Search Results

BILL: HB 73 TITLE: Public Schools - Water Safety and Swimming Course - Established DATE: February 25, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 73. This bill requires the State Board of Education to develop water safety instructional content by July 1, 2027, and county boards of education to implement it during the 2027-2028 school year in grades K-8. The content must (1) be integrated into the health or physical education curriculum; (2) be age-appropriate for students in elementary, middle, and high school; (3) offered at least once in elementary, middle, and high school; and (4) include opportunities for students with disabilities, if practicable. Local superintendents recognize the importance of water safety for the health and well-being of Maryland’s students. PSSAM’s opposition to this bill is not based on the merits of teaching water safety, but rather opposition to statutorily mandating content and curriculum standards. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of resisting efforts to codify curriculum standards, assessments, or graduation requirements and believes the role of instructional mandates and implementation belongs to local boards of education in conjunction with MSDE. The Maryland General Assembly, in creating the MSDE and local boards of education, has delegated to these entities the responsibility of delivering a high-quality statewide system of public education. The State Board establishes State content frameworks, state assessment standards, and minimum state graduation requirements, while each local board and school system implements locally-developed curriculum to ensure that the state content frameworks are followed, student performance standards are met, and students are prepared to meet graduation requirements. For these reasons, PSSAM   opposes House Bill 73   and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 26 TITLE: Public Schools - Open Enrollment - Policies and Funding DATE: February 25, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 26.  This bill authorizes local boards of education to adopt an open enrollment policy. If adopted the local boards would be required to (1) allow a child from a sending county to be enrolled in a receiving school free of charge; (2) reserve space for students who are enrolled in the receiving school during the previous school year for automatic enrollment in each subsequent school year without application; (3) be published in an easily accessible manner on the local board’s website; and (4) comply with applicable federal and State antidiscrimination laws.  The open enrollment policy authorized under House Bill 26, if adopted, would significantly limit local school boards’ flexibility to manage enrollment, staffing, and resources in response to changing conditions. While participation is optional, the bill prescribes detailed requirements that constrain how districts may design and administer enrollment decisions, effectively limiting local discretion.  Superintendents, with their local boards, must retain discretion over enrollment decisions in order to manage resources, staffing, and capacity based on local conditions. For example, using existing statutory authority, the Howard County Public School System  (HCPSS) allows students to apply for reassignment to schools with available capacity within the county. These enrollment decisions are discretionary, capacity-driven, and subject to ongoing review by the Superintendent, allowing the district to respond to changes in enrollment, staffing levels, and facility constraints. By contrast, House Bill 26 would impose a more prescriptive open enrollment framework. Once a student is accepted under an open enrollment policy, the bill would require the receiving district to prioritize that student for continued enrollment in subsequent years, limiting the district’s ability to reevaluate placements as enrollment patterns shift. This approach replaces locally tailored, flexible decision-making with a rigid structure that reduces superintendent authority and constrains districts’ ability to adapt to changing student populations.  In addition, the policy would introduce fiscal unpredictability for a ‘sending county’ that experiences a large number of students moving to other districts as budgets are mainly driven by enrollment. While revenues “follow students,” many costs remain fixed so shifting enrollment does not always result in an equal staffing or fixed cost adjustment. Current law also requires the State to cover the difference when a student transfers to a higher-cost district. As proposed under the bill a district can choose to participate. However, students moving from “non-participating” districts to “participating districts” creates even more fiscal instability and the State would likely see increases in expenditures to cover the different enrollment shifts between low and high-cost districts. PSSAM has a longstanding policy of resisting legislation that would restrict local authority and limit superintendents’ ability to respond to local needs. We ask the Legislature to support the historical balance in crafting education policy by allowing superintendents, along with their boards of education, to enact locally-appropriate eligibility and enrollment policies.                                                    For these reasons, PSSAM opposes HB 26  and kindly requests an unfavorable  committee report.

BILL: SB 343 TITLE: County Boards of Education – Post College and Career Readiness Pathways – Payment of Costs DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 343. This legislation authorizes a county board of education to develop and establish income eligibility guidelines and procedures for payment of costs for certain post college and career readiness (post-CCR) pathways, and requires a county board to provide access to the post-CCR pathway at no cost to the student or parents if the student's family income is below 400% of the federal poverty level. PSSAM thanks the sponsor for her leadership in putting forth this legislation that largely mirrors one of our policy and legislative recommendations  (rec. 15) put forward last year. PSSAM and its superintendent members strongly support this legislation that would authorize county boards of education to develop income-eligibility guidelines for CCR. Currently the Blueprint requires all students meeting CCR to enroll in a post-CCR pathway at no cost to the student or their families. These pathways include: Competitive entry college prep (IB, Cambridge, or AP). Dual enrollment leading to an associate degree or 60 college credits. Career and technical education (CTE) programs, apprenticeships, or industry certifications. We believe that fully funding all post-CCR pathways for every eligible student may create significant financial strain on state and local budgets, and jeopardize the long-term sustainability of this initiative. Also, creating some guardrails for this generous opportunity may prevent overuse by some students who enroll in multiple pathways without a clear postsecondary or career plan, leading to wasted resources. Directing resources toward students who need them most ensures equitable access without overspending. As we look for ways to make the Blueprint affordable, reigning in these costs should be seriously considered by the Legislature. Providing unlimited access to these resources raises fiscal and academic concerns; their use should be targeted to students for whom they are academically appropriate and beneficial. To ensure the sustainability of this popular and successful initiative, LEAs should have the flexibility to develop and establish income eligibility guidelines and procedures for payment of costs for these post-CCR opportunities.  Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 343 and kindly requests a  favorable report .

BILL: SB 50 TITLE: Education - Interscholastic and Intramural Junior Varsity and Varsity Teams and Sports - Designation (Fairness in Girls' Sports Act) DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, opposes  Senate Bill 50. This bill requires an interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport that is sponsored by a public or nonpublic high school to be expressly designated as one of the following based on biological sex: (1) a boys’, male, or men’s team or sport; (2) a girls’, female, or women’s team or sport; or (3) a coeducational or mixed team or sport. An interscholastic or intramural athletic team or sport designated for girls, females, or women may not include students of the male sex. A governmental entity, a licensing or accrediting organization, or an athletic association or organization may not accept a complaint, investigate, or take any other adverse action against a school for maintaining separate interscholastic or intramural athletic teams or sports for students of the female sex. Students and schools are authorized to bring specified civil actions. This act shall take into effect July 1, 2026. Maryland’s superintendents raise serious concerns about the mandated, statewide approach to participation in interscholastic sports taken by this bill. Instead, PSSAM favors the maintenance of locally controlled systems of interscholastic athletics governed by the guidance of Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA) and regulations adopted by the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE).  Since 1991, interscholastic sports in Maryland have operated in accordance with the “Master Agreement Outlining the Interscholastic Structure for Public Schools in Maryland,” which establishes the responsibilities of MPSSAA, MSDE, and local school systems. Local superintendents believe that this system of regulation and oversight is working well. The MPSSAA Guidance for Participation of Transgender Youth in Interscholastic Athletics states that its purpose is to “designate a set of criteria in which student-athletes are able to compete on a level playing field in a safe, competitive and friendly environment, free of discrimination. At the center of educational programming is the value placed in providing equal opportunity for all students.” The Guidance further provides that “each school system should develop and apply criteria for students to participate in interscholastic athletic teams consistent with their gender identity.”  This guidance includes several principles and criteria for local school systems to use in determining eligibility of transgender students in interscholastic sports. These include attention to preserving the integrity of women's sports, as well as policies that are fair in light of the variation among individuals in strength, size, musculature, and ability. Through these means, the guidance reflects Maryland’s high priority on establishing and maintaining an interscholastic athletic system that assures that sports activities contribute to the entire educational program for all students choosing to participate. Additionally, PSSAM would like to highlight the potential of this legislation to create liability for discriminatory practices under a new statewide system of criteria for student participation in women’s sports based solely on sex assigned at birth. Other state legislatures have established that enforcing the standard of biological sex would likely require subjecting youth to invasive mandates in order to ensure eligibility, which could be considered sex discrimination as defined by the Supreme Court case of Bostock v. Clayton County , in which the Court asserted that anti-transgender discrimination violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.   For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  Senate Bill 50 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 854 TITLE: School Construction – Nonpublic Special Education School Renovation Program – Established DATE: February 17, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, submits this letter of information for HB 854. This legislation establishes the Nonpublic Special Education School Renovation Program in the Interagency Commission on School Construction to provide grant funding to certain nonpublic special education schools for renovations and improvements to classrooms, upgrades to residential cottages on school grounds, health, safety and accessibility upgrades, infrastructure modernization, and certain new construction. At the outset, we want to emphasize and acknowledge the many students served in nonpublic special education placements are public school students. These are children whose needs cannot reasonably be met in traditional public school environments, and local school systems are committed - both legally and morally - to ensuring they receive appropriate services in safe, high-quality settings. However, we urge caution before creating a new State capital grant program for nonpublic facilities. Maryland’s public school systems are currently facing an unprecedented school construction backlog. The Interagency Commission on School Construction has documented significant unmet need across our public school buildings. Systems throughout the State are managing aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, overcrowding, and health and safety upgrades - all in the context of rapidly escalating construction costs. The cost per square foot has risen dramatically in recent years, and there is no clear solution in sight to close the existing gap between need and available State and local funding. Simply put, there is not enough funding today to address the health and safety needs of our own public school buildings. It is also important to consider how nonpublic placements are funded. The tuition rates paid by local school systems for students placed in nonpublic special education schools are designed to cover the operational costs of educating those students. Just as the Foundation formula for public schools is intended to cover the “other operating costs of running a school,” including maintenance and debt service on school construction, the rates paid to nonpublic schools are structured to support their full cost of operations. Those payments should be inclusive of the costs necessary to operate and maintain their facilities. In addition, nonpublic special education schools are private entities. While they provide critical services to public school students placed by local systems, they are private ventures and may also serve students who are not placed by local boards of education. As private organizations, they have access to financing tools available in the private sector, including private debt, philanthropy, and other mechanisms to address capital needs. We fully recognize the importance of safe, appropriate facilities for all students, including those in nonpublic placements. Our concern is not about the students served, but about fiscal sustainability and alignment with Maryland’s broader school construction strategy. Creating a State-funded capital grant program for private facilities raises broad policy questions about equity, precedent, and the prioritization of limited construction dollars. We respectfully ask the Committee to thoughtfully consider these complex issues about whether the State should create a new capital program for nonpublic entities while public school systems struggle to modernize and maintain the facilities that serve the vast majority of Maryland’s students.

BILL: SB 311 TITLE: Education – The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future – Revisions  DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports SB 311 with one amendment .  This legislation makes several changes to the law governing the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, including, repealing a technology report due each year; extending a hold harmless provision for the calculation of compensatory education; repealing a termination date for the use of funds under the Concentration of Poverty Grant Program for the purpose of funding Fine Arts and World Languages and altering the qualifications for an initial teacher certificate. The bill also extends the date by which a teacher must be a National Board Certified teacher before becoming a licensed principal; extends the time during which the State Board of Education and Accountability and Implementation Board may limit the number and types of dual enrollment; alters the definition of “wraparound services” as it applies to community schools to include the offering of certain academic interventions; alters the purpose, composition, and duties of the Career and Technical Education (CTE) Committee; repeals the CTE Skills Standards Advisory Committee; requires State agencies and workforce development and education programs use a certain list of occupations; and generally relates to revisions to the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.  PSSAM appreciates several technical and clarifying improvements in this omnibus bill; however, our testimony is limited to three provisions we strongly support. 1. Extension of the National Board Certification Requirement for Principals We support extending the date by which a teacher must become National Board Certified before serving as a licensed principal. However, as we recommended in 2025  (#7), we firmly believe that administrators should not be included on the Career Ladder. Assistant principals and principals are not teachers under collective bargaining structures, and National Board Certification (NBC) is not an appropriate benchmark for school leadership roles. While we would prefer complete removal of this requirement, extending the timeline allows the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) and MSDE to study the issue more carefully. We have provided a comprehensive white paper  to the AIB and MSDE outlining our concerns with this Blueprint provision. While we strongly support rigorous instructional leadership, these provisions unintentionally restrict leadership capacity and undermine the development of effective school leaders. In addition, after reviewing the Kirwan Commission materials, there is no cited research supporting this requirement. Therefore, if aspects of NBC are deemed valuable for administrators, we believe they should be incorporated into licensure standards through State Board regulation - not embedded in statute.  2. Extension of Dual Enrollment Flexibility  We appreciate the collaboration between MSBE and the AIB in adopting Joint Implementation Policy #1, which has provided essential flexibility for LEAs in implementing post-CCR dual enrollment opportunities. This Policy is only possible due to the statutory authority granted a few years ago; SB 311 proposes to extend this authority. Last year PSSAM requested this legislative action in letters dated July 9  and August 14, 2025 . The CCR standards adopted for the 2025-2026 school year significantly expanded eligibility for dual enrollment. While this was a positive step, it increased fiscal and operational demands on local systems. Extending the statutory authority for the AIB and MSDE to adjust as needed to meet these demands and provide stability will ensure that systems are able to: Budget and staff appropriately, Coordinate with higher education partners,  Ensure equitable expansion, and Communicate clearly with students and families. 3. Extension — and Permanence — of Compensatory Education Hold Harmless We support the AIB’s amendment extending the compensatory education hold harmless provision for two years. However, we believe the most appropriate action is to make the hold harmless permanent until a new statewide poverty measure is adopted. This compensatory education hold harmless is consistent with our November 25, 2025 letter to the Governor requesting his support as school systems face enrollment fluctuations. This particular hold harmless provision is crucial for districts participating in the Community Eligibility Program (CEP). As this committee is aware, the statutory language in 5-222 changed the formula for how districts count poverty, anticipating that a new methodology would have been established by FY ‘27, along with an alternative form created by MSDE. This was to be informed by a study and broad consultation with stakeholders; that work is not complete and a new methodology has yet to be created.  In the absence of a reliable statewide poverty measure, districts face significant uncertainty. CEP calculations alone do not capture a complete picture of poverty, yet compensatory education funding remains heavily dependent on those counts. A refined statewide methodology is crucial to:\ Target resources to the most vulnerable students, Provide confidence for expanded CEP participation, Improve identification of Community Schools, and Strengthen Title I allocation accuracy. And most importantly, ensuring that funding is distributed in a way that achieves true equity under the Blueprint. We encourage continued attention to funding sufficiency, and the development of a comprehensive poverty-counting methodology to ensure that this investment delivers the maximum impact for Maryland’s students.  For these reasons, PSSAM respectfully supports SB 311 with one amendment described above.

BILL: HB 704 TITLE: Community Eligibility Provision Expansion Program – Establishment DATE: February 17, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Appropriations Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four Maryland local school superintendents, supports House Bill 704. This legislation establishes the Community Eligibility Provision Expansion Program in the State Department of Education to provide funding to eligible schools that participate in the federal community eligibility provision of the child nutrition programs; requiring schools that opt out of the Community Eligibility Provision of the Child Nutrition Program report their reasons for not participating; and, requiring the Governor in fiscal year 2028 and succeeding years to include $10,000,000 in the annual budget bill for the Program. Based on our experience during the COVID-19 pandemic - when local school systems successfully delivered millions of meals to students and families under extraordinary circumstances - we are confident that all twenty-four local school systems can implement an ambitious universal meals expansion program effectively and efficiently. Maryland school systems have demonstrated both the operational capacity and commitment to ensure that no child goes hungry during the school day. Unfortunately, funding has not been available to provide this impactful opportunity for all schools. The research on universal free meals is extensive and consistently confirms their positive impact on student achievement, both academically and behaviorally. Students who participate in school meal programs are more likely to consume nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables, and milk, contributing to healthier eating habits and reductions in childhood obesity. Eliminating the transaction of paying for meals also allows students more time to eat and removes stigma or administrative barriers that can discourage participation. Importantly, universal access removes the margin of error in identifying food-insecure students that often exists under traditional application-based systems. Families benefit as well; reducing the cost of providing two meals a day for children eases financial strain, particularly for working families navigating rising living costs. Research consistently demonstrates that a well-fed student is better positioned to succeed – they are more attentive in class, better prepared for assessments, and more fully engaged in the school environment. Participation in free meal programs is associated with fewer absences, improved attendance, reduced tardiness, fewer behavioral incidents, and a more positive overall school climate. While we strongly support the establishment of this program, we respectfully note that the $10 million annual appropriation will not fully meet the statewide need. Moreover, the reporting provisions in the bill will likely confirm what we already know - participation in federal CEP has lagged in Maryland, not because districts are unwilling, but because they must carefully weigh significant fiscal risks. Under the current framework, districts entering or expanding CEP must discontinue the use of traditional federal meal application forms. In the absence of a new, reliable statewide methodology for counting students in poverty - as required under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future but not yet created by the Department - districts face uncertainty. Compensatory Education funding counts remain heavily dependent on poverty measures, and CEP calculations alone do not always capture an accurate or complete picture of need. School systems must therefore balance the benefits of universal meals against potential losses in compensatory education funding tied to incomplete data. Until Maryland adopts a consistent and reliable alternative poverty-counting methodology, participation in new CEP schools or districts will likely remain cautious. For that reason, we believe the long-term success of this legislation is closely tied to the State’s development of a more accurate and equitable method for measuring student poverty. A refined methodology would allow resources to be targeted to students and schools with the greatest need, provide local systems with the confidence to expand CEP participation, and generate more accurate data to support funding decisions. Such an approach would also assist in identifying additional community schools - a major priority under the Blueprint - and could improve the calculation and allocation of federal Title I funds at both the school and district levels. By aligning meal access, poverty measurement, and funding distribution, Maryland would advance equity in a meaningful and data-driven way. PSSAM strongly supports this legislation and the State’s commitment to expanding access to free school meals. We encourage continued attention to funding sufficiency and the development of a comprehensive poverty-counting methodology to ensure that this investment delivers maximum impact for Maryland’s students. Ensuring that students are consistently well-fed is not only a matter of compassion - it is foundational to academic success and educational equity. For these reasons, we respectfully request a favorable report on HB 704.

BILL: HB 755 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Personal Electronic Device Use Policy - Establishment (Phones Away for the School Day Act) DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes House Bill 755. This bill requires each local board of education to develop and implement, by the 2026-2027 school year, a policy to prohibit the use of cellular phones during all the hours of the school day from start to finish. The policy must also require students to store their phones in a secure place during instructional time so that it is not on their person. The policy may not prohibit a student from using a phone for any purpose documented in the student’s individualized education program or Section 504 Plan. Schools must also establish disciplinary measures for violations, excluding suspension or expulsion solely for violation of the policy. HB 755 directs schools to designate one or more telephones in the school to be used by students to contact a student’s parent or legal guardian or other responsible adult during school day hours if necessary. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Maryland superintendents appreciate the good intentions of this bill; however, PSSAM steadfastly opposes any legislation that imposes statewide mandates on local school systems or local boards of education, especially on policies that have previously been deliberated at the local level with all affected stakeholders, such as the case regarding student uses of cell phones.  In the past several years, superintendents, school boards and advisory groups in every Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have taken proactive action to establish, update, or study district-wide cell phone policies. These efforts include establishing new policies specific to the use of cell phones, updating board policies, revising the district’s code of conduct or student handbook regarding the use of technology to include cell phones or “smart” technology, and/or introducing pilot programs. Much of the local work in establishing these policies was aided through surveys to parents, teachers, and students, as well as extensive public meetings.  In addition, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) convened a broad workgroup of stakeholders in 2025, including several superintendents, to study this issue. We strongly supported this workgroup and its on-the-ground membership. The workgroup anchored its work in national research and partnered with Phones in Focus who have initiated a national study based on educator input regarding best practices around the county. More importantly, the workgroup used the experiences of the local school districts who have already delved deep in their communities to determine the appropriate use of cell phones and “smart technology” in classrooms and schools.  PSSAM remains committed to focusing on empowering local decision-making to ensure education policies that are relevant, flexible, and reflective of the unique needs of each community. Again, we appreciate the bill’s good intentions, but ask the Legislature to allow the education experts at the state and local level to enact and enforce the most effective public policies.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 755 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: HB 740 TITLE: Public Schools - School-Based Mental Health Services Full-Time Therapist DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means and Health Committees CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes  HB 740.   This bill requires that each public school employ a full-time therapist during instruction hours who is licensed by The State Board Of Professional Counselors And Therapists. It directs each county board of education in tandem with the county health department to provide (1) adequate school health services; (2) instruction in health education, including the importance of physical activity in maintaining good health; and (3) a healthful school environment. HB 740 also directs the county Department and Maryland Department of Health to jointly, (1) develop public standards and guidelines for school health programs; (2) offer assistance to the county boards and county health departments in their implementation. HB 740 is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. PSSAM strongly values student mental health and well-being. At the same time superintendents must balance education priorities within fiscal reality. Requiring a full-time therapist in each of Maryland’s over 1,400 public schools would impose substantial costs on local education agencies (LEAs). Because the bill does not identify a new or dedicated funding source, HB 740 creates an unfunded mandate for local school systems who would be forced to redirect existing funds, reducing resources for other essential educational mandates and priorities.  It is important to note that, over the past five years, Maryland has made meaningful progress in expanding student access to mental health services through existing initiatives. In 2022, the Maryland State Department of Education launched the Maryland School Mental Health Response Program (MD-SMHRP), which achieved its year two objective to train LEA staff in best practices to advance comprehensive school mental health systems and address student mental health needs. In addition, in 2025, the Maryland Department of Health expanded access to behavioral health services by allowing local education agencies to offer certain Medicaid-covered services to eligible students. As a result, approximately 650,000 children across the state now have access to diagnostic evaluations, individual, family, and group therapy services provided by licensed school psychologists and other qualified professionals. Further, as part of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, the General Assembly established the Maryland Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports, a 24-member body tasked with developing best practices for delivering student behavioral health, wraparound, and community-based services. During the 2024–2025  academic year alone, 136,945 students received behavioral health services through these coordinated efforts. Consistent with this intent, Maryland’s community schools model already emphasizes coordinated, wraparound services that connect students and families to mental health, health care, and social supports through partnerships with local agencies.  Given the above highlights we remain confident that Maryland’s current policies and investments are effectively expanding access to student mental health supports without imposing additional unfunded mandates on local school systems.  For these reasons, PSSAM respectfully opposes  HB 740 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.  04.

BILL: HB 525 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Electronic Communication Device Use Policy - Establishment (Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act) DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes House Bill 525.  This bill requires each local board of education to develop and implement, by the 2027-2028 school year, a policy to prohibit the use of cellular phones by students during the academic school day, which is defined as any time during the school day, including a student’s lunch, recess, or passing period. The policy must also require students to store their phones in a secure place during instructional time and prohibit a student from using social media applications and websites as determined by the local school board during school hours. The policy may not prohibit a student from using a phone (1) for any purpose documented in the student’s individualized education program or Section 504 Plan; (2) to monitor or address a student’s documented health issue; (3) during an emergency event, if expressly authorized by an administrator; (4) when directed by an education or administrator for educational purposes; (5) to access language translation tools when a school-issued device is not available; or (6) for the purpose of meeting caregiving responsibilities, as approved by the principal. The policy must also establish administrator-enforced tiered disciplinary measures for violations, excluding suspension or expulsion solely for violating the policy. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Maryland superintendents appreciate the good intentions of this bill; however, PSSAM steadfastly opposes any legislation that imposes statewide mandates on local school systems or local boards of education, especially on policies that have previously been deliberated at the local level with all affected stakeholders, such as the case regarding student uses of cell phones.  In the past several years, superintendents, school boards and advisory groups in every Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have taken proactive action to establish, update, or study district-wide cell phone policies. These efforts include establishing new policies specific to the use of cell phones, updating board policies, revising the district’s code of conduct or student handbook regarding the use of technology to include cell phones or “smart” technology, and/or introducing pilot programs. Much of the local work in establishing these policies was aided through surveys to parents, teachers, and students, as well as extensive public meetings.  In addition, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) convened a broad workgroup of stakeholders in 2025, including several superintendents, to study this issue. We strongly supported this workgroup and its on-the-ground membership. The workgroup anchored its work in national research and partnered with Phones in Focus who have initiated a national study based on educator input regarding best practices around the county. More importantly, the workgroup used the experiences of the local school districts who have already delved deep in their communities to determine the appropriate use of cell phones and “smart technology” in classrooms and schools.  PSSAM remains committed to focusing on empowering local decision-making to ensure education policies that are relevant, flexible, and reflective of the unique needs of each community. Again, we appreciate the bill’s good intentions, but ask the Legislature to allow the education experts at the state and local level to enact and enforce the most effective public policies.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 525 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: HB 655 TITLE: Education - Student Behavior - Parent and Guardian Notice and Required Counseling (Parent and Guardian Accountability Act) DATE: February 18, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 655. This bill establishes that it is unlawful for a parent or guardian of a student in a public school to fail to seek and participate in counseling with the parent’s or guardian’s child after receiving a certain notice of violent and disruptive behavior. A parent or guardian convicted under this section may be ordered by the court to perform community service as determined by the court. The bill also requires a public school principal to provide a written notice to the parent or guardian of a student who engages in a certain number of violent and disruptive behaviors or school-related activities during the school year.  Local superintendents strongly support high levels of parental engagement in students’ education, and in response, prioritize the establishment of policies and procedures concerning student discipline. However, it is very unlikely that the approach proposed in this legislation will produce positive outcomes or increased parental engagement.  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; these concepts are not reflected in this legislation. The law defines “restorative approaches” as a relationship-focused student discipline model that (1) Is preventative and proactive; (2) Emphasizes building strong relationships and setting clear behavioral expectations that contribute to the school community well-being; (3) In response to behavior that violates clear behavioral expectations, focuses on accountability for any harm done by the problem behavior; and, (4) 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 an 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 the threat of criminal penalties.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 655 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 233 TITLE: Education - Public School Construction - Alterations DATE: February 17, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports House Bill 233 with amendments .  This bill proposes several changes to the public school construction program including, clarifying the type of proposals and plans that require the approval of the State Superintendent of Schools; requiring a county board of education to request and receive approval from the State Superintendent before the county board may proceed with certain actions; authorizing the  Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to adopt requirements for eligibility for certain State funding; modifying due dates of Commission reports; repealing the requirement for the Commission to approve a certain percentage of the preliminary school construction allocation by a certain date; requiring the Commission to establish an appeal process; clarifying the circumstances when the State may not require or shall require counties to reimburse the State for debt service; altering the requirement for certain assessments and inspections the Commission is required to conduct; and generally relating to public school construction. PSSAM appreciates several provisions in the bill that clarify or streamline existing statute, but we have identified a number of concerns for LEAs and county partners.  The proposed language in 4-115  appears to narrow the types of land acquisition and projects requiring approval from the State Superintendent. In addition, it appears that minor projects (e.g., paint or patch work) would be exempt unless they exceed a dollar threshold and involve substantive structural changes. We are fully supportive of this provision.   Below are areas of concern that we have shared with the IAC, and where appropriate, hope to clarify or resolve these concerns through amendments.  We are supportive of the changes in §2-303 (Change Order Review Threshold) but propose an amendment to increase the threshold to $500,000 and limit review to educational spaces.  The increase (2-303) in the threshold for State review of change orders is a positive step, particularly given that the State does not participate in funding for change orders. The Department’s (MSDE) proposed amount appropriately narrows State review only to major change orders, but is still very low and will trigger an excessive amount of review that will create unnecessary delays.  However, we feel a more appropriate threshold would be $500,000 or for the Department to adopt a process similar to the IAC where all change orders are examined at the time of project close-out. Again, since the State (through the IAC or MSDE) does not participate in funding these change orders, this process more appropriately reflects the Department’s oversight.  Further, we request an amendment to this section, specifically line 19 on page 2, to STUDENT-OCCUPIED SPACES THAT DIRECTLY RELATE TO THE DELIVERY OF EDUCATION in a school building.   Again, this more appropriately reflects the Department’s role in oversight of educational spaces, not all buildings and ancillary spaces that are not in direct use for students.  §5-303(d)(2)(xv) – Project Eligibility Authority: The proposed language appears to grant the IAC substantially greater authority to define eligibility criteria for State funding through regulation rather than statute. Shifting eligibility standards to regulations may provide less opportunity for LEAs and counties to respond to changes.  After speaking with the IAC, it is our understanding that this language is meant to provide more transparency by explaining the eligibility requirements, rather than creating new requirements and will be working on clarifying language.   §5-304 – Timing: Eliminating the requirement for 75% approval by December 31 delays meaningful State CIP guidance until March (90% approval). This timing is very late for many LEAs and county governments to plan effectively for the upcoming fiscal year. The December 75% approval has been a critical planning tool for aligning capital programs and local budget development. In addition, many non-charter counties, and Baltimore City, must introduce bond resolutions through their state legislative delegations for consideration during the annual legislative session as part of their capital debt issuance structure. Therefore, this proposed timing further complicates important steps that are mandated in local and state laws regarding financing local debt.   In our discussions with the IAC they have explained that in their opinion, the current process does not provide for the most reliable decision making process. In its place, they are considering a more robust monthly project request status update that will provide more productive dialogue between the LEAs and the IAC. They believe the existing deadline of December 31st does not provide enough time for important information to be developed about proposed projects. Further, they believe making these allocations before the state’s capital budget is introduced provides less reliability.  We appreciate the IAC’s commitment to a more reliable and accurate process for policymakers and the public. However, since the “75% allocation date” is a longstanding historical practice, we are hopeful that the IAC will share their newly proposed timeline, as well as propose legislative language that would that would ensure meaningful input from the LEAs and the counties before upending a decades-long established process.   §5-310 – Expanded Reporting Requirements: The proposed reporting requirements appear to significantly increase the burden on LEAs by requiring annual reporting of all changes to every building in an LEAs’ portfolio. Typically this level of reporting is done the year in which the quadrennial assessment is undertaken by the IAC. Switching to annual reporting on all schools would be a substantial increase in workload for local school systems.  We have discussed these concerns with the IAC and they understand our interpretation and will provide amendment language to make it clear that this requirements in this section are required “at least once every four years.”   §5-314 – Educational Specifications and Schematic Design: This section appears to expand requirements for educational specifications and schematic design for HVAC replacement or modification projects exceeding $1 million. This review and approval are typically reserved for projects that change educational programs and exceed $1 million. Applying this same level of review to systemic HVAC projects would increase consultant design fees and overall project costs without clear educational benefit. In addition, our facilities directors are concerned that the $1 million threshold is too low for many common upgrades on these systems. If the intent is to limit review to only substantial or major projects, the threshold needs to be significantly increased.  According to the IAC, this section was meant to strengthen the State’s oversight of heating, ventilation, or air conditioning systems earlier in the project’s lifecycle. In addition, the $1 million threshold was to codify existing rules by the Department of General Services (DGS). We have discussed clarifying language for both of these issues that were inadvertently drafted together, confusing the intent. Further, the IAC is open to increasing the threshold review of HVAC systems to trigger more substantial project reviews.  As currently written, HB 233 makes significant changes to Maryland’s school construction approval and funding framework. These changes could reduce project planning and funding predictability, while increasing costs and administrative burden at the local level. However, we are encouraged by our discussions with the IAC and look forward to continuing our work to amend the bill in a way that ensures the intent of the IAC, and preserves predictability in the process for LEAs.  We support the many improvements in the legislation, but need to protect LEAs and counties from unintended increased costs and human capital in fulfilling our obligation to provide the safest facilities possible for our students, staff and communities.  For these reasons, PSSAM supports HB 233   with the amendment s described above.