Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the COMAR Reportable Offenses topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee requests revisions to COMAR on reportable off‑campus offenses after questions on decision‑making and confidentiality
Summary
The committee reviewed proposed revisions to COMAR13A080117 (school use of reportable offenses) and asked MSDE to revise language on who makes safety determinations, how multiple‑location students are handled, and how confidentiality and appeal rights are spelled out; MSDE will redraft language and repost the regulation for comment.
The Education Policy Committee reviewed proposed revisions to COMAR13A080117, the Maryland regulation governing schools’ responses to off‑campus reportable offenses, and asked the Maryland State Department of Education to revise several sections before the regulation is republished for public comment.
Dr. Mary Gable (MSDE) told the committee the regulation was published in the Maryland Register (Oct. 6–Nov. 6) and that MSDE received three comment letters from the Maryland Coalition to Reform School Discipline, the Maryland Suspension Representation Project, and Anne Arundel County Public Schools. MSDE recommended three substantive edits: clarifying definitions, revising safety‑determination and appeal procedures, and specifying school obligations and data collection.
Gable said MSDE will add students covered by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to the regulation’s protected‑student language and reiterated a long‑standing MSDE position that notice of an arrest alone "may not be the sole basis for a change in the student's regular school program." She described a multi‑step review at the school level and said that if a principal recommends removal from the regular program that recommendation must go to the local superintendent; parents may appeal to the local board within 15 calendar days and must receive written notice of appeal rights.
Committee members, including Dr. Johnson, asked whether a single principal should make safety determinations or whether a team (for example a student support team or IEP team for students with disabilities) should be required. Gable said the regulation currently leaves the makeup of the school‑level determination team to the school and that MSDE will consider language to clarify that teams, not single administrators, should be involved in consequential decisions. Amanda Wright (MSDE attorney) clarified that for removals longer than 10 days the superintendent or designee must investigate and find that the student poses an imminent threat of serious harm before a long‑term removal can occur.
The committee also pressed MSDE on how the regulation treats students educated at multiple locations (community college courses, internships, career‑technical programs) and what, if any, information may be shared with those external sites. Wright said confidentiality rules constrain sharing and MSDE will research legal implications and return with recommended language.
MSDE presented LEA data showing that 86.7 percent of students accused of a reportable offense were retained in their schools; smaller percentages were placed in virtual schools, home/hospital instruction, alternative schools, transferred, or detained. Gable said MSDE will continue to collect and publish data on offenses and subsequent placements.
After discussion the committee agreed it was not comfortable forwarding the regulation as drafted and asked MSDE staff to rework the language on decision‑making bodies, multiple‑location students, and imminent‑threat wording; MSDE will return with revised language and the regulation will be republished for a 30‑day public comment period.
