Search Results

BILL: SB 601 TITLE: Cybersecurity - Standards and Compliance - Alterations DATE: April 02, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Government, Labor & Elections Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, provides this letter of information  on SB 601.  This bill requires each local school system to (1) designate a point of contact for cybersecurity-related communications and to comply with cybersecurity standards adopted by the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) and (2) beginning in fiscal 2027, comply with the State minimum cybersecurity standards established by DoIT and conduct a cybersecurity maturity assessment every two years. The bill also requires DoIT to annually review and, if necessary, update the State minimum cybersecurity standards and, on request, advise local school systems on specified cybersecurity issues. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. (source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0601.pdf ) PSSAM shares the General Assembly’s commitment to strengthening cybersecurity protections across school systems. Protecting sensitive student and staff data and safeguarding school system networks are essential responsibilities for local education agencies (LEAs). Many of these activities already occur in partnership with State agencies, and superintendents recognize the importance of maintaining strong cybersecurity practices.  At the same time, superintendents must balance significant fiscal and operational responsibilities within constrained local budgets. Cybersecurity investments are ongoing and complex, requiring continual upgrades to technology infrastructure, security monitoring, staff training, and system protections. Local school systems have indicated that meeting the requirements outlined in the bill may require substantial new expenditures and operational adjustments. Several local school systems have already identified potential implementation challenges. Montgomery County Public Schools and St. Mary’s County Public Schools anticipate the need for additional staff and technology upgrades to meet the bill’s requirements. Prince George’s County Public Schools estimates needing more than $2 million for significant technology upgrades, both hardware and software. Wicomico County Public Schools has also advised that, depending on the timeframe for implementation, the requirements could be overly burdensome or difficult to meet in the short term. The Department of Legislative Services has noted that the actual cost for school systems will depend in part on the regularly updated cybersecurity standards ultimately adopted by DoIT and the level of technical assistance provided to local systems. Until these standards are defined, the scope of compliance obligations and the corresponding financial impact remain uncertain. While local school systems may designate a point of contact for cybersecurity-related correspondence using existing resources, the broader requirements of meeting evolving cybersecurity standards may require additional personnel, infrastructure upgrades, and ongoing investments. Maryland’s superintendents remain committed to working with State partners to strengthen cybersecurity across public education systems. As the General Assembly considers this legislation, careful attention to implementation timelines, flexibility in compliance processes, and the availability of technical and financial support will be essential to ensuring that school systems can meet cybersecurity expectations in a sustainable way. Without these considerations, LEAs may be placed in the difficult position of absorbing significant new costs while continuing to meet their core responsibility of providing high-quality educational services to Maryland’s students. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information  on SB 601 and welcomes continued discussion with the sponsors and the committee. e on how best to support this critical workforce.

BILL: HB 1582 TITLE: Education - Program of Educational Accountability - Alterations (Comprehensive Outcomes and Measures of Progress for Supporting Schools (COMPASS Act) DATE: April 07, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports House Bill 1582. This bill would alter the school quality indicators authorized for an educational accountability program and prohibit the use of certain indicators in an educational accountability system.   PSSAM supports House Bill 1582 as it would allow the Maryland Department of Education (MSDE) to more accurately measure Maryland public schools’ progress toward the ambitious goals of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future by updating the Maryland Report Card . House Bill 1582 increases the share of the overall composite score dedicated to academic indicators from 65% to 70%, ensuring that the system more accurately reflects student learning and growth. At the same time, it caps individual proficiency indicators at 20%, preventing any single measure from overshadowing other important dimensions of school performance. This balance is essential for capturing both achievement and growth within Maryland’s public schools. Beyond academic adjustments, the bill also authorizes MSDE to include credit for completion of a well‑rounded curriculum, reflecting whether students are on track at key transition points; and school staffing indicators, including access to teachers with Advanced Professional Certificates or National Board Certification. PSSAM believes HB 1582 represents a thoughtful, community‑informed update to Maryland’s accountability system. These changes give MSDE the flexibility to implement recommendations from nearly two years of community collaboration, including the Maryland Assessment and Accountability Task Force and the Maryland Accountability Advisory Committee, both of which included several superintendents. By refining school quality indicators, strengthening the role of academic growth, and ensuring transparent, actionable reporting this bill positions Maryland to better support students, educators, and families                                     For these reasons, PSSAM supports House Bill 1582 and kindly requests a favorable  committee report.

BILL: HB 575 TITLE: Public Schools - Student Attendance - Excused Absences for Civic Engagement DATE: April 07, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents  opposes House Bill 575.  This bill requires each local board of education to adopt an attendance policy for public school students that treats a student’s absence as excused if, during a regular session of a public facing body, the student (1) testifies at a hearing of a public facing body;  (2) conducts civic engagement activities, as defined by the bill; or (3) participates in the Maryland General Assembly Page Program. The attendance policy must authorize a student to be excused for at least 15 hours or two school days to testify or conduct civic engagement activities, or the length of time of the page program. The bill takes effect July 1, 2026. (source: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0005/hb0575.pdf ) PSSAM respects and values the intent of this legislation and the importance of civic engagement. However, House Bill 575 presents several challenges, particularly because it may conflict and create confusion with existing attendance policies and data reliability. Under the Code of Maryland Regulations ( COMAR ), local education agencies (LEAs) already have discretion to excuse absences for “other emergencies or circumstances which, in the judgment of the local superintendent or designee, constitute a good and sufficient cause for absence from school.” This flexibility allows school systems to accommodate unique situations, including civic engagement opportunities, while maintaining local control over attendance policies. By creating a new statewide excused absence category, but including it in the official definition of chronic absenteeism, this bill will contribute to increased rates, even though these activities are well intentioned.  Therefore, this bill could create confusion with existing, long-standing policies created based on student and school experiences and operational concerns with attendance data collection/reconciliation.  Existing Opportunities for Civic Engagement and Conflict with Existing Programs/Policies Maryland students already have ample structured opportunities to engage in civic action. The state requires students to complete a minimum of 75 service-learning hours as a graduation requirement, ensuring that all students engage in community-based civic activities throughout their middle and high school years. Teachers may also choose to integrate opportunities to engage with public-facing bodies into coursework such as high school American Government–a state-required course. Schools and districts regularly support participation in civic engagement without requiring students to miss instructional time. At the same time, school systems must carefully manage student attendance as they navigate an expanding number of legally recognized and mandated absences. Existing law requires schools to accommodate absences related to illness, behavioral health, religious observances, court obligations, pregnancy and parenting needs, and other approved circumstances. As additional absence categories are introduced, school systems must also ensure that attendance data is accurately recorded and reconciled across local and state reporting systems. Districts are also making increasing efforts to recognize and respect a broader range of religious and cultural holidays within their school calendars. As these categories expand, administrators must balance flexibility for students with the need to maintain consistent classroom attendance. Attendance Concerns - Adding to Chronic Absenteeism  Since the pandemic, chronic absenteeism has plagued school districts, exacerbating the learning losses suffered by students. Trends in chronic absenteeism are moving in more positive directions, but not quickly enough. Superintendents recognize the devastating impact of chronic absenteeism on academic success and have made improving student attendance a top priority. While the intent of House Bill 575 is to encourage civic engagement, the bill creates an additional state-mandated excused absence category that may unintentionally undermine ongoing efforts to keep students consistently engaged in school. It is important to recognize that chronic absenteeism measures count total days missed, regardless of whether the absence is excused or unexcused. This means that even well-intentioned, excused absences contribute to a student’s chronic absenteeism status if they exceed 10 percent of the school year.  Contrary to common assumptions, chronic absenteeism is not limited to struggling students. High-performing and highly engaged students can also meet the chronic absenteeism threshold when additional absences are added to already busy academic and extracurricular schedules. This bill presents students with an additional opportunity to miss instructional time for what may appear to be a reasonable tradeoff.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes House Bill 575 and kindly requests an unfavorable  report. In accordance with COMAR’s authorization for superintendents to “use their judgement…..[that certain activities] constitutes a good and sufficient cause for absence…”, several school systems currently have policies permitting excused absences for civic engagement as defined by the LEA: Baltimore City Schools excuses absences for students participating in the electoral process and grants students up to three school days of released time per year for participating in political campaigns; Baltimore City Schools - Student Participation In Political Activities . Caroline County Public Schools consider the Student Page Program a school-sponsored event, meaning it is not defined as an absence according to G. under Definitions; CCPS Attendance Regulations.pdf . Howard County Public School System’s  (HCPSS) Policy 9010 Attendance  includes a broad definition for civic engagement, which is listed as an example of a discretionary absence. The policy has an allotment for up to three days of discretionary leave. HCPS can authorize absences related to civic engagement with a parent note under Code 13. Montgomery County Public School principals have broad discretion to approve excused absences for school sponsored activities. Prince George's County Public Schools considers students in attendance when they participate in school-sponsored activities approved by the Superintendent, principal, or other authorized official. Washington County Public Schools’ (WCPS) attendance policy does not count attendance at school-sponsored events as absences. WCPS can authorize absences related to civic engagement with a parent note under Code 13. COMAR specifies the conditions that constitute a lawful absence school. Among these conditions are (1) death in the immediate family; (2) illness of the student; (3) pregnancy and parenting conditions; (4) court summons; (5) hazardous weather conditions; (6) work approved or sponsored by the school; (7) observance of a religious holiday; (8) State emergency; (9) suspension; (10) lack of authorized transportation; or  (11) other emergencies or circumstances which, in the judgement of the local superintendent or designee, constitutes a good and sufficient cause for absence from school. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0005/hb0575.pdf)

BILL: HB 326 TITLE: Education - Maryland Center for School Safety - Anonymous Reporting System DATE: April 07, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: Senate Education, Energy & the Environment Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports  House Bill 326. This bill requires the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS) to develop and administer an anonymous reporting system that (1) coordinates the receipt of information relating to a school or student safety concern in a manner that maintains confidentiality and (2) provides a mechanism for any reported information to be forwarded to school or other appropriate officials. A custodian of public records under the Maryland Public Information Act (PIA) must deny inspection of any information or materials related to the anonymous reporting system. ( https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/fnotes/bil_0006/hb0326.pdf )                                                                    School safety is a top priority for every superintendent in Maryland. Over the past several years, local school systems have invested significantly in comprehensive safety frameworks that include behavioral threat assessment teams, mental health services, strong school-law enforcement partnerships, and preventive education for students and families. Anonymous reporting systems are a critical component of that layered approach. Maryland’s existing program - Safe Schools Maryland - is already in operation statewide and is used by every public school system. Several local systems also had internal reporting platforms or similar mechanisms in place prior to the establishment of the statewide system. In our experience, these tools have become essential for identifying concerns early and responding appropriately before situations escalate. Anonymous reporting systems work because they address a well-documented reality - students often know when a peer is struggling or expressing harmful intent, but they hesitate to report it. Fear of retaliation, social pressure, or being labeled discourages disclosure. Providing a secure, anonymous method for sharing concerns helps overcome that barrier and fosters a culture of shared responsibility for safety. Importantly, these systems are not limited to preventing acts of violence. In practice, many tips involve students experiencing depression, suicidal ideation, bullying, substance misuse, or other mental health challenges. When reports are received, they are routed through established Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management processes. The focus is not punishment - it is intervention, support, and connection to services. Superintendents across Maryland have seen firsthand the value of this approach. Tips have allowed school teams to intervene early, provide counseling, engage families, and coordinate with community partners when necessary. In many cases, the result is not discipline, but support and stabilization. Equally important, the bill protects the confidentiality of reporting. Anonymity is foundational to the effectiveness of any tip line. Students and community members must trust that their identities will not be disclosed. The bill’s exemption of system records from disclosure under the Public Information Act appropriately balances transparency with the overriding public interest in safety, mental health intervention, and suicide prevention. Without those protections, reporting would decline and the system’s effectiveness would be compromised. We also note that participation in the statewide system does not eliminate local flexibility. School systems retain authority to establish procedures, align responses with their existing threat assessment protocols, and ensure appropriate coordination with administrators, school resource officers, and student support staff. The statewide infrastructure simply provides a reliable, professionally monitored platform operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. HB 326 provides important legislative validation to ensure the long-term viability and consistency of this statewide resource. Codifying the program formally recognizes its existence, clarifies the Maryland Center for School Safety’s responsibility to establish operational guidelines, and ensures consistent standards across systems. For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable report on House Bill 326. .

BILL: SB 928 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Electronic Communication Device Use Policy - Establishment (Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act) DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Unfavorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, opposes Senate Bill 928. This bill requires each local board of education to develop and implement a policy to prohibit the use of cellular phones by students during the academic school day, which is defined as any time during the school day, including a student’s lunch, recess, or passing period. The policy must also require students to store their phones in a secure place during instructional time and prohibit a student from accessing or using social media applications and websites during school hours. The policy may not prohibit a student from using a phone (1) for any purpose documented in the student’s individualized education program or Section 504 Plan; (2) to monitor or address a student’s documented health issue; (3) to access language translation tools when a school-issued device is not available; or (4) for the purpose of meeting caregiving responsibilities, as approved by the principal. The policy must also establish administrator-enforced tiered disciplinary measures for violations, excluding suspension or expulsion solely for violating the policy.  Maryland superintendents appreciate the good intentions of this bill; however, PSSAM steadfastly opposes this one-size-fits-all legislation, especially on a difficult issue that has been thoughtfully deliberated at the local level with boards, staff, students, families, and communities. Most school systems have been implementing cell phone usage policies successfully for nearly two years. These locally developed policies reflect extensive stakeholder engagement and consensus-building. While there have been operational challenges, districts have worked through them and refined their approaches based on real-world experience. In the past several years, superintendents, school boards, and advisory groups in all Local Education Agencies (LEAs) have taken proactive action to establish, update, or study district-wide cell phone policies. These efforts include establishing new policies, updating board policies, revising codes of conduct or student handbooks, and introducing pilot programs. Much of this work was informed by surveys of 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 recommendations in national research and partnered with Phones in Focus, which has initiated a national study based on educator input regarding best practices across the country. Most importantly, the workgroup incorporated the experiences of local school systems that have already engaged deeply with their communities to determine appropriate use of cell phones and “smart technology” in schools. While this bill reflects many of these best practices, it does not fully account for the operational challenges districts have already encountered and worked through. Providing local school systems with greater opportunity to share these lessons learned and inform the final policy framework would have been greatly appreciated. As drafted, the bill does not provide sufficient flexibility for school systems; many districts may need to significantly change their policies and procedures—just as existing, consensus-based policies are being implemented. We are also concerned about the bill’s interaction with existing local codes of conduct and disciplinary authority. For example, it is unclear how this policy would intersect with broader disciplinary frameworks when multiple violations occur. This creates ambiguity for administrators and raises concerns about potential unintended interference with disciplinary practices - an area traditionally governed at the local level. We appreciate the Legislature’s continued attention to this important issue and agree with the overall intent of supporting focused learning environments for students. However, we believe there are unintended operational challenges that should be more carefully considered. If the Legislature remains open to hearing from school systems about their experiences and lessons learned over the past two years, we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute to a more workable and flexible approach. PSSAM remains committed to empowering local decision-making to ensure education policies that are relevant, flexible, and reflective of the unique needs of each community.  For these reasons, PSSAM opposes Senate Bill 928 and respectfully requests an unfavorable report.

BILL: SB 904 TITLE: Education - Public Schools - Professional Development DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Letter of Information COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, provides this letter of information on Senate Bill 904.  This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), by July 1, 2027, to design and develop a new system of in-person professional development in public schools for paraeducators and other education support professionals (ESPs) that is paid and occurs during weekday school hours. In designing the system, MSDE must consult with local boards and nonprofit organizations with experience supporting ESPs, including the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA). The General Assembly finds that paraeducators and other ESPs benefit from in-person training and expresses intent that such training be expanded to at least two days of high‑quality professional development during each school year. The bill may not be construed to diminish obligations under collective bargaining agreements or employment benefit programs that establish greater requirements.  PSSAM appreciates the General Assembly’s focus on strengthening professional development opportunities for paraeducators and other education support professionals (ESPs). These staff play a critical role in supporting student learning and well-being, and high-quality professional learning is essential to their success. We do, however, have concerns regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of a centrally developed, statewide professional development system for this workforce. Paraeducator roles vary significantly not only across local education agencies (LEAs), but also within individual school systems. For example, a single LEA may include positions such as Bus Assistant, Instructional Assistant I and II, one-on-one instructional assistants, PreK instructional assistants, Title I assistants, and family and program support staff. Each of these roles requires distinct skills, knowledge, and day-to-day responsibilities. Given this wide spectrum of roles, it is unclear whether a single, statewide professional learning model can be sufficiently targeted to meet the needs of all paraeducators and ESPs. A one-size-fits-all approach risks being too broad to be meaningful or too generic to support the specific demands of individual positions. Local school systems are already providing targeted, job-embedded professional development aligned to the unique responsibilities of their paraeducators and support staff. These efforts are often developed in close coordination with school leaders and reflect the specific instructional, operational, and student support needs of each community. Given these existing local efforts, we question that a centrally designed statewide program would add meaningful value, or whether it may instead create redundancy or operational challenges for school systems. We encourage continued collaboration with LEAs to ensure that any professional development framework builds on existing local practices, maintains flexibility, and supports the diverse roles of paraeducators and ESPs across Maryland. PSSAM appreciates the opportunity to provide this letter of information and looks forward to continued dialogue on how best to support this critical workforce.

BILL: SB 685 TITLE: State Department of Education - Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct Model Response Policy - Requirements DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 685 with one amendment .  This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to develop a model sexual abuse and misconduct response policy for use by local school systems in responding to school-related allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct. The policy must include: (1) a communication plan; (2) an email and electronic document retention policy; (3) a requirement to link to a centralized resource platform; and (4) an after-action review plan. The bill also directs MSDE and the Maryland Center for School Safety to jointly develop and maintain a centralized, statewide resource platform, which local school boards must link to in a conspicuous place on their websites. By September 1, 2027, each local school system must adopt a response policy based on the model policy.  PSSAM appreciates the intent of this bill and the sponsor’s work on ensuring that students and families navigating trauma receive compassionate support, timely resources, and clear, responsive communication. We believe that effective communication with communities is essential to fostering safe, supportive learning environments. We also thank the sponsor and the committees for working with local school systems and their boards to refine the legislation so that it is reasonable in its operational expectations, in addition to safeguarding staff and students. Lastly, we support a clarifying amendment that would adjust the required records retention policy.   Many provisions of SB 685 dovetail nicely with the Safe to Learn Act’s existing requirements for school emergency planning and crisis response. Rather than creating a parallel system, we look forward to working with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and the Maryland Center for School Safety (MCSS) on a model policy that will:  1. Recognize and reflect Maryland has a long-standing, carefully structured statutory framework governing child abuse reporting and investigation. All school personnel are mandated reporters and reports of suspected abuse are made to Child Protective Services (CPS) within the Department of Social Services (DSS). CPS is responsible for screening reports, determining investigative status, managing the timing and manner of parental notification, and protecting investigative integrity and confidentiality. Maryland’s statutory structure intentionally separates the act of reporting (school personnel) and the act of investigating and notifying (CPS). We will work with MSDE to ensure that any new policies do not interfere with active or potential investigations or compromise student safety in sensitive situations. This separation exists for a reason: it protects children, preserves investigative integrity, and safeguards due process. 2. Provide meaningful community notification without compromising confidentiality and escalate situations prematurely. Most importantly, ensure a process that protects employee due process rights. Maryland’s current framework allows CPS to determine appropriate timing and scope of notification. Many investigations into allegations are ultimately unsubstantiated. In practice, public disclosure alone can effectively end a career in that community. Therefore, a community notification provision must be carefully crafted to balance these protections.  3. Ensure a reasonable record retention policy that does not significantly increase unfunded costs requiring long-term digital storage and compliance monitoring that would not be relevant to these investigations. Additionally, these policies must not conflict with existing local or State retention schedules. Retention frameworks should be grounded in sound records management principles, privacy protections, and operational feasibility. 4. Make available the appropriate level of resources for any event that overwhelms a school community - not limited to a single category of misconduct. We believe school systems will easily be able to satisfy the sponsor’s intention of creating access to resources for students and families experiencing any type of trauma. School systems routinely provide information for families and students experiencing any type of crisis and will continue to make sure there are easily accessible trauma-response resources.  5. Craft appropriate after-action reviews for various incidents , especially those that involve multiple independent entities, including child protective services and law enforcement. Their investigations are confidential and occur outside the school system’s authority. Any after-action requirement for LEAs should be carefully structured to reinforce system improvement without compromising the confidentiality, integrity, or independence of those investigative processes.  Again, we appreciate the sponsor’s collaboration and look forward to working together towards solutions that achieve the goals of this legislation. Maryland superintendents highest priority is to protect the safety and education of students and support staff and families.  Therefore, PSSAM supports  Senate Bill 685 with the one amendment mentioned above.

BILL: SB 648 TITLE: Local Education Agencies - Educator Screening - Educator Identification Clearinghouse (School Personnel Vetting and Hiring Transparency Act) DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 648.  This bill requires the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) to register each local school system (LSS) in the State as an associate member of a national membership organization that provides access to the Educator Identification Clearinghouse and to pay any applicable fees and dues associated with the membership. Each LSS must use the clearinghouse to screen individuals who receive an offer of employment for an educator position that requires a license on or after August 1, 2026. In addition, each local school system must ensure that each individual who receives such an offer (1) applies for the appropriate license after the offer of employment and before the start of employment and (2) obtains the appropriate license. Nothing in the bill may be construed to impair or affect existing statutory prohibitions against hiring or retaining individuals convicted of specified crimes, including child sexual abuse.  Maryland school systems take their responsibility to ensure the safety of students and staff extremely seriously. We appreciate the bill’s emphasis on strengthening student safety and reinforcing the integrity of the licensure process. In particular, we support the provision requiring candidates to apply for licensure at the time they receive an offer of employment. This requirement adds an important layer of screening and reinforces the shared commitment of school systems and the State to student protection. For these reasons, PSSAM supports  Senate Bill 648 and respectfully requests a favorable report. t.

BILL: SB 646 TITLE: Public School System Contracts - Prohibited Provisions DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 646. This bill prohibits specified provisions from being included in a public school system contract, except as required by State or federal law. If a public school system contract contains one of the specified provisions, the provision is void and the contract is enforceable as if it did not contain the provision. A public school system contract that contains one of the specified provisions must be governed by and construed in accordance with State law, notwithstanding any term or condition to the contrary in the contract. The bill applies only prospectively and does not apply to a public school system contract executed before the effective date of the bill (or to renewals or extensions of such contracts), or to collective bargaining agreements.  PSSAM supports this legislation that extends the same contracting streamline and protections enacted in 2024 for State agencies and public universities to public school systems.  The purpose of this legislation is to reduce administrative burden by making certain contract provisions void and unenforceable as a matter of Maryland law, without requiring negotiation. Too often, school systems are required to negotiate over boilerplate vendor terms that are inconsistent with Maryland law and ultimately unenforceable. This consumes valuable staff time and public resources without changing the legal outcome. Local school systems enter into thousands of contracts each year. Even routine, low-cost, or no-cost agreements frequently require legal review and negotiation of standard vendor provisions, delaying routine business operations and increasing administrative costs. This legislation provides clear statutory authority identifying specified provisions as void and unenforceable, thereby eliminating repetitive negotiations over boilerplate terms.This legislation  will streamline procurement processes, reduce exposure to other states’ laws, and avoid unnecessary time and expense negotiating standard vendor language. The General Assembly granted this commonsense authority to State agencies and public universities in 2024, and it has proven to be an effective and efficient tool for safeguarding public funds. This bill simply extends those same cost- and time-saving legal efficiencies to Maryland’s public school systems. Our colleagues at MABE have provided additional operational and legal detail in their written testimony. We appreciate their leadership and are fully supportive of their advocacy on this legislation. Therefore, PSSAM supports Senate Bill 646 and requests a favorable   report.

BILL: SB 645 TITLE: State Board of Sign Language Interpreters - Membership and Licensing DATE: March 31, 2026 POSITION: Support COMMITTEE: House Government, Labor & Elections Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM Sam Mathias, Legal & Policy Director, MABE The Maryland Association of Boards of Education (MABE), representing all the State’s local boards of education, and the Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), representing all the State’s local superintendents, jointly support, as amended, Senate Bill 645 - State Board of Sign Language Interpreters – Membership and Licensing. Senate Bill 645 establishes a thoughtful and practical framework for the State Board of Sign Language Interpreters to build data-informed licensure requirements that will enable Maryland to create high standards for licensure, promote interpreter quality, and ensure continued access for deaf and hard of hearing public school students, hospital patients, and others who rely on interpreter services across public systems. MABE and PSSAM strongly support these goals and appreciate the sustained collaboration of the bill’s sponsors, the Governor’s staff, local special education directors and sign language coordinators across our school systems, and the many other stakeholders who contributed to this legislation. MABE and PSSAM support the establishment of licensure standards to ensure  quality for the deaf and hard of hearing community. At the same time, implementing  stringent, inflexible standards without a transition framework risks reducing access in parts  of the State. Senate Bill 645 bill, as amended, balances raising standards with preserving  access and supporting workforce stability. We highlight many provisions of the bill below:  First, the designation of “educational settings” as a recognized specialty area is a  welcome improvement. Educational environments present distinct professional  standards, role expectations, and competency requirements that warrant the same level of formal recognition and regulatory consideration afforded to other specialty practice areas,  such as legal and medical interpreting. Second, the bill’s reporting requirements are essential to responsible licensure  implementation. Requiring the Board to assess and report on certification standards,  workforce capacity, and the impact of specialty requirements before finalizing regulations  ensures that licensure decisions are grounded in data and workforce realities. This is  particularly important for school systems that already face challenges due to interpreter  shortages.   Third, the consumer choice provision in the current bill appropriately balances  individual preference with operational feasibility, and now aligns with the Americans with  Disabilities Act, reflecting a practical and legally grounded approach. This preserves access while accounting for real-world service constraints.  Fourth, the bill’s recognition of waivers for interpreters who meet standards but are  licensed outside of Maryland will support workforce mobility. This is an important  mechanism critical to maintaining and expanding access during the transition to licensure.  Finally, board composition and governance remain central to the success of the  licensure effort. The board, of course, includes members of the deaf and hard of hearing  community, whose lived experience is essential, and will include representation from the  systems responsible for delivering services, including schools, hospitals, and courts.  Those responsible for implementation – who also have experience working within the  interpreter and deaf and hard of hearing communities – must have a voice in shaping the  standards that will govern their work.  Senate Bill 645, as amended, provides a responsible and balanced transition  framework toward high licensure standards while preserving access and supporting the  stability and growth of the interpreter workforce.   For these reasons, MABE and PSSAM jointly support Senate Bill 645 and request  a favorable report.

BILL: SB 292 TITLE: County Boards of Education - Student Transportation - Sunset Repeal DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Support with Amendments COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four public school superintendents, supports  Senate Bill 292 with amendments . This bill repeals the termination date of certain provisions of law that authorize a county board of education to provide transportation for certain students using a vehicle other than a standard school bus.                During the bill’s deliberations in the Senate, a series of amendments were added that we do not support. Therefore, we respectfully request that the Ways and Means Committee conform SB 292 to its companion House Bill 319 as it moved out of the House.                                                       PSSAM strongly supported the original legislation in 2021 authorizing alternative vehicles in circumstances when a school bus cannot reasonably be provided. Further, certain student groups were identified as eligible for these services, including (1) preschool-age students; (2) students with disabilities; (3) homeless youth; (4) children in foster care; (5) students without access to school buses; (6) students in a nonpublic school placement; (7) students in dual enrollment programs or work programs or other educational programs based off the school campus. Additionally, the law allowed school systems to provide this transportation to other student groups through a written determination by the board. Transportation is one of the fastest growing costs for school systems with limited ability by LEAs to minimize costs. This legislation has given us the ability and flexibility to provide transportation in challenging circumstances such as geography and student need.  For the reasons stated above, PSSAM requests a favorable with amendments report on Senate Bill 292.

BILL: SB 99 TITLE: Open Meetings Act - County Boards of Education - Enhanced Requirements (Local Boards of Education Transparency Act) DATE: April 01, 2026 POSITION: Favorable COMMITTEE: House Ways & Means Committee CONTACT: Mary Pat Fannon, Executive Director, PSSAM The Public School Superintendents’ Association of Maryland (PSSAM), on behalf of all twenty-four local school superintendents, supports Senate Bill 99. 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 (with certain exceptions) of each open meeting where video streaming was made available for a minimum of five years after the date of the meeting.  PSSAM is supportive of the bill and values expanding transparency and public access to school board meetings. Earlier in the session, PSSAM supported Senate Bill 99 (HB 154) with amendments that have now been incorporated into this version of the bill, and we thank the sponsors and committees for their collaboration. For these reasons, PSSAM supports  Senate Bill 99 and respectfully requests a favorable report.