Search Results

BILL: SB 646 TITLE: Local Education Agencies - Educator Screening - Educator Identification ClearingSenate (School Personnel Vetting and Hiring Transparency Act) DATE: March 04, 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 local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 646 with amendments. This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to register each local school system (LSS) in the State as an associate member of a national membership organization that provides access to the Educator Identification ClearingSenate and to pay any applicable fees and dues associated with the membership. Each LSS must use the clearinghouse to screen individuals who receive an offer of employment for an educator position that requires a license. In addition, each local school system must ensure that each individual who receives such an offer (1) applies for the appropriate license after the offer of employment and before the start of employment and (2) obtains the appropriate license before any interaction with children. Nothing in the bill may be construed to impair or affect existing statutory prohibitions against hiring or retaining individuals convicted of specified crimes, including child sexual abuse. Maryland school systems take their responsibility to ensure the safety of students and staff extremely seriously. We appreciate the bill’s emphasis on strengthening student safety and reinforcing the integrity of the licensure process. In particular, we support the provision requiring candidates to apply for licensure at the time they receive an offer of employment. This requirement adds an important layer of screening and reinforces the shared commitment of school systems and the State to student protection. A review of Maryland’s 24 local school systems confirms that extensive safeguards are already in place, including existing federal and state mandates, such as: State and FBI fingerprinting (criminal background checks and the Adam Walsh Background Clearance Request form, DHR/SSA 1279A) Form I-9 verification (paper and 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 Maryland CJIS database (fingerprinting and background checks) The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) Rap Back Service  MSDE Disqualified Substitute List review Department of Social Services child abuse registry checks Maryland Judiciary Case Search inquiries, where applicable Internal database reviews Drug testing, where required Recruiting and tracking systems such as Workday, AppliTrack (Unified Talent/PowerSchool), TalentEd (PowerSchool), and Frontline Basic online screening and employment verification processes These layers of review reflect a strong and proactive screening infrastructure across the State. While we support the bill’s intent, we respectfully request a clarifying amendment to remove the language requiring a license to be fully issued before “any interaction with students.”  Although well-intentioned, this provision could unintentionally create barriers for pre-screened, qualified educators whose paperwork is still being processed. In practice, licensure issuance can be delayed for reasons outside of a candidate’s control even when all safety screenings have been successfully completed. Removing this final clause, while retaining the requirement that candidates apply for licensure upon offer of employment, preserves the bill’s important safety objectives while allowing reasonable operational flexibility during the hiring and licensure process. Finally, we support an amendment to move the date from October 1, 2026 to August 1, 2026 by which local school systems must utilize the clearinghouse to screen individuals offered employment.  Senate Bill 646 builds upon current protections aimed at ensuring only qualified and appropriate individuals enter our classrooms. We strongly support the bill’s focus on student safety and maintaining the credibility of the licensure system. Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 646 with the  amendments outlined above.

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

BILL: SB 712 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Funding Accuracy and Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment Count - Alterations and Report (Education Funding Accuracy Act) DATE: March 03, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment 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, opposes  Senate Bill 712.  This bill alters the definition of full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment that is used to calculate State education aid and local government education funding requirements to include the average number of students enrolled on September 30th, and May 31st of the prior school year instead of only the September 30 count from the prior year used under current law. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026, and is applicable to the calculation of education funding for fiscal 2028 and subsequent fiscal years. PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 712 and advocates for maintaining the current methodology for counting students enrolled in public schools on September 30th to determine state and local aid amounts for the following fiscal year.  PSSAM cautions that this calculation change would present a number of challenges for local school systems. Most alarmingly, it would delay the final State and county funding appropriations until after the prior school year is over, complicating the implementation of the next school year’s budget. Additionally, this methodology would create an unstable and unpredictable amount of funding in the middle of a fiscal year if a school system were to lose student enrollment during the school year. Education funding is designed to support student needs, not to operate as an attendance enforcement mechanism. Conflating attendance accountability with funding calculations risks misaligning the purpose of state aid formulas. This legislation provides no meaningful, or positive mechanism to promote school attendance, instead it uses the threat of losing funding as a means to incentive change - a dubious public policy when it comes to ensuring a free and appropriate public education to Maryland’s school children.  Based on the analysis of similar past proposals, this bill would more than likely reduce the state’s investment in public education, disproportionately impacting jurisdictions with higher student absenteeism rates. Local school systems prioritize regular student attendance and invest heavily in programs aimed at preventing, reducing, and addressing chronic absenteeism. However, Senate Bill 712 ties state funding reductions to absenteeism rates—the very challenge that school systems are mandated to combat with additional resources. As a result, districts with higher absenteeism throughout the school year would face the greatest funding losses due to lower enrollment counts recorded later in the year. Once again, local superintendents take the issue of student attendance very seriously and work diligently to ensure that every student attends school regularly. However, PSSAM believes this approach risks undermining efforts to improve student attendance by limiting the resources schools rely on to address absenteeism. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  Senate Bill 712 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: SB 284 TITLE: Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2026 DATE: March 04, 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 local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 284 with amendments. This omnibus legislation alters or repeals certain appropriations; authorizes the use of certain funds and revenues for certain purposes and distribution; alters eligibility for various programs; provides modifications to federal adjusted gross income of an individual or federal taxable income of a corporation for Maryland income tax purposes relating to certain depreciation deductions; etc. On behalf of Maryland’s 24 local superintendents, responsible for nearly 900,000 students and their families, we appreciate the difficult fiscal environment and the choices ahead as you craft the FY 2027 budget. In your deliberations we ask you to consider three amendments to the BRFA to help preserve education funding for Maryland students. These requests all affect hold-harmless provisions in the State budget.  (1) A hold-harmless for districts who experienced a decline in multilingual learners and (2) students experiencing poverty. This provision would ensure that no school system receives less compensatory funding than was provided in FY ‘26, approximately $41 million in State funding. To sustain the State’s previous funding for multilingual learners, it would require approximately $12.5 million; both of these BRFA actions would require a supplemental budget appropriation.  (3) We are requesting a permanent hold harmless for schools and districts participating in the Community Eligibility Program (CEP).  We applaud Governor Moore’s budget that reflects this for the FY ‘27 budget, and AIB’s request to extend this for two years. However, we believe the most appropriate action is to make the hold harmless permanent until a new statewide poverty measure is adopted. This proposal maintains stability until the required analysis to establish a new poverty measure is complete. Both of these requests are consistent with our November 25, 2025 letter to the Governor requesting his support as school systems face enrollment fluctuations. Complicating our enrollment declines is the absence of the revised methodology for counting students in poverty. As this committee is aware, the statutory language in 5-222, crafted during the passage of the Blueprint legislation, changed the formula for how districts count poverty. This language was changed in anticipation of a new methodology to be established by FY ‘27, along with an alternative form created by MSDE. This was to be informed by a study and broad consultation with stakeholders; that work is not complete and a new methodology has yet to be created.  In the absence of a reliable statewide poverty measure, districts face significant uncertainty. CEP calculations alone do not capture a complete picture of poverty, yet compensatory education funding remains heavily dependent on those counts. A refined statewide methodology is crucial to ensuring that funding is distributed in a way that achieves true equity under the Blueprint. The Impact of Enrollment on Student Funding and Maryland’s Previous Use of Hold-Harmless Provisions Following national trends, Maryland’s public school enrollment has softened due to lower birth rates, slower reentry from pandemic homeschooling and private school placements, and federal immigration dynamics. In Maryland, enrollment declines are uneven across districts and sometimes concentrated in specific schools. In addition, the impacts of the federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid eligibility enacted in the OBBA/HR 1 are almost certainly going to negatively impact enrollment of students and families living in poverty. Small enrollment changes can produce outsized funding swings, even as fixed costs are rising and outpacing inflation, including utilities and transportation.  Holding enrollment or aggregate funding at the district level “harmless” has been embraced by previous Maryland  leaders. In 2021, the General Assembly removed the September 2020 count from the three-year rolling average, and in 2023 they provided similar relief when faced with a precipitous decline in compensatory education enrollment - both measures aimed to hedge pandemic anomalies from driving formula losses. We ask for similar hold-harmless provisions to anchor school funding while trends normalize . Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 284 and kindly requests the committee’s consideration of the  amendments outlined above.

BILL: SB 592 TITLE: State Board of Education - Financial Literacy - Graduation Requirement DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  Senate Bill 592. This bill requires students, beginning with a specified graduating class, to successfully complete a personal financial literacy course. The bill also requires county boards to award credit upon successful completion and to allow students to satisfy certain remaining credit requirements through existing coursework. In effect, the legislation codifies financial literacy as a standalone graduation requirement under State law. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026 beginning with the graduating class of 2030.  PSSAM recognizes the importance of financial literacy and acknowledges that financial literacy concepts are already taught in grades 3-12 across Maryland’s public schools. The issue before the Committee is not the value of financial literacy, but the mechanism by which it is required. Graduation requirements have historically been determined through a balance of state standards and local decision-making, allowing school systems to align requirements with community priorities, staffing capacity, and student pathways. Codifying a semester-long financial literacy course as a standalone graduation requirement reduces that flexibility and may require adjustments to existing credit structures, potentially displacing other locally valued courses or student electives. Maryland currently requires 22 state-mandated credits across specific subject areas, leaving limited space within a student’s four-year schedule for local priorities and emerging instructional needs. While financial literacy may be a priority today, areas where students require growth and emphasis will continue to evolve. Local education agencies need flexibility to adjust credit structures as workforce demands, higher education expectations, and student needs evolve, without having those decisions fixed in statute. When instructional priorities are embedded in law, modification requires legislative repeal or amendment, significantly slowing a school system’s ability to respond compared to local policy revision.                                                                                    Given the need for school systems to design adaptable graduation pathways, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 592 and respectfully requests an unfavorable  committee report.

BILL: HB 1046 TITLE: School and School-Sponsored Activities - Report of Suspected Abuse or Neglect - Parental Notification DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, provides this letter of information regarding House Bill 1046. This legislation requires a school to provide notice to the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a child if a mandated reporter reports suspected abuse or neglect that occurs at a school or school-sponsored activity, unless the parent, guardian, or caretaker is the subject of the report; and requires the notice to be provided not later than 24 hours after the report is made. PSSAM shares the goal of ensuring safe, supportive learning environments for all students and recognizes the importance of clear communication with families. We offer the following information for the committee’s consideration. Under Maryland law, all school personnel are mandated reporters of suspected child abuse or neglect and take this legal responsibility extremely seriously.  Mandatory reporting requirements are well established in State law and are consistently reinforced through school system policies, procedures, and training. This legislation would shift, in certain circumstances, the responsibility for notifying a parent, guardian, or caretaker from the Department of Social Services (DSS) to local education agencies (LEAs). This represents a significant departure from Maryland’s longstanding statutory framework, which intentionally separates the act of reporting from the responsibilities of investigation and notification. The bill is also unclear on what information is to be reported to the parent. The bill says “THE SCHOOL STAFF SHALL PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE REPORT….” but does not specify what should be included in the “notice.” Providing notice that a report has been made without any details of the specific allegations, and without any facts or investigative findings is especially troublesome.  C urrently, Child Protective Services (CPS), within DSS, is responsible for assessing safety risks, determining whether an investigation is warranted, and managing the timing and manner of parental notification. This process includes appropriate privacy protections for all parties involved and ensures that investigative integrity and student safety remain paramount. Requiring school systems to independently notify families within a specified timeframe - such as 24 hours - could interfere with active or potential investigations, increase risks to students in sensitive situations, expose school systems to additional liability, and blur the clear lines of authority between reporters and investigators. Shortening the notification timeline or shifting the responsibility for parent notification to the school system may have unintended consequences.  If school personnel understand that every report, including those made out of an abundance of caution, will automatically result in immediate parent notification, it could discourage reporting in situations where facts are unclear or ambiguous. School staff regularly make mandated reports in circumstances that require professional assessment, even when the information available is preliminary or inconclusive. Many such reports are ultimately screened out and determined not to meet Child Protective Services (CPS) criteria for investigation. If parental notification occurs prior to that screening determination, it could inadvertently harm reputations, escalate situations unnecessarily, or create confusion, even when the conduct in question is later found to be appropriate or contextual. It is essential that staff continue to report concerns whenever something warrants professional review, without fear that a precautionary report will automatically result in reputational consequences before the facts are evaluated. The existing framework in which CPS conducts screening and manages the timing and manner of notification helps maintain both student safety and appropriate due process protections. We understand that the legislation may be intended to address situations in which CPS declines to initiate an investigation and a matter is handled through local school system procedures. However, the proposed approach extends well beyond that circumstance and may unintentionally disrupt the balance between reporting protocols and investigative processes. Local policies can, and do, address such scenarios in a manner that preserves appropriate due process protections for individuals subject to internal review, while maintaining transparency with families when appropriate. Mandating parental notification in all reported cases, regardless of investigative status, may create unnecessary alarm, compromise confidentiality, and affect employee due process rights. A more targeted approach may better address the concerns identified without altering the core structure of Maryland’s mandatory reporting framework. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information  on HB 1046 and welcomes continued discussion to ensure that any changes strengthen student safety while preserving the integrity of existing child protection processes.

BILL: HB 1323 TITLE: Education - Public Schools - Asian American History Curriculum Requirement DATE: March 05, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means 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 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 961 TITLE: Public Schools and Youth Sports Programs – Concussion Protocol – Alterations DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, provides this letter of information regarding House Bill 961. This legislation requires the State Department of Education to include athletic officials in policies and programs to provide awareness on concussion protocol for public school and youth sports programs; establishes that certain individuals may remove a student from play and prevent a student from returning to play under certain circumstances; and authorizes a person to bring an action for declaratory relief to enforce certain provisions of law. Local superintendents place the highest priority on protecting our students - on and off the field. We fully recognize the seriousness of concussions and traumatic brain injuries and the critical importance of safeguarding student-athletes in interscholastic sports. For background, since 1991, interscholastic athletics in Maryland have operated under the Master Agreement Outlining the Interscholastic Structure for Public Schools in Maryland, which defines the roles and responsibilities of the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA), the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), and local school systems. Superintendents believe this long-standing framework of oversight and collaboration has functioned effectively to protect student safety. MPSSAA’s concussion management policies are developed in consultation with its Medical Advisory Committee and informed by the Brain Injury Task Force. These policies establish clear, medically grounded protocols that reflect current research and best practices. A key strength of this structure is its ability to respond quickly to evolving medical guidance and implement changes efficiently in the field. We are concerned that the proposed legislation could unintentionally disrupt this evidence-based relationship and Maryland’s well-established standard of care. The bill designates officials as an additional party responsible for removing student-athletes for suspected concussion. We are concerned about this approach for several reasons: Officials are independent contractors, not local school system employees, and are not typically trained medical personnel. Current MPSSAA protocols already require that trained individuals be present at athletic events to assess suspected concussions, document findings in writing, and initiate parent or guardian notification. Documentation is then shared with a licensed health care provider or emergency department for further evaluation. For officials, expanding their removal authority could increase their liability exposure if a student is not removed but should have been; independent contractors are not covered by LEA’s liability coverage in these situations.  Introducing officials as a removal authority could create ambiguity regarding who holds primary medical decision-making responsibility, particularly when other personnel are present who are responsible for making medical decisions during gameplan. We share MPSSAA’s concern regarding its capacity to provide the required additional training to officials statewide. Ensuring consistent, medically appropriate training across a large contractor workforce presents logistical and operational challenges. We believe the well-established existing training for coaches and other school personnel is the most appropriate protocol.  The bill could also create unintended situations in which a student-athlete is removed based on subjective judgment rather than medical evaluation. While the likelihood of misuse is small, the framework could limit MPSSAA’s or a local school system’s ability to address situations where removal decisions are driven by competitive considerations rather than established concussion protocols. Maryland’s current concussion management system is built on collaboration between educational leaders and medical experts and has evolved over decades to reflect best practices in student safety. PSSAM appreciates the committee’s focus on protecting student-athletes and respectfully offers these concerns to ensure that any statutory changes strengthen - rather than inadvertently complicate -  Maryland’s well-established concussion management framework. PSSAM is pleased to provide this letter of information regarding House Bill 961 and urges the committee’s thoughtful consideration of the concerns presented above.on, and careful refinement before enacting permanent changes of this magnitude.

BILL: HB 1043 TITLE: Homeschool Students in Maryland - Right to Play DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committees 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 1043. 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.   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 1043 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 392 TITLE: Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2026 DATE: March 05, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports House Bill 392 with amendments. This omnibus legislation alters or repeals certain appropriations; authorizes the use of certain funds and revenues for certain purposes and distribution; alters eligibility for various programs; provides modifications to federal adjusted gross income of an individual or federal taxable income of a corporation for Maryland income tax purposes relating to certain depreciation deductions; etc. On behalf of Maryland’s 24 local superintendents, responsible for nearly 900,000 students and their families, we appreciate the difficult fiscal environment and the choices ahead as you craft the FY 2027 budget. In your deliberations we ask you to consider three amendments to the BRFA to help preserve education funding for Maryland students. These requests all affect hold-harmless provisions in the State budget.  (1) A hold-harmless for districts who experienced a decline in multilingual learners and (2) students experiencing poverty. This provision would ensure that no school system receives less compensatory funding than was provided in FY ‘26, approximately $41 million in State funding. To sustain the State’s previous funding for multilingual learners, it would require approximately $12.5 million; both of these BRFA actions would require a supplemental budget appropriation.  (3) We are requesting a permanent hold harmless for schools and districts participating in the Community Eligibility Program (CEP).  We applaud Governor Moore’s budget that reflects this for the FY ‘27 budget, and AIB’s request to extend this for two years. However, we believe the most appropriate action is to make the hold harmless permanent until a new statewide poverty measure is adopted. This proposal maintains stability until the required analysis to establish a new poverty measure is complete. Both of these requests are consistent with our November 25, 2025 letter to the Governor requesting his support as school systems face enrollment fluctuations. Complicating our enrollment declines is the absence of the revised methodology for counting students in poverty. As this committee is aware, the statutory language in 5-222, crafted during the passage of the Blueprint legislation, changed the formula for how districts count poverty. This language was changed in anticipation of a new methodology to be established by FY ‘27, along with an alternative form created by MSDE. This was to be informed by a study and broad consultation with stakeholders; that work is not complete and a new methodology has yet to be created.  In the absence of a reliable statewide poverty measure, districts face significant uncertainty. CEP calculations alone do not capture a complete picture of poverty, yet compensatory education funding remains heavily dependent on those counts. A refined statewide methodology is crucial to ensuring that funding is distributed in a way that achieves true equity under the Blueprint. The Impact of Enrollment on Student Funding and Maryland’s Previous Use of Hold-Harmless Provisions Following national trends, Maryland’s public school enrollment has softened due to lower birth rates, slower reentry from pandemic homeschooling and private school placements, and federal immigration dynamics. In Maryland, enrollment declines are uneven across districts and sometimes concentrated in specific schools. In addition, the impacts of the federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid eligibility enacted in the OBBA/HR 1 are almost certainly going to negatively impact enrollment of students and families living in poverty. Small enrollment changes can produce outsized funding swings, even as fixed costs are rising and outpacing inflation, including utilities and transportation.  Holding enrollment or aggregate funding at the district level “harmless” has been embraced by previous Maryland  leaders. In 2021, the General Assembly removed the September 2020 count from the three-year rolling average, and in 2023 they provided similar relief when faced with a precipitous decline in compensatory education enrollment - both measures aimed to hedge pandemic anomalies from driving formula losses. We ask for similar hold-harmless provisions to anchor school funding while trends normalize . Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 392 and kindly requests the committee’s consideration of the  amendments outlined above.

March 05, 2026 On March 2, Maryland's First Lady Dawn Moore officially launched #ReadMoreMaryland , a statewide literacy month campaign designed to celebrate and strengthen a culture of reading across our state. In partnership with the Governor’s Office of Children and the Maryland State Department of Education, this initiative invites students, families, educators, and community members to come together around one simple but powerful idea: reading matters. Throughout the month, Marylanders are encouraged to share photos or videos of themselves reading their favorite books using #ReadMoreMaryland . Whether it’s a student diving into a new adventure, a family reading together at home, or a classroom celebrating story time, every post helps amplify the joy and importance of literacy. By participating, we can help create a visible, statewide culture of reading that supports Maryland’s young people and reinforces literacy as the foundation for lifelong success. We appreciate your partnership in spreading the word and encouraging your communities to join the movement. Together, let’s show Maryland what it means to read more! Read more in the official press release .

BILL: SB 645 TITLE: State Board of Sign Language Interpreters - Membership and Licensing DATE: February 26, 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) and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) jointly support Senate Bill 645 with amendments. This bill expands the membership of, and alters the quorum requirements for, the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters (the “Board”); clarifies the Board nomination process under which the Governor can remove members of the Board; alters the date from July, 2024 to December 31, 2026, by which the Board must establish licensing requirements and by which sign language interpreters must meet certain licensing requirements; and adds a requirement for the Board to produce a report providing key information related to sign language interpretation in the state before promulgating regulations.  This joint testimony represents the position of the twenty-four local superintendents and local boards of education — entities who serve and support students and school systems impacted by this legislation and the subsequent regulations the new Board will promulgate. Our goal is to support high-quality interpreting services for students while ensuring that implementation of new licensure requirements does not unintentionally undermine interpreter access or educational continuity.   We represent the expertise of education policy leaders, special education administrators, interpreter providers, and advocates for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, all committed to equitable access and inclusive educational practices. We appreciate the work of the existing Board to elevate standards and safeguard service quality, but we have consistently vocalized our concerns about the Board’s difficulties promulgating regulations, especially for educational interpreters. Our concerns range from very practical operational issues, to legal and systemic challenges for Maryland’s students and schools.   We believe this legislation will ensure that the Board’s representation is broader to include all relevant and affected stakeholders. We greatly appreciate the sponsor’s willingness to create a more suitable framework for this important policymaking Board.  Our requested amendments are outlined below and largely mirror those requested by the other implementing entities - specifically those representing medical, legal, and higher education institutions. The amendments are broadly organized in the following categories/concerns and are briefly described below.  Composition of the Board Enactment Date and other Important Milestones Consumer Choice Provisional Licenses  Other Operational Clarifications  Composition of the Board  Amendment #1  - Add to the Board one additional seat so that key public service areas (medical, legal, educational) can be represented.  We appreciate the increase in board membership and the inclusion of more interpreters, as well as representatives of implementing agencies in education, legal, and medical settings. However, since there are likely to be specialty regulations created in each of these three fields, we request a seat that represents each sector. Strike §9–2411(a)(2)(vi), and replace it with the following:  "THREE SHALL BE AFFILIATED WITH ENTITIES THAT OPERATE AND IMPLEMENT DEAF SERVICES, INCLUDING ONE IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING, ONE IN A LEGAL SETTING, AND ONE IN A MEDICAL SETTING"   Enactment Date and other Important Milestones We, too, are anxious to move the important work forward regarding licensure for interpreters. However, we believe some of the target dates in the legislation are unrealistic for the extensive work ahead. Below are five timelines we believe need to be adjusted or included in the bill:  Amendment #2  - Revise the effective date from October 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. Moving the effective date will reflect the urgency of promulgating these regulations. Amendment #3  - Revise the establishment and publication of licensing requirements from December 31, 2026 to July 1, 2027.  After passage of this legislation, the Governor will be required to seat a new Board. That new Board will in short order promulgate regulations with the appropriate amount of public and stakeholder input; this will require more time than allocated in the bill as written. Amendment #4 - Revise the date by which interpreters need to be licensed from July 1, 2027 to July 1, 2028. This new date more adequately reflects the timeline needed to identify or develop the inevitable assessments for licenses. Based on our extensive experience in obtaining credentials for sign language interpreters in schools, we know there are several practical obstacles. A revised date of licensure requirements will allow for time to communicate the changes in the licensure requirements to practitioners, and to allow interpreters to obtain licensure. The timeline will also allow for LEAs to budget for these changes in licensure requirements. Lastly, a July date will create better conditions for hiring and not disrupt services in the middle of a school year.  Amendment #5  - Add an uncodified section to the bill that reflects the Legislature’s intent and prevents any proposed regulations from being published in the Maryland Register prior to the bill’s effective date.  Such an amendment will ensure that regulations resulting from this bill reflect the final policy framework enacted by the General Assembly and are developed through a deliberate process consistent with the updated statute.     Amendment #6 -   Require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. This prioritization recognizes the barriers to both promulgating regulations for multiple licenses at one time, but also some of the practical impediments for national assessments for speciality areas. For instance, the most commonly recognized educational assessment, the EIPA, requires interpreters to pass written and performance tests. However, both of these tests are only offered in two locations in Maryland, are costly to access, and are often booked well in advance. For the EIPA performance test specifically, results often take 10 to 12 months or longer to be returned, and unsuccessful candidates are required to wait an additional year after taking their test before retesting. This set of obstacles alone creates a near impossibility for interpreters not already certified to work by the deadline written in the current bill.  A longer phase-in period does not diminish the high standards contemplated, but enables the standards to be implemented with fairness, integrity, and in a sustainable way.   Provisional Licenses As discussed above, Amendment #6 would require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. We believe this will allow for a smoother transition from this unlicensed field. School systems will work diligently to ensure all interpreters are fully licensed but the practical implications of hiring and onboarding new staff will require a phased in approach.  A provisional license is integral to allow interpreters who are in pursuit of licensure to serve students and will also help attract new interpreters to the field.  A more adaptable approach to licensure entry is likely necessary to ensure that well-qualified interpreters are not excluded by outdated standards or procedural bottlenecks. This is a well-established practice in school systems with conditionally certified teachers and paraprofessionals acknowledging real world staffing shortages in education.  A scaffold approach also builds a state-supported training pipeline to help aspiring interpreters meet the proposed licensure requirements. There is a serious need for parallel investment in Maryland-based training programs to support those expectations, and a provisional license approach would help. For context, local school systems are already facing severe interpreter shortages. Some large LEAs report filling only 20% of interpreter positions , with vacancies in counties such as Howard and Prince George’s remaining open for more than two years. In Frederick County, nearly one-third of interpreter roles have been vacant since 2020. Many districts now outsource most or all interpretation services — often at rates exceeding $125 per hour , plus mileage — increasing costs and reducing service continuity for students.  We share the goal of increasing full-time, licensed interpreters — which is both more cost-effective and better for students — but given the existing workforce crisis, any new licensure requirements must be carefully phased to avoid destabilizing IEP and 504 services for deaf and hard of hearing students. Amendment #7 - Establish a straight-forward provisional licensing framework to ensure continued public access to interpretation services during phase-in.    While not currently contemplated in the bill, we respectfully request amending the current requirements for provisional licensure set forth in State Government Article. § 9–2425.  This amendment would streamline the requirements for provisional licensure by simplifying what is required to have a general provisional licensee. Each industry can and will  have their own requirements in addition to the general provisional license, but it is imperative to phase-in onboarding of licensure requirements in a thoughtful way.  This amendment simplifies the requirements for obtaining a provisional license by limiting them to the basic qualification of having a high school diploma, on top of which other requirements related to the specialty being sought can be required in the future. (a) subject to the provisions of this section, the board shall issue a provisional license to provide sign language interpretation services to an individual who has: (1) OBTAINED A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR EQUIVALENT Consumer Choice Amendment #8 - Align this statute to the consumer choice standards set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).    Changing the consumer choice is not currently contemplated in this legislation but we believe it should be; we believe the current law does not properly reflect ADA allowances for the delivery of services to deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Therefore, we propose the following:  Modify §9–2415(C)(3):   (C)    The Board shall adopt regulations to: ALLOW DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING INDIVIDUALS TO DETERMINE INDICATE WHETHER THEY PREFER SIGN LANGUAGE INTEPRETATION SERVICES BEING PROVIDED IN A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO SUPPORT THIS PREFERENCE TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADA GENERAL RULES OUTLINED FOUND IN 28 C.F.R. § 35.160  This section of the ADA is included at the conclusion of this testimony.  Other Operational Clarifications Amendment #9 - Expressly identify “educational settings” as a specialty area.  This amendment would expressly designate “educational settings” as a recognized specialty area, alongside other enumerated specialties such as legal and medical interpreting. Educational environments present distinct professional standards, role expectations, and competency requirements that warrant the same level of formal recognition and regulatory consideration afforded to other specialty practice areas.   Further, the bill creates a new report requirement to address certification standards, workforce numbers, and specialty requirements across enumerated specialty areas. Including educational settings within that list ensures that the resulting data collection and analysis will meaningfully inform future regulations governing educational interpreters. Without explicit inclusion, the Board’s reporting and subsequent regulatory framework may lack the specificity necessary to establish standards that reflect the realities of educational practice. Add to §9–2415(a) as follows:           (9)     EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS. Amendment #10 - Correct the names for PSSAM and add MABE.  This amendment would fix likely unintentional drafting errors to correct the organization title for PSSAM, and add the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) as an organization to be consulted.  Modify §9–2415(b)(2) as follows: (VII)  THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF  MARYLAND           (X)    THE MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF BOARDS OF EDUCATION Amendment #11 & #12 - For video interpretation , honor out-of-state standards to make out-of-state interpreters available to the public when needed.  We recognize that requiring all video remote interpreters (especially out-of-state VRI) to be licensed in Maryland presents operational challenges. At the same time, it is clear that  waiving all requirements for VRI providers would undermine the purpose of this bill,  as a significant portion of interpreting services provided in this state are done remotely. Therefore we propose the following related amendments:  Amendment #11: Add subsection §9-2418(b)(3): (b) This section does not apply to an individual who: (3) PROVIDES SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AS PART OF A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING SERVICE, HOLDS A RID OR BEI CERTIFICATION, AND IS LOCATED OUT-OF-STATE;   This would enable out-of-state video interpreters to provide services, still hold out-of-state interpreters to their own standards, but not undermine Maryland’s own licensure requirements. Amendment #12: Modify §9–2420(a) and (b) and delete §9–2420(c): Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may SHALL waive any requirement of this part for an applicant who is licensed to provide sign language interpretation services in another state.  (b) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the applicant:   (1) pays to the Board:   (i) the nonrefundable application fee set by the Board; and   (ii) the license fee set by the Board; and   (2) provides satisfactory evidence that, at the time the applicant was licensed in the other state, the applicant was required to meet the qualifications for licensure that were substantially equivalent to the qualifications in the State.   (c ) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the state in which the applicant is licensed waives the qualifications of licensees of the State to a similar extent as the State waives the qualification requirements for individuals licensed in that state.  These amendments together would streamline out-of-state licensure recognition by requiring the Board to waive Maryland’s requirements for individuals already licensed in another state, eliminating the “substantially similar” standard, and removing the reciprocity condition. Together, these changes reduce barriers to entry and expand the available pool of qualified interpreters, while still relying on an existing state licensure determination as the baseline qualification.    Amendment #13 - Add an additional reporting requirement for the number of licensed interpreters in each county. This amendment will strengthen any future policies or regulatory action by ensuring that any promulgated regulations are made with an accurate understanding of the number of available interpreters across different jurisdictions in the State. We believe it is also worthwhile to disaggregate this data by an applicant’s county of residence and, if known, the county or region where the applicant plans to work at the time of issuance or renewal.  Update existing reporting requirements for the Board (§9–2407) by adding: (6) THE NUMBER OF LICENSED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS IN EACH COUNTY AS DETERMINED BY THE APPLICANT’S HOME ADDRESSES AND THE APPLICANT’S COUNTY OR REGION OF PLANNED EMPLOYMENT, IF KNOWN.  Amendment #14 - Expressly account for due process provided in labor agreements for issues of suspension or discipline.    This amendment clarifies in statute that any regulations adopted by the Board concerning discipline or suspension of licensed interpreters must defer to existing bargaining agreements and establish due process protections for public employees. Elevating this principle ensures that regulatory requirements cannot and would not be interpreted to override negotiated labor terms or procedural safeguards, preserving established employment rights while implementing the licensure framework. Suggested language:   CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINE OR SUSPENSION OF QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO SUPERSEDE, LIMIT, OR IMPAIR ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO TITLE 6 OF THE EDUCATION ARTICLE, OR ANY PROCEDURAL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AFFORDED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.    Conclusion Our recommendations are grounded in practical experience serving students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, in our deep understanding of local infrastructure, and in precedent looking at successful regulatory frameworks in other states in the nation.  We appreciate your willingness to consider both our well-founded concerns and our proposed solutions. We share the goal of ensuring that all students have access to high-quality sign language interpretation and can meaningfully participate in their education.  As this legislation and subsequent regulations continue to take shape, we urge your attention to the infrastructure needed to support this work.  As always, we are available for continued collaboration in refining this framework that will simultaneously uphold professional standards and build a stronger, student-centered, sustainable system in Maryland.   Therefore, PSSAM and MABE support Senate Bill 645 with the  amendments outlined above. For REFERENCE ONLY  Americans with Disabilities Act   Regulations Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services - Communications -  28 C.F.R. § 35.160 (a)   (1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.   (2) For purposes of this section, “companion” means a family member, friend, or associate of an individual seeking access to a service, program, or activity of a public entity, who, along with such individual, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity should communicate. (b)    (1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity.   (2) The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give   primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities .  In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability. (c)   (1) A public entity shall not require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.  (2) A public entity shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication except—      (i) In an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available; or      (ii) Where the individual with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret or facilitate communication, the accompanying adult agrees to provide such assistance, and reliance on that adult for such assistance is appropriate under the circumstances.  (3) A public entity shall not rely on a minor child to interpret or facilitate communication, except in an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available. (d) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) services.    A public entity that chooses to provide qualified interpreters via VRI services shall ensure that it provides:  (1) Real-time, full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed, wide-bandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication;  (2) A sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, and the participating individual’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless of his or her body position;  (3) A clear, audible transmission of voices; and  (4) Adequate training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and efficiently set up and operate the VRI.