Maryland hearing pits school safety proposals against due-process, disability and racial-equity concerns

House Ways and Means Committee members heard two linked bills on Jan. 23 that would remove students from in‑person classrooms when they are suspects (House Bill 68) or charged (House Bill 137) with a crime of violence.

Supporters said the measures are intended to protect students and staff after incidents in which individuals later accused of serious crimes remained in school buildings during investigations. Delegate Nino Mangione, sponsor, said the bills aim to prevent “a catastrophic” repeat of past failures and that students removed would receive alternative education.

The bills would apply to crimes defined in Maryland's list of crimes of violence. Mangione said the laws are meant to create “a clear and present danger” safeguard and insisted education would continue via alternative programming for excluded students.

Opponents — including the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, Disability Rights Maryland, the ACLU of Maryland, the Public Justice Center and education‑support organizations — urged unfavorable reports. They argued current state law (the reportable‑offense statute) already requires law enforcement to notify school systems when a student is arrested for a reportable offense and lets school teams make individualized safety and placement decisions.

“As the leader of both organizations, I urge you to oppose these bills,” said Kelly Quinn of the Maryland Coalition to Reform School Discipline, adding that “every child deserves a classroom, not a screen.” Abby Flanagan of the Public Defender’s Office said HB 68 would remove students from school before probable cause, arrest, filing of petitions or court hearings and therefore raises constitutional due‑process problems. Logan Ewing of Disability Rights Maryland said the bills would violate IDEA and Section 504 by removing students with disabilities from the least‑restrictive environment without an individualized team determination.

Disability Rights Maryland and other witnesses also warned that exclusion to virtual instruction commonly results in academic decline and reduced access to school‑based related services such as occupational or speech therapy. The Public Justice Center and the Gibson/Baltimore law centers highlighted statistical disparities, saying Black students and students with disabilities would be disproportionately affected and that the bills risk creating a permanent pathway out of in‑person school for many children.

The committee heard emotional in‑person testimony from Tammy Nobles, who said her daughter Kayla Hamilton was murdered in 2022 and that the suspect remained placed by child‑welfare authorities in settings that allowed school attendance during the investigation. Nobles urged lawmakers to act to prevent other children from being exposed to dangerous individuals in schools.

Witnesses emphasized alternatives: they pointed to the existing reportable‑offense process that mandates law‑enforcement notification and allows school systems to convene meetings, assess imminent threats and, if needed, place students in alternative in‑person programs or supervised virtual instruction. Several witnesses said the focus should be improving and enforcing that process and fixing communication gaps between law enforcement, school systems and juvenile services rather than adopting a blanket exclusion law.

Committee members asked questions about timelines for adjudication in juvenile court, the practical effects of virtual schooling and how to balance victims’ safety and students’ due‑process and educational rights. Testifying advocates for reform urged investment in supports that keep students engaged in school rather than expelling them into isolation — noting virtual options often fail to replicate school‑based services and extracurricular supports.

The committee took no formal action during the hearing. Members flagged additional bills and technical fixes to the reportable‑offense process under consideration this session and said they would consult state and local education officials, juvenile‑justice partners and legal counsel before deciding whether to advance either bill.

Ending: The hearing closed with a clear split: bereaved parents and sponsors calling for preventing dangerous students from accessing school buildings, and legal and disability advocates urging individualized processes, notice and protections already embedded in state and federal law.