Search Results

BILL: HB 375 TITLE: Education - Coaches - Mental Health Training DATE: March 29, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Education, Energy, and the Environment 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 375. House Bill 375 would require the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to develop guidelines for public schools, and the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) to develop guidelines for public institutions of higher education to train coaches in providing mental health training to students who participate in athletic programs in public schools and public institutions of higher education. Additionally, this bill requires that public schools and public institutions offer programs to provide mental health training training to coaches. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of opposing efforts to codify the development of rigid guidelines for any new or existing policy or program; this is especially true when these new requirements do not include a funding source and are ultimately unfunded mandates. Local superintendents strongly believe that the role of content development and implementation of activities described in this bill belong solely to local boards of education in conjunction with MSDE and applicable stakeholders. PSSAM’s opposition to this bill is not a reflection of the merits of training athletic staff in mental health practices, but rather opposition to statutorily mandating development of training guidelines, especially those without additional funding appropriated. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 375 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 610 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Virtual Education DATE: March 29, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Ways and Means 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 610. However, over the interim, clearer guidance has come from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) on the use of virtual school days. It is our strong preference that the Department continue to be the authorizing entity for any virtual education plans. Additionally, it would be our preference to work with MSDE and other stakeholders, including teachers and students, to build the most effective and meaningful virtual education for Maryland public school students. Further, it should be the responsibility of MSDE to craft and promulgate regulations reflecting this work after collaboration with stakeholders, rather than using legislation to create all the parameters of virtual education. PSSAM appreciates the prior collaboration with this committee and the sponsors in crafting a reasonable framework for virtual programming and virtual schools. While this legislation largely reflects the collaborative work over the last two legislative sessions, we want the committees to be keenly aware of our organization's priorities, concerns, and preferences. This bill changes the requirements for a local board of education or the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to establish a virtual school and sets requirements for students, teachers, and services at a virtual school. A local school system is limited to establishing one virtual school; however, MSDE may authorize a local school system to establish a second virtual school on a showing of just cause. A virtual school may not include classes for pre-kindergarten or kindergarten students. MSDE or a local board of education may contract only with a nonprofit organization to provide services for a virtual school. A teacher preparation program must include instruction on training in the skills and techniques for teaching effectively in a virtual learning environment. This legislation authorizes the continued existence of an existing virtual program that does not meet all of the bill’s new requirements through the 2024/2025 school year under certain conditions. The bill also authorizes virtual education days for severe weather conditions under specified circumstances. No virtual schools for the elementary band may be approved for operation before December 1, 2024. The bill requires, to the extent practicable that virtual students may participate in activities at the public school the student otherwise would be required to attend. Further, the bill ensures the following services be provided to virtual students including (1) wraparound services; (2) food and nutrition services, and; (3) health care services available to students who receive in-person instruction. The COVID-19 pandemic has created many challenges in the delivery of public education. However, it has highlighted the value and potential of virtual learning. There is no doubt that virtual learning will continue as an important component of public education, well past the end of this pandemic. As the state’s top educators, superintendents embrace this new mode of learning and feel it is a welcome supplement to the high-quality education already provided in Maryland schools. In order to preserve the highest quality public education in Maryland, we need to enter the world of virtual learning with a deliberate, methodical, and research-based approach. We need to create virtual school programs that ensure academic success for our students, and instill confidence for families knowing that their children will continue to receive the highest quality instruction. We also need to work collaboratively with public school teachers, giving them a meaningful role in the development of virtual schools and providing support for those who will work in such an environment. Too many states have moved to a system of virtual learning that embraces and encourages private entities to run virtual schools. While there may be a role for some outside collaboration with well-tested companies as we build these models, our public school teachers will be at the center of any new mode of learning. There are several aspects to this bill that we embrace, such as the teacher preparation program enhancements and the requirement of a lottery, should demand exceed supply for seats in the school. Some of our schools have a waiting list, but setting the expectation of a lottery will help families understand their choices. LEAs need the continued discretion to establish requirements and expectations for virtual participation, and this bill’s discussion of attendance, conduct, and requirements are helpful for setting an appropriate standard. Our biggest concern about the legislation is what is truly defined as a virtual school. Last year MSDE provided guidance and a checklist/application for virtual schools and for Blended Virtual Learning (BVL) Programs. Most of our LEAs used the BVL model and did not seek “school status,” which in regulations creates a standalone school with its own school ID number. However, the bill’s provisions regarding a school as one where the “majority” of teaching is online, and later referenced as 60% online teaching, creates some confusion as to the bill’s intentions. The Department’s creation of the BVL model allows these programs to operate above those thresholds without being considered a “school.” We believe more clarity on the definitions of a “virtual school,” “Blended Virtual Learning,” and “virtual programs” is warranted. Another concern is the limitation to one virtual school per LEA. This number seems somewhat arbitrary because there may be opportunities to create smaller specialized schools focusing on a particular curriculum. A school system may also want to establish separate virtual schools by grade band. We want our virtual programs and schools to be designed to meet the needs of a range of learners and avoid policies that make them only available to students who are already highflyers. The language allowing MSDE to authorize an additional school partially addresses this concern, but without having a clearer idea of “just cause,” there could be confusion. A major concern is the requirement that county boards may only contract with a nonprofit to provide services for a virtual school. We understand the intent is not to allow a for-profit entity to operate and manage a school system’s virtual school, or to replace Maryland teachers in LEAs — however, “services” could mean a variety of other things, including curriculum and material development, as well as the use of a virtual platform created and maintained by a private entity. Even the State’s Learning Management System (LMS), CANVAS, is owned by Instructure, a for-profit education technology company. Generally, we would request more authority in the development of local plans, including attendance policies, just as we do for traditional brick and mortar schools. We request flexibility in the application to include criteria as determined by the local board. We also request the ability to provide, with the Department’s approval, pre-kindergarten or kindergarten classes. At least one of our LEAs provides kindergarten in our virtual school, and were able to return homeschool students to the public school system. We prefer in-person learning for our youngest students, but some of these programs are extremely impressive, and we would appreciate the ability to evaluate their success when we have more data before a complete prohibition. We are also seeking the local decision making to include discussion of class size to meet individual local personnel and budgetary needs, as well as vacancies. This is in keeping with our current practice of class size target ratios, and the language could read, “Average class sizes in virtual classes should be consistent with average class sizes of in-person classes.” In addition, we believe the bill’s limit of 10% of a single regular school’s population for participation in a virtual school should be a consideration, not a proscription. It is likely that most of our existing programs meet this threshold, but we would prefer to remove the requirement. The provisions requiring virtual schools to offer enrolled students access to extracurriculars, wrap-around services, food and nutrition services, and equivalent health care services is important, but may be too restrictive. We seek language that allows that these may be provided by the entire LEA and not just at the student’s “home school,” and in accordance with local board policies and procedures and offered to the “extent practicable.” While many of our programs over the last two years have provided many of these amenities, this is not happening 100% across all LEAs. Some have focused on the food and wrap-around services, while others have limited participation in sports and extracurriculars for various reasons, including operational difficulties with transportation. It is important to remember that virtual schools are a choice for families, and that expectations should be clear that this is a different opportunity compared to traditional, in-person schools with some trade-offs. As such, local boards and superintendents should have the right to set the criteria for participation in a virtual program. The bill also requires MSDE to establish regulations regarding attendance, student engagement and conduct, program metrics, tracking and use of student data, and mandatory parameters for students to return to in-person instruction when failing academically. There are many reasons why virtual students may be moved back to their regular school beyond academic failure. The legislation discusses the need for virtual schools to reflect the populations in traditional schools, but this provision may not be realistic. We need to ensure students are in the best place for them for a variety of reasons. If the reason for a student’s failure is their inability to manage the virtual environment, that is one element, but students fail for many reasons. The language here should require a regular review of placement decisions for students who are struggling, but placement determinations should remain case-by-case and/or in accordance with local board policies and procedures. Currently LEAS are using the existing law, which as written, ensures the authorization and operation of high-quality virtual schools. We appreciate the need for guardrails as we move into this new stage of public education, but we need to retain the ability to create educational programs to meet and respond to our local priorities. We appreciate the committee’s prior engagement with us, as well as other education advocates, and look forward to working with the committee during their deliberations. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable report on Senate Bill 610, with amendments addressing our concerns described above.

BILL: HB 119 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Curriculum Guides and Courses of Study - Requirements DATE: March 29, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Education, Energy, and the Environment CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, strongly opposes House Bill 119. House Bill 119 requires each county board of education to follow the policies and guidelines for each program of instruction established by the Maryland State Board of Education (MSDE). Additionally, if the State Superintendent makes a determination that a county board is not following the State Board’s policies and guidelines, the State Superintendent is then required to direct the State Comptroller to withhold up to 20% of State funding from a county board if the board does not resolve the discrepancy within a certain period of time. Under this bill, withheld funds could only be released by the State Comptroller if the State Superintendent determines that the county board has resolved the discrepancy. PSSAM is a staunch advocate for local board governance authority on matters pertaining to curriculum, and Maryland’s superintendents strongly advocate against all bills aiming to codify any curriculum standards, assessments, or graduation requirements via the Maryland Legislature. However, it is important to note that this bill significantly alters the current status quo regarding curriculum implementation that flies in the face of the long standing partnership between MSDE and the local school systems. While the State Superintendent currently has some authority to withhold funds from local education agencies for major infractions, this power has never been used to mandate standardized implementation of curriculum. Maryland’s public school systems have historically implemented curriculum based on a number of local factors, including, budget, personnel, classroom space, community culture, and other localized needs. This bill threatens the governance ability of local boards of education to best implement curriculum based on the sole discretion of the current State Superintendent. PSSAM firmly maintains that the role of curriculum development belongs solely to local school boards and superintendents, in partnership with the State Board of Education. Each of Maryland’s local school systems must be granted flexibility in developing curriculum that best reflects the specific, and diverse needs of their student population and local community. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 119 and requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: SB 735 TITLE: Workgroup to Study the Wages of Education Support Professionals DATE: March 29, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Ways and Means / Appropriations 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 735 with one amendment. Senate Bill 735 would establish the Workgroup to Study the Wages of Education Support Professionals to determine what percentage of education support professionals in the State earn a living wage, as well as look into increasing the wages of education support professionals in order to attract and retain talent. PSSAM supports the establishment of this workgroup. The COVID-19 pandemic truly highlighted the imperative role educational support staff play in the learning environment, and superintendents champion any initiative to recruit and retain these team members. PSSAM requests one amendment - that one member of the group is a superintendent or a representative of PSSAM. As the chief executive of their school systems, superintendents play a critical part in any budgetary discussions and consideration involving the education workforce. Maryland’s superintendents value education support professionals and the work they do in all public schools, and PSSAM would welcome the opportunity to be a part of this study to ensure living wages for everyone working in our school systems. Again, educational support professionals are essential to achieving the goals outlined by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, and in providing a world-class education for all students. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 735 and requests a favorable report with the amendment described above.

BILL: SB 300 TITLE: Baltimore City Young Readers Program - Expansion and Alterations DATE: March 29, 2023 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: Ways and Means 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 300. House Bill 300 renames and expands the Baltimore City Young Readers Program to the Statewide Young Readers Program in the Maryland State Library Agency. The bill also increases the mandated appropriation for this new statewide initiative to $500,000, previously $250,000. The Maryland Governor's Young Readers Program is an affiliate of Dolly Parton's Imagination Library, which is a book gifting program that mails free, high-quality books to children, regardless of the family's income. The program delivers a free book every month to any Baltimore family with children from infancy through age four. This program is an impactful way to introduce very young kids to the joys of reading and storytelling. Baltimore City’s program has reached more than 4,400 families through a variety of service organizations and city and state agencies. We look forward to the statewide expansion of this innovative and effective early reading program. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 300 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 458 TITLE: Public School Construction – Grant Programs, Approvals, and Administration – Alterations DATE: March 28, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Budget and Taxation 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 458 with amendments. This bill makes the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) an independent unit of State government and allows appointed members of IAC to be removed by their appointing authority. The legislation also repeals the School Safety Grant Program (SSGP) and the Aging Schools Program (ASP) beginning in fiscal 2027. The bill raises the cost thresholds for specified actions related to school construction that must be approved by the State Superintendent. Finally, it makes other technical and procedural changes related to the approval and funding of school construction projects in the State, including clarification that approval from the Board of Public Works is not needed for grants disbursed through the Significant Enrollment Growth or Relocatable Classrooms programs. PSSAM supports the IAC’s reorganization as an independent unit of the State, rather than a Commission under the Maryland State Department of Education. The proponents of this bill cite the current Superintendent’s support of this initiative, as it will result in the IAC operating more quickly and efficiently, especially with their human resources personnel. As amended by the House, the bill contains a new provision that shifts responsibility for a one-time life cycle evaluation of alternative energy systems by the IAC or the Maryland Stadium Authority to local boards of education for each new construction or major renovation project. Such analysis can be done, however, the new provisions require the local board to conduct this evaluation during the design development phase, after which, if the board determines no alternative energy systems are appropriate, the bill would also require the local board of education to report to the IAC why alternative energy systems were not appropriate for that project. The timing of this evaluation and report would be problematic. Therefore, PSSAM suggests an amendment to indicate this would be done no later than design development or indicate that the IAC cannot delay approval of a project based on the completion of the evaluation and submission of this report. This would give local systems greater flexibility in their project timelines. Additionally, PSSAM seeks an amendment that either retains the two terminated programs - ASP and SSGP, or, includes binding language that the current appropriations for these programs are shifted in total to the new Nancy K. Kopp Public School Facilities Priority Fund and used primarily for the targeted projects in these two programs. The fiscal note assumes these funds would continue, but also acknowledge that there is no guarantee, and the State expenditures could decrease by $10.0 million in general funds (for SSGP) and $6.1 million in general obligation bond funds (for ASP) beginning in fiscal 2027. PSSAM’s preference would be to retain these as separate programs and not consolidate them into the larger Fund where it may be more difficult for smaller systems to access the funding due to larger systems with more “high-priority school construction projects.” For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 458 with the amendments proposed above, and urges a favorable report.

BILL: HB 448 TITLE: Teacher Pay Parity Act DATE: March 28, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Budget and Taxation 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 448. House Bill 448 requires a nonpublic educational program for students with disabilities to provide its teachers a salary that is equivalent to public school teachers of similar training and experience in the same county where the school is located. If the costs to do so are not met by the existing State and local cost sharing mechanism in current law for nonpublic placements, such additional funding is to be paid for by the State and the local school system in the same proportion as provided by that mechanism. Funding for other components of a nonpublic educational program may not be reduced to provide for required nonpublic teacher salary increases. Maryland’s twenty-four local school systems are working hard to implement the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future legislation, which includes a significant increase in teacher compensation to bring the teaching profession on par with professions that require similar education standards. These provisions include a 10% increase in salaries by FY ’24 over FY ’19 to close the gap of average teacher salaries in peer states. The Blueprint also calls for a $60,000 starting salary for all teachers by FY ’27. These are ambitious goals, and each system is working with fidelity to meet these requirements. However, these provisions are already putting pressure on local systems to provide equal increases to personnel that are not specifically identified in the Blueprint, yet are integral staff in our systems, including psychologists, social workers, reading specialists, and more. This bill would require local school systems to pay for costs they have no control over, and for teachers that are not part of the bargaining process. Additionally, the bill requires counties that “host” these schools to be responsible for the salary parity – not the counties that send students to these schools. We recognize that the vast majority of students at these nonpublic schools are special education students that could not be accommodated in their zoned school. However, the legislation would hold LEAs responsible for ensuring salary parity between public and private school teacher salaries without any local control over these schools. PSSAM appreciates and supports our nonpublic education providers in ensuring educational opportunities for students with special needs. However, this legislation requires public school systems to pay for staff they have no control over, no fiscal authority of, or quality control in the delivery of education in these schools. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM opposes House Bill 448 and requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 343 TITLE: Education - Public School Athletics - Basketball Schedule DATE: March 22, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Education, Energy, and the Environment 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 343. House Bill 343 would establish rules for public school athletic schedules for boys basketball, including the maximum number of games played per week and season, and the number of tournament games played each year. Additionally, the bill requires each county board of education to decide whether to authorize a team to play in a tournament or showcase game. The bill also prohibits a student from being disciplined for not participating in a game or practice that occurs outside of the school year. In Maryland, high school sports are regulated by rules established by the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA). The MPSSAA receives its authority from the Master Agreement with PSSAM and each of the 24 local educational agencies (LEAs) is a signatory of that agreement. MPSSAA’s governance provides for a well-balanced interscholastic program for the 100,000 public school participants, annually. Regulatory changes and proposals are derived from the LEA interscholastic athletics staff and ratified by the State Board of Education. With regard to this legislation, the MPSSAA has already identified and resolved many of the issues and concerns as part of regulations adopted by the Maryland State Board in July, 2022. These LEA-requested regulations created provisions for high school teams to participate in events outside of the regular season. Most importantly, these regulations apply to all high school sports, not just boys basketball. COMAR 13A.06.03.03A.(5) states, “Local school systems may approve the participation of member schools to participate and compete in sanctioned National Federation of High Schools (NFHS) and MPSSAA events outside the defined sport season.” These approved regulations created opportunities for all students in interscholastic athletics to participate safely in bon-a-fide sanctioned events, including events for the purpose of NCAA recruitment. The purpose of these regulations was to allow LEA approval for the participation in NCAA evaluation periods as sanctioned by the NFHS and NCAA. In fact, under these new regulations, basketball events during the 2023 NCAA June Scholastic Period are already approved by the MPSSAA. Furthermore, the MPSSAA is submitting applications for the Maryland Basketball Coaches Association for NFHS approval to run a girls’ basketball NCAA evaluation event. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of opposing curriculum mandates and administrative directives by the Legislature; we ask that our local governing partnership with MPSSAA continue without policies driven by the Maryland General Assembly. This partnership allows the MPSSAA to safely and equitably govern all high school sports programs, leaving policy making decisions in the hands of those who best know how to educate, coach, and mentor through education-based athletic programs. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 343 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 961 TITLE: Motor Vehicles - School Bus Monitoring Cameras - Issuance of Citations DATE: March 21, 2023 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: Judicial Proceedings 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 961. Senate Bill 961 would extend the time period within which a law enforcement agency is required to mail certain citations for violations recorded by school bus monitoring cameras from two weeks to thirty days. Maryland’s superintendents support this change in statute in order to promote awareness of school bus traffic violations and advocate for student safety. Currently, there are four major state automated ticketing programs -- red light, speed enforcement, height monitoring, and school bus stop-arm. Of these four programs, only school bus stop-arm violations are given a maximum of two weeks to complete their review process and have the violation postmarked by USPS. Red light, speed enforcement, and height monitoring violations, however, all provide some version of a thirty-day time frame to process citations. The current two-week time restriction inhibits courts from fully processing citations for all school bus stop-arm traffic violations. In order to fully process a citation from a violation recorded on a school bus monitoring camera, the vendor has to first gather data from the equipment under the school system's control, prepare it, and then send it to law enforcement. Local law enforcement then has to review the data and determine whether to issue the citation. Currently, some offenders do not get citations for running school bus stop arms simply because two weeks does not afford enough time to get the citation in the mail after the entire process is complete. Because of this, many would-be recipients of traffic citations never receive any notification of their violation. Without a citation informing them of their violation, many drivers will continue to commit these traffic violations. This issue clearly poses a risk to the wellbeing and safety of Maryland’s students. Senate Bill 961 would put the State of Maryland in line with New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Connecticut, which allow for all violations to be processed within at least 20 (and preferably 30) days. This change in statute would allow adequate time for the additional steps needed in the school bus camera process that the other automated ticketing enforcement programs do not have to deal with, including breaks in the school calendar, holidays, and limited business hours of transportation or security services departments. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 961 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 719 TITLE: Public Schools – Heating, Ventilation, and Air–Conditioning Systems and Carbon Dioxide Monitors – Monitoring and Reporting Requirements DATE: March 16, 2023 (Withdrawn by Sponsor) POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Appropriations 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 719. House Bill 719 would require the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to complete a statewide heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system assessment of all public school facilities by 2025. Following the assessment, IAC would be required to develop uniform HVAC standards and incorporate them into existing facility sufficiency standards. Furthermore, local school systems would be required to develop and implement plans for corrective actions in response to the assessment, as well as install a carbon dioxide monitor in every public school classroom. While PSSAM supports the establishment and maintenance of safe and conducive learning environments, this bill would cause local school system expenditures to increase by tens of millions of dollars statewide in order to remediate HVAC deficiencies and install carbon dioxide detectors in every classroom. The IAC estimates that a statewide HVAC assessment of indoor air quality in all 1,400 public schools would cost as much as $75 million, plus the cost of additional staff, as well as significantly affect the normal operations of each public school system for significant periods of time. Additionally, the cost of any required remediation efforts required under this bill would be taken on solely by each individual school system. While it is unclear how many schools would be required to complete remediation fixes to existing HVAC systems, it is estimated that the average cost to replace a single system can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is important to note that any imposed unfunded mandate of this significant magnitude would severely constrain the total available funds used to support other educational priorities in our school systems. Maryland’s superintendents champion the devotion of staff time and resources to provide a healthy school environment, including addressing indoor air quality issues. Risk managers and facility maintenance staff recognize the need for a comprehensive preventative management strategy, including educating and training staff, and providing them with the maintenance budgets to support these strategies. Routine monitoring coupled with prompt responses to problems when they do occur can avoid the emergence of more serious and costly problems. Again, PSSAM agrees that indoor air quality in public schools is a very important health issue. However, PSSAM would prefer to focus on securing sufficient state and local funding for school construction and maintenance programs, and promoting the accepted best practices described above, rather than implementing a costly and overreaching assessment of all HVAC systems. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 719 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 926 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Due Process Proceedings for Children With Disabilities - Burden of Proof DATE: March 15, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Education, Energy, and the Environment 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 926. Senate Bill 926 would shift the burden of proof in cases regarding due process of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to the local school system, as opposed to the parent or guardian of the student receiving services. The bill requires certain public agencies to bear the burden of proof in due process hearings that are held to resolve a dispute relating to the provision of a free appropriate public education. This shift would apply to all twenty-four local school systems, regardless of system size or resources. Local superintendents consistently place top priority on providing special education services to our students. We strive to ensure that our students receive high quality special education programs and instruction that will meet their individual needs. We work diligently to adhere to comprehensive federal and state requirements to serve our special education students. We believe this legislation will greatly and negatively impact special educators. The proposed change will require additional action on the part of special educators, piling on to their already full plates. Special educators would be required to enhance an already effective system resulting in greater data collection and heightened reporting expectations each day. We believe the most significant role that a special educator plays is meeting the needs of their students, and this bill will create a barrier in that process. This bill will also widen the gap of the special educator's administrative burden as compared with their general educator peers. We have serious concerns that this will send more special educators back into general education classrooms and will make the job of recruiting and retaining special educators even more difficult. Special educators already have rigorous schedules and duties to deliver high quality instruction and supports to students. Special educators are also responsible for important medical billing and related administrative functions that require care and precision. This ensures accurate data recordation and meaningful reports that are shared with families on a formal basis each quarter and on an informal basis throughout the student's tenure with the school system. It allows the school team and parents to effectively understand student needs, track progress, and pivot practices and strategies for success. If special educators assume an even greater responsibility to bear the burden of proof at due process hearings, the workload could become unmanageable, and their classroom focus and overall ability to meet student needs may be diminished. With respect to due process proceedings themselves, it is never the goal of any system to find itself in a due process hearing. Time spent by our special educators leading up to and participating in a due process hearing conflicts with instruction. While the law currently requires the burden on parents, most school systems take all possible steps to resolve matters prior to any formal process. Due process hearings require a great deal of focus, preparation, and time from school staff beyond their normal duties in the classroom. For example, Harford County’s most recent due process hearings took an average of 5.5 days and involved not only legal counsel, but also four-to-six special educators and school staff to provide relevant evidence during the proceeding. Leading up to the hearing, those special educators each spent an estimated average of 20-40 hours reviewing and assembling records and preparing testimony. If due process hearings increase as a result of the burden shifting, Harford County can reasonably expect increased costs of between $476,280 in FY 2025 and 697,318 in FY 2028. While those costs reflect classroom coverage for special educators (substitutes), it is impossible to measure the impact on students who have a gap in time spent with their assigned teachers. We strongly believe that the current law regarding due process complaints is a fair and functional process, affording each party a fair balance in determining the best interest of students; it also provides opportunity for resolution and mediation prior to a formal proceeding. PSSAM supports a special education system that respects the dedication and professional expertise of special educators and school administrators to develop, in collaboration with parents, individual education programs (IEPs), which identify and determine which services are appropriate for the student. PSSAM believes this system should not be converted into one which presumes that the legal burden should be placed on the school system and educators to defend the sufficiency of the IEP. PSSAM supports maintaining the general legal principle that a complaining party has the burden to prove the merits of their complaint. In recent years, the General Assembly has considered and rejected legislation to place the burden of proof on the public agency (local school system or the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) in a special education-related due process hearing held to resolve disputes about the identification, evaluation, or educational placements of children with disabilities or the provision of a free appropriate public education. PSSAM strongly opposes such legislation, and supports the Supreme Court decision in a Maryland case, Shaffer v. Weast (2005), which upheld Maryland’s recognition that parents should meet the burden of proving their complaint when they disagree with the IEP developed for their child. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 926 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 649 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Education Savings Account Program - Established DATE: March 14, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Appropriations 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 649. House Bill 649 seeks to establish an Education Savings Account (ESA) program in the State, which would provide grants to families to defray specified costs related to nonpublic education. This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to administer the program. Additionally, this bill allows a subtraction modification under the Maryland income tax for deposits into an education savings account under the Education Savings Account program. PSSAM opposes public financing for private schools in every shape and size, including education savings accounts and the use of public financing tools for families choosing non-public schools. While seemingly not a voucher program, this program provides public dollars to parents choosing nonpublic schooling private schools, which diverts scarce resources away from the public education system that serves 90% of American children. PSSAM does not support increasing the burden on state revenues and future state budgets by establishing an income tax credit to benefit parents who exercise their choice to provide their children with nonpublic schooling. Unlike public schools, nonpublic schools have no little to no means of direct accountability to taxpayers for their use of tax revenues, and receive little oversight in areas such as special education and teacher certification regulations. Additionally, funds provided to parents through ESA programs in other states have been found ripe for fraud and abuse -- In 2018, the state’s Auditor General in Arizona found that parents misused over $700,000 in ESA funds on items such as beauty supplies and sports apparel, with no way for the state to recoup the money. The diversion of public education funds to nonpublic schools is likely to have serious economic, legal, and public policy consequences. If public education funds were to be used for the support of nonpublic schools, fewer resources would be available for public elementary and secondary schools. This diversion of public education funding would impede the ability of localities to ensure an appropriate, safe, and equitable education for all students -- an high standard of accountability held to us by taxpayers who directly fund public education programs. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 649 and requests an unfavorable committee report.