Search Results

BILL: HB 943 TITLE: State Board of Education - Financial Literacy - Graduation Requirement  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 943. This bill requires students, beginning with a specified graduating class, to successfully complete a personal financial literacy course. The bill also requires county boards to award credit upon successful completion and to allow students to satisfy certain remaining credit requirements through existing coursework. In effect, the legislation codifies financial literacy as a standalone graduation requirement under State law. This act shall take effect July 1, 2026 beginning with the graduating class of 2030.  PSSAM recognizes the importance of financial literacy and acknowledges that financial literacy concepts are already taught in grades 3-12 across Maryland’s public schools. The issue before the Committee is not the value of financial literacy, but the mechanism by which it is required. Graduation requirements have historically been determined through a balance of state standards and local decision-making, allowing school systems to align requirements with community priorities, staffing capacity, and student pathways. Codifying a semester-long financial literacy course as a standalone graduation requirement reduces that flexibility and may require adjustments to existing credit structures, potentially displacing other locally valued courses or student electives. Maryland currently requires 22 state-mandated credits across specific subject areas, leaving limited space within a student’s four-year schedule for local priorities and emerging instructional needs. While financial literacy may be a priority today, areas where students require growth and emphasis will continue to evolve. Local education agencies need flexibility to adjust credit structures as workforce demands, higher education expectations, and student needs evolve, without having those decisions fixed in statute. When instructional priorities are embedded in law, modification requires legislative repeal or amendment, significantly slowing a school system’s ability to respond compared to local policy revision.                                                                                    Given the need for school systems to design adaptable graduation pathways, PSSAM opposes House Bill 943 and respectfully requests an unfavorable  committee report.

BILL: HB 879 TITLE: Language Acquisition Tracking Program for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children – Establishment  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 local school superintendents, opposes House Bill 879. 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 House Bill 879.

BILL: HB 856 TITLE: Local Education Agencies - Educator Screening - Educator Identification Clearinghouse (School Personnel Vetting and Hiring Transparency Act) DATE: February 24, 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 local school superintendents, supports House Bill 856 with amendments. This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to register each local school system (LSS) in the State as an associate member of a national membership organization that provides access to the Educator Identification Clearinghouse and to pay any applicable fees and dues associated with the membership. Each LSS must use the clearinghouse to screen individuals who receive an offer of employment for an educator position that requires a license. In addition, each local school system must ensure that each individual who receives such an offer (1) applies for the appropriate license after the offer of employment and before the start of employment and (2) obtains the appropriate license before any interaction with children. Nothing in the bill may be construed to impair or affect existing statutory prohibitions against hiring or retaining individuals convicted of specified crimes, including child sexual abuse. Maryland school systems take their responsibility to ensure the safety of students and staff extremely seriously. We appreciate the bill’s emphasis on strengthening student safety and reinforcing the integrity of the licensure process. In particular, we support the provision requiring candidates to apply for licensure at the time they receive an offer of employment. This requirement adds an important layer of screening and reinforces the shared commitment of school systems and the State to student protection. A review of Maryland’s 24 local school systems confirms that extensive safeguards are already in place, including existing federal and state mandates, including: State and FBI fingerprinting (criminal background checks and the Adam Walsh Background Clearance Request form, DHR/SSA 1279A) Form I-9 verification (paper and E-Verify where available) Md. Code, Educ. § 6-113.2 Child Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct review (“HB 486 review”) Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) TEACH database review CJIS fingerprinting and background checks MSDE Disqualified Substitute List review Department of Social Services child abuse registry checks Maryland Judiciary Case Search inquiries, where applicable Internal database reviews Drug testing, where required Recruiting and tracking systems such as Workday, AppliTrack (Unified Talent/PowerSchool), TalentEd (PowerSchool), and Frontline Basic online screening and employment verification processes These layers of review reflect a strong and proactive screening infrastructure across the State. While we support the bill’s intent, we respectfully request a clarifying amendment to remove the language requiring a license to be fully issued before “any interaction with students.”  Although well-intentioned, this provision could unintentionally create barriers for pre-screened, qualified educators whose paperwork is still being processed. In practice, licensure issuance can be delayed for reasons outside of a candidate’s control, even when all safety screenings have been successfully completed. Removing this final clause, while retaining the requirement that candidates apply for licensure upon offer of employment, preserves the bill’s important safety objectives while allowing reasonable operational flexibility during the hiring and licensure process. Finally, we support an amendment to move the date from October 1, 2026 to August 1, 2026 by which local school systems must utilize the clearinghouse to screen individuals offered employment.  House Bill 856 builds upon current protections aimed at ensuring only qualified and appropriate individuals enter our classrooms. We recognize the bill’s focus on student safety and maintaining the credibility of the licensure system. Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 856 with the  amendments outlined above.

BILL: HB 649 TITLE: Advancing Equal Educational Opportunities for All Students in Maryland DATE: February 24, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Government, Labor & Elections 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, provides this letter of information on House Bill 649. House Bill 649 would repeal the existing statutory framework for civil rights enforcement in schools, and replace it with a new framework that authorizes the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR), concurrently with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), to enforce the prohibition against discrimination and retaliation in school systems. The bill also concurrently authorizes a private right of action for individuals alleging discrimination in schools to bring civil lawsuits in court.  PSSAM and our members unequivocally care deeply about the civil rights of students and families. Strong, effective civil rights enforcement is essential to ensuring equitable educational opportunity for all Maryland students. Recent changes and disruptions at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have understandably created concern nationwide.  In the absence of a viable federal system, we do not question the importance of maintaining strong protections. But it is important to acknowledge that this restructuring is driven by temporary federal circumstances. That context should inform whether Maryland creates a permanent, parallel enforcement system that may remain long after federal conditions change. Maryland has a statutory civil rights enforcement framework under Education Article §§ 26-649 and 26-705 . In 2022, the General Assembly granted MSDE new authority to investigate discrimination claims within local school systems. To our knowledge, this framework has been implemented and is functioning effectively. HB 649 would significantly expand authority by: Granting the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights (MCCR) concurrent enforcement power alongside MSDE; and Authorizing individuals to file lawsuits in court while simultaneously pursuing investigations before MCCR or MSDE. This expansion raises important legal and practical concerns. The existence of  parallel enforcement risks duplication, inconsistent findings, and confusion for families already navigating an emotionally and procedurally complex process. It also increases administrative and legal burdens on school systems responding to unsubstantiated claims. There are several legal and operational concerns the Committee should consider, including:   Overlapping investigative authority between MSDE and MCCR; Potential conflicting evidentiary standards; The scope of newly created civil remedies; Fiscal and operational impacts on school systems; Interaction with federal IDEA procedures in special education disputes; and The due process rights of teachers and staff who are subject to allegations. The delivery of special education services , in particular, is governed by an extensive and longstanding adjudication framework under federal law. Creating additional or parallel remedies without careful coordination could introduce confusion and unintended legal conflict. We understand that significant amendments are being developed by both the sponsoring department and MSDE . While we have had an opportunity to review some of these concepts, the complexity of the subject matter makes it difficult to offer a definitive position or specific amendment language at this time. We respectfully request meaningful engagement in the Committee’s deliberative process  and allow stakeholders, including local school systems, a seat at the table as these significant structural changes are considered. Our legal colleagues at MABE have provided a more detailed legal analysis of this legislation, and we support their work and conclusions. Our comments here highlight key policy and operational concerns but do not fully capture the scope of the legal implications. We strongly support civil rights enforcement and the protection of students and families. At the same time, we must carefully balance those protections within an already complex legal framework. Permanent restructuring of Maryland’s civil rights enforcement system requires serious consideration. Without that deliberation, there is risk of creating legal confusion, increased costs, procedural delays, and unintended barriers to the very remedies families seek. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information and we urge thoughtful review, robust stakeholder collaboration, and careful refinement before enacting permanent changes of this magnitude.

BILL: HB 490 TITLE: Education – The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future – Revisions  DATE: February 24, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means 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 public school superintendents, supports HB 490 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 in the Blueprint, we support extending the timeline to allow 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. We strongly support rigorous instructional leadership, however, 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 MSDE 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; HB 490 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 and seek the committees’ support of this as an amendment. 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 funding formula for compensatory education beginning in FY ‘27. However, this change was made anticipating that a new methodology would have been established by now, 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 HB 490 with an amendment to make the hold harmless permanent until a new statewide poverty measure is adopted.

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 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: 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 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 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 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.