Howard County delegation reviews bill to codify student closures for select religious holidays, tables pending legal review

The Howard County House Delegation discussed HOCO 10-25 on the county school calendar, a bill that would require schools to close for student attendance on specified holidays beginning in the 2026–27 school year and would limit the statutory closure language to the first day of each listed holiday.

Tara, a staff member who presented a combined set of two amendments, told the delegation, “they clarify that the provisions of this bill would begin for the 2026 to through 2027 school year” and that the amendments “indicate that the closure would be for student attendance only.” Dara, a staff member, summarized the practical effect: “As amended, the bill only creates an obligation for the schools to be closed, as it relates to student activities. It doesn't impact the board's authority relating to offices or administration.”

Delegates pressed whether the change would force the county to lengthen the school year to preserve the required number of instructional minutes. Miss Mala, a member of the Howard County Board of Education present at the meeting, said the measure “can potentially extend the school year because it is requiring that within a hundred and 80 day totality that these be required to be off.” She added that calendars and contractual obligations for staff (she noted most teaching staff have about 193 contractual days) remain constraints the district must meet.

Several delegates noted the bill largely codifies existing practice in Howard County—board members and the county’s calendar committee have treated the listed cultural and religious observances as student closures in recent years—and that the school board has previously declined to adopt a named and numbered policy after legal counsel advised against it. Miss Marlow, identified as board counsel, said she would research and report back the exact reasoning of the counsel opinion that was given about 18 months earlier.

Supporters argued the bill would reduce “othering” of students who must choose between attending school activities and observing religious holidays. One delegate said the change would make the system’s practice explicit so calendar committees and families can plan two years ahead as the district now does.

Opponents and some delegates raised practical concerns: whether staff would be required to use professional-development days or take leave on those dates, whether codifying the days would set a precedent for other counties, and whether the board’s statutory authority over the school calendar would be infringed. Delegates pressed the board representatives on how long the practice has been in place and whether the board retains discretion to close schools fully in any given year; board members confirmed the board retains that discretion.

Because several delegates requested the written legal basis for the board counsel’s earlier recommendation—and several said they wanted the delegation to see that memo before advancing the bill—the delegation agreed to hold the item. A motion to table further discussion until counsel could supply the prior legal advice was made; the mover was not recorded in the transcript and the delegation asked staff to circulate the counsel memorandum by 5 p.m. that day.

Next steps: Delegation staff said they would try to obtain and distribute the board-counsel memorandum and schedule follow-up discussion at an upcoming meeting so delegates could decide whether to proceed with the bill or with amendments addressing the identified concerns.