Search Results

BILL: HB 961 TITLE: Public Schools and Youth Sports Programs – Concussion Protocol – Alterations DATE: March 04, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information 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, provides this letter of information regarding House Bill 961. This legislation requires the State Department of Education to include athletic officials in policies and programs to provide awareness on concussion protocol for public school and youth sports programs; establishes that certain individuals may remove a student from play and prevent a student from returning to play under certain circumstances; and authorizes a person to bring an action for declaratory relief to enforce certain provisions of law. Local superintendents place the highest priority on protecting our students - on and off the field. We fully recognize the seriousness of concussions and traumatic brain injuries and the critical importance of safeguarding student-athletes in interscholastic sports. For background, since 1991, interscholastic athletics in Maryland have operated under the Master Agreement Outlining the Interscholastic Structure for Public Schools in Maryland, which defines the roles and responsibilities of the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA), the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), and local school systems. Superintendents believe this long-standing framework of oversight and collaboration has functioned effectively to protect student safety. MPSSAA’s concussion management policies are developed in consultation with its Medical Advisory Committee and informed by the Brain Injury Task Force. These policies establish clear, medically grounded protocols that reflect current research and best practices. A key strength of this structure is its ability to respond quickly to evolving medical guidance and implement changes efficiently in the field. We are concerned that the proposed legislation could unintentionally disrupt this evidence-based relationship and Maryland’s well-established standard of care. The bill designates officials as an additional party responsible for removing student-athletes for suspected concussion. We are concerned about this approach for several reasons: Officials are independent contractors, not local school system employees, and are not typically trained medical personnel. Current MPSSAA protocols already require that trained individuals be present at athletic events to assess suspected concussions, document findings in writing, and initiate parent or guardian notification. Documentation is then shared with a licensed health care provider or emergency department for further evaluation. For officials, expanding their removal authority could increase their liability exposure if a student is not removed but should have been; independent contractors are not covered by LEA’s liability coverage in these situations.  Introducing officials as a removal authority could create ambiguity regarding who holds primary medical decision-making responsibility, particularly when other personnel are present who are responsible for making medical decisions during gameplan. We share MPSSAA’s concern regarding its capacity to provide the required additional training to officials statewide. Ensuring consistent, medically appropriate training across a large contractor workforce presents logistical and operational challenges. We believe the well-established existing training for coaches and other school personnel is the most appropriate protocol.  The bill could also create unintended situations in which a student-athlete is removed based on subjective judgment rather than medical evaluation. While the likelihood of misuse is small, the framework could limit MPSSAA’s or a local school system’s ability to address situations where removal decisions are driven by competitive considerations rather than established concussion protocols. Maryland’s current concussion management system is built on collaboration between educational leaders and medical experts and has evolved over decades to reflect best practices in student safety. PSSAM appreciates the committee’s focus on protecting student-athletes and respectfully offers these concerns to ensure that any statutory changes strengthen - rather than inadvertently complicate -  Maryland’s well-established concussion management framework. PSSAM is pleased to provide this letter of information regarding House Bill 961 and urges the committee’s thoughtful consideration of the concerns presented above.on, and careful refinement before enacting permanent changes of this magnitude.

BILL: HB 1043 TITLE: Homeschool Students in Maryland - Right to Play DATE: March 04, 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 local school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 1043. This bill authorizes a public high school to allow a student participating in a certain home instruction program to participate in athletic activities including interscholastic athletics in which a student may participate outside of regular school hours and for which a student does not earn academic credit. It also requires a public high school to give placement priority to a student enrolled in a certain high school over a student who is not enrolled in the school if there are a limited number of spaces available for students in the extracurricular activity.   PSSAM opposes this bill’s expanded eligibility of students participating in public school interscholastic events. State regulations require students to be officially enrolled in and attending a public school. However, students who are homeschooled would not be held to the same eligibility criteria, as homeschool academic and attendance standards differ from those of public schools. Additionally, in the event of injuries or other incidents, public school students would be covered under existing policies, whereas homeschooled students would not have the same protections. This legislation could create significant challenges related to school system liability, increased demands on staff, and disruptions to enrolled students.  Our opposition is consistent with the policies and procedures supported by the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA) who oversee Maryland’s interscholastic sports.  Interscholastic sports throughout Maryland’s public schools are managed based on standards set by the MPSSAA and regulations established by the State Board of Education. Since 1991, these sports have been governed by the "Master Agreement Outlining the Interscholastic Structure for Public Schools in Maryland," which defines the roles of the MPSSAA, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), and local school systems.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1043 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 392 TITLE: Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act of 2026 DATE: March 05, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments 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 local school superintendents, supports House Bill 392 with amendments. This omnibus legislation alters or repeals certain appropriations; authorizes the use of certain funds and revenues for certain purposes and distribution; alters eligibility for various programs; provides modifications to federal adjusted gross income of an individual or federal taxable income of a corporation for Maryland income tax purposes relating to certain depreciation deductions; etc. On behalf of Maryland’s 24 local superintendents, responsible for nearly 900,000 students and their families, we appreciate the difficult fiscal environment and the choices ahead as you craft the FY 2027 budget. In your deliberations we ask you to consider three amendments to the BRFA to help preserve education funding for Maryland students. These requests all affect hold-harmless provisions in the State budget.  (1) A hold-harmless for districts who experienced a decline in multilingual learners and (2) students experiencing poverty. This provision would ensure that no school system receives less compensatory funding than was provided in FY ‘26, approximately $41 million in State funding. To sustain the State’s previous funding for multilingual learners, it would require approximately $12.5 million; both of these BRFA actions would require a supplemental budget appropriation.  (3) We are requesting a permanent hold harmless for schools and districts participating in the Community Eligibility Program (CEP).  We applaud Governor Moore’s budget that reflects this for the FY ‘27 budget, and AIB’s request to extend this 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 proposal maintains stability until the required analysis to establish a new poverty measure is complete. Both of these requests are consistent with our November 25, 2025 letter to the Governor requesting his support as school systems face enrollment fluctuations. Complicating our enrollment declines is the absence of the revised methodology for counting students in poverty. As this committee is aware, the statutory language in 5-222, crafted during the passage of the Blueprint legislation, changed the formula for how districts count poverty. This language was changed in anticipation of a new methodology to be 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 ensuring that funding is distributed in a way that achieves true equity under the Blueprint. The Impact of Enrollment on Student Funding and Maryland’s Previous Use of Hold-Harmless Provisions Following national trends, Maryland’s public school enrollment has softened due to lower birth rates, slower reentry from pandemic homeschooling and private school placements, and federal immigration dynamics. In Maryland, enrollment declines are uneven across districts and sometimes concentrated in specific schools. In addition, the impacts of the federal changes to SNAP and Medicaid eligibility enacted in the OBBA/HR 1 are almost certainly going to negatively impact enrollment of students and families living in poverty. Small enrollment changes can produce outsized funding swings, even as fixed costs are rising and outpacing inflation, including utilities and transportation.  Holding enrollment or aggregate funding at the district level “harmless” has been embraced by previous Maryland  leaders. In 2021, the General Assembly removed the September 2020 count from the three-year rolling average, and in 2023 they provided similar relief when faced with a precipitous decline in compensatory education enrollment - both measures aimed to hedge pandemic anomalies from driving formula losses. We ask for similar hold-harmless provisions to anchor school funding while trends normalize . Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 392 and kindly requests the committee’s consideration of the  amendments outlined above.

March 05, 2026 On March 2, Maryland's First Lady Dawn Moore officially launched #ReadMoreMaryland , a statewide literacy month campaign designed to celebrate and strengthen a culture of reading across our state. In partnership with the Governor’s Office of Children and the Maryland State Department of Education, this initiative invites students, families, educators, and community members to come together around one simple but powerful idea: reading matters. Throughout the month, Marylanders are encouraged to share photos or videos of themselves reading their favorite books using #ReadMoreMaryland . Whether it’s a student diving into a new adventure, a family reading together at home, or a classroom celebrating story time, every post helps amplify the joy and importance of literacy. By participating, we can help create a visible, statewide culture of reading that supports Maryland’s young people and reinforces literacy as the foundation for lifelong success. We appreciate your partnership in spreading the word and encouraging your communities to join the movement. Together, let’s show Maryland what it means to read more! Read more in the official press release .

BILL: SB 645 TITLE: State Board of Sign Language Interpreters - Membership and Licensing DATE: February 26, 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) and the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) jointly support Senate Bill 645 with amendments. This bill expands the membership of, and alters the quorum requirements for, the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters (the “Board”); clarifies the Board nomination process under which the Governor can remove members of the Board; alters the date from July, 2024 to December 31, 2026, by which the Board must establish licensing requirements and by which sign language interpreters must meet certain licensing requirements; and adds a requirement for the Board to produce a report providing key information related to sign language interpretation in the state before promulgating regulations.  This joint testimony represents the position of the twenty-four local superintendents and local boards of education — entities who serve and support students and school systems impacted by this legislation and the subsequent regulations the new Board will promulgate. Our goal is to support high-quality interpreting services for students while ensuring that implementation of new licensure requirements does not unintentionally undermine interpreter access or educational continuity.   We represent the expertise of education policy leaders, special education administrators, interpreter providers, and advocates for students who are deaf and hard of hearing, all committed to equitable access and inclusive educational practices. We appreciate the work of the existing Board to elevate standards and safeguard service quality, but we have consistently vocalized our concerns about the Board’s difficulties promulgating regulations, especially for educational interpreters. Our concerns range from very practical operational issues, to legal and systemic challenges for Maryland’s students and schools.   We believe this legislation will ensure that the Board’s representation is broader to include all relevant and affected stakeholders. We greatly appreciate the sponsor’s willingness to create a more suitable framework for this important policymaking Board.  Our requested amendments are outlined below and largely mirror those requested by the other implementing entities - specifically those representing medical, legal, and higher education institutions. The amendments are broadly organized in the following categories/concerns and are briefly described below.  Composition of the Board Enactment Date and other Important Milestones Consumer Choice Provisional Licenses  Other Operational Clarifications  Composition of the Board  Amendment #1  - Add to the Board one additional seat so that key public service areas (medical, legal, educational) can be represented.  We appreciate the increase in board membership and the inclusion of more interpreters, as well as representatives of implementing agencies in education, legal, and medical settings. However, since there are likely to be specialty regulations created in each of these three fields, we request a seat that represents each sector. Strike §9–2411(a)(2)(vi), and replace it with the following:  "THREE SHALL BE AFFILIATED WITH ENTITIES THAT OPERATE AND IMPLEMENT DEAF SERVICES, INCLUDING ONE IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING, ONE IN A LEGAL SETTING, AND ONE IN A MEDICAL SETTING"   Enactment Date and other Important Milestones We, too, are anxious to move the important work forward regarding licensure for interpreters. However, we believe some of the target dates in the legislation are unrealistic for the extensive work ahead. Below are five timelines we believe need to be adjusted or included in the bill:  Amendment #2  - Revise the effective date from October 1, 2026 to July 1, 2026. Moving the effective date will reflect the urgency of promulgating these regulations. Amendment #3  - Revise the establishment and publication of licensing requirements from December 31, 2026 to July 1, 2027.  After passage of this legislation, the Governor will be required to seat a new Board. That new Board will in short order promulgate regulations with the appropriate amount of public and stakeholder input; this will require more time than allocated in the bill as written. Amendment #4 - Revise the date by which interpreters need to be licensed from July 1, 2027 to July 1, 2028. This new date more adequately reflects the timeline needed to identify or develop the inevitable assessments for licenses. Based on our extensive experience in obtaining credentials for sign language interpreters in schools, we know there are several practical obstacles. A revised date of licensure requirements will allow for time to communicate the changes in the licensure requirements to practitioners, and to allow interpreters to obtain licensure. The timeline will also allow for LEAs to budget for these changes in licensure requirements. Lastly, a July date will create better conditions for hiring and not disrupt services in the middle of a school year.  Amendment #5  - Add an uncodified section to the bill that reflects the Legislature’s intent and prevents any proposed regulations from being published in the Maryland Register prior to the bill’s effective date.  Such an amendment will ensure that regulations resulting from this bill reflect the final policy framework enacted by the General Assembly and are developed through a deliberate process consistent with the updated statute.     Amendment #6 -   Require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. This prioritization recognizes the barriers to both promulgating regulations for multiple licenses at one time, but also some of the practical impediments for national assessments for speciality areas. For instance, the most commonly recognized educational assessment, the EIPA, requires interpreters to pass written and performance tests. However, both of these tests are only offered in two locations in Maryland, are costly to access, and are often booked well in advance. For the EIPA performance test specifically, results often take 10 to 12 months or longer to be returned, and unsuccessful candidates are required to wait an additional year after taking their test before retesting. This set of obstacles alone creates a near impossibility for interpreters not already certified to work by the deadline written in the current bill.  A longer phase-in period does not diminish the high standards contemplated, but enables the standards to be implemented with fairness, integrity, and in a sustainable way.   Provisional Licenses As discussed above, Amendment #6 would require the Board to first promulgate regulations for a General and Provisional License before moving to any speciality areas. We believe this will allow for a smoother transition from this unlicensed field. School systems will work diligently to ensure all interpreters are fully licensed but the practical implications of hiring and onboarding new staff will require a phased in approach.  A provisional license is integral to allow interpreters who are in pursuit of licensure to serve students and will also help attract new interpreters to the field.  A more adaptable approach to licensure entry is likely necessary to ensure that well-qualified interpreters are not excluded by outdated standards or procedural bottlenecks. This is a well-established practice in school systems with conditionally certified teachers and paraprofessionals acknowledging real world staffing shortages in education.  A scaffold approach also builds a state-supported training pipeline to help aspiring interpreters meet the proposed licensure requirements. There is a serious need for parallel investment in Maryland-based training programs to support those expectations, and a provisional license approach would help. For context, local school systems are already facing severe interpreter shortages. Some large LEAs report filling only 20% of interpreter positions , with vacancies in counties such as Howard and Prince George’s remaining open for more than two years. In Frederick County, nearly one-third of interpreter roles have been vacant since 2020. Many districts now outsource most or all interpretation services — often at rates exceeding $125 per hour , plus mileage — increasing costs and reducing service continuity for students.  We share the goal of increasing full-time, licensed interpreters — which is both more cost-effective and better for students — but given the existing workforce crisis, any new licensure requirements must be carefully phased to avoid destabilizing IEP and 504 services for deaf and hard of hearing students. Amendment #7 - Establish a straight-forward provisional licensing framework to ensure continued public access to interpretation services during phase-in.    While not currently contemplated in the bill, we respectfully request amending the current requirements for provisional licensure set forth in State Government Article. § 9–2425.  This amendment would streamline the requirements for provisional licensure by simplifying what is required to have a general provisional licensee. Each industry can and will  have their own requirements in addition to the general provisional license, but it is imperative to phase-in onboarding of licensure requirements in a thoughtful way.  This amendment simplifies the requirements for obtaining a provisional license by limiting them to the basic qualification of having a high school diploma, on top of which other requirements related to the specialty being sought can be required in the future. (a) subject to the provisions of this section, the board shall issue a provisional license to provide sign language interpretation services to an individual who has: (1) OBTAINED A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR EQUIVALENT Consumer Choice Amendment #8 - Align this statute to the consumer choice standards set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).    Changing the consumer choice is not currently contemplated in this legislation but we believe it should be; we believe the current law does not properly reflect ADA allowances for the delivery of services to deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Therefore, we propose the following:  Modify §9–2415(C)(3):   (C)    The Board shall adopt regulations to: ALLOW DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING INDIVIDUALS TO DETERMINE INDICATE WHETHER THEY PREFER SIGN LANGUAGE INTEPRETATION SERVICES BEING PROVIDED IN A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING ENVIRONMENT AND REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS TO SUPPORT THIS PREFERENCE TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH ADA GENERAL RULES OUTLINED FOUND IN 28 C.F.R. § 35.160  This section of the ADA is included at the conclusion of this testimony.  Other Operational Clarifications Amendment #9 - Expressly identify “educational settings” as a specialty area.  This amendment would expressly designate “educational settings” as a recognized specialty area, alongside other enumerated specialties such as legal and medical interpreting. Educational environments present distinct professional standards, role expectations, and competency requirements that warrant the same level of formal recognition and regulatory consideration afforded to other specialty practice areas.   Further, the bill creates a new report requirement to address certification standards, workforce numbers, and specialty requirements across enumerated specialty areas. Including educational settings within that list ensures that the resulting data collection and analysis will meaningfully inform future regulations governing educational interpreters. Without explicit inclusion, the Board’s reporting and subsequent regulatory framework may lack the specificity necessary to establish standards that reflect the realities of educational practice. Add to §9–2415(a) as follows:           (9)     EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS. Amendment #10 - Correct the names for PSSAM and add MABE.  This amendment would fix likely unintentional drafting errors to correct the organization title for PSSAM, and add the Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE) as an organization to be consulted.  Modify §9–2415(b)(2) as follows: (VII)  THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUPERINTENDENTS’ ASSOCIATION OF  MARYLAND           (X)    THE MARYLAND ASSOCIATION OF BOARDS OF EDUCATION Amendment #11 & #12 - For video interpretation , honor out-of-state standards to make out-of-state interpreters available to the public when needed.  We recognize that requiring all video remote interpreters (especially out-of-state VRI) to be licensed in Maryland presents operational challenges. At the same time, it is clear that  waiving all requirements for VRI providers would undermine the purpose of this bill,  as a significant portion of interpreting services provided in this state are done remotely. Therefore we propose the following related amendments:  Amendment #11: Add subsection §9-2418(b)(3): (b) This section does not apply to an individual who: (3) PROVIDES SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION SERVICES AS PART OF A VIDEO REMOTE INTERPRETING SERVICE, HOLDS A RID OR BEI CERTIFICATION, AND IS LOCATED OUT-OF-STATE;   This would enable out-of-state video interpreters to provide services, still hold out-of-state interpreters to their own standards, but not undermine Maryland’s own licensure requirements. Amendment #12: Modify §9–2420(a) and (b) and delete §9–2420(c): Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board may SHALL waive any requirement of this part for an applicant who is licensed to provide sign language interpretation services in another state.  (b) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the applicant:   (1) pays to the Board:   (i) the nonrefundable application fee set by the Board; and   (ii) the license fee set by the Board; and   (2) provides satisfactory evidence that, at the time the applicant was licensed in the other state, the applicant was required to meet the qualifications for licensure that were substantially equivalent to the qualifications in the State.   (c ) The Board may grant a waiver under this section only if the state in which the applicant is licensed waives the qualifications of licensees of the State to a similar extent as the State waives the qualification requirements for individuals licensed in that state.  These amendments together would streamline out-of-state licensure recognition by requiring the Board to waive Maryland’s requirements for individuals already licensed in another state, eliminating the “substantially similar” standard, and removing the reciprocity condition. Together, these changes reduce barriers to entry and expand the available pool of qualified interpreters, while still relying on an existing state licensure determination as the baseline qualification.    Amendment #13 - Add an additional reporting requirement for the number of licensed interpreters in each county. This amendment will strengthen any future policies or regulatory action by ensuring that any promulgated regulations are made with an accurate understanding of the number of available interpreters across different jurisdictions in the State. We believe it is also worthwhile to disaggregate this data by an applicant’s county of residence and, if known, the county or region where the applicant plans to work at the time of issuance or renewal.  Update existing reporting requirements for the Board (§9–2407) by adding: (6) THE NUMBER OF LICENSED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS IN EACH COUNTY AS DETERMINED BY THE APPLICANT’S HOME ADDRESSES AND THE APPLICANT’S COUNTY OR REGION OF PLANNED EMPLOYMENT, IF KNOWN.  Amendment #14 - Expressly account for due process provided in labor agreements for issues of suspension or discipline.    This amendment clarifies in statute that any regulations adopted by the Board concerning discipline or suspension of licensed interpreters must defer to existing bargaining agreements and establish due process protections for public employees. Elevating this principle ensures that regulatory requirements cannot and would not be interpreted to override negotiated labor terms or procedural safeguards, preserving established employment rights while implementing the licensure framework. Suggested language:   CONCERNING THE DISCIPLINE OR SUSPENSION OF QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS, NOTHING IN THIS SECTION OR REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO SUPERSEDE, LIMIT, OR IMPAIR ANY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO TITLE 6 OF THE EDUCATION ARTICLE, OR ANY PROCEDURAL OR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AFFORDED TO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.    Conclusion Our recommendations are grounded in practical experience serving students who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing, in our deep understanding of local infrastructure, and in precedent looking at successful regulatory frameworks in other states in the nation.  We appreciate your willingness to consider both our well-founded concerns and our proposed solutions. We share the goal of ensuring that all students have access to high-quality sign language interpretation and can meaningfully participate in their education.  As this legislation and subsequent regulations continue to take shape, we urge your attention to the infrastructure needed to support this work.  As always, we are available for continued collaboration in refining this framework that will simultaneously uphold professional standards and build a stronger, student-centered, sustainable system in Maryland.   Therefore, PSSAM and MABE support Senate Bill 645 with the  amendments outlined above. For REFERENCE ONLY  Americans with Disabilities Act   Regulations Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services - Communications -  28 C.F.R. § 35.160 (a)   (1) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.   (2) For purposes of this section, “companion” means a family member, friend, or associate of an individual seeking access to a service, program, or activity of a public entity, who, along with such individual, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity should communicate. (b)    (1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities, including applicants, participants, companions, and members of the public, an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity of a public entity.   (2) The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity shall give   primary consideration to the requests of individuals with disabilities .  In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability. (c)   (1) A public entity shall not require an individual with a disability to bring another individual to interpret for him or her.  (2) A public entity shall not rely on an adult accompanying an individual with a disability to interpret or facilitate communication except—      (i) In an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available; or      (ii) Where the individual with a disability specifically requests that the accompanying adult interpret or facilitate communication, the accompanying adult agrees to provide such assistance, and reliance on that adult for such assistance is appropriate under the circumstances.  (3) A public entity shall not rely on a minor child to interpret or facilitate communication, except in an emergency involving an imminent threat to the safety or welfare of an individual or the public where there is no interpreter available. (d) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) services.    A public entity that chooses to provide qualified interpreters via VRI services shall ensure that it provides:  (1) Real-time, full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed, wide-bandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication;  (2) A sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, and the participating individual’s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless of his or her body position;  (3) A clear, audible transmission of voices; and  (4) Adequate training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and efficiently set up and operate the VRI.

BILL: SB 586 TITLE: Community Eligibility Provision Expansion Program – Establishment DATE: February 25, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee Senate Budget & Taxation 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 586. 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 SB 586.

BILL: HB 562 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education – Maintenance of Effort – Inflation Adjustment (Maintenance of Effort Modernization Act) DATE: February 24, 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 562. This legislation alters the method for calculating the maintenance of effort county governing bodies are required to appropriate to the school operating budget by including an annual inflation adjustment. Maryland first embedded Maintenance of Effort (MoE) into statute in 1984 to ensure local governments remained meaningful and predictable partners in funding public education. The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future later added “local share” as a second potential funding calculation. While neither formula is perfect for every local school system, together they have provided stability, accountability, and a predictable budgeting framework. Under current law, counties must provide, at a minimum, the greater of: The local share of certain major education aid formulas, or The per pupil amount provided in the prior fiscal year (MoE). MoE has been a strong accountability tool. However, it no longer reflects the true cost of operating modern school systems.  We appreciate the difficult balancing act local governments face where education, public safety, health, infrastructure, and other essential services all compete for limited resources. But we are compelled to voraciously advocate for equitable and adequate local education funding.  MoE was designed to ensure predictable minimum funding. What it does not do is ensure that funding keeps pace with rising costs. Local funding increases have not materialized at the levels envisioned by the Kirwan Commission, nor have they consistently tracked with increases in county wealth or statewide per pupil investment. While the State foundation amount is adjusted annually using an inflation factor (the lesser of the Implicit Price Deflator, CPI, or 5%), the local MoE does not. That creates an imbalance. Meanwhile, the cost of running school systems has risen dramatically: Wage inflation for teachers and support staff  Escalating employee and retiree health benefits Transportation fuel and fleet costs Food service inflation School security and health services Building maintenance and capital improvements Skyrocketing utility costs The Blueprint embedded per pupil amounts in statute based on assumptions made pre-COVID. No one could have predicted the pandemic or the inflationary shock that followed and has fundamentally reshaped our economy in many ways. This legislation adds a modest, built-in inflation factor to the Maintenance of Effort amount. It does not overhaul local share. It does not impose unpredictable spikes. It simply ensures that the minimum local contribution keeps pace with economic reality. No one can predict the future, but we can rely on established economic indicators such as CPI or the Implicit Price Deflator. An inflation adjustment would: Preserve MoE’s predictability Protect against erosion of purchasing power Promote greater per pupil equity across jurisdictions Better align local contributions with the State’s inflation-adjusted investment Help balance the state-local partnership necessary for Blueprint success Unfortunately, some local governments provide no more than the statutory minimum and the real value of local education funding declines over time. Adding an inflation factor restores balance.  It reflects the shared responsibility envisioned by the Blueprint and ensures that local governments remain meaningful partners in advancing educational adequacy and equity. This is not a radical change. It is a modest modernization of an accountability tool that has served Maryland well for more than a decade. An inflationary adjustment to Maintenance of Effort will ensure Maryland’s education funding framework reflects today’s economic reality and continues moving us toward equitable per pupil investment statewide.  For these reasons, PSSAM supports HB 562 and requests a favorable committee report .

BILL: SB 263 TITLE: Education - Dependent Children of Active Service Members - Advance Enrollment Procedures 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 public school superintendents, supports  Senate Bill 263. This bill requires local school systems to allow a dependent child of a service member to apply for advance enrollment in a public school and specifies requirements for advance enrollment procedures. The Secretary of Veterans and Military Families, in consultation with specified entities, must publish and maintain information on (1) advance enrollment procedures and (2) any assistance and services available to service members regarding advance enrollment. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. Maryland is home to approximately 100,000 active-duty service members, and we recognize the important role military families play in our communities. Children in military families often face unique challenges due to frequent relocations, including disruptions in coursework, credit transfers, and social adjustment when enrolling in a new school. Supporting policies that streamline enrollment processes, ensure timely credit recognition, and provide consistent transitions across school systems helps reduce unnecessary stress on families who already shoulder significant sacrifice. This bill facilitates smoother school transitions and reflects Maryland’s commitment to supporting its service members.  PSSAM appreciates the intent of Senate Bill 263 in addressing the challenges faced by current enrollment procedures for dependent students of service members. Last year PSSAM supported this legislation with amendments that have been incorporated into this year’s version of the bill.  Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 263.

BILL: SB 502 TITLE: Language Acquisition Tracking Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children – Establishment DATE: February 26, 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 502. This legislation establishes the Language Acquisition Tracking Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children in the State Department of Education; establishes a State Coordinator within the Department to coordinate the Program and create a parent and guardian resource to help parents and guardians track a child’s language acquisition progress; establishes the Language Acquisition for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Advisory Council to advise and provide certain consultation services to the State Coordinator, approve a certain language assessment tool, and review a certain report; requires the Department, in consultation with the Maryland Department of Health and the Maryland School for the Deaf, to issue an annual report on the language acquisition of deaf or hard of hearing children. Maryland superintendents share the goal of ensuring that deaf and hard of hearing children receive timely, high-quality services and that families are supported with clear information. However, as drafted, this bill is overprescriptive and duplicative or conflicting with existing law and practice under IDEA. Further, it risks disrupting Maryland’s long-standing education governance structure where MSDE sets statewide policy expectations and standards, while local school systems retain flexibility to select curriculum and diagnostic tools to meet individual student needs. Maryland already has a strong legal framework under IDEA that governs services for children with disabilities and requires individualized supports and progress monitoring. Specifically, Part C  provides services for infants and toddlers through Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) and is reviewed at least every six months. Part B  governs preschool and school-age services through Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and is reviewed at least annually with regular progress reporting. These systems already require multidisciplinary teams to monitor child outcomes, revise plans when progress is insufficient, and ensure individualized supports. Many of the bill’s requirements - including regular assessment, family engagement, documented progress, and adjustments to plans are already occurring. The specific tool or process appropriately varies by child and needed services. The bill’s birth-to-nine framework is unusually expansive.  Part C and Part B are fundamentally different systems — IFSP versus IEP — with different statutory purposes, timelines, and service models. A single rigid tracking mandate across both systems risks confusing families and complicating transitions. The transition from Part C to Part B already requires careful coordination and documentation. Establishing a separate, parallel tracking structure through age nine risks layering complexity onto an already structured and carefully managed process. The required six-month testing cycle is also redundant.  IFSP reviews already occur every six months. IEP teams monitor progress regularly and may convene at any time to adjust services. A mandated statewide testing schedule every six months through age nine risks: Creating a paper compliance exercise rather than improving services; Diverting staff time away from direct instruction, therapy, and family engagement; and Encouraging tool-driven decisions rather than individualized, team-based determinations. Similarly, the bill’s requirement that IFSPs, IEPs, or 504 Plans be updated if a child does not demonstrate progress is already embedded in IDEA practice. When a child is not making expected progress, teams reconvene and revise services. Codifying this again and tying it to a single tool adds compliance burden without improving outcomes. This bill creates significant duplication of existing supports and risks confusion for families.  Once children enter school, language and literacy development are tracked through classroom-based assessments and structured progress monitoring systems. A separate mandated tool would likely overlap with or conflict with these existing systems. Adding a parallel, statewide tracking system risks sending mixed signals and generating duplicative paperwork rather than streamlining services.  By elementary school, students already participate in multiple literacy and academic assessments — including tools such as DIBELS and MAP — that provide detailed data on reading skills, comprehension, and language development. Layering a separate, uniform, state-mandated language acquisition assessment on top of these existing measures risks duplicating assessments already in place, increasing time away from instruction and services, and blurring the distinction between early language monitoring and broader academic achievement tracking. The bill significantly alters Maryland’s education governance structure by mandating a statewide assessment tool selected by a volunteer Advisory Council and creates a mandated coordinator position within MSDE with very specific performance requirements. This approach usurps the established balance between MSDE’s statewide oversight role and local school systems’ responsibility to select appropriate assessments. The legislation also substitutes the Council’s judgment for the individualized determinations made by legally required IFSP and IEP teams and risks imposing additional assessments beyond those already used for literacy, language development, and progress monitoring. Stakeholders and advocates — particularly families and the deaf and hard of hearing community — play a vital and important role.  However, education policy and assessment systems must ultimately be led by educators and implemented through legally accountable teams, not dictated by a multi-interest advisory body empowered to mandate a single statewide tool. We are also concerned about the composition of the Advisory Council and the exclusion of MSDE,  the State agency charged with educational oversight and implementation. While the Maryland Department of Health plays a critical role for children birth to three, its statutory authority does not extend into the K–12 environment in the same manner. Granting authority to mandate an assessment tool to a body without direct implementation responsibility raises concerns about alignment, accountability, and practical execution. The bill further establishes a new State Coordinator position required to consult with the Advisory Council. MSDE already maintains staff, workgroups, and structures dedicated to supporting deaf and hard of hearing students. Many of the bill’s stated goals - including improved parent resources and strengthened tracking supports - could be accomplished through MSDE guidance and collaboration without creating new statutory structures that reduce flexibility and insert a council into operational decision-making. Finally, creating a disability-specific council with approval authority over a statewide assessment tool sets a troubling precedent.  Maryland’s special education framework is grounded in individualized need - not disability category hierarchy. Establishing a unique governance structure for one group risks inequity and fragmentation across special education systems. Maryland already has a comprehensive IDEA-driven framework that requires individualized planning, progress monitoring, family engagement, and plan revision when needed. While we share the goal of improving outcomes for deaf and hard of hearing children, this bill duplicates existing requirements, creates governance conflicts, and imposes rigid structures that risk undermining individualized decision-making. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 502.

BILL: SB 350 TITLE: Public Schools - Open Enrollment - Policies and Funding DATE: February 27, 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 public school superintendents, opposes  Senate Bill 350.  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 Senate Bill 350, 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, this bill 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 Senate Bill 350  and kindly requests an unfavorable  committee report.

BILL: SB 299 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Therapy Dogs - Policy for Handling  and Use in Schools  DATE: February 27, 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, sadly opposes Senate Bill 299 . This bill requires each local board of education to allow, and adopt a policy for, the use of therapy dogs in public schools, and requires a handler to accompany each therapy dog in school. The policy must include (1) certification requirements for therapy dogs; (2) guidelines for handlers; (3) guidelines for when and where therapy dogs and handlers are allowed in school buildings; (4) notification requirements; and (5) guidelines for the management of students and staff with allergies or who are uncomfortable around dogs. Under the bill, a “therapy dog” is a dog that is trained to provide affection and comfort to children who need emotional support in a school setting and is certified or registered as a therapy dog. A “handler” is an individual who provides care and training for the therapy dog.  PSSAM appreciates the intent of this legislation and the focus on supporting students’ emotional and mental well-being. Local school systems share that goal and are deeply invested in creating safe, supportive learning environments for all students. Federal and State law already allow for the use of service animals  in schools when they are trained to perform specific, documented tasks—such as alerting individuals of an oncoming seizure, reminding someone to take medication, or assisting with mobility or medical needs. These service animals are subject to well-established legal standards and protections. This bill goes beyond those existing frameworks by requiring every local board of education to allow and adopt policies for therapy dogs , which are not covered under federal disability law in the same way.  While well-intentioned, this raises several concerns. First , the bill relies on a concept of “certification” for therapy dogs that is not legally recognized . There is currently no uniform, legally defined certification standard for therapy dogs providing affection and comfort in schools. As written, the bill would leave substantial room for interpretation regarding what qualifications are sufficient for a dog to serve in this role, creating inconsistency and potential risk across school systems. Second , the bill would unreasonably mandate the presence of a handler  to accompany each therapy dog in a school setting. This raises practical and operational questions about supervision, staffing, training, liability, and cost—particularly in environments where schools are already managing complex student needs with limited resources. Third , dogs that are not otherwise trained for structured school environments may unintentionally become a distraction or disturbance  to other students and staff. Schools must also consider unintended consequences, including classroom disruptions, safety concerns, and the management of students and employees with allergies, fears, or cultural discomfort around dogs. Finally , this legislation would expand the scope and complexity of student supports  that schools would be required to manage without requiring a documented need for this intervention. Local school systems already use a range of evidence-based supports—social workers, counselors, psychologists, behavioral interventions, and targeted programs—tailored to individual student needs. Mandating a specific support tool without an individualized determination could undermine that existing framework. We welcome continued dialogue on how best to support students’ social and emotional well-being in a manner that is flexible, legally sound, and responsive to local conditions. Therefore, PSSAM sadly opposes Senate Bill 299.

BILL: SB 292 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Transportation - Sunset Repeal DATE: February 27, 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 public school superintendents, supports  Senate Bill 292. This bill repeals the termination date of certain provisions of law that authorize a county board of education to provide transportation for certain students using a vehicle other than a standard school bus.                                                                    PSSAM strongly supported the original legislation in 2021 authorizing alternative vehicles in circumstances when a school bus cannot reasonably be provided. Further, certain student groups were identified as eligible for these services, including (1) preschool-age students; (2) students with disabilities; (3) homeless youth; (4) children in foster care; (5) students without access to school buses; (6) students in a nonpublic school placement; (7) students in dual enrollment programs or work programs or other educational programs based off the school campus. Additionally, the law allowed school systems to provide this transportation to other student groups through a written determination by the board. Transportation is one of the fastest growing costs for school systems with limited ability by LEAs to minimize costs. This legislation has given us the ability and flexibility to provide transportation in challenging circumstances such as geography and student need.  For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable report on Senate Bill 292.