Search Results

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 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.

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: HB 189 TITLE: Public Middle, High, and Charter Schools - Start Time for Instruction DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Oppose 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 189. 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 HB 189, 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  House Bill 189 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report.

BILL: HB 154 TITLE: Open Meetings Act - County Boards of Education - Enhanced Requirements (Local Boards of Education Transparency Act) DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Favorable 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 154 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/sb00154.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 House Bill 154 with the  suggested amendments  above.

BILL: HB 163 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Technology Use Policy Requirements DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Oppose 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 163.  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 House Bill 163 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 128 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Therapy Dogs - Policy for Handling  and Use in Schools DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Oppose 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, sadly opposes HB 128 . This bill requires each local board of education to allow, and adopt a policy for, the use of therapy dogs in public schools, and requires a handler to accompany each therapy dog in school. The policy must include (1) certification requirements for therapy dogs; (2) guidelines for handlers; (3) guidelines for when and where therapy dogs and handlers are allowed in school buildings; (4) notification requirements; and (5) guidelines for the management of students and staff with allergies or who are uncomfortable around dogs. Under the bill, a “therapy dog” is a dog that is trained to provide affection and comfort to children who need emotional support in a school setting and is certified or registered as a therapy dog. A “handler” is an individual who provides care and training for the therapy dog.  PSSAM appreciates the intent of this legislation and the focus on supporting students’ emotional and mental well-being. Local school systems share that goal and are deeply invested in creating safe, supportive learning environments for all students. Federal and State law already allow for the use of service animals  in schools when they are trained to perform specific, documented tasks—such as alerting individuals of an oncoming seizure, reminding someone to take medication, or assisting with mobility or medical needs. These service animals are subject to well-established legal standards and protections. This bill goes beyond those existing frameworks by requiring every local board of education to allow and adopt policies for therapy dogs , which are not covered under federal disability law in the same way.  While well-intentioned, this raises several concerns. First , the bill relies on a concept of “certification” for therapy dogs that is not legally recognized . There is currently no uniform, legally defined certification standard for therapy dogs providing affection and comfort in schools. As written, the bill would leave substantial room for interpretation regarding what qualifications are sufficient for a dog to serve in this role, creating inconsistency and potential risk across school systems. Second , the bill would unreasonably mandate the presence of a handler  to accompany each therapy dog in a school setting. This raises practical and operational questions about supervision, staffing, training, liability, and cost—particularly in environments where schools are already managing complex student needs with limited resources. Third , dogs that are not otherwise trained for structured school environments may unintentionally become a distraction or disturbance  to other students and staff. Schools must also consider unintended consequences, including classroom disruptions, safety concerns, and the management of students and employees with allergies, fears, or cultural discomfort around dogs. Finally , this legislation would expand the scope and complexity of student supports  that schools would be required to manage without requiring a documented need for this intervention. Local school systems already use a range of evidence-based supports—social workers, counselors, psychologists, behavioral interventions, and targeted programs—tailored to individual student needs. Mandating a specific support tool without an individualized determination could undermine that existing framework. We welcome continued dialogue on how best to support students’ social and emotional well-being in a manner that is flexible, legally sound, and responsive to local conditions. Therefore, PSSAM sadly opposes House Bill 128.

BILL: HB 123 TITLE: School Systems - Reportable Offenses - Alterations DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee House Judiciary 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 123. This bill expands the offenses that qualify as reportable offenses and makes changes to related reporting requirements. If the State’s Attorney determines that school officials have not been notified of a student’s arrest for a reportable offense (as required under current law), the State’s Attorney may notify the school officials.                                                                                 (Source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0003/hb0123.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 this 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 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 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 in the 2027 legislative session. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this Letter of Information  on House Bill 123.

BILL: HB 63 TITLE: Education - Interscholastic and Intramural Junior Varsity and Varsity Teams and Locker Rooms - Designation Based on Sex (Fairness in Girls' Sports Act) DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Oppose 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 63. 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  House Bill 63 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 110 TITLE: Motor Vehicles - School Buses - Seat Belts DATE: February 05, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee House Environment & Transportation 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 HB 110 . This bill requires every school bus purchased on or after July 1, 2030, and registered in the State to be equipped with, for each seat on the school bus, three-point seat belts that are accessible to passengers. Local school systems must provide student instruction on school bus safety and the proper use of seat belts on school buses, as part of an existing program of safety education. The failure of a school bus operator to ensure that an occupant of a school bus was wearing a seat belt may not be the basis of a criminal prosecution or a civil action for damages against the school bus operator or a school, school district, or municipality. As under current law, “seat belt” is defined as any belt, strap, harness, or like device. The bill also makes various technical changes to terminology. PSSAM appreciates the intent of House Bill 110 and the sponsors’ concern for the safety and well-being of students on school buses.  The safe transportation of our students is a top priority for all local superintendents.   While we still believe that school buses are almost 40 times safer than any other form of ground transportation in preventing serious injury or death**, we understand that the installation of seat belts on buses is a matter of when, not if, and, we appreciate the sponsor’s willingness to work with school systems to mitigate the financial and operational impact of changing our bus fleet.  We particularly want to thank the sponsor for taking our concerns seriously regarding student behavior on school buses and potential liability concerns. Although we implement numerous strategies and procedures to lessen the chance of inappropriate action on the part of students, this can be a difficult task.    Therefore, PSSAM supports House Bill 110.