Ways and Means holds broad bill hearings on school safety, child care, special education and parental access

The House Ways and Means Committee held a series of hearings March 3 on a wide set of bills touching school safety, child care and early learning, special education technology, and parent access to school materials.

Several bills drew sustained testimony and cross‑cutting policy questions about state responsibilities versus local control, how to resource new programs, and protections for vulnerable students. Lawmakers and witnesses stressed workforce and technical obstacles: counties are pursuing their own systems for special education IEPs, child‑care providers report chronic staffing shortages, and schools and districts are uneven in implementing safety and disciplinary policies.

Delegate Terry Hill testified in support of House Bill 1393, describing the bill as “an effort to put into statute the kinds of training and ... uniform personnel policies and practices that have become standard for most youth sports programs,” and said the measure would require a statewide registry of volunteers and online basic training on heat, cardiac events and head trauma for adults working with children under age 12. Hill noted tragic local cases where existing protections proved insufficient and said the bill’s intent is to extend baseline standards to private leagues and programs not currently covered by MSDE or local rec programs.

On child care, Delegate Emily Shetty and a panel of foster‑care and provider witnesses supported House Bill 1121, a pilot to remove some application barriers to Maryland’s childcare scholarship program so young parents transitioning out of foster care (the bill as presented applies to people ages 16–22) can access vouchers without providing proof of employment or a co‑parent signature. Shetty said the Economic Policy Institute figure for average childcare costs—“$19,000”—illustrates how childcare is often a family’s largest expense and a barrier to employment and education.

Several education bills prompted extended debate about implementation and equity. Delegate Mark Fisher’s House Bill 1180, the Right to Learn Act, would create scholarship options including military boarding schools for students attending a school that has been classified as “failing” for three consecutive years. Fisher framed the bill as giving parents meaningful alternatives when local interventions have not improved outcomes. Delegate Chris Tomlinson presented HB 1118 to let Carroll County’s commissioners appoint interim local school‑board vacancies instead of the governor, aligning Carroll with many other Maryland jurisdictions.

Classroom discipline and student safety were the focus of other proposals. House Bill 773, the “Right to Teach Act” presented by Delegate Doug Hartman, would give teachers in grades 6–12 a clearer statutory path to remove chronically disruptive students from their classroom after documented behaviors and a principal review; Hartman said the bill is intended to protect instructional time while preserving due process. Separately, House Bill 1132 (presented by Delegate Chris Tomlinson) would require an investigation before disciplining students for fights and would require schools to expunge discipline records if the investigation shows the student more likely than not used reasonable force to defend themselves; lawyers and advocates for students testified in support and described cases where alleged self‑defense resulted in long‑term discipline records.

The committee also heard technical and administrative measures. Delegate Moon’s HB 1025 would require jurisdictions to use the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) educator‑identification clearinghouse when vetting teacher records. Jimmy Adams, NASDTEC’s executive director, described the clearinghouse as a central repository of administrative licensing actions and cautioned that it contains ‘‘administrative actions, not criminal actions’’ and that states must contact the originating jurisdiction for details and corrections.

Other bills addressed access to life skills and program delivery: Delegate Karen Toles’ HB 1127 would ask local school systems to develop water safety and swimming instructional plans (reporting in 2026, with program planning in 2027) to address racial and socioeconomic disparities in swim proficiency and drowning risk. House Bill 1373, introduced on behalf of Eastern Shore delegates, would repeal an older prohibition that prevents local boards from contracting with for‑profit vendors to operate virtual public schools; proponents pointed to Virginia’s long experience with multi‑division online partnerships and said the change would give local systems flexibility to stand up online programs for students with particular needs. Delegate Jeff Grama’s HB 1374 would remove a statutory mandate that elementary systems must provide universal 3‑year‑old pre‑K, shifting emphasis to fully implementing 4‑year‑old pre‑K and supporting private providers; opponents argued it would undermine a mixed‑delivery model intended by the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.

Special education technology was the subject of Delegate April Miller’s HB 1383. Miller said districts such as Frederick County are choosing alternate platforms after repeated MOIEP (Maryland Online Individualized Education Program) outages and usability problems; she argued the state should run a competitive procurement and set minimum functional and technical requirements rather than rely on one year‑to‑year contract. The Maryland State Education Association, representing teachers, supported competitive procurement and improvements to reduce staff administrative burden.

The committee also considered workforce and child‑care stability bills. HB 1325, sponsored by Delegate Miller, would pilot regional substitute‑provider pools for childcare programs (rural, suburban and urban pilots) to ensure centers can meet required staff‑to‑child ratios when employees call out; witnesses — including child‑care operators and nonprofit advocates — described existing substitute pools in several other states and urged a pilot to reduce classroom closures and parental work disruption.

Finally, House Bill 1385 — a wide parental‑engagement and curriculum‑transparency bill presented by Delegate Miller — prompted the longest and most contentious testimony. Supporters said the measure simply extended to all families some of the “family engagement” and access rights already required for Title I families by federal statute, and argued for parental access to curriculum materials, notifications about outside partners and a process for reviewing instructional material. Opponents — led by LGBTQIA+ advocates, student leaders and civil‑rights groups — argued the bill would endanger transgender and LGBTQ students by requiring parental notice or consent for student pronoun use and would enable censorship of clubs and instructional materials; they urged an unfavorable report and warned of chilling effects on vulnerable youths.

Committee members asked repeated questions about feasibility and unintended consequences: who pays for district subscriptions (Mr. Moon said subscription costs can be modest, citing about $23,000 annually for a statewide clearinghouse access), how “reasonable force” in self‑defense would be determined at the school level, whether mandating a statewide procurement for online IEP tools would push counties to build their own divergent systems, and how a statewide substitute pilot would interact with existing county workforce pipelines. Several delegates pressed for studies or pilot programs rather than immediate mandates.

What’s next: the committee did not record any final votes during the March 3 hearings. Members indicated follow‑up would include reviewing fiscal notes, hearing additional testimony where requested, and considering amendments to narrow or clarify language on bills that raised due‑process or equity concerns.

— Key quotes

• "The importance of the health of student athletes is of utmost concern," — Terry Hill, presenting HB 1393 on youth sports safety.

• "The average cost of childcare is $19,000," — Delegate Emily Shetty, on barriers facing young parents leaving foster care (HB 1121).

• "The clearinghouse contains administrative actions, not criminal actions," — Jimmy Adams, NASDTEC executive director, describing the educator clearinghouse (HB 1025).

• "The MOIEP must adapt to the increasing modernization and integration of technology in special education," — Delegate April Miller (HB 1383).

Ending: The committee’s March 3 hearings spanned operational, safety and rights questions that cut across education and early‑childhood policy. Several bills propose pilots or studies (water safety reporting, substitute pools, competitive procurement for MOIEP) that committee members flagged as preferable first steps before imposing statewide mandates. Members and witnesses asked the department and sponsors for clarifying fiscal estimates, technical amendments, and assurances that any new requirements would include funding or phased implementation plans.