Search Results

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

BILL: HB 76 TITLE: Local School Systems - School Safety - Grant Allocations DATE: February 17, 2026 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports House Bill 76. This bill authorizes the reallocation of grants from the Safe Schools Fund to local school systems that have fully expended their grant allocation and demonstrate unmet need within the same fiscal year. This act shall take into effect by July 1, 2026.  Under current law, the Governor is required to allocate $10 million annually to a fund supporting grants for local school systems and law enforcement agencies to provide adequate law enforcement coverage in public schools, including School Resource Officers (SROs) and school security employees (as authorized by Chapter 179 of 2024). Grants are distributed proportionally based on each system's share of public schools in the state. Any unspent funds revert to the fund annually but cannot be reallocated. Local superintendents appreciate the General Assembly's initiative to reallocate these funds to local school systems who demonstrate the most need. This approach empowers districts with greater autonomy and ensures a more equitable distribution of resources, directing support to where it is needed most.  For these reasons, PSSAM supports   House Bill 76 and requests a favorable report.

BILL: HB 326 TITLE: Education - Maryland Center for School Safety - Anonymous Reporting System DATE: February 11, 2026 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports  House Bill 326. This bill requires the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS) to develop and administer an anonymous reporting system that (1) coordinates the receipt of information relating to a school or student safety concern in a manner that maintains confidentiality and (2) provides a mechanism for any reported information to be forwarded to school or other appropriate officials. A custodian of public records under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) must deny inspection of any information or materials related to the anonymous reporting system. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0006/hb0326.pdf )                                                                    School safety is a top priority for every superintendent in this State. Over the past several years, local school systems have invested significantly in comprehensive safety frameworks that include behavioral threat assessment teams, mental health services, strong school-law enforcement partnerships, and preventive education for students and families. Anonymous reporting systems are a critical component of that layered approach. Maryland’s existing program - Safe Schools Maryland - is already in operation statewide and is used by every public school system. Several local systems also had internal reporting platforms or similar mechanisms in place prior to the establishment of the statewide system. In our experience, these tools have become essential for identifying concerns early and responding appropriately before situations escalate. Anonymous reporting systems work because they address a well-documented reality - students often know when a peer is struggling or expressing harmful intent, but they hesitate to report it. Fear of retaliation, social pressure, or being labeled discourages disclosure. Providing a secure, anonymous method for sharing concerns helps overcome that barrier and fosters a culture of shared responsibility for safety. Importantly, these systems are not limited to preventing acts of violence. In practice, many tips involve students experiencing depression, suicidal ideation, bullying, substance misuse, or other mental health challenges. When reports are received, they are routed through established Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management processes. The focus is not punishment - it is intervention, support, and connection to services. Superintendents across Maryland have seen firsthand the value of this approach. Tips have allowed school teams to intervene early, provide counseling, engage families, and coordinate with community partners when necessary. In many cases, the result is not discipline, but support and stabilization. Equally important, the bill protects the confidentiality of reporting. Anonymity is foundational to the effectiveness of any tip line. Students and community members must trust that their identities will not be disclosed. The bill’s exemption of system records from disclosure under the Public Information Act appropriately balances transparency with the overriding public interest in safety, mental health intervention, and suicide prevention. Without those protections, reporting would decline and the system’s effectiveness would be compromised. We also note that participation in the statewide system does not eliminate local flexibility. School systems retain authority to establish procedures, align responses with their existing threat assessment protocols, and ensure appropriate coordination with administrators, school resource officers, and student support staff. The statewide infrastructure simply provides a reliable, professionally monitored platform operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. HB 326 provides important legislative validation to ensure the long-term viability and consistency of this statewide resource. Codifying the program formally recognizes its existence, clarifies the Maryland Center for School Safety’s responsibility to establish operational guidelines, and ensures consistent standards across systems. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable report on House Bill 326.

BILL: HB 355 TITLE: Education - Sexual Abuse and Assault Awareness and Prevention Program - Human and Sex Trafficking DATE: February 11, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents  opposes House Bill 355.  This bill requires age-appropriate education program on the awareness and prevention of sexual abuse and assault developed and implemented by the State Board of Education (SBE) and each nonpublic school include, for students in grades 6 through 8, material promoting the awareness and prevention of human and sex trafficking. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0005/hb0355.pdf ) Local superintendents strongly support robust and comprehensive instruction in age-appropriate health education, including topics covered in this legislation, and believe that the intent of this bill is currently being met.  According to the MSDE, comprehensive health education has been a feature of Maryland education regulation since 1970. In this framework, concepts and skills related to family life and human sexuality must be age-appropriate and taught by teachers who have had additional preparation in the content and teaching methods of the material.  Updated health education standards were adopted by the Maryland State Board of Education in December 2019, and the Maryland State Framework for Comprehensive Health Education  was subsequently revised to align with those standards. The framework was developed by the State Board and MSDE in collaboration with the Maryland Department of Health, local education agencies, national experts, and key stakeholders to ensure a rigorous review and revision process for standards, frameworks, and curricular resources. The updated Grade 7 standards require students to analyze laws, policies, and consequences related to sexual mistreatment, grooming, harassment, abuse, assault, exploitation, and human trafficking, all of which are intended to protect young people. In addition, while the Grade 6 and Grade 8 indicators do not explicitly reference “human and sex trafficking,” the terminology used - including sexual mistreatment, grooming, harassment, abuse, assault, exploitation, and boundary violations - was deliberately selected to provide developmentally appropriate instruction on these topics. Some local school districts have incorporated the topics mentioned above in curricula at all three levels and have included human trafficking specifically in middle school curriculum for several years. Rather than imposing mandates on the teaching of human and sex trafficking awareness, local superintendents support program guidance from the MSDE. Again, while we appreciate the bill’s good intention, we ask the Committee to continue to honor the well-established and balanced relationship between the state and local education experts on the creation of standards, and implementation of local curriculum. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 355 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: HB 198 TITLE: School Systems - Reportable Offenses - Notification of Student as Suspect DATE: February 11, 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 198. This bill requires that a law enforcement agency notify the State’s Attorney when a student is a suspect in an investigation of an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony or crime of violence, as specified, and makes conforming changes to reporting requirements related to reportable offenses. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0008/hb0198.pdf )                                                                           The public education system in Maryland is responsible for providing a free and appropriate education for every student in the State. Local superintendents take this responsibility very seriously and balance the tremendous duty to educate, with the need to provide a safe and supportive educational setting for students and staff. To ensure the highest standards of safety for schools, it is imperative that information regarding students’ criminal involvement and interactions with law enforcement is appropriately shared with school personnel. The current flow of information between law enforcement and schools is disjointed and needs to be vastly improved.  We appreciate the sponsor’s keen interest in this issue and this legislation, but we believe the Legislature should take a more comprehensive approach on the issues of information sharing regarding students’ criminal behavior. To that end, we are happy to support the workgroup on Juvenile Justice Processes and Systems Coordination  that is part of the The Commission on Juvenile Justice Reform & Emerging Best Practices. This workgroup is actively taking up many of the concerns of PSSAM and our LEA partners on the issue of reportable offenses and information sharing. Specifically, the workgroup has developed an action plan that is expected to address the following areas: Establishing a standardized statewide process for law enforcement notifications; Establishing a standardized statewide process for State’s Attorney notifications; Addressing information gaps during student transfers; and, Standardizing the overall flow of information. More specifically, the workgroup is focused on: Developing a uniform, statewide process for sharing reportable offense information from arrest through disposition; Recommending any statutory or regulatory changes needed to ensure information reaches the appropriate individuals in a timely and consistent manner; and, Ensuring the process appropriately protects confidentiality while supporting school safety, coordination, and student services. Last session PSSAM advocated for the creation of such a workgroup and we are confident that the group’s comprehensive stakeholder representation will facilitate thoughtful, collaborative work and result in consensus legislation for the 2027 legislative session. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Letter of Information  on House Bill 198.

BILL: HB 319 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Transportation - Sunset Repeal DATE: February 11, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports  House Bill 319. 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 House Bill 319.

Baltimore County School Press Release February 13, 2026 AASA, The School Superintendents Association, has named BCPS Superintendent Dr. Myriam Rogers as the winner of its prestigious annual Women in School Leadership Award . Dr. Rogers was one of two finalists for the award, which recognizes exceptional leadership of “active, front-line female leaders who are making a difference in the lives of students every day.” The award was announced today during the group’s national conference in Nashville, TN. “The AASA Women in School Leadership Awards were created for amazing leaders like our honorees and winners today,” said David R. Schuler, executive director, AASA. “They have a wealth of knowledge and an unwavering dedication to student success, staff development, and innovation in K-12 education. We are proud to recognize these educators and showcase their outstanding achievements and successes.” “This honor is a testament to the work that all of Team BCPS has done and is doing every day on behalf of the students in Baltimore County,” said Dr. Rogers, who is in her third year as leader of the 108,000-student school system. “I am truly honored by and grateful for this award. But even more importantly, I am honored to be leading a school system that continues to make solid, sustained progress toward our goal of ensuring that every student can reach their highest potential.” AASA, which stands for the American Association of School Administrators, selects two finalists annually for each of two Women in Leadership awards – one for leaders in central offices or principals and the other for female superintendents who have been in the position for two or more years. “Congratulations to Dr. Rogers for this wonderful achievement, and for what it means for Team BCPS and for our schools,” said Jane Lichter, chair of the Board of Education of Baltimore County. “Her continued insistence on clear communications, focus on results-based outcomes, and relentless advocacy for our students and staff have all contributed to her effective leadership of our schools. We are fortunate to have her vision and drive.” Under Dr. Rogers’ leadership, BCPS has achieved improvements in elementary literacy, reading, and mathematics test scores, and the number of top school ratings from the state, as well as a dramatic decrease in chronic absenteeism. In addition, she has led successful initiatives to increase teacher retention rates and staff compensation and development, among other achievements. Nominees for the award are judged based on creatively meeting the needs of students, strong personal and organizational communications skills, professionalism and success in providing motivation, and active participation in one’s local community and understanding regional, national, and international issues. Founded in 1865 in Harrisburg, PA, and with advocacy as its driving force, the Arlington, VAbased AASA has become the nation’s premier association for school system leaders and serves as a national voice for public education and district leadership in Washington. Source: Baltimore County Press Release

BILL: SB 99 TITLE: Open Meetings Act - County Boards of Education - Enhanced Requirements (Local Boards of Education Transparency Act) DATE: February 04, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy, and 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, supports Senate Bill 99 with amendments . This bill makes local boards of education and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners subject to enhanced requirements under the Open Meetings Act. Specifically, it requires each local board of education and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners to make publicly available on its website the agenda and minutes of each meeting and a live video stream of each portion of a meeting held in open session. The bill also requires each local board of education and the Baltimore City board of School Commissioners to maintain on its website a complete and unedited archived video recording of each open meeting where video streaming was made available for a minimum of five years after the date of the meeting. (Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0009/sb0099.pdf ) PSSAM is strongly supportive of the bill and appreciates the intent to expand transparency and public access to school board meetings. We respectfully request consideration of three amendments  we believe would strengthen implementation, while preserving access for communities across the state. Amendment 1: Mirror Existing Statutory Language for Meeting Locations We request consideration of language for school board meetings that mirrors the existing statutory framework applied to the Maryland Transportation Authority (lines 25–30), which requires live video streaming only at the agency’s headquarters.  Applying a similar approach to school boards would preserve public access while recognizing practical realities. Many districts intentionally hold meetings in community locations - such as town halls or listening sessions - that are not conducive to live streaming. For example, Frederick County regularly conducts community conversations outside of headquarters, and Anne Arundel County Public Schools hosts public budget hearings in two community locations to improve geographic access. These meetings fully comply with Open Meetings Act notice and participation requirements, but are not always live streamed. This amendment would ensure continued access for residents in less urban or more remote areas without discouraging boards from meeting in the community. Amendment 2: Limited Authority to Remove Pornographic or Disruptive Content We request narrowly tailored authority to permit the removal of clearly inappropriate or pornographic content from meeting recordings. While we do not support broad or discretionary editing rights, recent instances of “Zoom bombing”—including explicit sexual conduct captured on video—raise serious concerns about permanently memorializing such content. We suggest exploring language that would allow limited removal of such material, paired with notification to or guidance from the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board. This approach would maintain transparency while protecting the integrity of the record and the public interest. Amendment 3: Use of Third-Party Platforms to Satisfy Posting and Storage Requirements Finally, we request clarification that posting meeting videos on third-party platforms such as YouTube may satisfy the posting requirement, provided that all retention timelines remain unchanged. This approach is already used by the General Assembly, MSDE, the Accountability and Implementation Board, and other State entities. In practice, third-party platforms are more accessible and user-friendly for the public, while also reducing technical and storage burdens for local boards.  PSSAM appreciates the sponsor and committee’s openness to these thoughtful adjustments that support transparency while ensuring the bill works effectively for all communities across Maryland. For these reasons, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 99 with the  suggested amendments  above.

BILL: SB 103 TITLE: Public Middle, High, and Charter Schools - Start Time for Instruction DATE: February 04, 2026 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy, and 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 103. This bill requires, beginning with the 2028-2029 school year, all middle schools in the State to begin instruction no earlier than 8:00 a.m. and all high schools in the State to begin instruction no earlier than 8:30 a.m. The State Board of Education (SBE), by request, may grant waivers from these requirements if they determine that there is a compelling reason for a school to require a different start time. However, a lack of funding to implement the new start times is not a compelling reason for a waiver. Additionally, beginning in the 2027-2028 school year, each local board of education and public charter school must implement a public information campaign to raise awareness of the later start times for middle and high schools, as specified. If requested, SBE must assist with these campaigns. The bill makes additional technical and conforming changes. Although PSSAM appreciates the intent of SB 103, local superintendents firmly believe that decisions regarding mandates—such as changes to school start times—should be made by local school districts in conjunction with guidance from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). It is important to note that local school systems already have the authority to adjust start times as needed and each district should be allowed the discretion to make decisions that best support its students, families, and communities. For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  Senate Bill 103 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: SB 51 TITLE: Public Schools - Self-Contained Special Education Classrooms - Use of Video Recording Devices DATE: February 04, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy and 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 51. This bill requires each local board of education, beginning with the 2027-2028 school year, to install at least one video recording device in each self-contained public school classroom in which a majority of the regularly attending students are provided special education instruction. These devices must record all areas of the classroom, including all exclusion areas, during school hours and any time the space is being used. However, recording may not occur in bathroom areas or in areas where students change clothing. A local board must provide specified notice of the use of these recording devices. If a public school employee observes an action that could be considered abuse or neglect of a student in a self‑contained special education classroom or exclusion area, the employee must report the action in accordance with any applicable child abuse and neglect reporting guidelines. The principal must, within 24 hours of receiving such a report, notify the parent of the student who is the subject of the report. (Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0051.pdf ) PSSAM shares the goal of ensuring safe and supportive learning environments for all students, but for several reasons we oppose this legislation. SB 51 imposes a costly, unfunded, and legally complex mandate that creates significant fiscal and administrative burdens for local school systems, raises serious student privacy and compliance risks, and alters the educational environment in counterproductive ways. Continuous classroom recording creates a substantial administrative burden under both the Maryland Public Information Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) . Video recordings routinely capture multiple students at once, creating ambiguity about whether footage constitutes an education record, for which students it qualifies as an education record, and whether parental consent is required from all families depicted. Required redaction is labor-intensive and, in many cases, impractical without destroying the meaning of the record. Many school systems already have local, legally vetted policies that address recordings in schools.  These policies balance transparency, parental rights, and privacy - such as permitting audio recording of IEP meetings, while restricting video recording unless required to preserve rights under law. This legislation would override carefully developed local policies that are in compliance with state and federal privacy laws,  specifically FERPA. In addition, federal guidance has consistently recognized that video recordings may constitute education records, triggering strict access, consent, and disclosure requirements. As discussed above, this would place school systems in the position of either violating FERPA by disclosing footage of other students, or incurring significant staff costs attempting to redact footage.   In addition, Maryland law requires all-party consent for recording conversations. Classroom instruction is inherently interactive and unpredictable, involving students, teachers, and related service providers. This legislation would override existing consent protections and undermine employee rights under current law.  Lastly, as described in the fiscal note, the financial impact of this legislation is significant and ongoing . Beyond initial equipment purchases, school systems would incur ongoing costs for maintenance and replacement, data storage and cybersecurity, staff time to manage, retain, redact, and respond to video requests, and training educators and staff on compliance and use. Room changes, reconfigurations, and program shifts would further compound costs over time. All of these would be borne on local boards of education without any State funding.  Experiences in other states suggest this issue warrants far greater scrutiny before imposing a statewide mandate.  For families , a more tailored and intentional approach tied to the IEP process would enhance parental engagement and better align decisions with individual student needs. A more thoughtful approach would also allow for meaningful engagement with educators in creating an educationally appropriate environment, predictable working conditions, and clear expectations on the use of cameras and their content.   In conclusion, SB 51 represents a costly, unfunded, and legally risky mandate that undermines privacy, equity, and the educational environment without clear evidence of benefit. Therefore, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 51 and requests an unfavorable committee report.

BILL: SB 79 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Elementary and Middle Schools - Student Technology Use Policy DATE: February 04, 2026 POSITION: Oppose COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy, and 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 79.  This bill requires county boards of education to develop and adopt a policy that prohibits elementary and middle school students from using a cellular phone or personal electronic device during school hours. Such policy may not prohibit a student from using a cellular device for any purpose documented in the student’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or Section 504 Plan, to monitor or address a student’s health issue, or when directed by an educator or administrator for educational purposes.  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 Senate Bill 79 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 48 TITLE: Education - Public School Construction - Alterations DATE: February 03, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Budget and Taxation 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 48 with amendments .  This bill proposes several changes to the public school construction program including, clarifying the type of proposals and plans that require the approval of the State Superintendent of Schools; requiring a county board of education to request and receive approval from the State Superintendent before the county board may proceed with certain actions; authorizing the  Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to adopt requirements for eligibility for certain State funding; modifying due dates of Commission reports; repealing the requirement for the Commission to approve a certain percentage of the preliminary school construction allocation by a certain date; requiring the Commission to establish an appeal process; clarifying the circumstances when the State may not require or shall require counties to reimburse the State for debt service; altering the requirement for certain assessments and inspections the Commission is required to conduct; and generally relating to public school construction. PSSAM appreciates several provisions in the bill that clarify or streamline existing statute, but we have identified a number of concerns for LEAs and county partners.  We are very supportive of the changes in §2-303 (Change Order Review Threshold) and §4-115 (State Superintendent Approval) The increase (2-303) in the threshold for State review of change orders is a positive step, particularly given that the State does not participate in funding for change orders. This new amount appropriately narrows State review only to major change orders. The proposed language in 4-115  appears to narrow the types of land acquisition and projects requiring approval from the State Superintendent. In addition, it appears that minor projects (e.g., paint or patch work) would be exempt unless they exceed a dollar threshold and involve substantive structural changes.  Below are areas of concern that we have shared with the IAC, and where appropriate, hope to clarify or resolve these concerns through amendments.  §5-303(d)(2)(xv) – Project Eligibility Authority: The proposed language appears to grant the IAC substantially greater authority to define eligibility criteria for State funding through regulation rather than statute. Shifting eligibility standards to regulations may provide less opportunity for LEAs and counties to respond to changes.  After speaking with the IAC, it is our understanding that this language is meant to provide more transparency by explaining the eligibility requirements, rather than creating new requirements. We are aware that the IAC underwent a complete update of their Administrative Procedures where a substantial amount of these requirements were codified. We would like to continue to work with the IAC to understand the intersection of this language and the revised Administrative Procedures.  §5-304 – Timing: Eliminating the requirement for 75% approval by December 31 delays meaningful State CIP guidance until March (90% approval). This timing is very late for many LEAs and county governments to plan effectively for the upcoming fiscal year. The December 75% approval has been a critical planning tool for aligning capital programs and local budget development. In our discussions with the IAC they have explained that in their opinion, the current process does not provide for the most reliable decision making process. In its place, they are considering a more robust monthly project request status update that will provide more productive dialogue between the LEAs and the IAC. They believe the existing deadline of December 31st does not provide enough time for important information to be developed about proposed projects. Further, they believe making these allocations before the state’s capital budget is introduced provides less reliability.  We appreciate the IAC’s commitment to a more reliable and accurate process for policymakers and the public. However, since the “75% allocation date” is a longstanding historical practice, we are hopeful that the IAC will share their newly proposed timeline, as well as propose legislative language that would that would ensure meaningful input from the LEAs and the counties before upending a decades-long established process.   §5-310 – Expanded Reporting Requirements: The proposed reporting requirements appear to significantly increase the burden on LEAs by requiring annual reporting of all changes to every building in an LEAs’ portfolio. Typically this level of reporting is done the year in which the quadriennial assessment is undertaken by the IAC. Switching to annual reporting on all schools would be a substantial increase in workload for local school systems.  We have discussed these concerns with the IAC and they will consider this feedback.  §5-314 – Educational Specifications and Schematic Design: This section appears to expand requirements for educational specifications and schematic design for HVAC replacement or modification projects exceeding $1 million. This review and approval is typically reserved for projects that change educational programs and exceed $1 million. Applying this same level of review to systemic HVAC projects would increase consultant design fees and overall project costs without clear educational benefit. According to the IAC, this section was meant to strengthen the State’s oversight of heating, ventilation, or air conditioning systems earlier in the project’s lifecycle. In addition, the $1 million threshold was to codify existing rules by the Department of General Services (DGS). We have provided some recommended language to more explicitly capture this intent.  As currently written, SB 48 makes significant changes to Maryland’s school construction approval and funding framework. The bill centralizes authority within the IAC by shifting eligibility and oversight functions from statute to regulation, delays CIP certainty by repealing existing approval timelines, and increases reporting, planning, and design requirements for LEAs. These changes could reduce project planning and funding predictability, while increasing costs and administrative burden at the local level. However, we are encouraged by our preliminary discussions with the IAC and look forward to continuing these conversations. We support the many improvements in the legislation, but need to protect LEAs and counties from unintended increased costs and human capital in fulfilling our obligation to provide the safest facilities possible for our students, staff and communities.  For these reasons, PSSAM supports SB 28   with the amendment s described above.