Search Results

BILL: SB 99 TITLE: Open Meetings Act - County Boards of Education - Enhanced Requirements (Local Boards of Education Transparency Act) DATE: April 01, 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 local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 99. This bill makes local boards of education and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners subject to enhanced requirements under the Open Meetings Act. Specifically, it requires each local board of education and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners to make publicly available on its website the agenda and minutes of each meeting and a live video stream of each portion of a meeting held in open session. The bill also requires each local board of education and the Baltimore City board of School Commissioners to maintain on its website a complete and unedited archived video recording (with certain exceptions) of each open meeting where video streaming was made available for a minimum of five years after the date of the meeting.  PSSAM is supportive of the bill and values expanding transparency and public access to school board meetings. Earlier in the session, PSSAM supported Senate Bill 99 (HB 154) with amendments that have now been incorporated into this version of the bill, and we thank the sponsors and committees for their collaboration. For these reasons, PSSAM supports  Senate Bill 99 and respectfully requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 1430 TITLE: Maryland Public Charter School Program - School Facilities - Funding DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable 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 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 (to be distributed by the Interagency on School Construction [IAC]) 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 $200.  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 depart from the State’s school construction process (and underlying philosophy) that directs funding to schools based on need, toward a separate funding model that will 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. This proposal would bypass that longstanding process and its associated accountability safeguards. Maryland’s charter school law stipulates that charters are public schools under the auspices of their local education agency (LEA). It is important to recognize that charter schools already receive a higher per-pupil allocation because facilities costs are removed from traditional schools before allocation. Creating an additional, separate stream for facilities risks further distorting those allocations and exacerbating inequities between students. This proposal represents the first instance of an education funding formula and mandated appropriation that is allocated based on category alone, rather than student need.  This approach runs counter to the core principles of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, which are grounded in directing resources to students who need them most. To date, no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that students in charter schools are faring worse than their peers in traditional public schools in a way that would justify this departure from a need-based framework. If additional funding is available - and we were not aware that it was - those resources should first be directed toward well-established areas of need, such as special education, or toward Blueprint priorities, such as collaborative time, that have already been identified as critical but deferred due to fiscal constraints. Many charters are located in underutilized or closed public school buildings. 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) and prioritized alongside all other system needs.  For those charters that have chosen to operate in non-publicly owned facilities, these decisions were made with an understanding of the associated costs and financing structures available to them. 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 complete capital projects, or work with other organizations to address their facility needs. Additionally, beginning in 2023, the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) adopted a policy allowing state bond proceeds to fund capital improvements for leased public charter school buildings not owned by local school systems. There are well documented insufficient State funds for existing capital needs. Maryland’s funding for school construction 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. 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.  The State is already unable to fully fund projects that have been vetted, prioritized, and, in many cases, waiting for years in the IAC pipeline. Creating a new funding stream for a subset of schools risks diverting limited resources away from these high-priority projects and disrupting an already strained queue. 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 also 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. Please see the chart below for the funding requested by each LEA in FY ‘27 in relation to the ultimate award. For a list of school projects requested by each LEA, identifying projects awarded and those denied funding, please visit this link .  It is also important to note that IAC asked districts to limit their requests in FY ‘27 due to the lack of expected funding. Therefore, both this chart and the accompanying document significantly understate the true needs in each LEA. *Total state funding is a combination of anticipated FY 27 appropriation, reserve funds, and other sources. Proponents of the bill have pointed to the federal State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grants (SFIG) program as a justification for establishing this per-pupil funding structure in Maryland. While it is true that this structure is required to access SFIG funds, it is important to fully understand what participation in the program entails. The federal funding is temporary and over time, the state funding must supplant federal funding.  Within five years, there is not a single federal dollar invested in this program.  At a time when Maryland faces serious structural budget pressures, it is fiscally irresponsible to create a new and expanding State obligation - particularly one not driven by student need - that will displace longstanding, evidence-based priorities that have yet to be funded.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1430 and respectfully requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 649 TITLE: Advancing Equal Educational Opportunities for All Students in Maryland DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information 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 Maryland local school superintendents, provides this  letter of information on House Bill 649. House Bill 649 would repeal the existing statutory framework for civil rights enforcement in schools, and replace it with a new framework that authorizes the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR), concurrently with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), to enforce the prohibition against discrimination and retaliation in school systems. The bill also concurrently authorizes a private right of action for individuals alleging discrimination in schools to bring civil lawsuits in court.  PSSAM and our members unequivocally care deeply about the civil rights of students and families. Strong, effective civil rights enforcement is essential to ensuring equitable educational opportunity for all Maryland students. Recent changes and disruptions at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have understandably created concern nationwide.  In the absence of a viable federal system, we do not question the importance of maintaining strong protections. But it is important to acknowledge that this restructuring is driven by temporary federal circumstances. That context should inform whether Maryland creates a permanent, parallel enforcement system that may remain long after federal conditions change. Maryland has a statutory civil rights enforcement framework under Education Article §§ 26-649 and 26-705 . In 2022, the General Assembly granted MSDE new authority to investigate discrimination claims within local school systems. To our knowledge, this framework has been implemented and is functioning effectively. HB 649 would significantly expand authority by: Granting the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) concurrent enforcement power alongside MSDE; and Authorizing individuals to file lawsuits in court while simultaneously pursuing investigations before MCCR or MSDE. This expansion raises important legal and practical concerns. The existence of  parallel enforcement risks duplication, inconsistent findings, and confusion for families already navigating an emotionally and procedurally complex process. It also increases administrative and legal burdens on school systems responding to unsubstantiated claims. There are several legal and operational concerns the Committee should consider, including:  Overlapping investigative authority between MSDE and MCCR; Potential conflicting evidentiary standards; The scope of newly created civil remedies; Fiscal and operational impacts on school systems; Interaction with federal IDEA procedures in special education disputes; and The due process rights of teachers and staff who are subject to allegations. The delivery of special education services, in particular, is governed by an extensive and longstanding adjudication framework under federal law. Creating additional or parallel remedies without careful coordination could introduce confusion and unintended legal conflict. This bill creates a new, and troubling private civil cause of action, significantly disrupting a decades-long, national standard requiring administrative exhaustion for disputes concerning special education by permitting immediate and direct civil actions in those cases. We strongly request that this provision be removed.  Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), families must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking relief in court. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly reinforced this requirement, holding that when a complaint concerns the denial of a free appropriate public education, and relief is available under the IDEA, plaintiffs must first pursue IDEA’s due process procedures before filing suit in court. This structure reflects a deliberate choice to ensure that certain educational disputes are first addressed through a specialized, expert administrative process that efficiently develops an administrative record and provides early opportunities for resolution.  Maryland has already codified this process in law and regulations. (Educ. Art. § 8-413, COMAR 13A.05.01).    We respectfully request meaningful engagement in the Committee’s deliberative process  and allow stakeholders, including local school systems, a seat at the table as these significant structural changes are considered. Our legal colleagues at MABE have provided a more detailed legal analysis of this legislation, and we support their work and conclusions. Our comments here highlight key policy and operational concerns but do not fully capture the scope of the legal implications. We strongly support civil rights enforcement and the protection of students and families. At the same time, we must carefully balance those protections within an already complex legal framework. Permanent restructuring of Maryland’s civil rights enforcement system requires serious consideration. Without that deliberation, there is risk of creating legal confusion, increased costs, procedural delays, and unintended barriers to the very remedies families seek. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information and we urge thoughtful review, robust stakeholder collaboration, and careful refinement before enacting permanent changes of this magnitude. d discussion with the sponsor and the committee.

BILL: HB 1182 TITLE: Public and Nonpublic Schools - Student Elopement - Locative Devices DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments 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 Maryland local school superintendents, supports HB 1182  with amendments.  This bill authorizes a school to coordinate a student’s voluntary use of a locative device and monitor the student’s location only if (1) the student has a documented history of wandering or elopement in the student’s individualized education program (IEP); (2) the student’s parent or guardian provides informed consent; and (3) the locative device cannot make audio or video recordings of other students or school personnel or allows recording capabilities to be turned off when a student is in an educational setting. The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) must issue advisory guidance to schools on incorporating a student’s use of a locative device and related privacy protections, as specified. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0002/hb1182.pdf ) PSSAM supports the intent of this legislation, which authorizes schools to coordinate the voluntary use of locative devices for students with a documented history of wandering or elopement, with appropriate parental consent and privacy protections. These devices can be powerful and effective tools to enhance student safety when used appropriately and collaboratively among families, students, and schools. We appreciate the bill’s focus on voluntary use, individualized decision-making through the IEP process, and safeguards to ensure that devices do not record audio or video in educational settings. To ensure the legislation is both workable and aligned with its intent, we respectfully request the following clarifications: 1. Clarify the permissive nature of school system policies As we understand it, the bill is intended to be authorizing and permissive. However, the current language requires that if a school system adopts a policy, it must include specific elements, including that the school has access to monitoring software. Many school systems already allow these personal devices with parental consent but do not require staff to actively monitor the devices or software. If this provision becomes the operational “floor” for local policies, some school systems may choose not to allow these devices due to the practical challenges associated with continuous monitoring. We believe this concern can be addressed by removing or clarifying the requirement that school systems must provide or actively use monitoring software. 2. Clarify that costs remain a parental responsibility The bill has been presented as a voluntary, parent-driven option, with families responsible for purchasing the device and any associated monitoring services. However, as currently drafted, the language could be interpreted to require school systems to purchase devices, install related infrastructure (such as hardware for doors or windows), and maintain subscriptions for monitoring services. We respectfully request an amendment clarifying that participation remains voluntary and that any costs associated with the device and its operation are the responsibility of the parent or guardian, unless otherwise determined through the IEP process. 3. Provide liability protections for schools and staff If the above clarifications are made, we further request explicit language that protects school systems, schools, and staff from liability related to the performance or malfunction of devices, software, or monitoring systems. This would not affect existing responsibilities for in-person student supervision, but would ensure that schools are not held liable for technology failures or monitoring-related issues beyond their control. With these clarifications, we believe this legislation can provide families with an important additional safety tool while remaining practical and sustainable for school systems to implement. Safeguards for students, families, and school staff are essential to ensuring this technology is used effectively and responsibly. PSSAM respectfully requests a favorable report with amendments .

BILL: SB 263 TITLE: Education - Dependent Children of Active Service Members - Advance Enrollment Procedures DATE: March 23, 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  Senate Bill 263. This bill requires local school systems to allow a dependent child of a service member to apply for advance enrollment in a public school and specifies requirements for advance enrollment procedures. The Secretary of Veterans and Military Families, in consultation with specified entities, must publish and maintain information on (1) advance enrollment procedures and (2) any assistance and services available to service members regarding advance enrollment. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Maryland is home to approximately 100,000 active-duty service members, and we recognize the important role military families play in our communities. Children in military families often face unique challenges due to frequent relocations, including disruptions in coursework, credit transfers, and social adjustment when enrolling in a new school. Supporting policies that streamline enrollment processes, ensure timely credit recognition, and provide consistent transitions across school systems helps reduce unnecessary stress on families who already shoulder significant sacrifice. This bill facilitates smoother school transitions and reflects Maryland’s commitment to supporting its service members.  PSSAM appreciates the intent of Senate Bill 263 in addressing the challenges faced by current enrollment procedures for dependent students of service members. Last year PSSAM supported this legislation with amendments that have been incorporated into this year’s version of the bill.  Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 263 and requests a favorable report.

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.