Search Results

BILL: SB 574 TITLE: Charles County - Student Bus Transportation Providers - Provider Displacement DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Education, Energy & 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, opposes Senate Bill 574. This legislation requires the Charles County Board of Education to provide at least 10 years' notice and hold a public hearing before taking any action that results in displacement of a person that has been providing student bus transportation services in Charles County; it also requires the Board to provide written notice at least 2 years before the displacement of a person that has been providing student bus transportation services. PSSAM rarely weighs in on local legislation but due to the far-reaching implications of this legislation, we strongly oppose this bill.  Beyond the financial implications, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for the management of public services in Maryland school districts. Stripping a publicly elected board of education of its ability to make fiscally responsible decisions is neither appropriate nor in the best interest of Maryland’s students, employees, or taxpayers.  This bill would create unfortunate public policy by mandating the privatization of certain services, namely, prioritizing the interests of private transportation companies over fiscal responsibility and stewardship of public funds to education. The bill does nothing to address the best interests of the public; instead, it is designed solely to benefit private bus contractors. A 2015 independent study of Charles County’s school system's transportation program found that bringing services in-house could reduce costs by up to 3.3%. At that time, all transportation services were outsourced to private contractors. Since then, the school system has begun purchasing its own buses, resulting in a more financially balanced operation, but 80% of transportation services are still provided by private contractors.  House Bill 1493 would lock the current structure in place for the next ten years, disregarding potential cost increases and unforeseen factors. As costs fluctuate, the school system must retain the flexibility to be fiscally responsible. This legislation expressly prohibits the school system from realizing any savings that could result from a more flexible approach. And, it creates a monopoly for private companies, eliminating competition with the school system’s potentially more cost-effective transportation program. For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 1493 and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 934 TITLE: Education - Public School Construction - Funding DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Budget & Taxation Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports House Bill 934.  This bill states that it is the intent of the General Assembly that at least $550 million is included in the annual State budget for public school construction beginning in fiscal year 2027.  Students learn best in schools that are safe, healthy, and designed for modern educational needs. Today’s schools must support heightened safety expectations, including secure entrances, clear sight lines, modern communication systems, and full ADA accessibility. At the same time, building conditions directly affect student health and learning. Outdated ventilation, heating, and cooling systems contribute to poor air quality, increased asthma rates, absenteeism, and difficulty concentrating. Aging facilities also struggle to support modern technology and may even face heat-related closures during extreme weather. Maryland’s commitment to climate solutions also requires school facilities to meet higher environmental standards. While these improvements create long-term energy savings, they often increase upfront construction costs. In short, unsafe or outdated school buildings directly undermine student success. Maryland’s funding for school construction through the State Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has remained largely stagnant in recent years and does not include an inflationary adjustment.  At the same time, every local school system faces significant unmet capital needs while construction costs continue to rise rapidly. Inflation in labor, materials, and supply chains has dramatically reduced purchasing power for school construction projects. As a result, projects are becoming more expensive and in some cases must be scaled back or delayed because available funding cannot meet the original scope. Construction inflation has been particularly severe. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for New School Building Construction, costs rose from 157.5 in January 2018 to 224.7 in January 2024— an increase of 42.7% in just six years .  The increase over a longer time horizon is even more striking. In 2003, the State cost per square foot for school construction was $139; in 2026, it is $431. Without adjustments to state funding levels, these rising costs continue to erode the ability of school systems to build and modernize facilities. Maryland’s school infrastructure faces a substantial backlog of aging and unreliable facilities. According to the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC): 46% (627 facilities) are considered unreliable and in need of major repair, and 34% (463 facilities) are rated as “OK” but occasionally unreliable. Delaying construction only makes the problem more expensive. Temporary repairs and emergency fixes often create a costly “band-aid” approach that does not address underlying structural issues. As projects are postponed, inflation continues to drive costs even higher. Investment in school construction also benefits Maryland’s economy.  High-quality school facilities help attract families, employers, and a talented workforce. School construction funding generates a ripple effect across the economy by supporting skilled trades and construction jobs; architects, engineers, and designers; manufacturing and material suppliers, and local small businesses. These investments strengthen both local communities and the statewide economy. The success of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future depends on having facilities that can support its programs.  This includes safe and healthy community schools, high-quality prekindergarten classrooms, modern career and technical education labs, and expanded and mission-critical special education spaces. If Maryland is serious about educational equity, students across the state must have access to comparable learning environments. Local governments have increasingly shouldered the burden of school construction costs, but many counties—especially lower-wealth jurisdictions—cannot meet facility needs without strong state partnership. Even when local governments attempt to advance funding for projects, it can take decades to recover those investments. In some cases, counties simply do not have the fiscal capacity to move projects forward without additional state support. Historic cost escalation and ongoing inflationary pressures are making it increasingly difficult for school systems to address facility needs. Ensuring safe, modern schools will require a renewed commitment and increased funding commitment from the State to partner with local governments and provide funding that reflects today’s construction realities. For these reasons, PSSAM   supports House Bill 1329   and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 1582 TITLE: Education - Program of Educational Accountability - Alterations (Comprehensive Outcomes and Measures of Progress for Supporting Schools (COMPASS Act) DATE: March 12, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means 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 1582. This bill would alter the school quality indicators authorized for an educational accountability program and prohibit the use of certain indicators in an educational accountability system.  PSSAM supports House Bill 1582 as it would allow the Maryland Department of Education (MSDE) to more accurately measure Maryland public schools’ progress toward the ambitious goals of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future by updating the Maryland Report Card . House Bill 1582 increases the share of the overall composite score dedicated to academic indicators from 65% to 70%, ensuring that the system more accurately reflects student learning and growth. At the same time, it caps individual proficiency indicators at 20%, preventing any single measure from overshadowing other important dimensions of school performance. This balance is essential for capturing both achievement and growth within Maryland’s public schools. Beyond academic adjustments, the bill also authorizes MSDE to include credit for completion of a well‑rounded curriculum, reflecting whether students are on track at key transition points; and school staffing indicators, including access to teachers with Advanced Professional Certificates or National Board Certification. PSSAM believes HB 1582 represents a thoughtful, community‑informed update to Maryland’s accountability system. These changes give MSDE the flexibility to implement recommendations from nearly two years of community collaboration, including the Maryland Assessment and Accountability Task Force and the Maryland Accountability Advisory Committee, both of which included several superintendents. By refining school quality indicators, strengthening the role of academic growth, and ensuring transparent, actionable reporting this bill positions Maryland to better support students, educators, and families                                     For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 1582 and kindly requests a favorable  committee report.

BILL: HB 1528 TITLE: Education – Homeschool Students – Extracurricular Activities DATE: March 12, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 1528. This bill authorizes a public high school to allow a student participating in a certain home instruction program to participate in extracurricular activities sponsored by the school outside of regular school hours. It also requires a public high school to give placement priority to a student enrolled in a certain high school over a student who is not enrolled in the school if there are a limited number of spaces available for students in the extracurricular activity.  PSSAM opposes this bill’s expanded eligibility of students participating in public school interscholastic events. State regulations governing interscholastic athletics and activities require participating students be officially enrolled in and attending the public school they represent. These rules exist to ensure that all students are held to consistent standards related to academic eligibility, attendance, conduct, and participation requirements. Students educated through homeschooling are not subject to the same academic oversight, attendance verification, or grading systems used by public schools.  There are also important liability and supervision concerns. Students who are enrolled in public schools are covered under established school system policies, including those related to student supervision, accident coverage, and risk management. Homeschooled students would not necessarily fall under these same protections or procedures. In the event of injuries or other incidents school systems could face significant uncertainty regarding responsibility, insurance coverage, and legal liability. Finally, expanding participation beyond enrolled students could affect opportunities for students who are fully enrolled in the school system, including team roster limits, playing time, and access to extracurricular resources. The proposal raises significant concerns related to equity, eligibility verification, liability, and operational capacity for local school systems; for these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1528 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1493 TITLE: Charles County - Student Bus Transportation Providers - Provider Displacement DATE: March 12, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means 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, opposes House Bill 1493. This legislation requires the Charles County Board of Education to provide at least 10 years' notice and hold a public hearing before taking any action that results in displacement of a person that has been providing student bus transportation services in Charles County; it also requires the Board to provide written notice at least 2 years before the displacement of a person that has been providing student bus transportation services. PSSAM rarely weighs in on local legislation but due to the far-reaching implications of this legislation, we strongly oppose this bill.  Beyond the financial implications, this bill sets a dangerous precedent for the management of public services in Maryland school districts. Stripping a publicly elected board of education of its ability to make fiscally responsible decisions is neither appropriate nor in the best interest of Maryland’s students, employees, or taxpayers.  This bill would create unfortunate public policy by mandating the privatization of certain services, namely, prioritizing the interests of private transportation companies over fiscal responsibility and stewardship of public funds to education. The bill does nothing to address the best interests of the public; instead, it is designed solely to benefit private bus contractors. A 2015 independent study of Charles County’s school system's transportation program found that bringing services in-house could reduce costs by up to 3.3%. At that time, all transportation services were outsourced to private contractors. Since then, the school system has begun purchasing its own buses, resulting in a more financially balanced operation, but 80% of transportation services are still provided by private contractors.  House Bill 1493 would lock the current structure in place for the next ten years, disregarding potential cost increases and unforeseen factors. As costs fluctuate, the school system must retain the flexibility to be fiscally responsible. This legislation expressly prohibits the school system from realizing any savings that could result from a more flexible approach. And, it creates a monopoly for private companies, eliminating competition with the school system’s potentially more cost-effective transportation program. For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 1493 and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1492 TITLE: Collective Bargaining – Public Employees – Revocation of Certification and School and Library Employees’ Right to Strike DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Government, Labor & Elections Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 1492.  This legislation would allow for certificated and noncertificated public school and library system employees, and employer organizations the right to engage in a strike and prohibit public school and public library employers from taking certain actions against employees who participate. This would also repeal the authority of the Public Employee Relations Board to deny or revoke an employee organization’s certification as exclusive representative of public employees in State and local government under certain circumstances; and generally relates to collective bargaining for public employees. Maryland’s educators are the backbone of our public school systems. Maryland also has a long history of productive and collaborative collective bargaining between local school systems and employee organizations. The current framework includes well-established negotiation, mediation, and appeals processes that have allowed disputes to be resolved while maintaining continuity of instruction for students. Allowing teachers to strike would represent a major shift in Maryland public policy  and could significantly disrupt this balanced and well-functioning labor framework. While we deeply value educators and the essential role they play in our schools, we have serious concerns about the potential consequences of allowing teacher strikes, particularly for students and families. Teacher strikes can significantly disrupt the academic calendar and student learning.  Maryland law requires 180 days of instructional time, and local school systems are already responsible for ensuring that an increasing number of curriculum requirements are met within that timeframe. Lost instructional time is difficult to recover, particularly when strikes extend beyond a few days. Nationally, while approximately 90% of teacher strikes last fewer than 10 days, some have lasted far longer. The longest strike in U.S. history occurred in Illinois in 1987 and lasted 156 school days. More recently Hawaii teachers struck for 20 days in 2001 and Chicago Public Schools teachers struck for 11 days in 2019. Even shorter disruptions can have lasting academic consequences. Research from the Brookings Institution found that longer teacher strikes are associated with statistically significant declines in student achievement—roughly three to five percent of a typical year’s academic growth, with impacts extending into the following school year. ( Brookings, The resurgence and impacts of teacher strikes ) Students approaching graduation, college admissions, or standardized testing are particularly vulnerable to these disruptions. The impact is often greatest for students who already face academic challenges. School closures due to strikes can disproportionately affect students who rely heavily on school-based services. Schools provide far more than classroom instruction. When schools close, students may lose access to: School meals Special education supports Counseling and mental health services Safe supervision during the school day For many vulnerable students, these supports are essential to their well-being and ability to succeed academically. Teacher strikes can also create significant challenges for families. When schools close unexpectedly, parents may need to miss work, arrange emergency childcare, and adjust work schedules or employment responsibilities. Research examining prolonged teacher strikes in Argentina found that when strikes lasted longer than 10 days, many parents were forced to miss work or leave the workforce temporarily. The study found that ten days of strike-related school closures resulted in an average decline of about 3% in monthly labor earnings for affected households.  ( Journal Article - The effect of teacher strikes on parents ) Unlike private sector employers, school systems operate within fixed public budgets approved by state and local governments. Maryland school districts do not have independent taxing authority and cannot simply raise revenue to meet demands during labor disputes.  Strikes may create emergency situations that pressure governments to make short-term financial decisions that may not be sustainable in the long term. This dynamic can disrupt careful budgeting processes and complicate long-term fiscal planning for both school systems and local governments. Maryland has made historic investments in the teaching profession through the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,  including: Significant salary increases Career ladder opportunities Expanded professional development Additional staffing supports in community schools In many districts, these improvements have also benefited other school staff through “me-too” contracts that mirror changes in the larger teacher union contracts. This has helped strengthen the broader school workforce and create healthier school environments, but has been a fiscal obligation not anticipated by the State Legislature, nor funded with any additional State funding.  However, these investments reflect Maryland’s commitment to elevating the teaching profession and supporting educators. Maryland’s educators are the backbone of our public school systems, and we remain committed to supporting them through strong partnerships and fair collective bargaining. However, because education is an essential public service , allowing teacher strikes would create significant risks for students, families, and communities. We believe Maryland’s longstanding collaborative bargaining framework has served the state well, and we encourage policymakers to continue focusing on solutions that support educators while keeping students at the center of every decision. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1492 and respectfully requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 1430 TITLE: Maryland Public Charter School Program - School Facilities - Funding DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 1430.  This bill directs the Governor, for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal year thereafter, to include in the annual budget bill an appropriation for the maintenance and operation of public charter school facilities that is equal to the total aggregate student enrollment in the Maryland Public Charter School Program for the prior fiscal year multiplied by $1,600. This bill also requires the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to distribute the appropriated funds directly to the public charter school for the maintenance and operation of public charter school facilities. PSSAM supports efforts to ensure all Maryland students learn in safe, modern, and well-maintained facilities; however, we oppose House Bill 1430 because it would establish a separate, per-pupil funding stream specifically for public charter school facilities outside of the State’s existing school construction funding process.  This bill would move away from the State’s current system that directs funding to schools based on need and toward a separate funding model that could create inequities among public school students. Under the current model capital funds are granted through a rigorous evaluation process administered by the IAC. School systems and the Commission balance competing demands based on the age, condition, size, and use of every school building in a jurisdiction, ensuring that scarce dollars are targeted to the highest priorities. Maryland’s charter school law stipulates that these are public schools  under the auspices of their local education agency (LEA). However, PSSAM sees no compelling reason to establish a separate fund for charter schools, particularly one based on a per-pupil formula that introduces equity concerns and does not align with the fundamental nature of capital funding. Capital projects are driven by facilities and building needs - not primarily by student enrollment - making a per-pupil approach an ill fit for this purpose. It is also important to note that capital funding for charters was specifically discussed and dismissed during the legislation deliberations that authorized charter schools.  Many charters are located in underutilized or closed public schools. Since these buildings are owned by the local government or the LEA, requests for improvements are evaluated through the LEA’s Capital Improvement Process (CIP). In doing so, they are prioritized like the rest of the system’s infrastructure.  There are other opportunities for charters to access State capital funding. For charters that are using non-government owned buildings, the law allows for these schools and their operators to use creative financing to make complete capital projects, or work with other organizations to address their facility needs. Additionally, beginning in 2023, the IAC adopted a policy allowing state bond proceeds to fund capital improvements for leased public charter school buildings not owned by local school systems. To qualify, the charter school must have a lease of at least 25 years and a written guarantee from the LEA.  Every system has unmet capital needs and skyrocketing inflationary costs, creating new and more expensive costs for every capital project. These inflationary pressures further our opposition to carving out additional state funding for charter school facilities when there is already insufficient funding to support the current facility needs.   For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1430 and respectfully requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 1329 TITLE: Education - Public School Construction - Funding DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports House Bill 1329.  This bill states that it is the intent of the General Assembly that at least $550 million is included in the annual State budget for public school construction beginning in fiscal year 2027.  Students learn best in schools that are safe, healthy, and designed for modern educational needs. Today’s schools must support heightened safety expectations, including secure entrances, clear sight lines, modern communication systems, and full ADA accessibility. At the same time, building conditions directly affect student health and learning. Outdated ventilation, heating, and cooling systems contribute to poor air quality, increased asthma rates, absenteeism, and difficulty concentrating. Aging facilities also struggle to support modern technology and may even face heat-related closures during extreme weather. Maryland’s commitment to climate solutions also requires school facilities to meet higher environmental standards. While these improvements create long-term energy savings, they often increase upfront construction costs. In short, unsafe or outdated school buildings directly undermine student success. Maryland’s funding for school construction through the State Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has remained largely stagnant in recent years and does not include an inflationary adjustment.  At the same time, every local school system faces significant unmet capital needs while construction costs continue to rise rapidly. Inflation in labor, materials, and supply chains has dramatically reduced purchasing power for school construction projects. As a result, projects are becoming more expensive and in some cases must be scaled back or delayed because available funding cannot meet the original scope. Construction inflation has been particularly severe. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index for New School Building Construction, costs rose from 157.5 in January 2018 to 224.7 in January 2024— an increase of 42.7% in just six years .  The increase over a longer time horizon is even more striking. In 2003, the State cost per square foot for school construction was $139; in 2026, it is $431. Without adjustments to state funding levels, these rising costs continue to erode the ability of school systems to build and modernize facilities. Maryland’s school infrastructure faces a substantial backlog of aging and unreliable facilities. According to the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC): 46% (627 facilities) are considered unreliable and in need of major repair, and 34% (463 facilities) are rated as “OK” but occasionally unreliable. Delaying construction only makes the problem more expensive. Temporary repairs and emergency fixes often create a costly “band-aid” approach that does not address underlying structural issues. As projects are postponed, inflation continues to drive costs even higher. Investment in school construction also benefits Maryland’s economy.  High-quality school facilities help attract families, employers, and a talented workforce. School construction funding generates a ripple effect across the economy by supporting skilled trades and construction jobs; architects, engineers, and designers; manufacturing and material suppliers, and local small businesses. These investments strengthen both local communities and the statewide economy. The success of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future depends on having facilities that can support its programs.  This includes safe and healthy community schools, high-quality prekindergarten classrooms, modern career and technical education labs, and expanded and mission-critical special education spaces. If Maryland is serious about educational equity, students across the state must have access to comparable learning environments. Local governments have increasingly shouldered the burden of school construction costs, but many counties—especially lower-wealth jurisdictions—cannot meet facility needs without strong state partnership. Even when local governments attempt to advance funding for projects, it can take decades to recover those investments. In some cases, counties simply do not have the fiscal capacity to move projects forward without additional state support. Historic cost escalation and ongoing inflationary pressures are making it increasingly difficult for school systems to address facility needs. Ensuring safe, modern schools will require a renewed commitment and increased funding commitment from the State to partner with local governments and provide funding that reflects today’s construction realities. For these reasons, PSSAM   supports House Bill 1329   and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 1192 TITLE: State Board of Sign Language Interpreters - Membership and Licensing DATE: March 10, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Government, Labor & Elections Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM Sam Mathias, Legal & Policy Director, MABE The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM) and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) jointly support House Bill 1192 with amendments. This bill expands the membership of, and alters the quorum requirements for, the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters (the “Board”); clarifies the Board nomination process under which the Governor can remove members of the Board; alters the date from July, 2024 to December 31, 2026, by which the Board must establish licensing requirements and by which sign language interpreters must meet certain licensing requirements; and adds a requirement for the Board to produce a report providing key information related to sign language interpretation in the state before promulgating regulations.  This joint testimony represents the position of the twenty-four local superintendents and local boards of education — entities who serve and support students and school systems impacted by this legislation and the subsequent regulations the new Board will promulgate. Our goal is to support high-quality interpreting services for students while ensuring that implementation of new licensure requirements does not unintentionally undermine interpreter access or educational continuity.   We represent the expertise of education policy leaders, special education administrators, interpreter providers, and advocates for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, all committed to equitable access and inclusive educational practices. We appreciate the work of the existing Board to elevate standards and safeguard service quality, but we have consistently vocalized our concerns about the Board’s difficulties promulgating regulations, especially for educational interpreters. Our concerns range from very practical operational issues, to legal and systemic challenges for Maryland’s students and schools.   We believe this legislation will ensure that the Board’s representation is broader to include all relevant and affected stakeholders. We greatly appreciate the sponsor’s willingness to create a more suitable framework for this important policymaking Board.  Our requested amendments are outlined below and largely mirror those requested by the other implementing entities - specifically those representing medical, legal, and higher education institutions. The amendments are broadly organized in the following categories/concerns and are briefly described below.  Composition of the Board Enactment Date and other Important Milestones Consumer Choice Provisional Licenses  Other Operational Clarifications  Composition of the Board  Amendment #1  - Add to the Board one additional seat so that key public service areas (medical, legal, educational) can be represented.  We appreciate the increase in board membership and the inclusion of more interpreters, as well as representatives of implementing agencies in education, legal, and medical settings. However, since there are likely to be specialty regulations created in each of these three fields, we request a seat that represents each sector. Strike §9–2411(a)(2)(vi), and replace it with the following:  "THREE SHALL BE AFFILIATED WITH ENTITIES THAT OPERATE AND IMPLEMENT DEAF SERVICES, INCLUDING ONE IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING, ONE IN A LEGAL SETTING, AND ONE IN A MEDICAL SETTING"  Enactment Date and other Important Milestones We, too, are anxious to move the important work forward regarding licensure for interpreters. However, we believe some of the target dates in the legislation are unrealistic for the extensive work ahead. Below are five timelines we believe need to be adjusted or included in the bill:  Amendment #2  - Revise the effective date from October 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. Moving the effective date will reflect the urgency of promulgating these regulations. Amendment #3  - Revise the establishment and publication of licensing requirements from December 31, 2026 to July 1, 2027.  After passage of this legislation, the Governor will be required to seat a new Board. That new Board will in short order promulgate regulations with the appropriate amount of public and stakeholder input; this will require more time than allocated in the bill as written. Amendment #4 - Revise the date by which interpreters need to be licensed from July 1, 2027 to July 1, 2028. This new date more adequately reflects the timeline needed to identify or develop the inevitable assessments for licenses. Based on our extensive experience in obtaining credentials for sign language interpreters in schools, we know there are several practical obstacles. A revised date of licensure requirements will allow for time to communicate the changes in the licensure requirements to practitioners, and to allow interpreters to obtain licensure. The timeline will also allow for LEAs to budget for these changes in licensure requirements. Lastly, a July date will create better conditions for hiring and not disrupt services in the middle of a school year.  Amendment #5  - Add an uncodified section to the bill that reflects the Legislature’s intent and prevents any proposed regulations from being published in the Maryland Register prior to the bill’s effective date.  Such an amendment will ensure that regulations resulting from this bill reflect the final policy framework enacted by the General Assembly and are developed through a deliberate process consistent with the updated statute.    Amendment #6 -   Require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. This prioritization recognizes the barriers to both promulgating regulations for multiple licenses at one time, but also some of the practical impediments for national assessments for speciality areas. For instance, the most commonly recognized educational assessment, the EIPA, requires interpreters to pass written and performance tests. However, both of these tests are only offered in two locations in Maryland, are costly to access, and are often booked well in advance. For the EIPA performance test specifically, results often take 10 to 12 months or longer to be returned, and unsuccessful candidates are required to wait an additional year after taking their test before retesting. This set of obstacles alone creates a near impossibility for interpreters not already certified to work by the deadline written in the current bill.  A longer phase-in period does not diminish the high standards contemplated, but enables the standards to be implemented with fairness, integrity, and in a sustainable way.   Provisional Licenses As discussed above, Amendment #6 would require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. We believe this will allow for a smoother transition from this unlicensed field. School systems will work diligently to ensure all interpreters are fully licensed but the practical implications of hiring and onboarding new staff will require a phased in approach.  A provisional license is integral to allow interpreters who are in pursuit of licensure to serve students and will also help attract new interpreters to the field.  A more adaptable approach to licensure entry is likely necessary to ensure that well-qualified interpreters are not excluded by outdated standards or procedural bottlenecks. This is a well-established practice in school systems with conditionally certified teachers and paraprofessionals acknowledging real world staffing shortages in education.  A scaffold approach also builds a state-supported training pipeline to help aspiring interpreters meet the proposed licensure requirements. There is a serious need for parallel investment in Maryland-based training programs to support those expectations, and a provisional license approach would help. For context, local school systems are already facing severe interpreter shortages. Some large LEAs report filling only 20% of interpreter positions , with vacancies in counties such as Howard and Prince George’s remaining open for more than two years. In Frederick County, nearly one-third of interpreter roles have been vacant since 2020. Many districts now outsource most or all interpretation services — often at rates exceeding $125 per hour , plus mileage — increasing costs and reducing service continuity for students.  We share the goal of increasing full-time, licensed interpreters — which is both more cost-effective and better for students — but given the existing workforce crisis, any new licensure requirements must be carefully phased to avoid destabilizing IEP and 504 services for deaf and hard of hearing students. Amendment #7 - Establish a straight-forward provisional licensing framework to ensure continued public access to interpretation services during phase-in.    While not currently contemplated in the bill, we respectfully request amending the current requirements for provisional licensure set forth in State Government Article. § 9–2425.  This amendment would streamline the requirements for provisional licensure by simplifying what is required to have a general provisional licensee. Each industry can and will  have their own requirements in addition to the general provisional license, but it is imperative to phase-in onboarding of licensure requirements in a thoughtful way.  This amendment simplifies the requirements for obtaining a provisional license by limiting them to the basic qualification of having a high school diploma, on top of which other requirements related to the specialty being sought can be required in the future. (a) subject to the provisions of this section, the board shall issue a provisional license to provide sign language interpretation services to an individual who has: (1) OBTAINED A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR EQUIVALENT Consumer Choice Amendment #8 - Align this statute to the consumer choice standards set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).    Changing the consumer choice is not currently contemplated in this legislation but we believe it should be; we believe the current law does not properly reflect ADA allowances for the delivery of services to deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Therefore, we propose the following:  Modify §9–2415(C)(3):   (C)    The Board shall adopt regulations to: ALLOW DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING INDIVIDUALS TO DETERMINE INDICATE WHETHER THEY PREFER SIGN LANGUAGE INTEPRETATION SERVICES BEING PROVIDED IN A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO SUPPORT THIS PREFERENCE TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADA GENERAL RULES OUTLINED FOUND IN 28 C.F.R. § 35.160  This section of the ADA is included at the conclusion of this testimony.   Other Operational Clarifications Amendment #9 - Expressly identify “educational settings” as a specialty area.  This amendment would expressly designate “educational settings” as a recognized specialty area, alongside other enumerated specialties such as legal and medical interpreting. Educational environments present distinct professional standards, role expectations, and competency requirements that warrant the same level of formal recognition and regulatory consideration afforded to other specialty practice areas.   Further, the bill creates a new report requirement to address certification standards, workforce numbers, and specialty requirements across enumerated specialty areas. Including educational settings within that list ensures that the resulting data collection and analysis will meaningfully inform future regulations governing educational interpreters. Without explicit inclusion, the Board’s reporting and subsequent regulatory framework may lack the specificity necessary to establish standards that reflect the realities of educational practice. Add to §9–2415(a) as follows:           (9)     EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS. Amendment #10 - Correct the names for PSSAM and add MABE.  This amendment would fix likely unintentional drafting errors to correct the organization title for PSSAM, and add the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) as an organization to be consulted.  Modify §9–2415(b)(2) as follows: (VII)  THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF  MARYLAND           (X)    THE MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF BOARDS OF EDUCATION Amendment #11 & #12 - For video interpretation , honor out-of-state standards to make out-of-state interpreters available to the public when needed.  We recognize that requiring all video remote interpreters (especially out-of-state VRI) to be licensed in Maryland presents operational challenges. At the same time, it is clear that  waiving all requirements for VRI providers would undermine the purpose of this bill,  as a significant portion of interpreting services provided in this state are done remotely. Therefore we propose the following related amendments:  Amendment #11: Add subsection §9-2418(b)(3): (b) This section does not apply to an individual who: (3) PROVIDES SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AS PART OF A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING SERVICE, HOLDS A RID OR BEI CERTIFICATION, AND IS LOCATED OUT-OF-STATE;   This would enable out-of-state video interpreters to provide services, still hold out-of-state interpreters to their own standards, but not undermine Maryland’s own licensure requirements. Amendment #12: Modify §9–2420(a) and (b) and delete §9–2420(c): Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may SHALL waive any requirement of this part for an applicant who is licensed to provide sign language interpretation services in another state.  (b) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the applicant:   (1) pays to the Board:   (i) the nonrefundable application fee set by the Board; and   (ii) the license fee set by the Board; and   (2) provides satisfactory evidence that, at the time the applicant was licensed in the other state, the applicant was required to meet the qualifications for licensure that were substantially equivalent to the qualifications in the State.   (c ) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the state in which the applicant is licensed waives the qualifications of licensees of the State to a similar extent as the State waives the qualification requirements for individuals licensed in that state.  These amendments together would streamline out-of-state licensure recognition by requiring the Board to waive Maryland’s requirements for individuals already licensed in another state, eliminating the “substantially similar” standard, and removing the reciprocity condition. Together, these changes reduce barriers to entry and expand the available pool of qualified interpreters, while still relying on an existing state licensure determination as the baseline qualification.  Amendment #13 - Add an additional reporting requirement for the number of licensed interpreters in each county. This amendment will strengthen any future policies or regulatory action by ensuring that any promulgated regulations are made with an accurate understanding of the number of available interpreters across different jurisdictions in the State. We believe it is also worthwhile to disaggregate this data by an applicant’s county of residence and, if known, the county or region where the applicant plans to work at the time of issuance or renewal.  Update existing reporting requirements for the Board (§9–2407) by adding: (6) THE NUMBER OF LICENSED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS IN EACH COUNTY AS DETERMINED BY THE APPLICANT’S HOME ADDRESSES AND THE APPLICANT’S COUNTY OR REGION OF PLANNED EMPLOYMENT, IF KNOWN.  Amendment #14 - Expressly account for due process provided in labor agreements for issues of suspension or discipline.    This amendment clarifies in statute that any regulations adopted by the Board concerning discipline or suspension of licensed interpreters must defer to existing bargaining agreements and establish due process protections for public employees. Elevating this principle ensures that regulatory requirements cannot and would not be interpreted to override negotiated labor terms or procedural safeguards, preserving established employment rights while implementing the licensure framework. Suggested language:   CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINE OR SUSPENSION OF QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO SUPERSEDE, LIMIT, OR IMPAIR ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO TITLE 6 OF THE EDUCATION ARTICLE, OR ANY PROCEDURAL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AFFORDED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.    Conclusion Our recommendations are grounded in practical experience serving students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, in our deep understanding of local infrastructure, and in precedent looking at successful regulatory frameworks in other states in the nation.  We appreciate your willingness to consider both our well-founded concerns and our proposed solutions. We share the goal of ensuring that all students have access to high-quality sign language interpretation and can meaningfully participate in their education.  As this legislation and subsequent regulations continue to take shape, we urge your attention to the infrastructure needed to support this work.  As always, we are available for continued collaboration in refining this framework that will simultaneously uphold professional standards and build a stronger, student-centered, sustainable system in Maryland.   Therefore, PSSAM and MABE support House Bill 1192 with the  amendments outlined above. For REFERENCE ONLY  Americans with Disabilities Act   Regulations Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services - Communications -  28 C.F.R. § 35.160 (a)   (1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.   (2) For purposes of this section, “companion” means a family member, friend, or associate of an individual seeking access to a service, program, or activity of a public entity, who, along with such individual, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity should communicate. (b)   (1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity.   (2) The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give   primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities .  In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability. (c)   (1) A public entity shall not require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.  (2) A public entity shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication except—      (i) In an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available; or      (ii) Where the individual with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret or facilitate communication, the accompanying adult agrees to provide such assistance, and reliance on that adult for such assistance is appropriate under the circumstances.  (3) A public entity shall not rely on a minor child to interpret or facilitate communication, except in an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available. (d) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) services.     A public entity that chooses to provide qualified interpreters via VRI services shall ensure that it provides:  (1) Real-time, full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed, wide-bandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication;  (2) A sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, and the participating individual’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless of his or her body position;  (3) A clear, audible transmission of voices; and  (4) Adequate training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and efficiently set up and operate the VRI.

BILL: HB 1168 TITLE: Local School Systems - Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct - Response Policy and After-Action Review DATE: March 10, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, provides this letter of information on House Bill 1168   as we continue to discuss amendments with the sponsor.  This bill requires the State Department of Education to develop a model sexual abuse and sexual misconduct response policy that includes certain minimal components; requires each local school system to adopt a response policy and provide notices in a certain manner, and conduct an after–action in under certain circumstances; and generally relates to sexual abuse and sexual misconduct response policies. PSSAM appreciates the intent of this bill and the sponsor’s work on ensuring that students and families navigating trauma receive compassionate support, timely resources, and clear, responsive communication. We believe that effective communication with communities is essential to fostering safe, supportive learning environments.  As currently drafted, HB 1168 would: Require the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a model sexual abuse and misconduct response policy that includes expanded public communication requirements and enhanced document retention standards; Require local school systems to adopt policies aligned with MSDE’s model ; Mandate that school systems establish a website  providing updates regarding pending misconduct investigations; and Require after-action reviews  following serious incidents to assess response, communication, and coordination with investigators. We share the goal of ensuring students are supported when serious events occur. However, as currently drafted, HB 1168 creates significant statutory, operational, and due process concerns for local school systems. Below are some of our concerns with the bill as drafted:  Disruption of Maryland’s Mandatory Reporting Framework Maryland has a long-standing, carefully structured statutory framework governing child abuse reporting and investigation. All school personnel are mandated reporters and reports of suspected abuse are made to Child Protective Services (CPS) within the Department of Social Services (DSS). CPS is responsible for screening reports, determining investigative status, managing the timing and manner of parental notification, and protecting investigative integrity and confidentiality. HB 1168 would, in certain circumstances, shift responsibility for incident notification from DSS to local school systems. This represents a significant departure from Maryland’s statutory structure, which intentionally separates the act of reporting (school personnel) and the act of investigating and notifying (CPS). Requiring school systems to independently notify families of newly defined “credible allegations” risks interfering with active or potential investigations and compromising student safety in sensitive situations. This separation exists for a reason: it protects children, preserves investigative integrity, and safeguards due process. In addition, the bill introduces new terms and Undefined Legal Standards— including: “Credible allegation” “Serious incident” These terms do not currently exist in Maryland statutory construction in this context and lack clear legal standards or definitions. Without established definitions, school systems may be required to act before professional screening occurs and notification could occur in cases that are later screened out. More importantly reputations may be harmed before facts are evaluated and community alarm may be triggered unnecessarily. School staff frequently report out of an abundance of caution. Many reports are screened out by CPS. If every report automatically triggers immediate notification, it may unintentionally discourage reporting in ambiguous situations — undermining the very child protection goals we all share. It is essential that staff continue to report concerns without fear that a precautionary report will result in immediate reputational consequences before facts are reviewed. Community Notification Mandates The bill requires communication plans that specify what information must be shared publicly at each stage of the response process. Automatic public notification of allegations, regardless of investigative status, may compromise confidentiality and escalate situations prematurely. Most importantly, this would affect employee due process rights. Maryland’s current framework allows CPS to determine appropriate timing and scope of notification. A more targeted approach could achieve the bill’s goals without altering the core structure of mandatory reporting law. Many investigations into allegations are ultimately unsubstantiated. In practice, public disclosure alone can effectively end a career in that community. New Record Retention Requirements We understand alternative language may be under consideration. Generally, PSSAM is cautious about mandated retention frameworks that create local fiscal burdens and require long-term digital storage infrastructure and compliance monitoring. There may also be conflict with existing local or State retention schedules. Retention frameworks should be grounded in sound records management principles, privacy protections, and operational feasibility, not in the hope of retroactively identifying wrongdoing through routine educational records. Website Posting Requirements The bill requires that each local school system create a time-stamped webpage that confirms the nature of an alleged incident and provides status updates on an ongoing investigation. Requiring public confirmation and ongoing updates risks compromising due process, mischaracterizing allegations as findings, and creating an unworkable compliance standard. We appreciate the intent to ensure transparency and access to resources. However, we believe a more effective and equitable approach would be to require: Standing crisis resource pages Easily accessible trauma-response supports Information for families, students, and staff across all  crisis scenarios Trauma is trauma. Resources should be available for any event that overwhelms a school community — not limited to a single category of misconduct. After-Action Reviews Reviewing serious incidents to strengthen systems and improve future responses is a constructive goal. However, requiring an after-action review in every instance of staff removal may produce unintended consequences. In many situations, established protocols work as designed: a concern is reported, the employee is removed, authorities investigate, and appropriate action follows. Automatically triggering a secondary review each time could create unnecessary second-guessing of frontline decisions or unintentionally shift focus in ways that risk victim or bystander blame. It is also important to recognize that these matters often involve multiple independent entities, including child protective services and law enforcement. Their investigations are confidential and occur outside the school system’s authority. When those agencies identify deficiencies in reporting or safety practices, they already issue findings and recommendations. Any after-action requirement should therefore be carefully structured to reinforce system improvement without compromising the confidentiality, integrity, or independence of those investigative processes. We believe the goals of HB 1168 can be accomplished in a clearer and more efficient manner — by refining Maryland’s existing statutory framework under Md. Code Ann., Educ. Art. § 7-1501 et seq. (Maryland Safe to Learn Act) Many provisions of HB 1168 could dovetail with the Safe to Learn Act’s existing requirements for school emergency planning and crisis response. Rather than creating a parallel system, we recommend strengthening the existing one. For instance, expanding the definition of “School Emergency Plan” and strengthening communication requirements within the existing law.  PSSAM strongly supports ensuring that students and families receive timely support, clear communication, and appropriate resources during times of crisis. However, we believe the most effective and efficient way to realize the bill’s goals is to refine and expand the existing Safe to Learn Act rather than alter Maryland’s mandatory reporting framework or create parallel notification mandates. We welcome continued dialogue with the sponsor and stakeholders and would be pleased to assist in drafting amendments that protect students, support families, preserve due process, maintain investigative integrity, and provide clear and practical guidance to local school systems. We appreciate the ongoing collaboration and look forward to working together toward a solution that achieves these shared goals. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information  on HB 1168 and welcomes continued discussion with the sponsor and the committee.

BILL: HB 976 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Funding Accuracy and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment Count - Alterations and Report (Education Funding Accuracy Act) DATE: March 11, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 976. This bill alters the definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment that is used to calculate State education aid and local government education funding requirements to include the average number of students enrolled on September 30th, and May 31st of the prior school year instead of only the September 30 count from the prior year used under current law. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, and is applicable to the calculation of education funding for fiscal 2028 and subsequent fiscal years. PSSAM opposes House Bill 976 and advocates for maintaining the current methodology for counting students enrolled in public schools on September 30th to determine state and local aid amounts for the following fiscal year.  PSSAM cautions that this calculation change would present a number of challenges for local school systems. Most alarmingly, it would delay the final State and county funding appropriations until after the prior school year is over, complicating the implementation of the next school year’s budget. Additionally, this methodology would create an unstable and unpredictable amount of funding in the middle of a fiscal year if a school system were to lose student enrollment during the school year. Education funding is designed to support student needs, not to operate as an attendance enforcement mechanism. Conflating attendance accountability with funding calculations risks misaligning the purpose of state aid formulas. This legislation provides no meaningful, or positive mechanism to promote school attendance, instead it uses the threat of losing funding as a means to incentive change - a dubious public policy when it comes to ensuring a free and appropriate public education to Maryland’s school children.  Based on the analysis of similar past proposals, this bill would more than likely reduce the state’s investment in public education, disproportionately impacting jurisdictions with higher student absenteeism rates. Local school systems prioritize regular student attendance and invest heavily in programs aimed at preventing, reducing, and addressing chronic absenteeism. However, House Bill 976 ties state funding reductions to absenteeism rates—the very challenge that school systems are mandated to combat with additional resources. As a result, districts with higher absenteeism throughout the school year would face the greatest funding losses due to lower enrollment counts recorded later in the year. Once again, local superintendents take the issue of student attendance very seriously and work diligently to ensure that every student attends school regularly. However, PSSAM believes this approach risks undermining efforts to improve student attendance by limiting the resources schools rely on to address absenteeism. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 976 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: SB 928 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Electronic Communication Device Use Policy - Establishment (Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act) DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & 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, opposes Senate Bill 928 This bill requires each local board of education to develop and implement, by the 2027-2028 school year, a policy to prohibit the use of cellular phones by students during the academic school day, which is defined as any time during the school day, including a student’s lunch, recess, or passing period. The policy must also require students to store their phones in a secure place during instructional time and prohibit a student from using social media applications and websites as determined by the local school board during school hours. The policy may not prohibit a student from using a phone (1) for any purpose documented in the student’s individualized education program or Section 504 Plan; (2) to monitor or address a student’s documented health issue; (3) during an emergency event, if expressly authorized by an administrator; (4) when directed by an education or administrator for educational purposes; (5) to access language translation tools when a school-issued device is not available; or (6) for the purpose of meeting caregiving responsibilities, as approved by the principal. The policy must also establish administrator-enforced tiered disciplinary measures for violations, excluding suspension or expulsion solely for violating the policy. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Maryland superintendents appreciate the good intentions of this bill; however, PSSAM steadfastly opposes any legislation that imposes statewide mandates on local school systems or local boards of education, especially on policies that have previously been deliberated at the local level with all affected stakeholders, such as the case regarding student uses of cell phones.  In the past several years, superintendents, school boards and advisory groups in every Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have taken proactive action to establish, update, or study district-wide cell phone policies. These efforts include establishing new policies specific to the use of cell phones, updating board policies, revising the district’s code of conduct or student handbook regarding the use of technology to include cell phones or “smart” technology, and/or introducing pilot programs. Much of the local work in establishing these policies was aided through surveys to parents, teachers, and students, as well as extensive public meetings.  In addition, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) convened a broad workgroup of stakeholders in 2025, including several superintendents, to study this issue. We strongly supported this workgroup and its on-the-ground membership. The workgroup anchored its work in national research and partnered with Phones in Focus who have initiated a national study based on educator input regarding best practices around the county. More importantly, the workgroup used the experiences of the local school districts who have already delved deep in their communities to determine the appropriate use of cell phones and “smart technology” in classrooms and schools.  PSSAM remains committed to focusing on empowering local decision-making to ensure education policies that are relevant, flexible, and reflective of the unique needs of each community. Again, we appreciate the bill’s good intentions, but ask the Legislature to allow the education experts at the state and local level to enact and enforce the most effective public policies.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 928 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.