Search Results

BILL: SB 1090 TITLE: Maryland Center for School Safety - Statewide Secure Schools Emergency Response Program - Established DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and 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 SB 1090. Senate Bill 1090 establishes the Statewide Secure Schools Emergency Response Program to be administered by the Maryland Center for School Safety to improve the safety and security of public schools in the State by implementing a certain emergency notification system; requiring the Center to ensure that the Program has been implemented in each public school in the State on or before September 1, 2026; and requiring the Governor to include in the annual budget bill for fiscal year 2026 an appropriation of $4,500,000 for the Program. PSSAM appreciates the sponsor’s interest and advocacy on this extremely important topic of student safety; however, we strongly oppose efforts to mandate protocols and programs that override local decision-making in these efforts. This legislation is extremely prescriptive and requires a program with an incredibly specific set of requirements that is almost impossible to find in the current marketplace. With safety programs that require local system integration, best practices call for local decision making and collaboration between school systems and their emergency responding agencies. We support the Maryland Center for School Safety’s (MCSS) opposition to a one-size state procured system, not an opposition to the creation of a panic button system. In fact, MCSS reports that in response to last year’s SB 677 (Safety – Statewide Secure Schools Emergency Response Program – Established), they convened a group of stakeholders including MDEM, local emergency managers, local 9-1-1, and local school system safety experts to conduct a study on integrated systems. The results indicated there are evidence-based ways to improve school safety, specific to emergency communications, that would be more valuable than a statewide panic-button system, such as intercoms, PAs, BDAs, and CAD to CAD integration. PSSAM continues to support MCSS’ research and development of best practices to guide any enhancements of local emergency response systems over a legislatively mandated system. For these reasons, PSSAM requests an unfavorable report on Senate Bill 1090.

BILL: SB 1077 TITLE: Public Schools - Appropriations for School Safety Expenditures - School Security Employees DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Favorable with Amendment COMMITTEE: Senate Budget and 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, supports Senate Bill 1077 with one amendment. This bill increases the annual mandated appropriation to the Safe Schools Fund to provide grants to local school systems or law enforcement agencies to assist in providing adequate law enforcement coverage for public schools, from $10.0 million to $15.0 million in fiscal 2026, and to $20.0 million in fiscal 2027 and each year thereafter. The bill also (1) expands the authorized uses of the grant funds to include school security employees and (2) alters the basis for the allocation of the funds to be the proportion of students enrolled in each local school system instead of the proportion of schools in each local school system. PSSAM requests one amendment that the grant formula revert to the current model using the number of schools, rather than the proposal based on enrollment. The current model recognizes that school safety requires a campus deployment strategy and is a more equitable funding formula. In 2018, the General Assembly passed the Safe to Learn Act and created a comprehensive initiative for the improvement of school safety, including the creation of the Safe Schools Fund to be administered by the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS). While local districts are in need of additional funding for school safety, the existing prohibition on using the funds for school security employees has resulted in lower usage of the Fund; this is reported in the fiscal note as expenditures of $6.2 million of the $10.0 million mandated appropriation in FY ‘23. The authorization under this legislation will greatly enhance the demand and usage of the entire Fund. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 1077 and requests a favorable report with one amendment to maintain the current funding formula.

BILL: SB 803 TITLE: Education – Local Share of Major Education Aid – Nonrecurring Costs Exclusion DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Budget and 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 SB 803. This legislation authorizes the exclusion of certain costs from the calculation of a county's highest local appropriation to its school operating budget if a county board of education and a county governing body agree annually to designate certain spending as nonrecurring costs. Maryland’s calculation of local governments’ aid to school systems was first embedded in law as “Maintenance of Effort (MoE) provisions” in 2012, and subsequently altered in the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future to include “local share” as a second potential funding calculation. While neither of these are perfect formulas for all local school systems, they have served as a useful budgeting tool and to provide a predictable amount of funding from local governments. Generally, each county must provide, at a minimum, the greater of (1) the local share of certain major education aid formulas or (2) the per pupil amount provided by the county in the previous year, (known as maintenance of effort). Under current law, counties may request that nonrecurring costs be excluded from the maintenance of effort calculation and seek approval by the State Board of Education. This legislation would expand upon the existing nonrecurruing cost waiver provision; however, we feel the current law is sufficient in addressing these one-time/nonrecurring expenditures. We believe this legislation is written in such a way that counties could force local system systems to accept “nonrecurring costs” as a way to cap local aid by excluding what may have been normally been appropriated above above maintenance of effort, or local share; creating a disincentive to increase their annual appropriations. We appreciate the difficult budgeting task of local governments - balancing education funding with the other important services they provide to our communities. However, we must continue to advocate for the most equitable and adequate local contribution to education aid. Therefore, we support the continuation of our existing strong and accountable MoE requirement that ensures local governments are meaningful partners in education funding. For these reasons, PSSAM requests an unfavorable report on Senate Bill 803.

BILL: SB 545 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Public School Employees - Job Duties and Salaries DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee Senate Budget and 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, supports Senate Bill 545 with amendments. This bill generally aligns the salary requirements for certificated public school employees who are not eligible for salary increases under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future due to their subject matter not having a National Board Certification (NBC) standard by establishing an “alternative high-quality educator credential,” as further specified in the bill. Initial potential salary increases take effect as early as fiscal 2025, subject to approval of the career ladder by the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) and approval of “alternative high-quality educator credentials.” Further, by July 1, 2026 (fiscal 2027), the minimum salary for all certificated public school employees must be $60,000. PSSAM strongly supports this legislation’s recognition of the important role all educators and staff play in the success of our students. We also support the salary increases for these additional employees who currently are not covered by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. While we greatly appreciate the funding limitations of the State and local governments to cover all employees under the Blueprint, the very public salary differentials have affected the harmony and ecosystems in school buildings. In addition, many systems have “me too” clauses that require similar salary increases and benefits among the bargaining units; however, these “other” units are not covered in the Blueprint, and we do not receive funding for them. This has put pressure on our salary scales and may require a shift in how local school systems bargain future contracts. Therefore, we can only support this legislation with an amendment to mandate the identical funding formula currently used for NBC teachers, as well as those included in the expanded group to receive the $60,000 starting salary by July 1, 2026. Without these provisions, the bill poses an extraordinary unfunded mandate on school systems and their local government funding partners. Again, we support all State efforts to attract and retain teachers and staff. We also value the respective national certifications and education attainments by every public school employee and hope that future State and local funding can be identified to provide the highest compensation possible for all school employees. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 545 with an amendment to mandate State funding and requests a favorable amendment report.

BILL: SB 512 TITLE: Education - Prohibited Behavior on School Grounds and Property - Application DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and 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, supports Senate Bill 512 with amendments. Senate Bill 512 would specify that provisions of law prohibiting and criminally penalizing certain disruptive and threatening behavior on certain school grounds and property do not apply to students who commit offenses at the institution they attend. Additionally, these provisions of law would not apply to students who commit offenses at another institution while participating in or attending a sporting event or other extracurricular program sponsored at that institution. This application would only apply to the following codified provisions: “a person may not willfully disturb or otherwise willfully prevent the orderly conduct of the activities, administration, or classes of any institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education”; “a person may not molest or threaten with bodily harm any student, employee, administrator, agent, or any other individual who is (1) lawfully on the grounds or in the immediate vicinity of any educational institution; (2) on a school vehicle; (3) at an activity sponsored by a school that is held off of school property; or (4) on property that is owned by a local school system and is used for administrative or other purposes”; and “a person may not threaten with bodily harm any employee of an educational institution at home by any means, including in person, by telephone, or by electronic mail. This prohibition relates only to the employee’s employment.” Simply put, this bill requires local systems to implement school-based discipline and consequences for students who disrupt the learning environment under these provisions, rather than criminally charge them. This alteration only applies to students, and only applies to the provisions listed above. This bill would not prohibit students from being charged for other crimes while on school grounds. Maryland’s superintendents place the highest priority on providing a safe workplace and learning environment for all students and staff in local school systems. Furthermore, PSSAM supports a progressive student discipline system that emphasizes in-school responses to student behaviors that provide professional, educational, and behavioral health support to affected members of the school community. Additionally, PSSAM supports this bill in its retention of the prohibition against non-student conduct contained in the Education Article, which states that “a person may not willfully disturb or otherwise willfully prevent the orderly conduct of the activities, administration, or classes of any institution of elementary, secondary, or higher education.” Senate Bill 512 would ensure that any person other than a student who enters a school and willfully disturbs the ongoing education being conducted would continue to be subject to a charge and penalty under the law, in addition to any other applicable crimes contained in Maryland’s criminal law statutes. Under current law, any person who violates any of the provisions listed above is guilty of a misdemeanor and, on conviction, is subject to a fine up to $2,500, imprisonment up to six months, or both. Superintendents are committed to the personal development of all students, a goal furthered by appropriate use of restorative school discipline rather than these criminal penalties. PSSAM strongly believes that this bill furthers this approach. While PSSAM generally supports the application of this bill, we do raise one concern that can be clarified through amendments. As written, this bill would waive criminal penalties for students of a higher education institution who commit the specified offenses on elementary, middle, or high school grounds. For example, an adult who is enrolled in a local college who commits one of these offenses while attending a sporting event at a local high school could not be criminally charged if this bill were to go into effect. For the safety of all students, PSSAM requests that amendments be added to clarify that students of higher education who commit an offense on K-12 grounds are still subject to criminal penalties. PSSAM believes that the spirit of this bill is not impacted by this amendment, and ultimately, this amendment would serve to ensure that adults could be charged under these provisions of law, regardless of their enrollment in any higher education institution. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 512 with the amendments outlined above, and requests a favorable committee report.

BILL: SB 756 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - School Safety and Student Well-Being - Examination of Policies and Funding DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and Environment Committee Senate Budget and 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, supports Senate Bill 756. This bill (1) repeals mandated funding specifically to help local governments provide School Resource Officers (SROs) and adequate law enforcement coverage for public schools; (2) expands the authorized uses of the Safe Schools Fund; and (3) requires the Governor to include an annual appropriation of $20.0 million to the fund beginning in fiscal 2026. By July 1, 2025, and every two years thereafter, specified entities must review the state of physical security in schools and promulgate guidelines for school security. By December 1, 2025, the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS) must contract with a third party to ensure that the center is adequately performing its statutory functions; the Governor must include $200,000 in fiscal 2026 for this assessment. The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), in consultation with specified entities, must provide an analysis of the effect of State and local policies on school safety and student well-being. In 2018, the General Assembly passed the Safe to Learn Act and created a comprehensive initiative for the improvement of school safety, including the creation of the Safe Schools Fund to be administered by the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS). While local districts are in need of additional funding for school safety, the existing prohibition on using this Fund for school security employees has resulted in lower usage of the Fund. However, the increased authorized uses under this legislation will greatly enhance the demand and usage of the Fund. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 756 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: SB 492 TITLE: Public Schools - Student Telehealth Appointments - Policy and Access DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and 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, supports SB 492 with amendments. Senate Bill 492 requires each local board of education to establish a policy to accommodate students who need to participate in telehealth appointments scheduled during the school day. Each local board must ensure that the local school system publishes the student telehealth policy in the student handbook and makes school personnel aware of student telehealth policy objectives and requirements. On request, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) must provide technical assistance to local boards to establish telehealth policies. The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges in the delivery of public education, but it also highlighted the value and potential of virtual health services. During that time, telehealth was a lifeline for some, providing access to doctors and health practitioners during a very traumatic and fragile time. There is no doubt that telehealth now has a permanent place in public health. PSSAM understands the importance of this new model of health care for our students. In fact, many systems have already begun implementing various forms of telehealth, however, there are some operational concerns with this legislation. If health care is going to become another part of the delivery of public education, we need to ensure the highest quality controls, and approach telehealth with a deliberate, methodical, and research-based approach. Privacy concerns are key, as well concerns regarding parental consent and when there is a need to communicate with parents. Safe and private spaces need to be created to allow for students to speak in confidence to medical professionals. Protocols must also be established to provide in-person support if telehealth appointments create a challenge for students returning to classrooms, especially with regard to mental health counseling. While the bill does not mandate the construction of new spaces, we feel strongly that private space must be available in order to protect the privacy of students, and that is not a simple challenge. Lastly, there are operational concerns regarding the coordination of services, approval and verification of appointments, and the use of treatment spaces that need careful consideration. The need for behavioral health services have skyrocketed during and following the pandemic. In the realm of mental health services, consistent appointments are a best practice; however, if these appointments are by telehealth during the school day, the student’s academic success could be challenged if they are consistently missing instruction. On the flip side, we see the equitable benefit of telehealth in helping families who are challenged in getting to appointments due to transportation or work commitments. So while PSSAM acknowledges the very positive aspects of this legislation, we highly recommend that the committee consider creating a workgroup to make recommendations on the most appropriate service model with consideration to the operational concerns we have described above. This expansion of school-based health services deserves the same deliberation as previous school and public health issues and should be created by health and education experts. Legislation directing a workgroup with all of the affected stakeholders would fall in line with the historical approach to new and emerging needs in our schools, and we strongly believe that is the same protocol that should be followed regarding the expansion of telehealth into schools. Stakeholders should be directed to address the legal, operational, and financial implications that need to be considered for telehealth best practices and include LEAs, MDH, MSDE, parents, school nurses, and other health or support providers in the schools. For these reasons, PSSAM requests a favorable with amendments report for SB 492.

BILL: HB 1317 TITLE: Maryland Medical Assistance Program – Use of Reimbursement Funds DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways and Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 1317. This legislation would allow local school systems to use certain funds received for services provided under the Maryland Medical Assistance Program or the Maryland Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide certain positions, internships, and stipends. PSSAM opposes HB 1317’s restrictions on the uses of Medicaid reimbursement funding. Previously, Medicaid school-based reimbursements were limited due to federal regulations, however, that is changing. The federal government is in the process of making bold and expansive changes to allow school districts to use Medicaid funding in K12 educational settings. In an effort to take advantage of this increased federal flexibility and generous funding, the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) is completing its draft Medicaid State Plan Amendment to allow school systems to bill for services provided by school psychologists and social workers for all students, not just those with Individual Education Plans (IEPs). This is exciting for school districts who have seen an incredible uptick in the need for social and emotional support for students post-pandemic. We are aware of the concerns expressed by community health providers that this expanded Medicaid billing will infringe on their business model and treatment arena. We strongly urge the Committee to recognize that the mental health needs of our students goes well beyond what can be provided by school systems and community health providers combined - there is unfortunately an enormous amount of need with limited providers to help young people cope in this post-pandemic world. Therefore, it would be negligent to leave any federal funding on the table by limiting reimbursements, or limiting the use of reimbursement to the activities outlined in this bill. To further clarify this point, according to Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), this proposed legislation would have a significant negative impact on their special education budget. MCPS currently generates ~$4.7 million in Medicaid revenue, but under this bill, only approximately $1.1 million in services that are currently paid for out of these revenues would be allowable. As drafted, this legislation would not allow funding for many of the existing critical positions such as staff that directly support special education students, contractual speech pathologists and private duty nurses to provide direct services where there are staffing vacancies, payment for speech pathologists fees for recertification, and funding for university partnerships to create a pipeline for new speech pathologists to be employed by MCPS. Most of these positions cannot be cut due to a lack of funding, but would have to be paid through some other existing or newly requested budget source. These are people and activities that provide direct services to students, and ensure compliance with federal and state special education statutes and regulations. The bill also creates arbitrary disparities between the "providers" as defined in the bill and certified special education teachers, who bill Medicaid for direct services to special education students. These teachers would be ineligible for the stipend and other incentives set forth in the bill, despite the fact that special education teacher positions are a critical shortage area just as speech pathologists, psychologists, occupational and physical therapy positions. Thus, the unintended consequence of the bill would be to single out a specific group of employees when special education teachers have the same authority and ability to bill Medicaid as the "providers" defined in the bill. Lastly, the bill limits local educational agencies (LEA) by requiring funds to be spent in a specific way that may not meet the individual needs of each LEA. While some LEAs might have a need for speech pathologists and psychologists, others might need special educators that do not meet the definition of “provider” in the bill. Each LEA should be able to use its Medicaid revenue in a manner that meets the needs of their district. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 1317 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1297 TITLE: Education - Artificial Intelligence - Guidelines and Pilot Program DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways and Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports HB 1297 with amendments. The proposed legislation seeks to mandate the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), in collaboration with the Department of Information Technology (DOIT), to establish and periodically update comprehensive guidelines, standards, and best practices pertaining to AI (AI) for county boards of education. Additionally, it creates a pilot program in support of the AI Subcabinet within the Governor’s Executive Council. The bill requires MSDE to develop strategies to facilitate coordination and assistance to county boards in implementing AI best practices. This includes offering recommendations for the integration of AI into college and career readiness standards, alongside the adoption of policies and procedures concerning systems leveraging AI. The legislation also mandates that any entity utilizing AI in their products and engaging with Maryland Boards of Education must certify the confidentiality and privacy of any information obtained from such engagements. These entities are required to submit annual reports to the Department of Information Technology detailing the measures implemented to safeguard staff and student data. PSSAM is strongly supportive of the primary focus of the bill aimed at fostering collaboration between the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the Department of Information Technology (DoIT), to devise strategies for the integration of Generative AI within the education sector. However, we believe the bill is too prescriptive at this time and provide the following suggestions and amendments. Specifically, we believe the scope and rigid requirements for data collection and reporting are onerous and overly burdensome for an undefined purpose or intent. Instead, we believe the bill should focus on retaining the core proposal to have MSDE and DoIT develop technical assistance and guidance for school systems on procuring and implementing AI in local school systems. One of the most concerning aspects of the bill is that its definition of “artificial intelligence” could potentially encompass a broad spectrum of interfaces with computer systems. As defined, AI would make every piece of software from 1994 to now “reportable”. For example, we use Adaptive Technology to present testing questions to students, which adjusts the questions based on prior answers. Also, Microsoft Word and Google have predictive text completion.  The current definition is too broad and would generate a list that includes 95% of our educational resources. As a start, there should be a differentiation between AI as a whole, and Generative AI and GPT models. The provision below is also extremely important to clarify because it applies to every software purchase we will make and getting DoIT’s approval before making these purchases is unrealistic and likely, not the intent of the legislation. Page 5 (B) THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL: (1) SUBJECT TO ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, GOVERN THE DEVELOPMENT, PROCUREMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, UTILIZATION, AND ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMS THAT EMPLOY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY A COUNTY BOARD;AND (2) BE SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE USE OF ANY SYSTEM THAT  EMPLOYS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY A COUNTY BOARD DOES NOT: (I - III) ………….. (IV) COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION FROM A STUDENT, GROUP OF STUDENTS, PRINCIPAL, TEACHER, OR STAFF, WITHOUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. This legislation adds to the growing list of inventory collections in technology that LEAs must submit to the state.  The bill says that each LEA will identify a staff member responsible for facilitating the use of AI as well as districts submitting not only the names of tools that use AI (which, according to the bill’s definition, would be almost everything), but also the following: A description of the capabilities of the system A statement of purpose and the intended use of the system. This is a tremendous amount to require of school systems on top of what has already been mandated over the past few years coming out of the pandemic's digital transformation. Additionally, since almost all LEAs use almost ALL of the same tools for students and staff, if there is a desire (and stated purpose/outcome) for this inventory - it should be done at the State level in some manner, rather than have each LEA, with their limited staff, doing the same work 24 different times. In addition to the prescriptive nature of the reporting requirements, the requirements appear to diverge from the White House's 2023 directive, which emphasizes the imperative of shifting accountability back to companies involved in the manufacturing of products/services, thereby alleviating the burdens imposed on end-users. As the Fiscal Note accurately describes, the reporting and inventory requirements will result in increased costs for school systems. As many systems are facing educator layoffs this year, it is hard to contemplate creating a new, unfunded mandate that may add to already difficult budget and staffing decisions. To quote the Fiscal Note: “Anne Arundel County Public Schools anticipates needing to hire a dedicated teacher specialist with experience in AI; Montgomery County Public Schools anticipates needing to hire two staff: one dedicated to the technical aspects of AI; and one with focused on AI use by teachers and students; Further details not provided in the Fiscal Note:  An IT staff to manage and audit AI systems, an additional technology instructional specialist for professional development and training for staff and students on AI and its responsible use, and money to either purchase and integrate or build an inventory catalog solution. Prince George’s County Public Schools did not specify a need for staff, but anticipates a significant burden on existing staff to survey hundreds of entities that provide digital tools to the school system to determine whether they use some form of AI; St. Mary’s County Public Schools anticipates needing to hire one coordinator of IT security to implement the bill’s requirements. Again, we applaud the sponsors for their foresight with this legislation. We pledge our support to work with the affected and appropriate stakeholders to craft a meaningful and implementable policy as we continue with the ever increasing use of artificial intelligence in public education. For these reasons, PSSAM requests a favorable with amendments report for HB 1297.

BILL: HB 1191 TITLE: Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways and Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports House Bill 1191. This bill allows Maryland to enter into the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact for the purpose of authorizing regulated teachers who hold multistate licenses to teach in each member state. Local superintendents support the General Assembly's assistance and efforts to address the critical shortages of qualified teachers and school personnel. The teacher shortage in Maryland is well-documented and dire. According to the MSDE 2022-2023 First Day of School Vacancy Data Collection, there were 2,572 total vacancies, with the highest number in special education (581); these vacancies vary significantly across LEAs due to local recruitment and retention efforts. More alarmingly, teacher attrition has increased from 9.1% in 2014 to 11.2% in 2023, representing over 7,000 educators who did not return to teaching in the 22/23 school year. Lastly, the issuance of conditionally certificated teachers has increased by 136% over the last five years (MSDE - Updates on the Maryland Educator Workforce; 9-12-23 before the House Ways and Means Committee). We applaud the State’s initiative to enter into the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact to create reciprocity among participant states and help reduce barriers for out of state residents to teach in Maryland. For these reasons, PSSAM requests a favorable report for HB 1191.

BILL: HB 1189 TITLE: Public Schools - Mathematics Credit - College Preparatory Computer Science or Computer Programming Course DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways and Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes House Bill 1189. House Bill 1189 would authorize a student who is enrolled at a Maryland public high school to satisfy a graduation requirement to earn credits in mathematics by completing a credit in certain college preparatory computer science or computer programming courses. This bill specifies that in order to satisfy the graduation requirement, the student must be enrolled in the computer science or programming course concurrently with, or after completing Algebra II. Furthermore, the bill requires all local boards of education to certify that a college preparatory computer science or computer programming course may count toward a student’s mathematics graduation requirement. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of opposing efforts by the General Assembly to codify practices regarding curriculum standards, assessments, or in this case, graduation requirements. Local superintendents strongly believe that the role of developing graduation requirements belongs to local boards of education in conjunction with MSDE. Rest assured, PSSAM’s opposition to this bill does not rest on an evaluation of the merits of teaching any specified subject matter, but rather opposition to statutorily mandating revisions to existing graduation requirements. The Maryland General Assembly, in creating the Maryland State Board of Education and local boards of education, has delegated to them the responsibility of delivering a high-quality statewide system of public education through State standards and accountability measures, as well as locally governed and administered curriculum. The State Board establishes State content frameworks, state assessment standards, and minimum state graduation requirements, while each local board and school system implement 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. Maryland’s superintendents have long supported high-quality, twenty-first century computer science and computer programming curriculum in all local systems. In 2018, PSSAM submitted testimony in support of legislation introduced by former delegate, and now Lieutenant Governor, Aruna Miller, which required all public high schools to offer at least one high-quality computer science course beginning in the 2021-2022 school year. This legislation has since gone into effect, prompting local systems to implement educational programming at the local level in ways that best serve their respective populations. Again, PSSAM’s opposition to this bill does not rest on the merits of instruction pertaining to computer science and computer programming. Rather, it rests on the implications of statutorily mandated or modified course requirements for high school graduation. House Bill 1189, alongside similar bills which seek to interject or extract piecemeal segments of the curriculum and course offerings, only serve to weaken the effectiveness of the overall educational curriculum. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 1189 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 909 TITLE: Education – Local Share of Major Education Aid – Nonrecurring Costs Exclusion DATE: February 28, 2024 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes HB 909. This legislation authorizes the exclusion of certain costs from the calculation of a county's highest local appropriation to its school operating budget if a county board of education and a county governing body agree annually to designate certain spending as nonrecurring costs. Maryland’s calculation of local governments’ aid to school systems was first embedded in law as “Maintenance of Effort (MoE) provisions” in 2012, and subsequently altered in the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future to include “local share” as a second potential funding calculation. While neither of these are perfect formulas for all local school systems, they have served as a useful budgeting tool and to provide a predictable amount of funding from local governments. Generally, each county must provide, at a minimum, the greater of (1) the local share of certain major education aid formulas or (2) the per pupil amount provided by the county in the previous year, (known as maintenance of effort). Under current law, counties may request that nonrecurring costs be excluded from the maintenance of effort calculation and seek approval by the State Board of Education. This legislation would expand upon the existing nonrecurruing cost waiver provision; however, we feel the current law is sufficient in addressing these one-time/nonrecurring expenditures. We believe this legislation is written in such a way that counties could force local system systems to accept “nonrecurring costs” as a way to cap local aid by excluding what may have been normally been appropriated above above maintenance of effort, or local share; creating a disincentive to increase their annual appropriations. We appreciate the difficult budgeting task of local governments - balancing education funding with the other important services they provide to our communities. However, we must continue to advocate for the most equitable and adequate local contribution to education aid. Therefore, we support the continuation of our existing strong and accountable MoE requirement that ensures local governments are meaningful partners in education funding. For these reasons, PSSAM requests an unfavorable report on House Bill 909.