to keep asking questions like:

  • How do these trends shift during election years or budget-tight cycles?
  • Are we seeing more omnibus bills that consolidate smaller ones?
  • Which sponsors consistently get bills passed in each category?
  • How do passage rates correlate with fiscal note costs?

I’m also curious about the policy signals that aren’t obvious from volume alone. Which bills spark stakeholder debates but never make it out of committee? Which ones fly under the radar?

The interim is when I get to step back and think about how to provide the best possible service as a nonpartisan analyst to the Maryland General Assembly. These are my personal reflections—not the views of the Department of Legislative Services—and an attempt to deepen my understanding of the process we support. Writing these reflections should also help me keep up my practice during the interim.

What Is a Fiscal and Policy Note?

In Maryland, a fiscal and policy note (most often referred to as a fiscal note) estimates the impact of proposed legislation on State and local revenues and expenditures for the year the bill takes effect and the following four fiscal years. They are prepared by the nonpartisan staff of the Department of Legislative Services (DLS).

Under State Government Article § 2-1505, a standing committee may not vote on a bill unless a fiscal note accompanies it. The only exception is when the committee chair certifies that prompt action is required. In that case, a hearing may proceed, and the fiscal note must be prepared as soon as possible afterward.

Though designed primarily for legislators and staff, fiscal notes must also be reasonably available for public inspection and retained for three years. DLS meets this requirement by posting them online through the Maryland General Assembly website. In practice, fiscal notes are frequently read by advocates, journalists, and members of the public—often more so than the bills themselves. Their structure and language are designed to be accessible, providing context that plain bill text may lack.

Despite popular belief, fiscal notes are not binding, but they are influential. They are trusted because they are developed by neutral, nonpartisan staff using the best available information at the time. A fiscal note can clarify the cost of a proposal, highlight technical drafting issues, and influence the success or failure of legislation. When a bill fails to advance, members or advocates sometimes say it “had a fiscal note,” shorthand for saying the estimated cost or uncertainty may have been too high.

DLS also produces revised fiscal notes when bills are amended or enrolled. These must be sent to committee chairs in both chambers (if applicable), the Secretary of the Senate or Chief Clerk of the House (if in custody), and the primary bill sponsor. Revised notes are posted to the website as soon as they are finalized.

Core Components of a Fiscal and Policy Note

1. Bill Summary

Fiscal notes contain two summaries:

  • Short Summary (on page one): Conveys the core purpose of the bill, effective date (if not October 1), and any required reports. It aims for clarity and accuracy while avoiding legalese.
  • Long Summary (in the body): Expands on details that didn’t fit in the short summary. This includes more nuanced provisions and often provides needed structure to understand complex bills.

2. Fiscal Summary

The fiscal summary includes a brief explanation of:

  • State Effect
  • Local Effect
  • Small Business Effect

If there’s a quantifiable impact on State revenues or expenditures, a five-year fiscal table (“the box”) is included. State or local mandates are noted in bold.

3. Current Law

This section summarizes the relevant existing law. The summary should match the level of detail in the bill summary, neither overwhelming nor too sparse.

4. Background

Background sections appear in administration or departmental bills. These often include relevant statistics, policy history, or data that provide context for the bill’s purpose.

5. Fiscal Impact Sections

State Fiscal Impact

Details the bill’s projected fiscal effect by fund type and agency. Expenditures and revenues are generally discussed separately unless the issues are intertwined. Analysts describe:

  • What changes drive the impact
  • How estimates were calculated
  • Any assumptions or unknowns

Under § 2-1505, agencies are required to promptly provide data upon request, but final estimates are made by DLS analysts. Sources are listed at the end of the note.

Local Fiscal Impact

This section mirrors the state fiscal impact, estimating changes to local revenues and expenditures. It is typically a separate section but may be combined when impacts cannot be cleanly separated.

Small Business Impact

Summarizes any material effects on small businesses, if applicable.

Additional Comments

Used sparingly, this section flags issues such as ambiguous drafting, conflicts with current law, or implementation barriers that don’t fall neatly into the fiscal analysis.

What Fiscal Notes Don’t Cover

Fiscal notes do not estimate the impact on individual residents or model secondary effects (like economic multipliers or indirect behavioral changes) unless those can be reasonably and directly linked to the bill.

Conclusion

Fiscal and policy notes are one of the most import tools in the legislative process. They serve as a neutral lens through which to assess the fiscal and policy consequences of proposed legislation. Their strength lies in their structure, clarity, and impartiality. When written well, they guide decisions, spark better questions, and provide a roadmap for implementation.

I like playing with data to see what I might learn.

For this graph, I looked at data published by the University System of Maryland for the University of Maryland, College Park, about the number of applicants and the acceptance and enrollment rates. This graphic shows only Maryland residents. Looking at it this way, you can see that the number of applicants who applied and weren’t accepted and the number of students who enrolled almost doubled from 2008 to 2023. Almost doubled might be slightly exaggerated, but it is a good way to think about it. I wonder if that is the case for institutions that aren’t the flagship.

University System of Maryland

The data for students completing the University System of Maryland (USM) entrance requirements and immediately enrolling in college shows significant variations across different local school systems. Howard County had the highest enrollment rate, at 80%, followed closely by Frederick County, at 70%. On the lower end, Caroline County had an enrollment rate of 35%, while Kent County had a rate of 39%. This indicates a strong tendency for Howard and Frederick counties students to pursue higher education, whether within the USM, other public four-year institutions in Maryland, community colleges, private four-year colleges in Maryland, or out-of-state institutions.

Career and Technology Education (CTE)

For students completing the Career and Technology Education (CTE) requirements, immediate college enrollment rates varied widely. Frederick County had the highest enrollment rate at 36%, followed by Howard County at 32%. Anne Arundel, St. Mary's, and Washington counties had the lowest enrollment rates, all at 10%. It's important to note that CTE students may be more likely to pursue employment, apprenticeships, or other post-secondary opportunities directly related to their technical training rather than enrolling in college immediately.

USM/CTE Combined

The students completing the requirements for both the USM and the CTE programs showed strong enrollment rates, with Howard County leading at 84%, indicating that students completing both requirements are highly likely to continue their education. Baltimore City had a rate of 40%, which, while lower, still demonstrates a significant inclination towards further education compared to standalone CTE programs.

Comparative Observations Between High School Programs

Comparing the different high school programs, USM programs generally have higher immediate enrollment rates than CTE programs alone. The average enrollment rate for USM programs is significantly higher, with many counties achieving rates above 50%. In contrast, CTE programs often have lower enrollment rates, with several counties showing rates below 20%. The USM/CTE combined programs tend to perform better than CTE alone but slightly lower than USM programs, suggesting that combining career and technical education with a focus on university education can enhance overall enrollment rates but still face some challenges.

Additional ObServations

Overall, the data reflects significant disparities in immediate college enrollment rates across different local school systems and between students completing various high school program requirements. Howard and Montgomery Counties consistently showed high enrollment rates across all program types, while Somerset and Worcester Counties showed some of the lowest rates. This underscores the importance of robust support systems and educational resources in encouraging further education. Additionally, the data highlights the need for targeted interventions in counties with lower enrollment rates to ensure all students have equitable access to higher education opportunities.

Overall, the data reflects significant disparities in immediate college enrollment rates across different local school systems and between students completing various high school program requirements. Howard and Montgomery counties consistently showed high enrollment rates across all program types, while Somerset and Worcester counties showed some of the lowest rates. This underscores the importance of robust support systems and educational resources in encouraging further education. Additionally, the data highlights the need for targeted interventions in counties with lower enrollment rates to ensure all students have equitable access to higher education opportunities.

More of me playing around with data and publishing it to try to remember what I read. I put these maps on the same scale, with 20% being the lowest and 73% being the highest. Data was not available for Dorchester County.

Disadvantaged Graduates

The map for disadvantaged students’ immediate college enrollment rates from various local school systems in Maryland for the cohort year 2021-22 reveals significant disparities. Among the local school systems, Howard County had the highest enrollment rate at 45%. Following Howard County, Frederick and Harford counties had notable enrollment rates of 38%. On the other end of the spectrum, Worcester County had the lowest enrollment rate at just 20%, with Somerset County close behind at 22%. Larger school systems like Baltimore City and Prince George’s County showed relatively low enrollment rates at 31%. This data highlights the challenges faced by disadvantaged students in accessing higher education immediately after high school graduation, with enrollment rates generally lagging behind those of their non-disadvantaged peers, which is shown below. Overall 34% of disadvantaged graduates enrolled immediately after high school.

NoT disadvantaged Graduates

The map shows the immediate college enrollment rates for high school graduates from various local school systems in Maryland for the cohort year 2021-22, segmented by economic status and focusing on those who are not disadvantaged. Among the local school systems, Howard County had the highest percentage of high school graduates enrolled in college immediately, with a rate of 73%. Montgomery County followed with a 69% enrollment rate. On the other hand, Somerset County exhibited the lowest enrollment rate at 27%, significantly lower than the state average. Other notable observations include the relatively high enrollment rates in Frederick and Harford Counties, both at 61%, and the lower-than-average rates in Prince George's County at 43% and Baltimore City at 45%. Overall, the state average enrollment rate for not disadvantaged students was 58%. This data highlights the disparities in immediate college enrollment rates across different local school systems in Maryland.

Overall OBServations

Overall, the data reflects significant disparities in immediate college enrollment rates across different local school systems and between disadvantaged and not disadvantaged students. Statewide, the enrollment rate for not disadvantaged students was 58%, while disadvantaged students had a lower rate of 34%. Howard and Montgomery Counties consistently showed high enrollment rates for both groups, while Somerset and Worcester Counties showed some of the lowest rates. The substantial gap in enrollment rates between disadvantaged and not disadvantaged students across nearly all local school systems indicates a widespread issue that needs to be addressed to ensure equitable access to higher education opportunities for all students in Maryland.

Statewide of the 2021-2022 cohort, nearly half (49%) of Maryland public high school graduates immediately enrolled in college. Howard County Public Schools had the highest percentage of graduates immediately enrolling in college at 68%. Somerset County Public Schools had the lowest percentage of graduates immediately enrolling in college at 25%.

I have been busy with work, but now I have a pocket of time to dig into reading reports again. So you might see a few posts from me.

The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is the official application for financial assistance for
postsecondary education from the federal government. States, individual colleges and universities, and private scholarship programs use this information as well. Financial aid includes grants, educational loans, and work-study programs.

During the 2023 session, Senator Ellis put in a bill (Senate Bill 127) to require the Maryland Longitudinal Data System (MLDS) Center to report specified student FAFSA data to the Maryland General Assembly. MLDS must disaggregate the information by county and other student subgroups. I wrote the fiscal and policy note for the the bill. The bill was enacted as Chapter 688 of 2023.

FAFSA Completion for Maryland Aid

This first map shows the FAFSA completion rates by high school graduates by February 28, 2022. FAFSAs completed by this date are in time for consideration for the March 1 deadline for Maryland State financial aid. The map shows that Howard County Public School System has the highest FAFSA completion rate, at 57%, while Allegany County Public School System has the lowest, at 30%.

Due to federal data suppression requirements, the U.S. Department of Education does not report some FAFSA submissions and completions at the school level. The total is underreported since these data are used to calculate the overall local school system completion rates.

FAFSA Completion FOr Fall Enrollment

By fall enrollment, high school graduates from Howard County Public School System and Kent County Public School System have the highest FAFSA completion rates at 68%. While Dorchester County Public School System and Washington County Public School System have the the lowest FAFSA completion rates at 47%. Between February and August, the Allegany County Public School System had the highest percentage increase in FAFSAs completed (75%). While Howard County Public Schools, which had the highest FAFSA completion rate in February, had the lowest increase in FAFSAs completed (25%).

The 2024 Session is about to begin, so I am bookmarking data sources I frequently use to write fiscal and policy notes for the Maryland General Assembly. I am doing this to find the sources easily during Session, and I will add sources as I remember them.

Data Sources

We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you have provided to them or that they have collected from your use of their services. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

Preference Allow All Disable All