Search Results

BILL: SB 199 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Comprehensive Health Education Framework - Established DATE: February 8, 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 199. Senate Bill 199 requires that local school systems create age-appropriate health curriculum based on the comprehensive health education framework created through a partnership by the Maryland State Department of Education and the Maryland Department of Health. This bill also requires local school systems to establish methods by which parents would be able to opt out of topics contained within the health curriculum. PSSAM champions the localized approach to implementation of health curriculum consistent with State guidelines. However, PSSAM shares concerns with local school boards and other advocacy organizations regarding legislative efforts to codify standardized curriculum, assessments, or standards. PSSAM maintains our longstanding position regarding curricular mandates, which highlights the critical nature of preserving local authority and oversight concerning matters such as curriculum and assessments. 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. Again, local superintendents support robust and comprehensive instruction in health education, and believe that this objective is best accomplished by preserving local flexibility in implementing health curriculum. 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. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 199 and kindly requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 294 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Due Process Proceedings for Children With Disabilities - Burden of Proof DATE: February 8, 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 local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 294. House Bill 294 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 House Bill 294 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 238 TITLE: Public High Schools - Financial Literacy - Curriculum, Graduation Requirement, and Professional Development DATE: February 8, 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 SB 238. Senate Bill 238 requires the State Board of Education, in conjunction with the Maryland Council on Economic Education, to develop curriculum content for a half-credit course in financial literacy. Additionally, this bill requires that each county board of education implement the financial literacy curriculum content developed by the State Board in every public high school. Further, this bill expands upon similar legislation introduced this session by mandating professional development requirements in financial literacy for all instructors, as well as requiring financial literacy curriculum to be completed by all public school students as a requisite to graduation. 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 238 and urges an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 265 TITLE: Public Schools - Standardized Behavioral Health Questionnaire for Students - Development and Implementation DATE: February 8, 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 local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 265. House Bill 265 requires that the Maryland Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports develop, in consultation with certain stakeholders, guidelines for developing a standardized behavioral health questionnaire to identify students with need for behavioral health services. This bill also requires each behavioral health service coordinator to develop and implement a standardized behavioral health questionnaire based on the guidelines developed by the Consortium, as well as mandates distribution of the questionnaire to the parent or guardian in certain circumstances. PSSAM has concerns about the implementation of this bill, specifically its effect on the ongoing work being accomplished by The Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports (CCCS). CCCS has several statutory purposes and responsibilities as outlined in the Blueprint legislation, and is composed of specific appointees with expertise in the relevant fields. One of the statutory purposes of CCCS is to provide expertise in developing best practices in the delivery of behavioral health and wraparound services. At present time, the Consortium has developed a Best Practices subcommittee, co-chaired by Dr. Derek Simmons, current superintendent of Caroline County Public Schools, and Dr. John Campo, chair of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. This committee also includes the co-directors of the National Center for School Mental Health. We are concerned that this bill circumvents the statutory authority and the role of the Consortium. Additionally, while the intent of this legislation is to identify student populations with mental health needs, the importance of implementing and maintaining systemic processes to serve these populations identified by the questionnaire cannot be understated. Currently, there is a critical shortage of child and adolescent clinicians both in the school setting and in communities. Without a structure in place to support the growth and development of community behavioral health, as well as school-based behavioral health, the bill’s prescriptive language will contribute to the already expansive waitlists that disservice many of our young people presently in need of services. The Consortium is currently working to finalize their framework, as well as other components to begin the RFP process to support the expansion of community and school-based services. Maryland’s superintendents ask that you let the work of the Consortium, as designed, move forward without interference by this bill. The Consortium as a whole, in conjunction with representative content area experts, functions to be inclusive of a system to improve behavioral health outcomes for all of our students. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 265 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 149 TITLE: Education - Curriculum - Unit of Instruction on September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks DATE: February 8, 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 149. Senate Bill 149 requires public schools (as well as nonpublic schools that participate in State-funded education programs) to include a unit of instruction on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that is consistent with guidelines developed by the Maryland State Board of Education (MSDE), beginning in the 2024-2025 school year. Additionally, the bill encourages nonpublic schools that do not participate in State-funded education programs to include in the curriculum a unit of instruction on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. PSSAM has a longstanding track record 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 the content standards and unit of instruction proposed by Senate Bill 149, PSSAM highlights the current Maryland State Standards for Social Studies in Grade 10, which includes the standard: “Evaluate United States policies and actions in response to international terrorism, such as the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut (1983), Embassy bombings (2000), the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole (2000), and September 11, 2001.” Furthermore, many local school systems choose to provide supplemental resources curated for elementary and secondary school students to assist our schools in paying tribute on this day, and more explicit lessons are often implemented into local curriculum standards for Grade 9 U.S. History and Grade 11 World History. Again, PSSAM emphasizes that our opposition to this bill does not rest on the merits of instruction pertaining to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, but rather the implications of curricular mandates on local school systems. Senate Bill 149, as well as similar bills which seek to interject or extract piecemeal segments of the curriculum, only serve to weaken the effectiveness of the educational curriculum. For these reasons, PSSAM respectfully opposes Senate Bill 149 and requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: HB 226 TITLE: Criminal Law - Person in a Position of Authority - Sexual Offenses With a Minor DATE: February 7, 2023 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: Judiciary CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, supports House Bill 226. Since the passage of the State’s initial “person in a position of authority” legislation in 2004, which prohibits certain persons employed in public or private schools from engaging in a sexual act with a minor enrolled at the school that employs the perpetrator, PSSAM continues to strongly support the criminalization of sexual activity between minor students and educators not prohibited under other provisions of state law. In the absence of the “person in position of authority” law, a school employee may be charged with child abuse if the conduct occurs on school property or while the student is engaged in school activities. However, sexual conduct occurring outside this custodial relationship would not constitute a charge of child abuse and no other criminal charge may be available. Per the legislation passed in 2004, violators can be found guilty of the misdemeanor of fourth degree sexual offense and subject to maximum penalties of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for one year. Maryland statute defines “person in a position of authority” as a person who is employed by or works as a volunteer in a public or private school and, because of the person’s position or occupation, exercises supervision and influence over a minor who attends the school. The law further clarifies that this definition includes a principal, vice principal, teacher, or school counselor. School systems are more suited to administer internal discipline and discharge educators engaging in sexual conduct with students; however, outside of public schools, communities are not fully protected from perpetrators without the assurance that criminal penalties are available to prosecutors. Additionally, criminal penalties better ensure that a record of the employee’s conduct will be available to future prospective employers, thereby more effectively protecting the safety and welfare of all students. The same rationale that garnered support for the “person in position of authority” law described above should support the update and expansion of this approach to criminalizing sexual activities between adults and the youth they supervise in other service sectors. Just like school employees, these adults are entrusted to supervise youth, and they should be held criminally responsible for engaging in sexual conduct with the minors in their care. For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 226 and requests a favorable committee report.

BILL: HB 383 TITLE: Interagency Commission on School Construction – Systemic Renovation Projects – Eligibility DATE: February 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 Maryland local school superintendents, supports House Bill 383. House Bill 383 would require the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to consider the approval of systemic projects for funding under the Built to Learn Act, assuming the projects meet the minimum funding threshold of $100,000. This base funding threshold would ensure the bill’s alignment with the language of the Administrative Procedures Guide published by the Interagency Commission on School Construction. In 2021, the passage of the Built to Learn Act offered local school systems an additional funding option for school construction through a Bond initiative from the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA). However, the Built to Learn Act does not define project types to be funded, only Public School Facility Projects. After guidance was released in September 2021 by the IAC and MSA that provided additional guidance regarding minimum funding thresholds not found in the Act’s codified language, there was wide-spread confusion for local school systems regarding what minimum funding threshold was required in order systemic projects to be considered. House Bill 383 remedies the existing confusion and clearly defines that a systemic project, regardless of total project cost, would be considered for funding under the Built to Learn Act. PSSAM supports the equitable goal of House Bill 383, which aims to ensure that both the traditional Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the new Built to Learn Act program administered by the Maryland Stadium Authority are available to local school systems as robust funding sources for new school construction, major renovations, and the other systemic projects. Systemic projects can include repair or replacement of structures such as roofs, walls, floors, and ceilings. Additionally, projects can aim to alter or replace plumbing and mechanical systems such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, water supply, electrical, sprinklers, fire detection systems, and elevators. Local superintendents appreciate the State’s investments in the annual capital budget and targeted investments to support school safety projects, HVAC and lead remediation projects, energy efficiency projects, and designated funding for school systems with significant enrollment growth. Recent State initiatives, such as the commitment to fund twenty-first century school facilities in the Baltimore City Public School System and net-zero schools, demonstrate the State’s commitment to investing in high quality school facilities and learning environments for all students. While the Built to Learn Act targets the bulk of its revenue stream to the largest seven school systems in the State, a substantial amount is also available to the other seventeen school systems. PSSAM champions this bill’s equitable goal in providing Built to Learn funding for both large and small systemic projects, and we are confident that all twenty-four school systems would benefit from the passage of House Bill 383. In this context, PSSAM firmly believes that all sources of school facilities funding should be increased and administered in support of locally prioritized construction, renovation, and systemic projects in each of Maryland’s 24 local school systems. For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 383 and kindly requests a favorable committee report.

BILL: SB 201 TITLE: Maryland Medical Assistance and Children's Health Insurance Programs - School-Based Behavioral Health Services - Reimbursement DATE: February 7, 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 local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 201 with amendments. This bill requires the Maryland Department of Health to apply to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for a State Plan amendment that authorizes the State to seek reimbursement for medically necessary school-based behavioral health provided to all individuals enrolled in the program, or the Maryland Children's Health Program, without regard to whether the services are provided under an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or Individualized Family Service Plan. The bill specifies that certain accredited mental health providers working in a school-based setting within their scope of practice may seek the maximum reimbursement for services under federal law. PSSAM applauds the sponsor’s initiative in sponsoring this legislation. For years, the Maryland Department of Health (MDH) has been asked by stakeholders to seek this State amendment without success. We strongly support this legislation and ask the committee to consider two amendments; (1) extend the same request to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare for somatic health services, which would create a singular process for both treatment needs; and, (2) be less prescriptive in the bill and allow the Department to work with stakeholders before making the final request to the Centers. Unfortunately, adults and students alike are suffering from symptoms closely associated with the lack of mental and behavioral health treatment. Many of these cases were either spurred by or worsened due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the return to school, teachers and administrators are witnessing higher than ever levels of depression and anxiety. In school, this trauma manifests itself within students by cases of classroom disruption, retreat from academic work, and absenteeism. All local school systems in Maryland used part of their federal Covid funds to bring additional mental health support to students, including in-person appointments and telehealth when students could not be in school. As the federal money slows to a halt in 2024, we pivot to the question of sustainability of these efforts, especially in regards to how to afford the continued staffing of these support programs. The Blueprint will provide $125 million to somatic and behavioral health supports, including payments to community providers, but Medicaid is a natural and appropriate option to keep these supportive systems in place. In fact, sixteen states have already implemented Medicaid reimbursement for these services, with another five in the process of requesting the needed amendment. These sixteen states have expanded their programs to cover student populations beyond those with IEPs, similar to the allowances provided by this bill. Some state legislatures have compelled this practice via legislation, while others have gone through the administrative procedural process with their state health departments. This bill gives the Maryland Department of Health the support they need to seek these Medicaid reimbursements. The federal government laid the foundation to support these efforts in 2014 through the reversion of the “free care rule.” This allowed schools to seek some health services, including mental health counselors, for all students enrolled in Medicaid, not just those with IEPs. According to estimates by Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, in 2019 about 36% of school-aged children were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); it is likely that that number is higher today due to the enrollment of more than 50% of all children in the US who were included in Medicaid or CHIP as of January 2022. In Maryland, we have witnessed this increase in the enrollment of our Compensatory Aid student population, which saw an increase of $390 million for FY ‘24. This increase was a result of direct certification of students using Medicaid data, whereas past protocol was to collect family forms only. . The federal government’s reception to these efforts appear to be favorable based on a fact sheet provided with President Biden’s 2022 State of the Union address. The document discussed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) efforts to “make it easier for school-based mental health professionals to seek reimbursement from Medicaid.” Additionally, in early March of last year, President Biden announced that he had asked the U.S. Education Department to work with HHS in developing guidance that can help schools offer more mental health support. “And this is going to include enabling schools to use Medicaid funds to deliver those important services.” The Administration’s FY ‘23 budget also included up to $1 billion for more school-based mental health professionals. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 201 and requests a favorable with amendments report.

BILL: SB 120 TITLE: Public Schools - Anaphylactic Food Allergies - Guidelines DATE: February 2, 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 120. Senate Bill 120 requires each county board of education to adopt, implement, and publish certain guidelines in accordance with the Maryland State School Health Service Guidelines to reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common areas. Further, it requires that each county board publish guidelines on its website, and that each public school develop a system to disclose the food to be served each school day and the major allergens contained in the food in advance of the school day. The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland, PSSAM, respectfully opposes House Bill 154. Under current law and regulations, public schools provide nutritional information on food that is served and provide peanut free tables in each school. Also, children with known allergens are trained to work with school health personnel if they have an allergic episode. One of the more troubling aspects of this bill is the requirement that schools ensure that students with allergies are fully able to participate in field trips and after school activities. This is certainly something school administrators and health staff strive for with families and students with known allergies, but should not be mandated under state law. Further, the bill requires that school personnel monitor private food providers to ensure they are complying with this legislation. This is an overly burdensome mandate that would be very difficult to comply with, especially with the number of outside organizations that use our schools. Lastly, the requirement to provide epi-pens in the cafeteria, in addition to the health suites, is inappropriate and has practical difficulties. This medicine is most appropriately handled by school health personnel and should not be an obligation of cafeteria staff. Teachers, school administrators, and all school staff are currently operating in an extremely stressful Covid environment, taxed beyond their normal duties; therefore, we cannot endorse any additional mandates for our school personnel at this time. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 120 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 69 TITLE: Education - Student Behavior - Parent and Guardian Notice and Required Counseling (Parent and Guardian Accountability Act) DATE: February 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 Maryland local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 69. HB 69 would establish parental notification requirements for school administration in response to multiple violent and disruptive incidents by a student. This bill also establishes criminal penalties for parents who fail to seek either school-based or private counseling as a result of their child’s behavior. Local superintendents strongly support high levels of parental engagement in childrens’ education, and in response, highly prioritize the establishment of policies and procedures concerning student discipline. However, the positive outcomes resulting in parental engagement are not met by the approach proposed in this legislation. State law reflects the Legislature’s long standing recognition that principals and superintendents have broad discretion to make student discipline decisions “as warranted” (Section 7-305 of the Education Article). State regulations mirror this deference to local decision making, as well as place a clear emphasis on maintaining a safe learning environment for all students. Local school systems take very seriously the need for strict and comprehensive student discipline and school safety policies that focus on controlling and/or preventing bullying, verbal threats, student fights, and numerous other actions that can disrupt effective classroom environments. In line with State regulations and local decision making, PSSAM strongly supports the implementation of restorative approaches to discipline -- approaches that were mandated by the legislature in 2019 for all Maryland public school systems, but that are not apparent in this legislation. The law defines “restorative approaches” as a relationship-focused student discipline model that: is preventative and proactive emphasizes building strong relationships and setting clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the school community well-being in response to behavior that violates clear behavioral expectations, focuses on accountability for any harm done by the problem behavior; and addresses ways to repair the relationships affected by the problem behavior with the voluntary participation of an individual who was harmed. While this legislation aims to provide a response and accountability measure for student discipline, it fails to meet other outlined objectives that are essential parts of a restorative approach. Proactive practices that are implemented following appropriate professional development and training of all teachers, board members, superintendents, students, parents, and the larger community can make significant improvements in school climate and learning conditions. In conjunction with local discretion, proactive and restorative student discipline approaches allow positive parental and student engagement in the discipline process without threat of criminal penalties. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 69 and requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 85 TITLE: Education - Collective Bargaining - Certificated Employees - Class Size DATE: February 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 Maryland local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 85. House Bill 85 aims to add the complex and costly topic of class size to the permissible topics that may be included in collective bargaining agreements. The agreements are negotiated annually through a highly regulated process and with an established dispute resolution process. Adding class size to the permissible negotiating topics would introduce an unanticipated complicating factor in the implementation of the Blueprint for Maryland’s future. The Blueprint is based on equity and adequacy; this legislation could result in 24 different agreements could actually create regarding nor the current process for resolving teachers’ contract disputes are aligned with adding class size to the types of matters w The quasi-judicial body created by the legislature to resolve collective bargaining disputes would be ill-equipped to resolve disputes on the complex topic of class size. Because none of the current bargaining agreements contain provisions on class size, the body responsible for hearing and deciding on cases in dispute, the Public School Labor Relations Board (PSLRB), would have no experience in this area. Foremost among the challenges would be the timing of decision-making relative to the end of one fiscal year, and contract term, and the impending July 1 day for the beginning of the new year. The annual negotiations cycle is already contentious. Adding class size to the scope of bargaining would only make an already complex and time-sensitive process more likely to bog down in irreconcilable disputes. It is reasonably foreseeable that the PSLRB would be unable to make final decisions in a timely manner on contract disputes on the topic of class size. Class size disputes will, unavoidably, involve school facilities issues not contemplated when bargaining laws and procedures were adopted. This is because class size is inherently a question of physical space. MABE opposes class size a topic of bargaining because reducing class size is so closely tied to the planning, timing and funding of school construction projects. As desirable as smaller class sizes may be to both the school system and teachers, state and local investments in expanding school facilities to provide more space are completely outside the control of the parties negotiating at the bargaining table. For these reasons, PSSAM respectfully opposes House Bill 85 and urges an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 21 TITLE: Criminal Law - Person in a Position of Authority - Sexual Offenses With a Minor DATE: February 1, 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 Maryland local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 21. Since the passage of the State’s initial “person in a position of authority” legislation in 2004, which prohibits certain persons employed in public or private schools from engaging in a sexual act with a minor enrolled at the school that employs the perpetrator, PSSAM continues to strongly support the criminalization of sexual activity between minor students and educators not prohibited under other provisions of state law. In the absence of the “person in position of authority” law, a school employee may be charged with child abuse if the conduct occurs on school property or while the student is engaged in school activities. However, sexual conduct occurring outside this custodial relationship would not constitute a charge of child abuse and no other criminal charge may be available. Per the legislation passed in 2004, violators can be found guilty of the misdemeanor of fourth degree sexual offense and subject to maximum penalties of a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for one year. Maryland statute defines “person in a position of authority” as a person who is employed by or works as a volunteer in a public or private school and, because of the person’s position or occupation, exercises supervision and influence over a minor who attends the school. The law further clarifies that this definition includes a principal, vice principal, teacher, or school counselor. School systems are more suited to administer internal discipline and discharge educators engaging in sexual conduct with students; however, outside of public schools, communities are not fully protected from perpetrators without the assurance that criminal penalties are available to prosecutors. Criminal penalties also better ensure that a record of the employee’s conduct will be available to future prospective employers, thereby more effectively protecting the safety and welfare of all students. The same rationale that garnered support for the “person in position of authority” law described above should support the updating and expansion of this approach to criminalizing sexual activities between adults and the youth they supervise in other service sectors. Just as school employees, these adults that are entrusted to supervise youth should be held criminally responsible for engaging in sexual conduct with the minors in their care. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 21 and requests a favorable report.