By Adam Pagnucco.
On Friday, I wrote about a new report from the county’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) alleging that MCPS’s budgeting and staffing practices “center and privilege White students” and “disproportionately harm Black and Latinx students.” The report noted MCPS’s much larger per-student expenditures on special education programs, which have a demographic distribution that is not very different from the general student population, than on programs for English language learners and recipients of free and reduced price meals, who are disproportionately Black and Brown. The report then concluded that the difference in those expenditures led to racial inequities in the schools.
While describing the report, I also noted that it omitted the impacts of federal and state laws, court decisions, and mandates on issues of spending by racial group and special education and I predicted that MCPS would cite them in its response. Well, MCPS certainly did, and its response was sent to the council hours after I wrote about the OLO report.
MCPS leadership is furious about the report’s allegations. Here is an excerpt from its response letter:
This report draws sweepingly dark conclusions from a narrowly defined and biased perspective of budget programming and allocation. This report bases many of its findings on post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and information without legal context. It is unacceptable and irresponsible to accuse a public agency of racist resource allocation without substantial evidence, which this report does not provide.
Following are two documents. First is MCPS’s response letter to the council. Second is a short response to that letter from the director of OLO.
This is what MCPS wrote to the council.
*****
July 17, 2026
The Honorable Natali Fani-Gonzalez, President and Members of the County Council
Montgomery County Council
Stella B. Werner Council Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Dear President Fani-Gonzalez:
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is writing to provide comment on the July 14, 2026, Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) Report, Budget Equity in Montgomery County Public Schools. This report draws sweepingly dark conclusions from a narrowly defined and biased perspective of budget programming and allocation. This report bases many of its findings on post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and information without legal context. It is unacceptable and irresponsible to accuse a public agency of racist resource allocation without substantial evidence, which this report does not provide.
Montgomery County Public Schools serves a highly diverse student population. More than 75 percent of our student body population is non-white, 20 percent receive services for Emergent Multilingual Learners (EML), and 44.5 percent receive Free and Reduced Meals (FARMs). This rich diversity is present in each of our 211 schools. Our work and our moral responsibility as public educators are to meet the needs of each individual student in the school they attend, wherever that may be in Montgomery County.
We know that we have significant work that we must do to improve student academic outcomes, and we are attentive to the disparate outcomes across our racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and special needs subgroups. The MCPS Future Ready Strategic Plan 2025-2030, approved by the Board of Education, has as it first goal “Academic Excellence” and Objective 6 of this goal is “MCPS will close performance gaps between reporting categories, improving performance for all students; primary focus areas include: students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, Multilingual Learners, Hispanic/Latino students, and Black or African American students.” Consequently, state assessment data and other performance measures already have begun to show improvements in this area.
Of critical importance, however, is the legal requirement that any distribution of funding must be made equitably and without regard to race or ethnicity. Specifically, MCPS is bound by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. The frequent suggestions in the report that MCPS should budget according to race or ethnicity in its allocation of resources are at odds with what is legally permissible. The legal ramifications of this report’s findings should have been considered before publication.
The summary of findings outlined in the report contains findings as restatements of demographics, correlations between budget data and performance gaps with unverified assumptions, and draws conclusions that extend beyond the data into interpretation without sufficient consideration of program requirements, funding constraints and statutory obligations. At no point in this report was any unique finding presented that was different than any other school system in America, yet all findings were presented as attributed solely to MCPS and without context to broader issues with public education in the United States. A more responsible approach would contextualize conclusions about equity and racial bias to ensure that they are supported by the data while acknowledging the complexity of how these dynamics operate in practice.
Findings 1 through 3 are simply restatements of MCPS group demographics, data that is published yearly and is common to public education systems across the country. It is worth noting that these findings incorrectly identify students receiving Gifted and Talented (GT) education as one of the largest service groups in the district. Students are tested and identified as GT in the second grade as part of a state testing requirement, and many students are identified through this process as eligible for GT instruction. However, that eligibility is used to inform approaches to individualized instruction and does not result in allocating resources or programs specifically for those students.
Finding 4 represents a fundamental misunderstanding of special education. The report contrasts the nearly $30,000 spent per student in special education with the lower amounts spent on EML ($4,000) and compensatory education ($1,400), suggesting this prioritizes one group over another. This does not reflect the realities and requirements of how special education operates. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is not only a grossly under-funded Federal legal mandate, it carries with it very specific legal requirements to provide needed services, of any scope and extent required, to all children from birth through their 21st birthday. If a student requires specialized therapies or one-on-one paraprofessionals, MCPS is legally required to fund it, regardless of cost. The costs ascribed to providing services for students with disabilities should be more significant than the costs associated with serving their general education counterparts. This funding dynamic is not a localized structural preference; it is driven by federal mandates and the legal obligation to fulfill service requirements.
While special education services are provided across all demographic groups, the data highlight the need for staffing and resource allocation models that recognize the diverse and significant needs of the students being served. Ensuring differentiated and adequate support for students with disabilities remains a critical component of MCPS’ commitment to equity and educational access for all students.
Finding 5 does not align with the required funding structure of MCPS, and relies on budget definitions that are not operational in the school system. Compensatory education funding supports the needs of FARMs students. Both the current staffing guidelines and, to a greater extent, the new staffing standards, provide additional staffing to schools based on the number of students eligible for FARMs. By examining only specific programs and revenues, the report overlooks the larger structure of resource allocation that MCPS is implementing. The report evaluates systemic impacts in a vacuum and mistakenly attributes federal mandates and state governance to a bias of the local system.
MCPS, like many other school districts, also receives supplemental funding sources that provide additional support for students identified as being at risk of academic challenges. These funding sources include federal grants such as Title I, Title III English Language Acquisition, and Title IV Student Support and Academic Enrichment, each of which is intended to address specific student needs and improve educational outcomes. The use of these funds is governed by federal requirements, including strict supplement-not-supplant provisions and other legal mandates that dictate how the funds may be allocated and expended.
Finding 6 again misidentifies GT as a separately funded program. Students receive differentiated, sometimes accelerated, instruction throughout their educational journey in MCPS rather than additional staffing or resources.
Finding 7 is a statement that does not take into consideration that the Accountability and Implementation Board and the Maryland State Department of Education developed a financial reporting system that breaks down the funding (both budget and actuals) by Blueprint program, of which MCPS is fully compliant. As mentioned in the finding, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future legislation provides guidance and requirements regarding the use of state education funding, with an emphasis on equity, targeted student supports, and improved student outcomes. It is important to note that even without the changes and initiatives that we are implementing in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027, MCPS met the requirements related to Minimum School Funding, demonstrating compliance with both state expectations and the district’s commitment to equitable resource allocation across schools.
Finding 8 is a general statement about student performance among subgroups that is common to many districts. This finding does not provide any insight into our budgeting practices and their impact.
Findings 9 through 12 are inflammatory accusations that are not substantiated with true evidence. MCPS explicitly and categorically rejects these conclusions and provides the following evidence in the FY 2027 Operating Budget as examples supporting equitable resource allocation:
Staffing Standards: In FY 2026, MCPS conducted a comprehensive review of its staffing practices and developed staffing standards for all areas such as elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as special schools, special education programs, and EML services. Since MCPS staffing guidelines had not been updated in more than 20 years, we undertook this initiative to develop guidelines that further addressed the inequities within our system. In contrast to the report’s claims, our core intention was to develop a system that significantly advantages schools with high poverty and schools that serve black and brown communities.
The result is a tiered system based on FARMs rates that provides additional staffing to schools with high poverty rates and those schools that are disproportionately represented by historically marginalized subgroups. The translation for this is that schools with high FARMs rates, students with disabilities, and English learners actually receive more, not less staffing. Schools with high concentrations of historically underrepresented student subgroups also receive more staffing in this model. Any assertion to the contrary is patently false. The staffing standards were developed through a comprehensive stakeholder feedback process and informed by benchmarking analyses of peer school districts. This collaborative and data-informed approach helped establish standards that are both equitable and aligned with best practices in public education.
School Materials Funds: To further address inequities across schools, MCPS introduced the “Equity Add-On” initiative in FY 2026. Prior to FY 2026, funding for instructional materials, textbooks, and equipment was allocated to schools using a standard per-pupil formula based solely on student enrollment.
Beginning in FY 2026, MCPS enhanced this approach by providing additional allocations based on the unique characteristics and needs of each school’s student population. Under the Equity Add-On model, schools receive supplemental funding tied to specific student groups and indicators of need. For example, schools receive additional per-pupil allocations for students who are eligible for FARMS services, EMLs, and students receiving special education services.
The funds explicitly follow the student, in that schools without a concentration of socio-economic, language services, or special needs also receive additional material funding for the impacted groups of students attending their school, even if their numbers are smaller than in other schools. These funds directly benefit historically underserved communities.
Findings 13 through 15 reflect statements from current and former students and community stakeholders regarding their experiences and perceptions. The Board of Education has established accountability responsibilities for overseeing the school system and regularly engages with stakeholders through public meetings held each month. These meetings provide opportunities for students, families, staff, and community members to share concerns, provide feedback, and receive information regarding the progress of initiatives and factors that influence the implementation of the Board’s Strategic Plan. This ongoing engagement process serves as an important mechanism for transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement within the school system. As an additional layer of accountability, the County Council and county executive receive monthly financial reports from MCPS on spending.
In addition to the findings, the report highlights the concentration of less experienced staff in schools with higher FARMS rates. It is important to note, however, that all vacant positions across MCPS are open to qualified candidates regardless of school location, and school leaders are not restricted in their ability to select candidates. As such, the distribution of staff experience levels across schools is influenced by a variety of factors, including applicant preferences, workforce trends, and individual hiring decisions, rather than by policies that limit access to experienced educators in certain schools.
This is an area in which MCPS provides additional funds to incentivize teachers to work at impacted schools. As part of the Blueprint, teachers that are Nationally Board Certified and work at schools defined by the state as “low-performing” receive the $10,000 stipend for their certification and an additional $7,000 stipend for working at a “low-performing” school. While the state provides a portion of these funds, MCPS funds the bulk of this requirement from its overall revenue-again an example that line-item expenditures not always are identified with specific revenue sources.
We were disappointed to receive this report that elevates unnecessarily inflammatory assumptions based on faulty premises. We believe that Montgomery County agencies should work as a team to better serve our community’s most precious resource-our children. Throwing stones is not the work of responsible public servants. There was a real opportunity missed to offer insights that could have helped MCPS to improve. We hope there is a commitment from OLO to a better-governed process in the future with a higher expectation of unbiased veracity.
The fundamental issues are ones on which there is no disagreement: first, that all students deserve an excellent public education that meets their specific needs and individual circumstances; and second, that disparities in academic outcomes persist and are unacceptable. Our legal mandate is to serve all students; our moral mandate is to allocate resources equitably so that each student has what they need to succeed. We have made great strides in recent years to move closer to meeting these objectives and Montgomery County Public Schools always will strive to meet these mandates in everything we do and with all of the resources that we have available.
Sincerely,
Essie McGuire
Chief of Staff
Ivon Alfonso-Windsor
Chief Financial Officer
Copy to:
Members of the Board of Education Dr. Taylor
Mr. Cihlar
*****
After MCPS sent its response to the council, OLO’s director sent me this reaction.
*****
OLO looks forward to a continued discussion of this important issue and, as always, welcomes and will include agency comments in any publication it creates. In this particular case, I would only offer that MCPS was provided the report more than two months prior to publication and OLO received no comments or response from MCPS until after the report was released and subsequently highlighted in your article. We appreciate MCPS’s commitment to the education of all students and agree with their statement that everyone shares the same goal which is the betterment of Montgomery County’s children.
Christopher Cihlar Ph.D
Director, OLO