Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Education Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, students urge statewide guarantee for high‑quality virtual school access in HB 5 83
Summary
Delegates Gabriel Vogel and April Miller told the Ways and Means Committee House Bill 5 83 would require every Maryland school system to provide access to a full‑day, synchronous public virtual school or a consortium option so students who need online schooling can remain in the public system.
Delegates Gabriel Vogel and April Miller asked the Ways and Means Committee for a favorable report on House Bill 5 83, which would require each Maryland local education agency to provide a public virtual‑school option (or participate in a consortium) offering full‑day, synchronous instruction and a school community comparable to a brick‑and‑mortar school.
Sponsors and witnesses emphasized that the bill is intended to preserve access — not to replace in‑person instruction — for students who cannot attend in person or who have special medical, disability, social‑emotional or safety needs. Testimony described students who thrived in synchronous virtual programs during and after the pandemic. Tom Ekelmeier, a tenth‑grade student who said he had a liver transplant and faces immune‑suppression, said the Montgomery Virtual Academy (MBA) was “the closest learning environment to an in‑person school” and credited it with academic success and social engagement without exposing him to infection risk.
Jaroslav Yaniewski, a high‑schooler with drug‑resistant epilepsy, described daily seizures in traditional schools and said remote schooling reduced his seizure frequency and enabled him to succeed academically: “In online school, I am just a normal kid. I am just another student,” he testified. Parents and advocates said many existing virtual offerings are asynchronous and unequal in scope; families who lost access when Montgomery closed its MBA reported large declines in class time, extracurricular access and academic continuity.
Supporters urged a flexible approach that allows local consortia, contract providers or cross‑county attendance so that counties without an established virtual school can meet the requirement without bearing full startup costs alone. Sponsor testimony noted 17 of 24 Maryland school systems already offer some virtual option; advocates argued the bill would ensure the option is full‑time, synchronous and includes the same wraparound services (counselors, clubs, special education supports) available in person.
Committee members asked technical questions about funding, special‑education alignment, minimum program standards, and protections against inappropriate placement. Sponsors and advocates signaled openness to guardrails and to working with MSDE and stakeholders on implementation details. No committee vote was recorded; sponsors asked for a favorable report.
