Search Results

BILL: HB 1196 TITLE: County Boards of Education – Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Implementation Coordinator – Salary Grant DATE: March 7, 2023 POSITION: Support 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, supports House Bill 1196. This bill would provide a $150,000 State grant to each Local Education Agency for fiscal years 2025 and fiscal 2026 for the personnel costs for a Blueprint Implementation Coordinator (IC). In the final version of the Blueprint legislation (HB 1300/2020), the Legislature required the local governing body and the LEA to jointly designate Blueprint Coordinators. The requirement was that this position would be required through fiscal 2025, which was subsequently changed to fiscal 2026 during the 2021 session (HB 1372). The IC position was also mandated without an identified funding source. Lastly, the position was to be created by July 1, 2021; all districts were in compliance within one or two months of that deadline. In July of 2021, the role of the coordinators was unclear, and many districts assigned this responsibility to existing staff. Now, eighteen months later, many of the coordinators are still wearing multiple hats in their districts, and have significant responsibilities in addition to the Blueprint work. This is especially challenging in smaller districts with fewer staff and resources. For example, among the ICs there are Chief Financial Officers, Chief Administration Officers, and two or three Directors of Assessment and Reporting. Having staff serve as the IC seemed reasonable when we (PSSAM) first started convening this group in 2021. At that point, we were meeting about once a month, we were waiting for the AIB to be named, and the new State Superintendent was still settling in. As the AIB and MSDE geared up, meeting frequency increased, and going back to September 2021, there have been roughly 71 meetings, (excluding duplicate sessions), the bulk of which occurred beginning July 2022, when there were roughly 62 meetings. As you can see, the commitment to the Blueprint work has been immense. The designation of ICs has created an equity issue between smaller and larger systems. Even after adjusting for the enrollment of the districts -- the planning and implementation has to be done, regardless of if you are a district with 200,000 students or 2,000 students. As we have moved through the initial year of the Blueprint, it is exceptionally clear that these ICs are integral for the proper implementation with fidelity. We recognize that there are many staff that are overworked, but we feel it is appropriate to request a carve-out for the salaries of the ICs, especially since the General Assembly mandated the position. We believe a line item in the budget would provide an equitable funding opportunity for all districts to hire and employ a fulltime Blueprint Coordinator. For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 1196 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: SB 893 TITLE: Maryland Educator Shortage Act of 2023 DATE: March 7, 2023 POSITION: Support 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, supports Senate Bill 893. This omnibus bill addresses many challenges in the recruitment and retention of Maryland public school teachers. Highlights include loosening restrictions on alternative early childhood education and the creation of a Maryland Educator Recruitment, Retention, and Diversity Dashboard. Additional provisions reflect the Legislature’s intent for Maryland to join the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact to ease certification for teachers coming to Maryland from other states with high-quality certification processes. The Teaching Fellows for Maryland program shifts to the MSDE from the Maryland Higher Education Commission, and the legislation alters some qualifications for applicants and recipients of the Teaching Fellows. Additionally, the Grow Our Own Educators Scholarship Program is codified to provide scholarships to individuals who pledge to fulfill a certain service obligation as a full–time teacher in the State, and a new Educator Internship Stipend Program is established to provide stipends to student teachers in internships working directly with students. Teacher shortage is a significant problem in Maryland, one we share with school districts across the nation. As we know, teacher support and teacher quality directly impact educational achievement for students. Systems and schools plagued by the lack of qualified teachers, teacher turnover, and lack of diversity in the workforce all negatively impact student learning. According to a State Board of Education presentation in July of 2022, “Research indicates that the cost of separation, recruitment, hiring, and training has been estimated to cost between $9,000 and $21,000 per teacher. While teacher vacancies continue to increase, total enrollment in Maryland’s Educator Preparation programs has declined by 33%.” This pipeline shortage is critically important and portends that our shortage will continue in the near-term. Teacher diversity is also a challenge in Maryland. The teaching workforce has remained predominantly white, while the student demographics have grown much more diverse. From the above referenced MSDE presentation, “Over the past 10 years, less than 30% of Maryland teachers were teachers of color. Studies show that increased diversity amongst teachers and broader sets of school professionals benefit student test-score performance and leads to improved school behaviors.” An important research outcome is the fact that alternative preparation programs are more diverse than traditional colleges of education. This legislation is well positioned to help bring more alternative preparation programs to the State. This legislation will complement and supplement the tenets of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. The Blueprint includes the creation of career ladders based on merit, as well as salary incentives for highly trained teachers, and incentives for teaching in low-performing schools. One commonly held notion is that the best teacher “attraction,” is a strong “retention” effort. Sadly, Maryland’s retention statistics are bruising in that almost half of new teachers with five year or less tenure, resign voluntarily. We thank the Moore Administration and legislative leaders who have contributed to and promoted these innovative and research-based solutions to the teacher shortage crisis in Maryland. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 893 and urges a favorable report.

BILL: SB 893 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education – Concentration of Poverty School Grant Program – Eligibility DATE: March 7, 2023 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: Budget and Taxation / 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, supports Senate Bill 869. This legislation would accelerate the implementation of Concentration of Poverty Grants. The personnel grants would be fully phased in during the 2024 fiscal year and beyond, providing a personnel grant to schools with 55% of their students qualifying for Free and Reduced Price Meal (FRMP) status. The bill also modifies and accelerates the per pupil grants for concentration of poverty schools by one year in fiscal year 2024 from 70%-65%, for fiscal year 2025; eligibility is adjusted to 60% (from 65%), with full phase-in at 55% in fiscal 2026 and each year thereafter. PSSAM strongly supports this legislation and applauds the initiative to speed up eligibility for designated “concentration of poverty” schools. These grants are one of the most unique elements established in the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. Research has proven that schools with high levels of poverty excel by addressing the entire school’s population, rather than limiting funding and targeting services to students who qualify for FRMP status. The grant is carefully crafted to allow for a year of planning, which includes hiring a community school coordinator with specified qualifications, and providing full-time coverage by at least one health care practitioner. To become eligible for the per pupil funding the year following their eligibility, a school must complete a needs assessment and strategy for implementing the per pupil grants to achieve success within the school. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 869 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 984 TITLE: Public Employee Relations Act DATE: March 7, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Appropriations CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twentyfour local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 984. This legislation consolidates and alters certain laws governing collective bargaining for certain public employees, including laws related to the establishment of bargaining units, elections and certification of exclusive representatives, employee and employer rights, unfair labor practices, strikes, and lockouts. The bill establishes the Public Employee Relations Board to oversee collective bargaining activities for certain public employees. PSSAM strongly opposes the following provisions of the bill: (1) adding class size and school calendar issues as permissible collective bargaining topics; (2) replacing the use of mediation with arbitration throughout the bill; and, (3) the elimination of the Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB) by consolidating it with the State Labor Relations Board, and the State Higher Education Labor Relations Board into a new Public Employee Relations Board. The bill significantly alters the longstanding collective bargaining process and dispute resolution by eliminating the PSLRB. This Board has expertise in public school collective bargaining issues, which could be minimized in a broader Public Employee Relations Board. The inclusion of class size and calendar issues as permissible collective bargaining topics is also of great concern. PSSAM’s concerns regarding the issue of class size are well documented in our attached opposition testimony for HB 85 (Collective Bargaining - Certified Employees - Class Size), which makes bargaining class size a permissible subject. There are many unintended consequences in allowing for negotiations to include class size. Financial and operational concerns top those concerns, especially the potential outcome of needing more teachers to satisfy bargained class sizes. This legislation would also significantly complicate and confuse our implementation of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future. The Blueprint is based on the concepts of equity and adequacy. This legislation would result in 24 different agreements that could create new inequities among systems based on the strength (or weakness) of either bargaining unit. Second, the Kirwan Commission considered and rejected mandating smaller class sizes. There was no conclusive research that smaller classes were responsible for student success; they found small classes were not a characteristic of successful schools around the world. Third, the Blueprint calls for increases in teacher salaries and more planning time (60% teaching and 40% planning), which will require additional staff. School systems are already strategizing and contemplating this need in the context of the national teacher shortage. Placing a cap on class sizes or allowing this to be a topic of negotiations would limit a system's ability to allocate resources to high need schools. Local boards and superintendents need the flexibility to invest in the students and families who need us the most. Lastly, the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future already requires wholesale revisions to the local systems’ collective bargaining agreements through the establishment of the career ladder. The Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB) has been hearing and resolving disputes between employees and their unions, and unions and school systems since 2010. The PSLRB is composed of members appointed by our organization, (PSSAM), the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), the teachers’ associations, and the Governor. This membership structure allows for expertise in school system governance, administration, employee contract negotiations, and dispute resolution, all of which would be lost by consolidating the PSLRB into the new Board. Finally, replacing mediation with arbitration would make an already complex and time-sensitive process more contentious and dissuade parties from coming to the bargaining table willing to compromise for the good of our teachers and students. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 984 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 646 TITLE: School Construction - Public Charter School Facility Fund - Establishment DATE: March 7, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Budget & 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 Senate Bill 646. This bill creates the Public Charter School Facility Fund, administered by the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC), to provide funding to public charter schools for eligible expenses associated with public charter school facilities. The Governor must include an annual appropriation in the budget bill of $2,000 per student enrolled in a public charter school (approximately $48 million annually). The Charter School law stipulates that charter schools are Maryland public schools under the auspices of their local education agency (LEA). However, PSSAM sees no reason to create a separate fund for these schools, especially with expanded uses not currently available to traditional schools. It is important to recall that capital funding for charters was specifically discussed and dismissed during the legislation deliberations that authorized charter schools. This legislation would mostly affect Baltimore City Public Schools, which hosts the majority of charters and is home to the oldest buildings in the State; however, this also affects other LEAs. Many charters are located in underutilized or closed public schools. In this situation, since the buildings are owned by the local government or the LEA, these requests would be evaluated for capital needs and participate in the LEA’s Capital Improvement Process (CIP). In doing so, they are prioritized just like the rest of the system’s infrastructure. For charters that are using non-government owned buildings, the law allows for these schools and their operators to use creative financing to make complete capital projects or work with other organizations to address their facility needs. This is also true for charters in government owned buildings - so these schools have two opportunities to be included and funded. The Maryland public school construction program is overseen by the IAC. As part of the CIP process, the IAC receives a list of schools, by priority, from each local school board and the IAC then grades those projects and provides funding based upon available school construction dollars. Again, those charter schools that are housed in LEA-owned buildings are considered for inclusion into the priority list for funding. Even though this would be “new” funding, it still would create possibility inequities within a system where a charter may receive funds ahead of a non-charter school in far worse condition because they are “competing” against a smaller number of projects, with a dedicated and known funding stream. Every system has unmet capital needs and skyrocketing inflationary costs, creating new and more expensive costs for every capital project. These inflationary pressures further our opposition to carving out additional state funding for charter school facilities when there is already insufficient funding to support the current facility needs. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 646 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 828 TITLE: Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program - Modifications DATE: March 2, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Finance 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 828 with amendments to delay contributions to July 1, 2024 to better align with local govt budgetary processes, and to require the Department of Labor (DLLR) to release guidance on private opt-out application and other processes by Jan 1, 2024. This legislation clarifies pieces of the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program, which was adopted by the Legislature in 2022. The bill clarifies and alters certain provisions relating to the administration of the Program, including provisions related to the provision of benefits, the payment of contributions, and appeals. The bill establishes the employer and employee shares of the total rate of contribution. Under this legislation, the State is required to pay for certain contributions for certain employers and certain covered employees. This bill repeals the requirement that a covered individual exhaust all employers–provided leave that is not required to be provided under law before receiving benefits under the Program. Lastly, the bill authorizes a covered individual and an employer to agree to use certain leave to replace wages during the period of leave for which benefits are received under the Program. PSSAM welcomes the modifications and clarification in Senate Bill 828, but supports additional amendments to provide an appropriate timeframe to set up these programs in school systems and local governments. We stand with our partners - Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), the Maryland Municipal League (MML), and the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) - in requesting these amendments. The Time to Care Act of 2022 established the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) Program and Fund. This fund provides up to 12 weeks of benefits to a covered individual taking leave for personal and family circumstances. The Fund consists of contributions from employees and employers. The law requires that by June 1, 2023, the Secretary of Labor must adopt regulations to implement the program, and must set the total rate of contribution and percentage of the total contribution rate to be paid by employers and employees that will be in effect from October 1, 2023, through December 31, 2025. Then, beginning October 1, 2023, employers and employees are to begin making payroll contributions to the Department of Labor to generate the FAMLI Fund and to support benefits payments in 2025. This legislation requires the Secretary of Labor to set the employer and employee contribution rates by Sept. 1, 2023; it also extends the start date for the mandated funding and payroll contributions to the Fund by October 1, 2023 to Jan. 1, 2024. This January deadline is especially troublesome because it is right in the middle of our fiscal year and it also creates a funding obligations beginning on July 1, 2023. For practical reasons, this extension is extremely important. In order to meet any approval deadline, we are seeking an amendment for a date-certain from DLLR to promulgate regulations regarding the exemption criteria, and the application review and approval process. Clear guidelines with enough time to review, plan, and implement are more than reasonable in light of this significant new initiative. Also, the months of January through July are valuable for budget planning for contributions to the State plan, as well as the complex work of adapting existing school system employee payroll infrastructure. Starting in July 2024 nicely aligns with our fiscal year, as well as the budgeting, negotiating and implementation of The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable report on Senate Bill 828, with amendments addressing our concerns.

BILL: SB 610 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Virtual Education DATE: March 1, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments 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, 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 935 TITLE: Public Schools - Mathematics Credit - College Preparatory Computer Science or Computer Programming Course DATE: March 1, 2023 POSITION: Oppose 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, opposes House Bill 935. House Bill 935 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 specified 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 solely 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 985, 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 935 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 985 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Virtual Schools - Alterations DATE: March 1, 2023 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Ways & 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, opposes House Bill 985. House Bill 985 would authorize the State Department of Education, a county board of education, or a public institution of higher education to establish a statewide virtual school in the State. The bill would also authorize a student who is eligible for enrollment in a Maryland public school to enroll in any virtual school established throughout the State. Furthermore, this bill would repeal certain provisions of law regarding the establishment and operation of virtual schools, as well as require the State to distribute certain funds to virtual schools. PSSAM appreciates the bill’s intent to expand virtual learning opportunities for Maryland students. PSSAM’s primary opposition to this bill is that LEAs are already fully authorized to provide appropriate virtual opportunities under existing law with approval and accountability from MSDE. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in statewide school facility closures and necessitated the immediate transition to distance learning through access to online platforms and other instructional materials from mid-March through the end of the school year. The demands on local school systems to provide almost exclusively online instruction to Maryland’s nearly 1 million students, including the provision of tens of thousands of digital devices, has highlighted the significant and inequitable gaps in student, family, and community access to the broadband services needed to access online instruction. Long before the pandemic, PSSAM advocated for funding and policies at the State and federal levels to enhance the ability of local school systems to utilize and make available educational technology that is essential to our students’ college and career readiness and success. Again, before school closures mandated the shift to digital and distance learning, local boards recognized that virtual and distance learning programs and strategies are effective adjuncts to traditional classroom instruction. PSSAM does not support passage of House Bill 805 because local school systems are already fully authorized to provide appropriate virtual learning opportunities under existing law. PSSAM continues to support state and local efforts to pursue the effective use of virtual learning initiatives and will continue to support programs to optimize the use of technology in improving student instruction. PSSAM recognizes the value and need to continuously improve student access to high quality virtual learning programs, but opposes the approach taken in House Bill 985. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 985 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 960 TITLE: Education - Public Schools - Asian American History Curriculum Requirement DATE: March 1, 2023 POSITION: Oppose 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, opposes House Bill 960. House Bill 906 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 2024-2025 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 during middle school, and once in a history course required to graduate from high school. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of opposing efforts by the General Assembly to codify curriculum standards, assessments, or graduation requirements. Local superintendents strongly believe that the role of curriculum development and implementation belongs solely 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 content standards and curriculum. 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. In the context of educational programming proposed by House Bill 960, 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 is received and review processes are completed in each individual system. However, seeing as though this bill would require all local systems to expend additional funds in curriculum and assessment creation that are not provided under the bill’s current language, this bill serves as an unfunded mandate for all twenty-four local systems. Again, PSSAM’s opposition to this bill does not rest on the merits of instruction pertaining to Asian American history. Rather, it rests on the implications of curricular mandates on local school systems. House Bill 960, alongside similar bills which seek to interject or extract piecemeal segments of the curriculum, only serve to weaken the effectiveness of the overall educational curriculum. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 960 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 316 TITLE: Education - Public High Schools - Financial Literacy Curriculum DATE: March 1, 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, opposes Senate Bill 316. Senate Bill 316 requires the State Board of Education to develop curriculum content for a half-credit course in financial literacy. This bill also requires that each county board of education implement the financial literacy curriculum content developed by the State Board in every public high school. Maryland educational leaders have a longstanding track record of supporting the integration of financial literacy content into already existing core curriculum. While PSSAM supports the concept of providing all students with a strong foundation in financial literacy education prior to graduation, we continue to have concerns regarding the assigning of additional instructional staff and designated classroom space in order to meet the requirements prescribed by the bill’s current language. This burden would substantially increase the already existing teacher retention challenges and budgetary constraints that Maryland’s public schools have faced since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The State Board’s current approach of mandating that financial literacy instruction be emphasized within existing courses significantly alleviates these burdens. In addition, PSSAM would like to highlight the significant ongoing efforts to emphasize financial literacy education in every public school across Maryland. State regulations already require financial literacy education as a requirement in all Maryland public schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. Maryland prepares students to be financially literate by implementing Personal Financial Literacy Education Standards in grades 3-12 in every public school. Further, many school systems have partnered with financial institutions and other organizations to provide ongoing professional development for teachers, as well as create public and private partnerships to fund financial literacy initiatives in local schools. PSSAM champions the integration of financial literacy curriculum into already existing subjects in every public school, and we continue to take concerns from legislators, parents, and the business community very seriously as they raise concerns regarding the quality and implementation of sound financial literacy curriculum. Maryland’s superintendents are committed to working with MSDE and local boards of education in order to provide a well-rounded curriculum that emphasizes the essential education of financial literacy topics such as responsible financial decisions, money management, career income, risk management, wealth preservation, and other essential topics already mandated by COMAR 13A.04.06.01. However, due to the logistical and staffing challenges this bill would create for local systems, as well as our historic track record of opposing all curricular mandates or graduation requirements, PSSAM respectfully opposes Senate Bill 316 and urges an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: SB 829 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Virtual Education - Requirements DATE: March 1, 2023 POSITION: Support with Amendments 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, supports Senate Bill 829 with amendments. 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 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 establishes requirements related to virtual education for public schools, including requirements for (1) virtual schools; (2) teacher preparation programs; (3) addressing and mitigating the effects of learning loss; and (4) expanding computer and Internet security infrastructure for virtual education. The bill also authorizes virtual education days for severe weather conditions and other circumstances as specified. No virtual schools for the elementary band may be approved for operation before December 1, 2025. A virtual school may include classes for prekindergarten or kindergarten students at the discretion of the State Superintendent of Schools. The bill also requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to establish a universal learning management system (LMS) by September 1, 2022, that may be adopted by a local board. A virtual school established prior to the bill’s effective date may continue to operate through the 2024-2025 school year, as specified. The bill includes various reporting requirements for MSDE. This legislation differs from SB 610 and SB 820 in the following ways: Limits total of 10 virtual days per school year. Allows up to 5 school days using only asynchronous instruction. Limits other virtual days to no more than 2.5 hours of asynchronous instruction; No prohibition on contracting with a for-profit entity to operate a virtual school; No prohibition on a virtual school including classes for prekindergarten or kindergarten students; Also continues to allow the Eastern Shore program to continue through the 2024-2025 school year, but does not provide discretionary authority to the state superintendent to revoke before then based on student performance. Instead, this bill mandates that MSDE revoke after the 2024-2025 school year based on low student performance in the previous 2 years; Authorizes virtual education days for not only severe weather conditions but also a natural or civil disaster, or another incident that necessitates school closure. PSSAM is generally supportive of these proposed recommendations but still offers the following priorities for our school systems in crafting new legislation. 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 829, with amendments addressing our concerns described above.