Search Results

SchoolCEO July 31, 2025 The Public School Superintendents' Association of Maryland is proud to highlight that SchoolCEO  magazine’s Summer 2025 issue features Dr. Thomas Taylor, Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). The profile highlights Dr. Taylor’s dynamic leadership, student-centered vision, and the values he brings to one of the nation’s largest school districts. The article, titled “Southern Hospitality,”  offers a compelling look at his journey and the strategic priorities shaping MCPS under his leadership. " For Taylor, students come first. 'The greatest job that you could possibly have is to get to interact with kids,' he says. However, the rest of the MCPS community is just as important. The way forward, as he sees it, is to focus on the “customer” experience so everyone in the district feels welcomed, respected, encouraged and supported. 'There is already a great affinity for the brand that is Montgomery County Public Schools. It’s taken some knocks in recent years, but I think I can win my customers back if we just keep doing what we’ve been doing over the last year,' says Taylor. And if it’s up to him, he’s going to keep doing what he’s been doing for as long as MCPS will have him. 'I am literally having the time of my life,' he says. 'I love every minute of what I am doing every day.'" Read the full feature here. Source: SchoolCEO

Eye on Annapolis May 04, 2025 Image source: Eye on Annapolis Citing a commitment to transparency and enhancing relationships with stakeholders through a variety of avenues, the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) has named Superintendent of Schools Dr. Mark Bedell as its 2025 winner of the Bob Grossman Leadership in School Communications Award. The award is given annually by NSPRA to recognize outstanding leadership in school public relations and communications. It honors Robert L. Grossman, a past NSPRA past president who believed that the support and commitment of top education leaders is vital to successful school communication. “I’m very grateful to NSPRA for this award, which truly represents the efforts of so many,” Dr. Bedell said. “The work of schools and school districts is difficult, and it is only through helping everyone see that their voice has value – that they can Belong, Grow, and Succeed, as our Strategic Plan states – that we can become the premier school district we believe we can be.” Dr. Bedell has set a tone of transparency since he began his term as Superintendent in 2022. In that first year, he hosted a 16-session Listening and Learning tour, with three sessions conducted in Spanish. It drew more than 1,000 people and built a base of respect and confidence throughout the community. He also hosted a 10-session Community Conversations tour with Cabinet members in his second year and a Partners in Progress tour this year to continue to provide outlets for the community to have access to school system leadership. “Dr. Bedell’s leadership reflects the very ideals championed by Bob Grossman: that effective school communication begins at the top,” NSPRA wrote in its announcement of the award today. Dr. Mary Dadone, a longtime community education advocate for marginalized students, said that Dr. Bedell’s efforts have changed perceptions of the school district. “Dr. Bedell has brought us hope, courage, clarity of focus, trust, improved relationships and notable academic improvement,” she wrote in a letter of support for his nomination. “He has been a model of transparency.” Insisting that a new Strategic Plan be a “community plan,” Dr. Bedell created a steering committee of more than 60 people to help draft the document, which was approved by the Board of Education in 2023. “I just believe that people can’t help you get you where you want to go if they don’t know where you are and to establish that you have to tell the good, the bad, and the ugly,” Dr. Bedell said. “We have done that since my first day here and I have been very fortunate to have a team in our Communications Division and beyond that has worked very hard to tell those stories.” Dr. Bedell has been no stranger in the community. His frequent presence at school activities, athletic contests, and events across the county have made him readily accessible to families. He is a regular participant in student mentoring sessions and his school visits always include built-in time to converse with staff and students about issues important to them. Dr. Bedell has also worked to streamline and strengthen the district’s communications efforts. A systemwide reorganization incorporated the Office of School and Family Partnerships with Communications and Design & Print Services, allowing efforts to reach parent groups and international families to be more equitable, closely aligned and effective. With his support, there has also been a concerted effort to increase outreach to multilingual families. As an example, AACPS now has Facebook pages in six languages. To help keep the community informed, Dr. Bedell also provides public video updates through “Thursday Thoughts” segments that are posted online. Source: Eye on Annapolis

Maryland Association of Counties: Conduit Street Hosts Michael Sanderson & Sarah Sample January 31, 2024 The newest Conduit Street Podcast features Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director of PSSAM! She joined hosts Michael Sanderson and Sarah Sample for an insightful discussion on the "North Star" guiding all 24 Maryland superintendents: student achievement. Tune in to hear about PSSAM's legislative priorities for the 2025 session and how they aim to shape the future of education in Maryland. Don't miss this important conversation! Listen here now! Conduit Street Podcast: Education Priorities for Maryland’s Future " This week on the Conduit Street Podcast, hosts Michael Sanderson and Sarah Sample are joined by Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director of the Public School Superintendents Association of Maryland. With numerous bills aimed at education policy and the Blueprint for Maryland's Future this legislative session, Mary Pat shares how local superintendents focus on policies prioritizing student outcomes and setting clear expectations for education agencies. Tune in for insights into these priorities and other key issues on their agenda in this week’s episode." Source: Maryland Association of Counties: Conduit Street

BILL: SB 429/HB 504 TITLE: Excellence in Maryland Public Schools Act DATE: February 19, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments COMMITTEE: Senate Budget and Taxation & Education, Energy, and the Environment Committees House Appropriations & Ways and 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, supports SB 429/HB 504 with amendments. This omnibus bill makes significant changes to funding formulas enacted as part of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, creates new programs related to literacy initiatives and teacher recruitment, makes changes to the community schools program, and requires a study on special education funding.  We appreciate the Governor's interest in ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future and his desire to incorporate additional initiatives to enhance student success, but as the leaders on the front lines of Maryland’s 10-year education reform we can only offer limited support for this legislation. Anticipating the Administration’s desire for changes to the Blueprint due to the State’s looming fiscal crisis, we asked the Governor last fall for a seat at the table to identify solutions that would not hinder the long-term success of the Blueprint, namely, solutions that would continue to support student growth and academic achievement. Unfortunately, this legislation does not protect the progress we have made, and seriously jeopardizes the transformational vision of the Blueprint.  Despite our frustrations and criticisms of this legislation, we strongly request the opportunity to work with the Governor and the General Assembly to craft solutions and modifications that are achievable, ensure the highest return on Blueprint investments, maximize efficiencies, and maintain the promise and momentum of the early successes of the Blueprint.  Pausing Collaborative Time and Commensurate Funding Changes  This legislation makes significant funding changes by altering the target per pupil “foundation” funding starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 through FY 2030 by delaying the “collaborative time” initiative by four years; provisions are made to hold special education funding harmless. The legislation creates new Collaborative Time Innovation Demonstration Grants over the same four year period to test innovative teacher collaboration models. Funding can be used for compensation for additional staff, planning of new master schedules, professional development, technical assistance, and other uses approved by MSDE. To be eligible, an application must be co-signed with a local employee organization.  PSSAM strongly opposes the delay in collaborative time and the commensurate funding reductions, as well as the development of the Demonstration Grants. The projected loss of State funding under this proposal is estimated to total $1.557 billion, with an additional loss of $1.167 billion of locally required spending, resulting in a four-year reduction of $2.724 billion in direct funding to schools.  The Blueprint’s vision for collaborative time was ambitious, creating an eight-year phase-in to reach the ultimate goal of achieving 60% of a teacher’s time in front of students, and 40% of their time devoted to collaborative work. The Kirwan Commission’s consideration of “collaborative time” was always more expansive than just hiring new teachers. In fact, suitable activities for the 40% of time centered around deepening LEA leadership development and professional learning opportunities, as well as traditional individual “planning time” understood by most laypeople.  In fact, part of the 40% time envisioned small group support, including:  Working with students struggling to meet college and career readiness; Interventions for families and students suffering from chronic absenteeism;  High leverage tutoring opportunities; Co-teaching/modeling for special education and multilingual learners (MLL); Time for IEP and MLL-plan work and support;  More special education and MLL classroom support staff, especially for newer or conditionally hired teachers; Peer observations to see model lessons; Behavioral supports for students (more adults in a classroom to allow for more small group rotations and other supports); Working with students and families needing social-emotional supports; Collaborative time with paras and teaching assistants to ensure that they are prepared for instructional support; Support for conditionally hired teachers and those teaching outside of their certification areas; and,  Restorative practice interventions with staff who have specific training.  Clearly the Kirwan Commission’s intention was not just hiring more teachers.  It is very important to recognize that the best recruitment is retention of teachers. And the phased in funding is so important to retaining staff as you grow your workforce and change staffing configurations. The biggest issue here is that when LEAs strive to reach 60% of teaching time, they need the funding flexibility to grow into those structures. Schools are constantly reallocating staffing in grades and classes to account for discrepancies in teacher tenure, expertise, curriculum, etc. So at any given time, you have classes that are under the teacher-student ratio and some that are slightly over, but you need the funding to cover the transition - the phase-in -  not requiring the hiring of a massive amount of new teachers at once. However, stopping the funding will delay the progress in reaching the expected teaching/planning ratios.    The early funding priorities of the Blueprint were to bolster the teaching profession, including the requirement to increase teacher salaries by 10% by July 1, 2024, compared to their salaries on June 30, 2019, as well as provide incentives for the attainment of National Board Certification, and reaching a minimum salary of $60,000 by FY 2027. Teacher recruitment has always been a priority and year-round activity for LEAs, but the pandemic dealt a significant blow to these efforts.  Regardless, local school systems have been working hard to achieve these goals in the first three years of the implementation, while planning for the eight-year phase-in of collaborative time. In fact, for almost a year, LEAs and their staff have been requesting guidance and direction from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) on the expectations for the phase-in because local implementation plans of collaborative time are due July 1, 2025. LEA staff and superintendents have made it explicitly clear that these plans will take time to create, and need to be negotiated with their bargaining units; negotiations started in earnest in early fall 2025 for the FY 2026 budget.  Never once was there a formal or explicit indication or expectation that 15,000 teachers would need to be hired by the full phase-in of the plan, OR that significant hiring would be required in the early years of implementation.  Without clear direction or engagement from either entity, LEAs began conversations with their bargaining units and made assumptions of what would be expected in these early years.   LEAs reasonably expected their July 1, 2025 plans would include laying the foundation for the implementation, including:  Assessment of current teaching/collaborative time for each grade band; Master planning ideas to accomplish innovative ideas such as co-teaching, small group configurations for differentiated learning; alternative support staffing models; hybrid learning models across grade levels; the use of outside resources to allow for more flexibility for classroom teachers, such as tutoring programs;  Short and long-term staff recruitment and retention, including creative partnerships with local teacher preparation programs and institutes of higher education to develop workforce pipelines for local shortages or priorities; and,  Space considerations (facility needs).  In fact, the AIB currently has several consultants working directly with LEAs assessing the actual staffing needs. This work should more accurately estimate, with real time data, projected teacher needs. We suspect this exercise will yield a much more realistic number than 15,000 teachers needed.  The teacher shortage is not new - not in 2025 and not even in 2016 when the Kirwan Commission began its work. In fact, MSDE has been collecting data on the shortage since 1996. The justification for pausing our collaborative time work because we need to hire 15,000 teachers is unfair and sets the stage for LEA failure.  The health of the Blueprint funding is in trouble, but to use this false narrative to undergird and justify the reductions that will be faced by local school systems is wholly unfair and unsupported without localized evidence and data.  The decision to “pause” collaborative time was made by the AIB at a single, quasi public meeting in January, 2025 without any opportunity for meaningful input by stakeholders. The AIB leadership has criticized our organization for recommendations we published last December; but taken together, all thirty of our recommendations would not alter the vision or faithful implementation of the Blueprint compared to this single change that will irrevocably halt the success and momentum of the Blueprint. This policy decision to pause collaborative time has been the single biggest change made to the Blueprint to date. Again, made without serious or meaningful public discourse by educators, advocates, but most significantly without input from the superintendents who have been diligently requesting a seat at the table with the decision makers on ‘all-things Blueprint.’ We had no opportunity to make our case against the single most important change proposed and adopted by the AIB who are statutorily mandated to implement the Blueprint with fidelity.  We are not naive about the Blueprint’s impact on the State’s future fiscal health - and this proposal is not about a teacher shortage - this is about money and slowing down the cost of the Blueprint. We are deeply frustrated at the Administration’s financial solution being retroactively endorsed by the AIB through such a dramatic policy shift without any meaningful deliberation or even understanding the fiscal impact on the LEAs. This decision flies in the face of the Commission’s comprehensive work and undermines the Blueprint’s innovative approach that every Pillar is transformative; but, it is the coalescence of the five Pillars that creates dynamic outcomes and achievements. Removing the funding and pausing the collaborative time in Year 4 undercuts the foundation of transformation in every sense. We remain incredulous to the idea that such a diversion from the original Blueprint will go unchecked in the name of an expectation of hiring 15,000 teachers just “revealed” to the public in news stories less than three months ago. We did not plan - or want -  to have a conversation about the insufficiency of the existing Foundation funding this year. However, now faced with the losses proposed by the Governor’s education bill - we are compelled to discuss the impacts on our budget on behalf of our staff and most importantly our students.  The truth is funding and student achievement go hand-in-hand and we are not going to be able to make the progress in student achievement without the Blueprint funding we have been counting on and fought for all those years ago. Under this legislation funding is reduced resulting in a 3.11% increase in per pupil spending over FY ‘25. This is not an historic investment or an investment that will yield the outcomes our students deserve. To compound our distress, FY ‘25 was the lowest increase in per pupil funding over the 10 years of the Blueprint - a 1.7% increase in funding. Last year budgets were balanced through a variety of strategies including:  Using reserve funds (if LEAs had any);  Delaying the expansion of PreK; Increasing class sizes; and, Staff and teacher reductions.  But superintendents were optimistic knowing that FY ‘26 would return to more appropriate funding - an almost 5% increase in per pupil funding.  In Maryland, education is a shared funding obligation between state and local governments, so in addition to the scaffolding effect of reducing the Foundation funding on the compensatory education and multilingual learner formulas, there is the elimination of required local funding to schools.  For FY ‘26 school systems will lose $234 million in direct education funding for next school year……and none of this helps the State’s FY ‘26 budget deficit.  Reducing the Foundation as envisioned by this legislation will result in much deeper cuts this year.  Districts will have to cut teachers;  Districts will have to reopen bargaining agreements regarding increased salaries in keeping with the Blueprint mandates; Districts will increase class sizes; and, Districts will see stagnant growth in student achievement. In addition to ensuring the academic success of Maryland’s students, we must voraciously advocate for adequate funding of public schools. In fact, this critical responsibility is enshrined in COMAR 4-205(g)(5): The County Superintendent shall try in every way to awaken public interest and improve educational conditions…. and in COMAR 4-205(k)(2): The County Superintendent shall seek in every way to secure adequate funds from local authorities for the support and development of the public schools….  We take these responsibilities seriously and will continue to advocate for necessary resources to ensure student success. Concentration of Poverty (CPG)/Community Schools  This legislation proposes a pause in the expansion of community schools that will “save” the State $473 million over the original, promised Blueprint funding. This is done by freezing funding at FY ‘26 levels for two years; funding will resume in FY ‘29 based on the amount the eligible school would have received in FY ‘27. The bill allows for district-wide use of up to 50% of the funding for school systems with more than two community schools. It expands the definition of “wrap-around services” by community schools to include anything identified by MSDE in guidance or regulation, as well as specific expansions to include (1) increased behavioral and physical health services; (2) chronic absenteeism intervention programs; (3) increasing the number of highly qualified teachers; and, (4) community-based educational and workforce training for families. Lastly, the bill shifts regulatory oversight and compliance from the AIB to the MSDE, giving MSDE the authority to issue requirements for community schools’ implementation plans to include measurable goals, and to review plans annually instead of every 3 years. The MSDE is authorized to withhold funding or take other compliance actions, and can hire additional employees to provide direct guidance to local school systems. The bill redirects $8.2 million over four years to MSDE to support these increased responsibilities. PSSAM is supportive of the operational and oversight changes to MSDE, as well as the expanded uses of the community schools funding, but opposes the pause in Community Schools funding for two years. For the last two years, our organization has strongly requested flexibility in community schools funding. We have been very pleased with the exponential growth in community schools and the corresponding academic improvements and positive community impact. This bill very astutely recognizes that allowing districts to use some of this funding for district-wide activities will yield tremendous economies of scale and enhance best practices and cooperation in school systems. Further, we strongly support the bill’s recognition that a limited amount of funding should be used for fiscal management and compliance. We understand the hesitancy of funders to allow for administrative spending, but its importance has been well-documented and supported. Federal Title programs have long acknowledged the need to set aside funding for administrative tasks, such as budgeting, contracts and grant writing, to support the hands-on work. Centralizing and supporting these tasks at the district office ensures that the totality of the CPG funds are used with fidelity with the appropriate staff managing these essential funding and procurement functions. Freeing up these management burdens allows school coordinators to concentrate on engaging families, supporting students, and collaborating with community partners.  However, we would prefer a formal triennial evaluation of each community school instead of the proposed annual evaluation ; it is important to note that these schools also undergo periodic audits to ensure that funds are being spent appropriately and in accordance with their implementation plans. Community schools are also subject to annual local budget processes, which are available to the public, so there is continual oversight from the districts as well.  Lastly, we request that any new regulations promulgated or guidelines developed by MSDE be developed in deep consultation with the LEAs, and that any new reporting requirements are given to LEAs at least six months before they are required.  Teacher Recruitment and Grow Your Own Programs  The legislation establishes a National Teacher Recruitment Campaign , appropriating $2.1 million over 4 years, as well as the Maryland Teacher Relocation Incentive Gran t ($4.3 million over 4 years) for out-of-state licensed teachers willing to teach in high-need schools. The bill modifies the Grow Your Own Educators Grant Program  to focus on experiential learning pathways, minimum mentor teacher ratios and the designation of a program administrator from the local school system, funded with $134 million of Blueprint funding over 4 years.  The legislation also implements the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact   that allows teachers licensed in member states to receive equivalent licensure in Maryland without redundant testing or coursework, and provides special provisions for active military members and their spouses to expedite licensure. PSSAM fully supports the Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact .   As for the other teacher recruitment provisions, PSSAM appreciates the MSDE’s interest in taking the lead on these teacher recruitment and training initiatives but we have serious concerns about the breadth of these new initiatives and the proposed structure of the programs. We do not believe a case has been made that the Department can more effectively manage a statewide recruitment campaign without meaningful input by the local school systems who have not been consulted at all on these new ideas. There has been no effort or outreach to determine what is already available and working in local districts that the MSDE could help support and grow. Several districts already have longstanding recruitment programs, some more generous than the proposed plan, and others that have been carefully negotiated with bargaining units. Before building a new statewide infrastructure for these efforts, it is important to understand the current efforts underway across the 24 school systems.  This is a huge amount of funding for initiatives we know nothing about and make changes to a Grow Your Own Program that was just spearheaded by MSEA, and well-deliberated and established by the General Assembly last legislative session. Without more specific information about these proposals, we cannot support them at this time.  If the General Assembly agrees that these new programs are most appropriately managed and run by the MSDE, we strongly request that General Funds are identified instead of diverting Blueprint funds to these new initiatives.  The School Leadership Training Programs The bill also alters the leadership training programs originally envisioned by the Blueprint and amended by the Maryland General Assembly last session. The program is split into two components - the existing program becomes The School System Leadership Training Program, with required participation by local superintendents and the chair and vice chairs of a county board, as well as the State Superintendent and the leadership of the State Board and the AIB. Currently there is $5 million budgeted for this program. The new Maryland School Leadership Academy, costing approximately $1,250,000 a year, would be optional for principals, assistant principals, other school-based or county board leaders, or others who may benefit. The leadership academy would last for 12 months, be job-embedded, and effective school leaders will be selected as mentors who may be paid a stipend.  PSSAM supports the leadership training programs but requests significant amendments to clarify the General Assembly’s intention for these trainings . The original intent of this training was to embed the tenets of the Blueprint in State education leaders. Last year the General Assembly made changes to the program reflecting the fact that the training was almost two years behind and expanded the training’s purposes to more broadly address leadership. We feel strongly that if the General Assembly wants to incur almost $7 million a year in training, these programs are not achieving the original, or updated goals.  Currently, these trainings are not directly related to the work of the Blueprint and largely reflect work that is done in any master’s program. In fact, the Department could require that Maryland higher education programs incorporate more Blueprint specific curriculum into their programs to truly embed the Blueprint culture into future educators. We appreciate the Department’s attempts to make these trainings more salient and meaningful, but we are not there yet.  As for the new Maryland School Leadership Academy, we believe principals and school-based leaders are the key to the success of the Blueprint. We would like to work in partnership with the AIB and the MSDE to fully develop professional development modules that can be deployed uniformly across the State through existing professional learning communities and opportunities. In our experiences, some of the most successful professional development programs out of the MSDE use a train-the-trainer model that can be adapted and incorporated into local school system trainings throughout the year.  In addition, the statute needs to clarify the expectations for the School System Leadership Training regarding the number of times a superintendent and board member is required to complete the training. Lastly, much of this content could be incorporated into existing leadership training conducted by State associations. For example, our organization has a year-long Aspiring Superintendents Academy, as well as aspiring principal academies run by the two Principals’ Associations in Maryland. Lastly, the Maryland Association of Boards (MABE) holds annual training sessions for new and existing Board members that would be ideal to incorporate curriculum developed by the MSDE and the AIB.  Academic Excellence Program and Fund  This legislation also creates the Academic Excellence Program and Fund. The Program’s purpose is professional development to improve early literacy and numeracy through the use of “coordinators of professional learning” and “instructional coaches” managed by MSDE. Schools would be identified based on accountability data, and a statewide data collection initiative would be established to monitor fund usage and student outcomes. This is funded with $228 million of Blueprint funds over four years. PSSAM strongly opposes the creation of this new and expansive initiative.  While literacy is certainly a key element of the Blueprint’s goals, a state-led initiative such as this was never envisioned or discussed by the Kirwan Commission. This well-meaning initiative is a significant departure from the Blueprint legislation, siphoning off tremendous resources from the Blueprint Fund. We strongly oppose this funding proposal and suggest that if this is a priority of the State, it be funded with General Funds. Local superintendents cannot support redirecting promised funding to districts, in addition to what is likely to also siphon off LEA staff to move into statewide “coordinator” and “coach” positions.  Special Education Funding  In addition to holding special education per-pupil funding harmless from the proposed reductions, the legislation requires an independent study on special education funding on or before January 1, 2026. In consultation with the AIB, the MSDE shall contract with an independent public or private entity and, at a minimum, review and make recommendations on (i) the costs of special education in the State; (ii) the rising costs of special education for prekindergarten students and the appropriate funding formula for those students assumed to be covered in the prekindergarten per pupil funding allocation under the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future; (iii) the implications of the design assumptions in the existing special education funding structure related to long–term spending and costs; (iv) the establishment of a system of multiple weights for special education funding based on disability and level of services and support needed.  PSSAM strongly supports this study as it was one of our organization’s recommendations to the MSDE and AIB in the fall of 2024 . Local school systems spend over $1,038,848,168 in direct special education services that are NOT reimbursed by the state and federal governments ( see linked chart ) . Special education funding is the untold story of education funding at the local level - how this massive under funding crowds out our ability to implement the Blueprint and “reallocate resources.” Every school system would be able to fully implement the Blueprint and exceed goals and expectations, if they were able to use the Foundation as intended, without the need to cover these profound deficits in special education.  Special education costs are the legitimate and necessary  costs of educating our most vulnerable students; these are services that students and families are entitled to and we are committed to providing them. However, there is no denying how extraordinary these costs are, and they will continue to grow. The connecting and relevant point here is that the Kirwan Commission never truly and openly examined these costs and pressures on local education budgets. The clock was running out and the work was set aside to be dealt with by a special education work group. Years later that group is struggling to get its recommendations the attention they deserve. In the meantime, local school systems continue to fund special education to ensure the services for the students We appreciate the Maryland General Assembly’s careful considerations of our comments and concerns. We look forward to working collaboratively with the committees to craft more reasonable and equitable solutions to address the sustainability of the Blueprint. At its core, this legislation undercuts the building block of the Blueprint by reducing promised Foundation funding through reduced state and local funding for the life of the Blueprint, and diverts resources to new initiatives at the State level that were never contemplated by the Kirwan Commission or discussed with local school systems.

December 11, 2024 You can view PSSAM's Legislative and Policy Recommendations for the 2025 Legislative Session here . PSSAM Legislative and Policy Recommendations The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future creates a bold trajectory for Maryland’s public education system. As the state’s top educators, we stand behind the Blueprint and applaud those who have fought hard to make this vision a reality.  We have gained invaluable experience and insight after three years of implementation - celebrating early successes, but also experiencing frustrations and challenges. Our requests for policy and legislative changes are the result of the real experiences from education experts doing the Blueprint “work” every day in school buildings and leadership offices. Our experiences in education reform have taught us that it is not enough to put a program in place, but to evaluate its effectiveness and make adjustments along the way.   The Blueprint’s goals are achievable, but the implementation needs to be streamlined and realistic with clearer expectations and guidance from State leaders. While it is too early for a complete evaluation of our work, we believe these valuable lessons should be considered, and our recommendations for changes embraced as “course corrections” to ensure long-term success.  This document includes requests for policy adjustments we believe can be made by the State Board of Education (SBOE) and/or the Accountability and Implementation  Board (AIB) without statutory changes, or within the AIB’s plenary authority.  Part of the Blueprint’s innovative approach is that every Pillar is transformative;  but, it is the coalescence of these five Pillars that will create dynamic outcomes and achievements. In practice, it is also this coalescence that has been one of the biggest challenges to successful implementation. In addition, each of Maryland’s twenty-four Local Education Agencies (LEAs) has a different starting point and growth trajectory. The Blueprint tends to have a one-size approach that does not “fit all,” especially in districts  that were previously demonstrating efficiency and excellence in many areas of the Blueprint. Our Core Mission and Measure of Success - Student Growth and Achievement  The recommendations in these pages are the result of analysis of student data, qualitative experiences of educators and staff, and thoughtful contemplation of the following questions:  How is this pillar/activity/initiative performing against Our Core Mission and Measure of Success - Student Growth and Achievement?  What has been accomplished that enhances and promotes student achievement? What is new, or enhanced that has worked?  How have we demonstrated progress?  What has challenged our ability to grow student success?  What has been our ‘Return on Investment (ROI?)’ on each activity?  Has the human and fiscal capital produced results that would have otherwise been unattainable?  Will further investments in an initiative achieve student success?  PSSAM, and its twenty-four superintendents, look forward to working with the State Board and AIB leadership, the Governor, the Legislature, and all education partners to guarantee the success of The Blueprint, ensuring a world-class and equitable public education for every Maryland student. For more information, please contact Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, at marypat.fannon@pssam.org .

BILL: HB 1127 TITLE: Public Schools - Water Safety and Swimming - Instructional Content DATE: April 02, 2025 POSITION: Unfavorable 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 public school superintendents, opposes House Bill 1127. This bill requires each local board of education to develop water safety instructional content by July 1, 2026, and implement it during the 2026-2027 school year. 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 1127   and requests an  unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 1127 TITLE: Education - Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students - Alterations DATE: April 02, 2025 POSITION: Favorable 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 public school superintendents, supports House Bill 772 with amendments . This bill extends the existing funding mechanism for the Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students for two years, through fiscal 2028. The bill likewise extends the program’s reporting requirements by two years. The Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) must report to the Governor and the General Assembly on the effectiveness of the Career Counseling Program for Middle and High School Students, as specified, by January 1, 2027.  PSSAM appreciates this Committee’s thoughtful consideration of our common-sense amendments that will improve this initiative before granting its extension through the 2027–2028 school year, and without an evaluation until January 2027. First of all, the LEAs are very committed to career counseling and want to see the vision of individualized career plans for students honored and achieved.  When the 24 local superintendents undertook a comprehensive review of each pillar of the Blueprint last fall, the career counseling program stood out as a top priority in need of adjustment. This program represents a significant investment—$55 million annually in new Blueprint funding—and yet is not universally serving students effectively across the state . Further, we would contend that in districts where it is working well, it is being managed directly by the school systems. We strongly agree and believe that career counseling is a critical component of the Blueprint, and collaboration with Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) is important. However, the current structure—embedding the funding in the Foundation formula and mandating direct transfers to WIBs without checks or oversight—is poor policy and fiscally irresponsible.  In addition, the program was crafted without an analysis of existing career counseling programs within LEAs and pushed forward without a needs assessment to target effective implementation. Many career counseling programs existed in LEAs predating the Blueprint and already included robust offerings like CTE, apprenticeships, dual enrollment, early college, and more. There was also no consideration on capacity or expertise of local WIBs to implement this initiative and many have acknowledged they are ill-equipped to take this on alone.  Career preparation and readiness were not new ideas or concepts uncovered by the Kirwan Commission, but the Blueprint rightfully elevated the importance of this work. LEAs greatly appreciate the State’s dedicated funding to leverage both historic local investments and to expand partnerships. However, these expansions must recognize local context and strengths, and honor the feedback from educators who have the professional experience to build the most effective programs for middle and high school students’ developmental and academic abilities. As it stands, in non-LEA-led districts, the career coaching program is siloed, bureaucratic, and inflexible. It operates as a top-down, box-checking exercise rather than a tool for real transformation. The return on investment is low, and with thoughtful course corrections, this funding could be a powerful driver of student success. Importantly, the Blueprint holds LEAs  accountable for ensuring students are college and career ready by 10th grade or by graduation— not the WIBs.  Yet in many cases, LEAs have little to no role in overseeing this counseling work. This disconnect undermines our ability to meet Blueprint expectations. Counseling must be fully integrated into the broader efforts underway to prepare students for life after high school. There is currently no accountability mechanism for the WIBs. LEAs must track Blueprint funds by month, school, and category—down to the student level. By contrast, WIBs are not held accountable to share budgets or provide documentation of services rendered. This is unacceptable for an entity tasked with providing a single service: career counseling. Therefore, we respectfully request the following: 1. Delay the ratification of the FY 2026 MOU if requested by any party If requested by one of the parties to the MOUs, a new FY 2026 MOU will not be ratified by the appropriate state agency until the following actions are completed, or by mutual consent and approval by the appropriate state agency: A comprehensive review  of existing LEA and WIB programs; A district-specific needs assessment , including school-level needs as applicable; A service delivery plan  outlining: The entity that will hire and manage career coaches; Hiring timelines; and Service models appropriate for each grade band.  A provision that would allow for the appropriate state agency to enforce the terms of the MOU by withholding funding  to the noncompliant party.  2. Unified Training and Information Sharing  LEAs shall provide training for all career coaches—whether employed by LEAs or WIBs—to ensure they can clearly articulate each district’s college and career pathways, including academic, CTE, apprenticeship, internship, dual enrollment, early college, AP, IB, and other unique opportunities. 3. Fiscal Accountability for WIBs  WIBs must be held to the same standards of fiscal and programmatic accountability as LEAs. MOUs should require: Annual budgets  aligned with the service delivery plan; Quarterly expenditure reports  to LEAs; Annual program reports  to the appropriate state agency. 4. Evaluation and Oversight  The legislation should require:  An interim evaluation report  to the Governor and General Assembly by May 31, 2026. A final report and recommendations  by December 15, 2026 Ideally, these evaluations should be conducted by an independent third party with no vested interest in the program. We believe these recommendations strike a balance between accountability, collaboration, and student-centered design. We welcome continued partnership with the Committee and urge a favorable report with amendments  to ensure this program is as effective, efficient, and equitable as it was intended to be. Attachment: Original opposition testimony to HB 772

BILL: SB 887 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Reappointment of Incumbent County  Superintendent - Authorization DATE: March 27, 2025 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 Senate Bill 887. This bill authorizes a county board of education to reappoint an incumbent county superintendent and authorizes a county board to take action at a public meeting to reappoint the incumbent superintendent at any time after the end of the second year of their term but not later than March 1 of the year in which the contract is being renewed to serve a new term of 4 years beginning the immediately following July 1. This act shall take effect June 1, 2025.  Under current law, except in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County, local superintendents of schools of education are appointed for four-year terms. By February 1 of the year in which the term ends, the superintendent must notify the county board of their intention to be a candidate for reappointment. At a public meeting no later than March 1 of that year, the county board must decide to reappoint the incumbent superintendent. Nationally, superintendent turnover has risen since the pandemic, with over 40% of districts experiencing at least one change between 2019 and 2024. In Maryland, we have seen a 75% turnover since 2019, with eighteen of the twenty-four school systems turning over at least once. Currently, there are only 6 superintendents who have served in their Maryland districts longer than 4 years.   Local superintendents serve as the chief executive, and chief academic officers of their school districts. They are crucial in guiding policy, implementing curricula, managing budgets, and ensuring compliance with state and federal regulations. Due to their unique skill set, professionals who serve in this role are highly qualified and experienced but can be difficult to recruit and retain, especially in high-poverty and urban districts. Therefore, it is vital for school boards and communities to prioritize retaining effective leaders.  Longevity in the superintendency provides stability and consistency in leadership across a school district, which allows for long-term planning that creates sustainable change. Further, a superintendent with deep experience in their school district fosters strong relationships with staff, students, and the community at large. A 2023 study from Seton Hall University  concluded that superintendent longevity positively correlates with student achievement by creating stable conditions that foster trust, collaboration, and effective leadership. This research aligned with previous research, (Grissom and Andersen, 2012),  showing that shorter superintendent tenure disrupts academic progress, confuses leadership styles, and lowers staff morale. High turnover negatively impacts school districts by preventing the completion of long-term improvement plans and disrupting program continuity. The study highlights that superintendent stability allows for relationship-building, trust development, and alignment of school district objectives with the personal goals of staff members. For these reasons, PSSAM   supports Senate Bill 887 and requests a favorable  committee report.

BILL: SB 770 TITLE: Public Schools and Youth Services – Crisis Support and Assistance and Workgroup Study DATE: March 26, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Sam Mathias, Legal & Policy Services Director MABE Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM Samantha Zwerling, Managing Director of Political & Legislative Affairs, MSEA The Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM) , and the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA) support Senate Bill 770 – Public School and Youth Services – Crisis Support and Assistance and Workgroup Study with several amendments. Our organizations recognize and appreciate the intent of this bill.  Students and families navigating trauma deserve compassionate support, timely resources, and clear, responsive communication. We believe that effective crisis response, including communication, is essential to fostering safe, supportive learning environments.  To that end, we recognize and support the goals underlying this bill:   Ensure crisis support is deployed in all instances and for all individuals where and when it is needed (and only in those instances); and   Ensure that students, families, and caregivers are supported, informed, and connected to relevant resources after traumatic events.   As amended, SB 770 raises several concerns that portend overreach and could unintentionally cause  harm, inflict  trauma, and damage  trusted relationships in school communities—the opposite of our shared goals.  Indeed, providing crisis support to individuals who do not display signs of trauma can actually cause trauma; and, information flooding, as opposed to deliberate, measured communication risks unnecessary alarm and distress among students and families.   We believe the goals of SB 770 could be fully achieved—in a clearer, more efficient manner—by making small but meaningful additions to the existing Maryland Safe to Learn Act (Md. Code Ann. Educ. Art. § 7-1501 et. seq.) .   Many of the provisions in SB 770 overlap significantly with the Maryland Safe to Learn Act.  Ensure crisis support is deployed in all instances and for all individuals where and when it is needed by expanding the definition of “School Emergency Plan” in the Safe to Learn Act.  While well-intentioned, the current automatic triggers for crisis response in SB 770 do not align with best practices in trauma-informed care.  Therefore, we suggest the bill be amended to remove any reference to staff removal as an automatic trigger for crisis support deployment.   SB 770 currently provides the following:  “A local school system shall provide crisis support and assistance to a public school in the county when a teacher or other school employee with direct contact with minors is removed from the classroom or school building due to alleged criminal activity or for student safety.”  We are concerned that this language may unintentionally cause harm.  To be sure, some staff removals are crises, but most are not.  Crisis intervention deployment can have as much a negative impact on students as failure to intervene when support is needed.  According to both the National Institutes of Health and the National Association of School Psychologists, trauma-informed care must be tailored; standardized, blanket crisis intervention can create trauma or retraumatize individuals.  Both NASP and NIH emphasize that crisis responses should be proportionate and individualized to avoid the risk of secondary trauma. Instead, Expand the Definition of “School Emergency Plan” in the Safe to Learn Act.   The Safe to Learn Act currently defines a school emergency plan as: a plan for each local school system and each public school within the school system that addresses mitigation of, preparedness for, response to, and recovery from emergencies, including  (1) Violent or traumatic events on school grounds during regular school hours or during school-sponsored activities; and  (2) events in the community that affect school operations. Md. Code Ann. Educ. Art. § 7-1501(i).  We suggest adding a third element to this definition to encompass all crises and align to the National Association of School Psychologists’ definition of a crisis: (3)   An event or series of events that overwhelms the normal coping mechanisms of the school and its students, staff, or community, that threaten the physical or psychological safety of individuals or the overall functioning of the school. This language will require emergency plans to encompass not just behavioral or physical threats under the Safe to Learn Act, but also those events that cause emotional trauma for students. This would encompass staff removals that rise to the level of a crisis, but not categorically require crisis intervention for any staff removal as SB 770 does currently.   By expanding the communications required to be part of a school emergency plan in the Safe to Learn Act, we can ensure that students, families, and caregivers are supported, informed, and connected to relevant resources after traumatic events.   The Safe To Learn Act already contemplates communications to be deployed as part of emergency plans.  The current law states: On or before August 1, 2020, and regularly thereafter, each local school system shall update the school emergency plan for each public school in the school system’s jurisdiction to Include detailed plans for the manner in which each public school will address: Behavioral threats; Emergency events; and  Accommodations for students with disabilities in emergency events.  Md. Code. Ann. Educ. Art. § 7-1510(d).  To achieve the broader and more robust communication goals of SB 770, we propose the following additions to this section: On or before August 1, 2020, and regularly thereafter, each local school system shall update the school emergency plan for each public school in the school system’s jurisdiction to Include detailed plans, including communication plans ,  for the manner in which each public school will address: Behavioral threats; Emergency events; and   Accommodations for students with disabilities in emergency  events; and Other crises, as identified by the school system, that may significantly impact student or school physical safety, emotional safety, or community trust. MABE, PSSAM and MSEA support the intent behind SB 770 and welcome continued dialogue on how best to support students and families during times of crisis. We believe the most effective and efficient way to realize the bill’s goals is to expand and refine the existing Maryland Safe to Learn Act. We encourage lawmakers to consider these amendments to the Safe to Learn Act and would be pleased to work with you to draft language that achieves these goals. Therefore, we request a favorable with amendments  report on SB 770.

BILL: HB 1378 TITLE: Child Sexual Abuse Claims Against the State - Time Limitation DATE: March 26, 2025 POSITION: Favorable with Amendment 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, supports  House Bill 1378 with an amendment. This bill prohibits certain actions under the Child Victims Act against the State or unit of State government from being filed on or after January 1, 2026.  PSSAM acknowledges the critical importance of ensuring justice for survivors of child sexual abuse and supports the intent of HB 1378 to set a sunset date of January 1, 2026, for filing previously time-barred claims against the State and its entities. We believe this measure provides important clarity regarding the timeline outlined in the Child Victims Act of 2023. While PSSAM supports HB 1378, we respectfully request an amendment that the January 1, 2026 sunset provision for “units of the State” specifically include County boards of education and local governments. Additionally, the sunset provision should apply to non-perpetrator, non-negligent individuals such as superintendents identified by these state entities. This clarification will provide certainty for all government entities and promote consistent enforcement of the law across public institutions. PSSAM firmly supports justice for victims of child sexual abuse. However, it is essential that any legislative measures fairly consider historical insurance coverage limits, which were substantially lower than today’s statutory thresholds. Without this clarity, compensation for victims would come directly from public funds intended for the education of current and future students — placing an undue burden on local boards of education and the communities they serve.  PSSAM supports House Bill 1378  and kindly requests a favorable  with amendment committee report.

BILL: HB 1447 TITLE: Education - Maryland STEM Program - Established DATE: March 11, 2025 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 HB 1447. This bill establishes the Maryland STEM Program within the Department of Education to provide additional compensation to educators who teach STEM classes at nonpublic schools. It also incentivizes current teachers to obtain the necessary qualifications to teach STEM subjects, thereby improving statewide access to STEM education to address workforce demands in the state. The bill authorizes nonpublic schools to apply for the program and requires participating nonpublic schools to report certain information to the Department annually. Additionally, it allows local school systems to object to certain teachers participating in the program under specific circumstances. Furthermore, the bill mandates that the Department develop a teacher interest survey and share certain information with nonpublic schools upon request. It also requires local school systems to inform relevant teachers about the program annually and distribute the interest survey to certain teachers each year. For each fiscal year, the governor shall include in the annual budget bill an appropriation of $250,000 to the Department for grants under the program. PSSAM opposes the establishment of any funding stream that financially benefits private and nonpublic schools. The financial needs of our public school students must take priority over those who choose a private or parochial education. Any educational initiatives funded using State or local taxpayer dollars should only be for public school students and staff. While this legislation would financially benefit teachers, the legislation is flawed in a number of ideological and practical ways. The bill contemplates new funds diverted from public education, but also requires that local school systems participate in the administration of the program. Local school systems must also notify all current teachers from their system about the opportunity to participate in the program, and share the teacher interest survey developed by the Department with all teachers employed at the local school system. The legislation is silent regarding any retirement or other employee-related compensation complications this might create. These administrative expectations are unreasonable and excessive given the existing responsibilities of local school systems in delivering public education in taxpayer-supported schools. Providing this level of support for private institutions is a serious departure from the State’s constitutional mandate to provide a fair and equitable public education system.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes  House Bill 1447 and kindly requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: HB 161 TITLE: Primary and Secondary Education - Comprehensive Health Education Framework - Established   DATE: March 20, 2025 POSITION: Unfavorable 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 public school superintendents, opposes  House Bill 161. This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), in consultation with the   Maryland Department of Health (MDH), to develop a comprehensive health education   framework that includes, at a minimum, specified topics. Each local board of education must   create an age-appropriate curriculum that is consistent with the comprehensive health education   framework as specified.   Local superintendents strongly support robust and comprehensive instruction in health education, and believe that the legislative intent of this bill is already being met. However, 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. As indicated in written testimony from MSDE and the State Board last year, they explained that in January of 2024, under the leadership of the new State Superintendent, “the State Board and MSDE developed a process to review, revise, adopt standards and frameworks, including the existing Comprehensive Health Education Framework.” The existing Framework continues to include all topics included in this legislation.  Additionally, their testimony points to existing Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) 13A.04.18.01 that “requires LEAs to establish policies, guidelines, and/or procedures for student opt-out regarding instruction related to family life and human sexuality objectives, which includes gender identity and expression and sexual orientation and identity. Further, COMAR 13A.04.18.02 requires local superintendents to certify to the State Superintendent of Schools that the instructional programming within grades prekindergarten through 12 meets, at a minimum, the requirements of the comprehensive health education framework.” Again, PSSAM strongly supports the current implementation of the health curriculum consistent with State guidelines. Each Maryland local school system must be afforded flexibility in developing curriculum that best reflects the specific, and diverse needs of their student population and local community.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 161 and kindly requests an unfavorable   committee report.