Search Results

BILL: HB 1323 TITLE: Education - Public Schools - Asian American History Curriculum Requirement DATE: March 05, 2025 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 1323. House Bill 1323 would require the Maryland State Board of Education (MSDE) to develop curriculum content standards for a unit of instruction on Asian American history in public schools in the State. Furthermore, this bill would require each county board of education to implement the developed Asian American history curriculum content standards beginning in the 2026-2027 school year, as well as ensure that a unit of instruction on Asian American history would be taught at least once during elementary school, once in a required history course in middle school, and once in a history course required to graduate from high school. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025. Local superintendents recognize the importance of teaching culturally relevant and diverse curricula for Maryland’s students. However, PSSAM has a longstanding policy of resisting efforts by the General Assembly to codify curriculum standards, assessments, or graduation requirements. Local superintendents strongly believe that the role of instructional mandates and implementation belongs to local boards of education in conjunction with MSDE. Rest assured, PSSAM’s opposition to this bill is not an evaluation of the merits of teaching Asian American history, but rather opposition to statutorily mandating content standards and additions to curriculum. The Maryland General Assembly, in creating the MSDE and local boards of education, has delegated to these entities the responsibility of delivering a high-quality statewide system of public education. The State Board establishes State content frameworks, state assessment standards, and minimum state graduation requirements, while each local board and school system implements locally-developed curriculum to ensure that the state content frameworks are followed, student performance standards are met, and students are prepared to meet graduation requirements. In the context of educational programming proposed by House Bill 1323, PSSAM emphasizes that many local school systems already incorporate age-appropriate units of instruction on topics such as Asian American history into a comprehensive social studies curriculum. Superintendents are committed to providing students with a comprehensive, well-rounded education through history curriculum that is implemented after proper stakeholder input and review processes are completed in each local school system.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 1323 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: HB 1313 TITLE: Education - Student Behavior - Parent and Guardian Notice and Required  Counseling (Parent and Guardian Accountability Act) DATE: March 05, 2025 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 1313. This bill establishes that it is unlawful for a parent or guardian of a student in a public school to fail to seek and participate in counseling with the parent’s or guardian’s child after receiving a certain notice of violent and disruptive behavior. A parent or guardian convicted under this section may be ordered by the court to perform community service as determined by the court. The bill also requires a public school principal to provide a written notice to the parent or guardian of a student who engages in a certain number of violent and disruptive behaviors or school-related activities during the school year.  Local superintendents strongly support high levels of parental engagement in students’ education, and in response, prioritize the establishment of policies and procedures concerning student discipline. However, it is very unlikely that the approach proposed in this legislation will produce positive outcomes or increased parental engagement.  State law reflects the Legislature’s long-standing recognition that principals and superintendents have broad discretion to make student discipline decisions “as warranted” (Section 7-305 of the Education Article). State regulations mirror this deference to local decision-making, as well as place a clear emphasis on maintaining a safe learning environment for all students. Local school systems take very seriously the need for strict and comprehensive student discipline and school safety policies that focus on controlling and/or preventing bullying, verbal threats, student fights, and numerous other actions that can disrupt effective classroom environments.  In line with State regulations and local decision-making, PSSAM strongly supports the implementation of restorative approaches to discipline -- approaches that were mandated by the Legislature in 2019 for all Maryland public school systems; these concepts are not reflected in this legislation. The law defines “restorative approaches” as a relationship-focused student discipline model that (1) Is preventative and proactive; (2) Emphasizes building strong relationships and setting clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the school community well-being; (3) In response to behavior that violates clear behavioral expectations, focuses on accountability for any harm done by the problem behavior; and, (4) Addresses ways to repair the relationships affected by the problem behavior with the voluntary participation of an individual who was harmed. While this legislation aims to provide an accountability measure for student discipline, it fails to meet other outlined objectives that are essential parts of a restorative approach. Proactive practices that are implemented following appropriate professional development and training of all teachers, board members, superintendents, students, parents, and the larger community can make significant improvements in school climate and learning conditions. In conjunction with local discretion, proactive and restorative student discipline approaches allow positive parental and student engagement in the discipline process without the threat of criminal penalties.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1313 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1265 TITLE: Juveniles - Arrests for Reportable Offenses DATE: March 05, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments 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 1265 with amendments . This bill alters certain provisions relating to notification to certain school personnel of the arrest of a student for a certain reportable offense and requires the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) and the State Department of Education to develop an operational protocol to guide the transmission of reportable offense information. PSSAM supports an amendment that the DJS is introducing to include our organization in the workgroup established in Section 2a to develop an operational protocol to guide the transmission of information as required in this bill.  We greatly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this workgroup as we are a major stakeholder in these efforts. H owever, we believe the workgroup’s scope should be expanded to seek resolution on additional items related to information sharing ; we have outlined some of the additional issues to consider below.  To ensure the highest standards of safety for schools, it is imperative that information regarding students’ criminal involvement and interactions with law enforcement is appropriately shared with school personnel. The current flow of information between law enforcement and schools is disjointed and needs to be vastly improved. This legislation would help provide school administration with important information when making educational placement decisions, but again, more is needed than just this legislation.  PSSAM believes the following additional issues should be addressed and considered in developing the most effective public policy regarding the implementation of the Reportable Offenses statute.   More appropriate and comprehensive information regarding juveniles who transfer between local school systems, including programs hosted by the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) and the Juvenile Services Education Program and Board (JSEP);  Expanding information shared by law enforcement to local superintendents or school systems within twenty-four hours of any arrest of a student with details pertaining to school safety, including whether any victims were students and the type of weapon(s) involved if applicable.  Further, enhancements to the “reportable offenses” law should include the tools necessary for seamless communication between education systems, and allow for a central repository via the Maryland State Department of Education or a similarly appropriate entity. For instance, often a local superintendent, school security personnel, or a school principal will receive information as described in the current reportable offenses statute for a student that is NOT currently enrolled in that county. LEAs do not have the information to notify the appropriate district where the student is enrolled. To fill this communication gap:  Information should be promptly shared with the MSDE (or an appropriate central repository) to facilitate notification of the school or jurisdiction of attendance. Local superintendents and districts are not privy to statewide attendance records and this information must be coordinated at the State level.  We also support the concept of “mandatory information sharing among local superintendents” that was embedded in the emergency regulations passed by the State Board of Education in the fall of 2024. However, to reiterate, local superintendents and school personnel do not have access to the necessary data sources to know where a student has transferred.  In addition, there are many cases where a juvenile under the supervision and jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) is transferred to a LEA but no information is shared about the student’s individual circumstances, or the student’s previous educational setting. Therefore, the law must be amended to compel the DJS to:  Notify the local superintendent and the principal of a school in which the student is enrolled, or which that student has been transferred, of the student’s reportable offense or offense that is related to the student’s membership in a criminal organization, the disposition of the offense, and the law enforcement report or description of the offenses including details pertinent to school safety, including whether any victims were student and the type of weapon(s) involved, if applicable. Local superintendents support increased communication between law enforcement and the appropriate, but limited, school personnel needed to ensure the safety of students in school settings, as well as protecting the privacy and due process of those awaiting disposition of criminal investigations.  Again, we respectfully request that the Committee direct all entities involved in the implementation of this statute to work together to create an integrated system that ensures seamless and predictable communication. This information-sharing is integral to ensure proper physical safeguards in school buildings, while also protecting student confidentiality, and allowing due process for all parties involved.   We appreciate this Committee’s examination of these important education and safety issues and look forward to continued dialogue on this, and other related legislation.  For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 1265 with an amendment  to create the work group outlined above. screen all current educators using the NASDTEC.

BILL: HB 1262 TITLE:  County Boards of Education – Post College and Career Readiness Pathways – Payment of Costs DATE: March 05, 2025 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 Maryland local school superintendents, supports House Bill 1262. This legislation authorizes a county board of education to develop and establish income eligibility guidelines and procedures for payment of costs for a certain post college and career readiness (post-CCR) pathway, and requires a county board to provide access to the post-CCR pathway at no cost to the student or parents if the student's family income is below 400% of the federal poverty level. PSSAM thanks the sponsor for her leadership in putting forth this legislation that largely mirrors one of our 2025 policy and legislative recommendations . PSSAM and its superintendent members strongly support this legislation that would authorize county boards of education to develop income-eligibility guidelines for CCR. Currently the Blueprint requires all students meeting CCR to enroll in a post-CCR pathway at no cost to the student or their families. These pathways include: Competitive entry college prep (IB, Cambridge, or AP). Dual enrollment leading to an associate degree or 60 college credits. Career and technical education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, or industry certifications. We believe that fully funding all post-CCR pathways for every eligible student may create significant financial strain on state and local budgets and jeopardize the long-term sustainability of this initiative. Also, by creating some guardrails for this generous opportunity, we will prevent overusage by some students who may enroll in multiple pathways without a clear postsecondary or career plan, leading to wasted resources. Directing resources toward students who need them most ensures equitable access without unnecessary overspending. We believe unfettered access to all of these resources is fiscally unsound, and as we look for ways to make the Blueprint affordable, reigning in these costs should be seriously considered by the Legislature. To ensure the sustainability of this initiative, LEAs should have the flexibility to target funding for tuition and ancillary costs.  Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 1262 and kindly requests a  favorable report .

BILL: HB 1245 TITLE: Blueprint for Maryland’s Future – Alterations DATE: March 05, 2025 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means 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 Maryland local school superintendents, strongly supports House Bill 1245. This legislation makes multiple changes to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future including adjustments to College and Career Readiness (CCR) initiatives, including changes to the Career Counseling Program and funding for post-CCR pathways; required reporting by county boards on per-school funding for certain programs; providing a waiver from the minimum funding per school requirement for schools with 350 or fewer students; altering the definition of "Tier I child" for purposes of publicly funded prekindergarten to include special education students and multilingual learners; changes to the career ladder provisions for school-based administrators and future salary incentives for re-certification of National Board Certified (NBC) educators; requiring an adequacy study of special education and the effectiveness of NBC in student achievement and diverse teacher recruitment; and, clarifying language regarding collective bargaining provisions.  As the state’s top educators, the local superintendents strongly stand behind the Blueprint and applaud those who have fought hard to make this vision a reality. We have gained invaluable experience and insight after three years of implementation - celebrating early successes, but also experiencing frustrations and challenges. We thank the sponsor for his leadership in putting forth this legislation that largely encompasses our 2025 policy and legislative recommendations. Those recommendations were the result of analyzing student data, qualitative experiences of educators and staff, and thoughtful contemplation of the following questions:  How is this pillar/activity/initiative performing against Our Core Mission and Measure of Success - Student Growth and Achievement?   What has been accomplished that enhances and promotes student achievement ? What is new, or enhanced that has worked ?  What has challenged our ability to grow student success ?  What has been our ‘ Return on Investment (ROI?) ’ on each activity?  Will further investments in an initiative achieve student success ?  We look forward to working with the Committees as you carefully consider this legislation.  Administrators on the Career Ladder This legislation amends the statute to remove Assistant Principals (APs) and Principals from the Blueprint’s career ladder provisions. This adjustment aligns with long-established bargaining structures in school systems, where teachers and administrators are represented by separate units. In addition, declassifying APs and Principals as “teachers” exempts them from teaching requirements in the Blueprint, and more accurately reflects their leadership roles in schools.  This change also removes any requirement that principals must earn National Board Certification (NBC). NBC is a teaching credential and not appropriate or representative of administrators roles.  PreK Tier I Students These provisions would move special education students and multilingual learners students into Tier I for funding purposes. In previous sessions the General Assembly identified these students in the top tier, but in FY ‘26, they returned to Tier II or Tier III status, and are no longer priority PreK populations. This bill would make them ineligible for State funding for both private and public providers.  Career Counseling This legislation will return the per pupil funding to the Local Education Agency (LEA) to continue the important work of career counseling at the expiration of the pilot funding in FY '26. Starting in FY ‘27 the LEAs will take the lead in running the program and the partnerships with local workforce investment boards and community colleges are encouraged, but not mandated.  The implementation of this initiative has been problematic and inconsistent. Where it is working well, it is largely implemented by staff hired and trained by the districts, and should be implemented within LEAs . It is essential to continue partnering with the local community college and workforce boards, but career coaches should be employed directly by the local school system.   In the extensive Blueprint review by the superintendents this fall, this partnership rose to the top of the "NOT WORKING" list of Blueprint programs. With $55 million a year at stake, this is too important to get wrong. Where these programs have had success, they should continue, but local discretion is key to ensure funds are used in the most effective and efficient way that will  invest in students.   Money Following the Student - Administrative Reporting Requirements One of the guiding principles of the Blueprint was that money should follow students in order to ensure equity and adequacy. The statute required that eight funding streams be reported separately - demonstrating that 75% of the funding flows directly to the student’s school. However, the drafting of the statute reflects a limited knowledge of the intricacies of school funding accountability, and the rigidity of this provision has created an administrative nightmare for school systems without truly accomplishing the goals. This small, but important change will allow for Blueprint categories to be reported by school level, instead of by individual Blueprint category. Under the bill - these would all be added together and there would be one compliance target.   It is important to note that this is identical to how Title I funds are budgeted and spent “School Wide” (spend money on the whole school) and not “Targeted Assistance” (only spending money on the students in poverty at the school). This proposal would have numerous benefits for the districts, while maintaining the integrity of the “Money Following the Student” tenet including: Greatly alleviate accounting and human resources compliance burdens; Demonstration of money flowing to the schools;   Easier interpretation by the public once the dashboard is made public;   Policymakers (including MSDE and AIB) can still see how districts are spending money through monthly “State Category and Object reporting.”   Lastly, this provision greatly allows schools the flexibility to develop resource plans to implement their school improvement plans with less bureaucracy. For instance, school funding is based on the prior years’ student enrollment/demographics. This aggregation allows for flexibility when there are unexpected changes in student demographics from one year to the next - such as an influx of multilingual learners in one year, with a decline in the same student populations the following year.  The bill also provides a waiver of this reporting provision for schools with fewer than 350 students. This policy is currently under consideration by the AIB and the MSDE and we encourage the Committees to work with them before adopting any statutory changes.  National Board “Maintenance of Certification” (MOC) This legislation   proposes a measured approach to the issue of maintenance of certification. During the Kirwan Commission’s deliberations, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ had a 10 year cycle for the Maintenance of Certification for NBC teachers. By the time the Blueprint became law, the National Board had decreased the re-certification time period to every 5 years. The change has significant salary impacts for the State and local governments, especially over the lifetime of a young teacher.   Therefore, this legislation would reduce the State’s contribution to: $4,000 (down from $8,000) for the first MOC;  $4,000 (down from $7,000) for the second MOC; and, $3,000 increase (down from $6,000) for the third MOC. However, it is important to note that some LEAs have already negotiated these provisions in good faith and are relying on State reimbursements. Therefore, any changes should apply prospectively to avoid disrupting existing agreements; this protection is reflected in Section 5 of the bill. Access to College and Career Pathways This bill addresses two aspects of College and Career Readiness (CCR): Funding flexibility for income-eligible students, and  Ensuring a balance of new costs for dual enrollment between school systems and community colleges.  Currently the Blueprint requires all students meeting CCR to enroll in a post-CCR pathway at no cost to the student or their families. These pathways include: Competitive entry college prep (IB, Cambridge, or AP). Dual enrollment leading to an associate degree or 60 college credits. Career and technical education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, or industry certifications. The superintendents believe the implications of unfettered access to all of these resources is fiscally unsound, and as we look for ways to make the Blueprint affordable, this should be a serious consideration of the Legislature. To ensure the sustainability of this open-access model, LEAs should have the flexibility to target funding for tuition and ancillary costs.  Lastly, Section 2 provides “intent” language that there is an appropriate balance of shared and new costs between county boards and community colleges for dual enrollment students.  Dual enrollment has been a major success of the Blueprint, but the administrative and fiscal application has been uneven across the State. Some school systems have taken on additional costs that were not part of pre-Blueprint agreements with community colleges - specifically - new and increased fees - not just increased tuition. The huge State investment in dual enrollment should not bolster the bottomline for community colleges, or create a new cost shift for local school systems.  Special Education  Section 4 compels MSDE to undertake an adequacy study of special education funding, including : The adequacy of current funding formulas; The feasibility of weighted funding based on disability level; and,  Transportation and nonpublic school placement costs. Local school systems spend over $1 billion in special education services  that are NOT reimbursed by the state and federal governments . This is the untold story of education funding - there is no "discretionary" funding for LEAs - they use almost all of their unrestricted funding for these necessary services .  For instance, in Frederick County, special education costs are just under $90 million, but FCPS receives only $44 million from the state and federal governments, leaving the remaining $46 million to be paid out of local funds. In Montgomery County, special education costs are $452 million, but MCPS receives only $210 million from the state and federal governments, leaving the remaining $242 million to be paid out of local funds.  Every single school system would be able to fully implement the Blueprint and exceed its goals and expectations if they were able to fully use the Foundation as intended, without the need to use these funds to pay for profound deficits in special education. To be VERY clear - these are costs to cover the legitimate and necessary costs of educating our most vulnerable students. Services that these students and families are entitled to and school systems are committed to providing them. But there is no denying how extraordinary these costs are, and they will continue to grow. We must dive deep into this issue and explore sustainable funding options.  National Board Certification - Effectiveness Section 3 directs the AIB to explore critical questions related to the effectiveness of NBC in teacher recruitment and student achievement.  Specifically,  The relationship between NBC and student achievement outcomes; The successful attainment of NBC (and commensurate salary increases) for diverse teacher candidates; and,   The feasibility of additional, parallel pathways that better address the diverse needs of all educators.  Collective Bargaining Safeguards This legislation protects due process in collective bargaining in State law. Specifically, it r estricts the AIB’s influence over long-standstanding collective bargaining processes except for elements directly related to the career ladder for educators.   The Blueprint’s goals are achievable, but the implementation needs to be streamlined and realistic with clearer expectations and guidance from State leaders. We ask for the committees’ serious consideration as we work together to ensure the success of the Blueprint and  Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 1245 and kindly requests a  favorable report .   **For more detail on PSSAM’s Legislative and Policy Recommendations, click here .

BILL: HB 1185 TITLE: Homeschool Students in Maryland - Right to Play DATE: March 05, 2025 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 1185. This bill authorizes a public high school to allow a student participating in a certain home instruction program to participate in athletic activities including interscholastic athletics in which a student may participate outside of regular school hours and for which a student does not earn academic credit. 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. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025.  PSSAM opposes this bill’s expanded eligibility of students participating in public school interscholastic events. State regulations require students to be officially enrolled in and attending a public school. However, students who are homeschooled would not be held to the same eligibility criteria, as homeschool academic and attendance standards differ from those of public schools. Additionally, in the event of injuries or other incidents, public school students would be covered under existing policies, whereas homeschooled students would not have the same protections. This legislation could create significant challenges related to school system liability, increased demands on staff, and disruptions to enrolled students.  Our opposition is consistent with the policies and procedures supported by the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA) who oversee Maryland’s interscholastic sports.  Interscholastic sports throughout Maryland’s public schools are managed based on standards set by the MPSSAA and regulations established by the State Board of Education. Since 1991, these sports have been governed by the "Master Agreement Outlining the Interscholastic Structure for Public Schools in Maryland," which defines the roles of the MPSSAA, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), and local school systems.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1185 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1180 TITLE: Education - Primary and Secondary Schools - Alternative School Options   (Right to Learn Act) DATE: March 03, 2025 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 1180. This bill requires each county board of education to provide certain information to the parents or legal guardians of students who attend a failing school; requiring that a failing school continue to be designated as a failing school until certain conditions are met; requiring that a student who is attending a failing school be provided the opportunity to attend an alternative school; establishing the Broadening Options and Opportunities for Students Today (BOOST) Program to provide certain scholarships for certain students; requiring each county board to provide a list of available military boarding schools options to the parents or legal guardian to notify the county board of a student’s decision to continue attending the school or to attend an alternative school or military boarding school; requiring the local school system of a certain student to pay for the student to attend a certain military boarding school; and generally relating to alternative school options. This act shall take effect July 1, 2025. PSSAM opposes this bill for several reasons. First, the BOOST program, created in 2016, established a $5 million annual appropriation to provide vouchers for students who are eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch program to attend eligible nonpublic schools. PSSAM, along with our partners in education advocacy such as the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) and the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA), has consistently opposed legislation to further codify the establishment of the BOOST program. Second, PSSAM does not believe that this legislation is needed to promote parental choice among the public and non-public schools in the State. Maryland enjoys a wide array of educational opportunities for all students, including a consistently high-performing public education system, and within several school systems, charter schools continue to grow at a rapid pace. Unlike nonpublic and private schools, except for nonpublic special education schools, Maryland public schools are held strictly accountable by local, state, and federal laws and regulations, such as those related to teacher education and certification, academic standards, and anti-discrimination laws. Local superintendents fully recognize that strong accountability measures for Maryland’s 900,000 public school students translates into strong accountability for public dollars invested in education. In addition, it is important to note that public schools provide effective educational programs for all students, including special education, Multilingual Learners, early childhood, and rigorous high school programs that are not always available in parochial and private schools.  PSSAM strongly emphasizes our concern in allocating public dollars to support nonpublic programs that are not regulated under the same standards as public programs. We strongly urge the committee to consider the serious economic, constitutional, legal, and public policy consequences of the existing BOOST program, as well as any proposals to increase public funds for its operations as outlined in this legislation. PSSAM strongly opposes the establishment of a permanent funding stream that would ultimately finance private schools. The financial needs of our public school students must take priority over those who choose a private or parochial education.  For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 1180   and requests an  unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 1127 TITLE: Public Schools - Water Safety and Swimming - Instructional Content, Plan, and Reporting DATE: March 03, 2025 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 1127. This bill requires each county board of education to develop certain instructional content on water safety and swimming for public school students in the county on or before July 1, 2026. Such content should be integrated into the health and physical education curriculum for each public school in the county and age-appropriate for students in elementary, middle, and high school students. This bill also requires each county board to develop a plan regarding access to swimming pools and related facilities and submit a copy of the plan to the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) on or before December 15, 2025. Local superintendents recognize the importance of water safety and swimming for the health and well-being of Maryland’s students. However, PSSAM has a longstanding policy of resisting efforts by the General Assembly to codify curriculum standards, assessments, or graduation requirements. Local superintendents strongly believe that the role of instructional mandates and implementation belongs solely to local boards of education in conjunction with MSDE. Rest assured, PSSAM’s opposition to this bill is not an evaluation of the merits of teaching water safety and swimming, but rather opposition to statutorily mandating content standards and additions to curriculum. The Maryland General Assembly, in creating the MSDE and local boards of education, has delegated to these entities the responsibility of delivering a high-quality statewide system of public education. The State Board establishes State content frameworks, state assessment standards, and minimum state graduation requirements, while each local board and school system implements locally-developed curriculum to ensure that the state content frameworks are followed, student performance standards are met, and students are prepared to meet graduation requirements. Superintendents are committed to providing students with a comprehensive, well-rounded physical education curriculum that is implemented after proper stakeholder input and review processes.  For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 1127   and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1025 TITLE: Local Education Agencies - Educator Screening - NASDTEC  Clearinghouse (School Personnel Vetting and Hiring Transparency Act) DATE: March 03, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments 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, supports House Bill 1025 with a requested amendment to remove the requirement to retroactively screen all current educators using this clearinghouse. This bill requires that each local school system become an associate member of the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) and use its Educator Identification Clearinghouse to screen all current and prospective educators, beginning July 1, 2025.  While the administrative costs for NASDTEC are minimal and, as indicated in the fiscal note, many Maryland school systems are already members, we oppose the bill’s requirement that systems retroactively screen all current educators. For systems with thousands of employees, this requirement is unreasonable, especially due to the existing and extensive security clearances and background checks required for school employees.  While the NASDTEC is a national collection point for professional educator discipline actions, it is a self-reporting database that should be seen as one tool, but not the epitome in the employment vetting process.  For the Committee’s information, below is information PSSAM solicited from the 24 LEAs last fall regarding background and clearance tools; approximately 16 school systems provided feedback. The survey did not include the following methods as they are currently required by law: Fingerprinting: State and FBI results (note: these include a criminal check, but also the Adam Walsh Background Clearance Request form (DHR/SSA 1279A (03/2017 edition) Form I-9 (by paper and by E-Verify where available) Md. Code, Educ. §6-113.2 Child Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct review (“HB 486 review”) Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) TEACH database review Other screening tools used, not listed above included: MD Judiciary Case Search as an additional inquiry when applicable CJIS fingerprinting Workday Recruiting  MSDE Disqualified Substitute List and Department of Social Services for any claims of child abuse AppliTrack (Unified Talent/PowerSchool) Talent Ed (PowerSchool) (an application and form tracking system that can be used to keep forms such as 6-113 requirement) Frontline Basic Google search Drug testing; Internal database review In addition, it was reported by one school system that the MSDE-managed TEACH portal cross references data from the NASDTEC system; but PSSAM has been unable to verify this at this time.  As you can see, Maryland school systems take their responsibility to ensure the safety of students and staff very seriously, as well as ensuring the validity of teaching credentials. Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 1025 but kindly requests an amendment to remove the requirement that school systems retroactively screen all current educators using the NASDTEC.

BILL: HB 773 TITLE: Public Middle and High Schools - Student Discipline (Right to Teach Act of 2025) DATE: March 03, 2025 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 773. This bill authorizes a teacher in a public middle or high school in the State to remove a student from the classroom under specified conditions. If a teacher removes a student from the classroom, the teacher must document the student’s behavior, submit the documentation to the principal, and send the student to the school principal or guidance counselor. A local board of education may not take disciplinary action against a teacher who removes a student from a classroom. The bill specifies actions a principal may take when a student is sent to the principal and requires a teacher’s consent to return a student to the classroom, unless the principal, school counselor, and teacher determine that the placement is the best or only option available. The bill likewise requires the school counselor to discipline students sent to the school counselor using restorative approaches according to current law. The bill shall take effect on July 1, 2025. PSSAM opposes HB 773 because it would grant teachers the authority to initiate a student disciplinary process based on behavior that may not align with the policies established by their local board of education. Superintendents strongly believe that locally governed education policies and procedures, including those related to student discipline, should remain under the authority of boards of education. Each board must have the flexibility to develop policies and practices that address the unique and diverse needs of their community. Local superintendents are committed to upholding strict and comprehensive student discipline and school safety policies, with a focus on preventing and addressing bullying, verbal threats, student fights, and other disruptive behaviors that can impede effective teaching and learning and potentially escalate into more serious incidents.  PSSAM also advocates for the integration of restorative approaches in Maryland’s public schools. These researched and proactive approaches, supported by professional development and training for all staff, contribute to fostering positive and healthy school environments that help students learn from their mistakes and grow.  Legislation passed in 2019 mandates that local boards of education update their student discipline policies to incorporate restorative practices. This defines “restorative approaches” as a relationship-focused student discipline model that (1) is preventative and proactive; (2) emphasizes building strong relationships and setting clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the well-being of the school community; (3) in response to behavior that violates the clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the well-being of the school community, focuses on accountability for any harm done by the problem behavior; and (4) addresses ways to repair the relationships affected by the problem behavior with the voluntary participation of an individual who was harmed. “Restorative approaches” may include conflict resolution, mediation, peer mediation, circle processes, restorative conferences, social-emotional learning, trauma-informed care, positive behavioral intervention supports, and rehabilitation. Local superintendents remain dedicated to ensuring that school discipline is applied effectively, supporting the overarching goal of preparing all Maryland students to be college and career-ready. For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 773   and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 352 TITLE: Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2025 DATE: February 27, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Appropriations & Ways and 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 352 with two   amendments  to remove the cost shift of more teacher pension costs to local governments, and remove the proposed increase of the local cost share for the placement of nonpublic students. First, PSSSAM opposes the teacher pension cost shift provision  of the bill.  As proposed, this provision would shift approximately $93 million in state teacher pension costs onto counties beginning in FY ‘26, and permanently transfer an increased percentage of the unfunded liability of teacher pension indefinitely. The Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act (BRFA) seeks to permanently transfer additional teacher pension costs to counties. There is also a recommendation from the Department of Legislative Services (DLS) that would more than double the initial shift, increasing the county burden to $186 million in FY ‘26. If both the BRFA and the DLS recommendations were approved, this proposal would require counties to assume 100% of the State’s unfunded teacher pension liability—an unprecedented and unsustainable financial obligation.  Counties already fully cover the employer share of teacher pensions, or “normal costs” — a responsibility imposed in 2012 after extensive negotiations. These negotiations recognized that county governments have little control over teacher salaries. More importantly, the 2012 negotiations recognized that counties have no control or ability to impact the pension investment returns, or the policies driving these liabilities. As a result, the State would continue to contribute the “unfunded liability,” of pension costs. This proposal, however, would require counties to shoulder the entire cost. Unfunded liabilities primarily result from underperforming pension investments - again, something that local governments and local school systems have no control over. The recent normal cost increases are salary-driven -  linked to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future — factors outside of the authority of counties and school systems.  DLS staff has proposed a 100% cost shift without justification or policy analysis—a move with severe fiscal consequences. If approved, this shift is an unprecedented policy shift that will affect the local negotiations between school systems and their county funding partner. If this change is adopted, it is expected that any requests from local school systems over traditional "Maintenance of Effort,” will be met with serious resistance due to this additional fiscal responsibility.  To compound the fiscal burden, the BRFA also proposes slashing supplemental retirement grants under Aid to Civil Divisions by 50% in FY ‘26 and eliminating them entirely in  FY ‘27. These grants were part of a 2012 agreement to ease the impact of the original pension cost shift, and their elimination would break that commitment—resulting in a $28 million statewide loss over two years and compounding the financial burden on counties. Second, PSSAM opposes the proposed nonpublic special education placement cost shift provision of HB 352. This provision proposes shifting $25 million in new costs onto local school systems in FY ‘26 and permanently changes the cost-sharing relationship, lowering the State’s contribution from 70% to 60% for nonpublic placements. This shift will immediately affect school system budgets, starting in July, many of which were recently adopted and awaiting their local governments’ response. Similar to the pension shift discussion above, this proposal will materially change the funding relationship between school systems and their local governments. As school districts have no ability to raise revenue, we will have no option but to seek additional funding to cover this cost shift. Costs for nonpublic placements are not discretionary, these are necessary and federally mandated expenses for our most vulnerable special education students. School systems already suffer from underfunding for special education students. Local school systems spend over $1,038,848,168 in direct special education services that are NOT reimbursed by the state and federal governments  (see linked chart). These BRFA provisions worsen a growing financial crisis facing our local government partners. For these reasons, PSSAM   supports House Bill 352 with two key amendments: one to remove the cost shift of more teacher pension costs to local governments, and another to remove the proposed increase of the local cost share for the placement of nonpublic students. PSSAM respectfully requests a favorable with amendments  report from the committees.

BILL: HB 526 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Definition of Reportable Offense -  Alterations DATE: February 25, 2025 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee House Judiciary 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, is providing this letter of information for the Committee’s consideration regarding House Bill 526. This legislation alters the definition of "reportable offense" to remove the requirement that the offense occurred off school premises and did not occur at an event sponsored by the school; it also requires the Department of Juvenile Services to report to the local superintendent of schools and school principal for certain decisions made during a certain inquiry of a juvenile offender for certain offenses. The public education system in Maryland is responsible for providing a free and appropriate education for every student in the State. Local superintendents take this responsibility very seriously and balance this tremendous duty to educate, with the need to provide a safe and supportive educational setting for students and staff.  To ensure the highest standards of safety for schools, it is imperative that information regarding students’ criminal involvement and interactions with law enforcement is appropriately shared with school personnel. The current flow of information between law enforcement and schools is disjointed and needs to be vastly improved. This legislation would help provide school administration with important information when making educational placement decisions, but we believe more is needed and have outlined some of the issues we believe should be addressed below.  In light of the numerous, and varied proposals before the Legislature this session regarding Reportable Offenses, we believe a work group should be convened and compelled to make recommendations focused on operational protocols for the dissemination and coordination of information ahead of the 2026 session . We obviously defer to the committees to name any participants to such a work group, but we hope the following organizations would be considered to ensure a comprehensive review of the existing statute and its current implementation: the Department of Juvenile Services, the Maryland State Department of Education, the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association, the Maryland Sheriffs’ Association, the Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), the ACLU of Maryland, and the Juvenile Services Education Program.  Notably, almost all of these organizations are members of the Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform and Emerging and Best Practices (the Commission) that was created by the Legislature during the 2024 session (HB 814/Chapter 735). Therefore, we believe that a subcommittee or work group of this Commission would be the ideal group of stakeholders to dive deep and comprehensively into these issues.  PSSAM staff and legal counsel from our local school systems would be more than willing to help staff this work group along with the staff from the Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention and Policy (GOCPP), who are already charged to coordinate the work of the Commission.  PSSAM believes the following issues should be addressed and considered in developing the most effective public policy regarding the implementation of the Reportable Offenses statute.   More appropriate and comprehensive information regarding juveniles who transfer between local school systems, including programs hosted by the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) and the Juvenile Services Education Program and Board (JSEP);  Expanding information shared by law enforcement to local superintendents or school systems within twenty-four hours of any arrest of a student with details pertaining to school safety, including whether any victims were students and the type of weapon(s) involved if applicable.  Further, enhancements to the “reportable offenses” law should include the tools necessary for seamless communication between education systems, and allow for a central repository via the Maryland State Department of Education or a similarly appropriate entity. For instance, often a local superintendent, school security personnel, or a school principal will receive information as described in the current reportable offenses statute for a student that is NOT currently enrolled in that county. LEAs do not have the information to notify the appropriate district where the student is enrolled. To fill this communication gap:  Information should be promptly shared with the MSDE (or an appropriate central repository) to facilitate notification of the school or jurisdiction of attendance. Local superintendents and districts are not privy to statewide attendance records and this information must be coordinated at the State level.  We also support the concept of “mandatory information sharing among local superintendents” that was embedded in the emergency regulations passed by the State Board of Education in the fall of 2024. However, to reiterate, local superintendents and school personnel do not have access to the necessary data sources to know where a student has transferred.  In addition, there are many cases where a juvenile under the supervision and jurisdiction of the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) is transferred to a LEA but no information is shared about the student’s individual circumstances, or the student’s previous educational setting. Therefore, the law must be amended to compel the DJS to:  Notify the local superintendent and the principal of a school in which the student is enrolled, or which that student has been transferred, of the student’s reportable offense or offense that is related to the student’s membership in a criminal organization, the disposition of the offense, and the law enforcement report or description of the offenses including details pertinent to school safety, including whether any victims were student and the type of weapon(s) involved, if applicable. Local superintendents support increased communication between law enforcement and the appropriate, but limited, school personnel needed to ensure the safety of students in school settings, as well as protecting the privacy and due process of those awaiting disposition of criminal investigations.  Again, we respectfully request that the Committees direct all entities involved in the implementation of this statute to work together to create an integrated system that ensures seamless and predictable communication. This information-sharing is integral to ensure proper physical safeguards in school buildings, while also protecting student confidentiality, and allowing due process for all parties involved. We appreciate this Committee’s examination of these important education and safety issues and look forward to continued dialogue on this, and other related legislation.