State Board Advocacy Center

State Board Priority Issues

MABE staff monitors and engages in correspondence and other advocacy actions on priority issues before the State Board of Education. Issues often arise in advance of or in response to proposed regulations or policies as well as in response to legal decisions impacting all school systems.

MABE Comments on Alternative Student Transportation Regulations

On December 20, 2021, MABE submitted comments supporting with amendment the proposed regulations under COMAR 13A.06.07 to implement legislation enacted in 2021 to provided reasonable flexibility for local school systems to expand the types of vehicles used for student transportation (SB 448, Ch. 198, 2021 Laws of Maryland).

The requested amendment addresses a technical but meaningful distinction between school-owned and contractor-owned school vehicles, including any alternative school vehicles authorized under the new law and proposed regulations. The proposed regulations describe the insurance requirements for alternative school vehicles as “the same as for other school system-owned Class A and Class M vehicles” (COMAR 13A.06.07.12.D(f)). This reference is incomplete and requires an amendment to reference not only insurance coverage requirements for “school system-owned vehicles” but also “contractor-owned vehicles.”

MABE Comments and Proposed Regulations (Note: Regulations were originally approved by the State Board for publication in August 2021.)

---

COVID-19 Issues Before the State Board

Mask Mandate Regulations

On December 7, 2021, the State Board of Education discussed and approved new regulations to allow local waivers of mask mandates in schools based on certain county and school-based health conditions.

Board President Clarence Crawford introduced Superintendent Choudhury and the presentation and discussion of the department’s proposed regulations to repeal and replace immediately the emergency regulations now in effect which mandate masks in public schools, and emergency regulations in effect for 180 days which expire February 25, 2022.

The newly proposed regulations would extend the protection masks provide against COVID-19 and its variants by extending the mandated use of face coverings in schools beyond the February 25, 2022 deadline, as needed. The proposed regulation would also implement procedures to end face coverings in schools based upon vaccination status within the school facility or county, or county transmission rates.

Superintendent Choudhury began by emphasizing that Maryland’s approach to safely returning to in-person learning is working, as evidenced by the fact that Maryland has had only one school close and for only two days, as contrasted with other states, which have not mandated masks, and which have seen many schools close for much longer periods of time.
Mr. Choudhury reviewed the two pathways available under the proposed regulations.

Pathway 1 would allow for the lifting of the mandated use of masks in schools based on individual school level data. A local school system verifying that 80% of students and staff at a school are vaccinated would be allowed to lift the mandate within that school. He noted that this is the model adopted in Massachusetts as its only pathway, with a provision requiring non-vaccinated students and staff to remain masked. He highlighted that Maryland’s proposed regulations would not require masking of unvaccinated students and staff in approved schools. He described Pathway 2 as applying in a county (or Baltimore City) if the jurisdiction is at 80% or above of its residents being fully vaccinated. In that case, the local board of education may vote to remove the mask mandate for the entire school system.

The proposed regulations amend COMAR 13A.01.07.01-.07 by adding a section on “Lifting Face Covering Requirements.” This section includes provisions allowing for the lifting of the mask mandates based on the following:

1. If at least 80 percent of the county population in the county where the schools are located is fully vaccinated, as reported by MDH, a county board or the governing authority of a public school that is not in a local school system may lift the face covering requirements by passing a motion or resolution in a public meeting.

2. The local superintendent may lift the face covering requirement for a school facility or facilities after a principal or designated school official verifies that 80 percent of the school staff and students in the school facility have been fully vaccinated. The principal or designated school official submits a signed Department-approved attestation form to the local
superintendent, and the local superintendent then signs and submits the attestation form affirming the 80 percent vaccination rate to the State Superintendent of Schools.

If either of the 80 percent vaccination thresholds are achieved, the following transmission rate provisions and procedures for lifting and reinstating the face covering requirements do not apply.

3. The local superintendent may lift the face covering in schools requirements if the county has sustained 14 consecutive days of moderate or low transmission rate of COVID-19 cases, as reported by the CDC. The local superintendent is required to reinstate the face covering requirements if transmission rates of COVID-19 cases are substantial or higher for 14 consecutive days, as reported by the CDC.

On December 7, several board members asked questions and spoke in favor of the proposed approach. Superintendent Choudhury also clarified that the proposed regulations will be forwarded to the legislature’s Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR) Committee as emergency regulations and as permanent regulations (with a sunset in 2023). He emphasized that in either case the AELR Committee will hold a hearing as it did for the initial regulations. Following Superintendent Choudhury’s presentation, the State Board voted to approve publication of the proposed regulations as proposed.

Memo & Regulations

Background

On August 26, 2021 the State Board held a special meeting to review and approve proposed emergency regulations mandating the use of masks by all students and staff in the 2021-2022 school year (Note: the maximum duration of emergency regulations is 180 days).

Highlights of the Regulations:

• All individuals, unless exempt under §B of this regulation, shall cover their nose and mouth with a face covering while inside a school facility.
• (1) “Face covering” means a material that covers the nose and mouth to prevent respiratory droplets from being expelled into the air and that:(a) is secured to the head, including with ties or ear loops;(b) fits snugly but comfortably against the side of the face; and(c) is either manufactured or homemade and is a solid piece of  material without slits, exhalation valves, or punctures.
• The State Superintendent of Schools is authorized to enforce this chapter consistent with Education Article §2-303(b). (By requiring the Comptroller to withhold funding.)

AELR Hearing

The hearing on the emergency regulations was held on September 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m..   The hearing was conducted by the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive, and Legislative Review (AELR), and featured more than 30 witnesses, including local board members, testifying in opposition and in support of the proposed regulations. Following the hearing, the Committee voted along party lines in favor of the regulations by a vote of 10-7.

The Department of Legislative Services (DLS) issued its analysis of the regulations), highlighting:

• "These emergency regulations require all individuals, except under certain circumstances, to wear a specified face covering inside a school facility in each public school in every local school system in the State. Each local school system is required to expeditiously adopt policies and procedures to implement this requirement."
• "Section 2-205(b), (c), and (g) provides that the State board has the authority to determine and carry out the elementary and secondary educational policies of the State and is required to adopt rules and regulations for the administration of the public schools."

 

---

Reopening & Recovery Plan Advocacy

On August 31, 2020, MABE wrote to State Board President Clarence C. Crawford and State Superintendent Dr. Karen B. Salmon to request the State Board’s rejection of the proposal to adopt new requirements for local education recovery and reopening plans. MABE's letter emphasized that Maryland’s nearly 1 million public school students and their families deserve as much stability and transparency as possible at the outset of this school year, not the last-minute disruption which would be caused by adopting the newly proposed standards for virtual learning.

Nonpublic Funding Under the CARES Act

On May 14, 2020, MABE's letter to Dr. Salmon thanked her for leadership and engagement on COVID-19 related matters and requested her assistance in resolving our serious concerns raised by the nonregulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education outlining its interpretation of the requirements regarding equitable services for students in nonpublic schools under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (Mar. 27, 2020).

Student Grading Policies

On December 20, 2019, MABE's letter to Dr. Salmon and State Board President Sumpter requested the consideration of concerns as the State Board considered regulations (COMAR 13A.03.02.08) mandating that local grading policies include strict limitations on a student’s eligibility to received course credit, and therefore to graduate, based on unexcused absences from school. This provision was included in a larger set of proposed amendments to the regulations governing graduation requirements (COMAR 13A.03.02.01-.12). In addition, MABE requested an amendment to the section of the proposed regulations (COMAR 13A.03.03.09) to implement the law passed in 2019 to ensure that students’ results on the new high school assessments to be administered in the spring of 2020 do not affect their eligibility for graduation in 2020 or in any subsequent year in which they will graduate.

Student Transfer Regulations to Allow Expanded Intra-District Transfers

On September 30, 2019 MABE's letter to Dr. Karen B. Salmon, State Superintendent of Schools, and Warner I. Sumpter, Brig. Gen. (Ret.), State Board President, requested consideration of comments on regulations governing local board policies and decisions regarding intra-district student transfers within local school systems. MABE strongly opposed the regulations preliminarily approved by the State Board on August 27, 2019, and published in the Maryland Register on September 27, 2019.

At the same time, MABE's letter of September 30, 2019 to the House and Senate Co-Chairs of the AELR Committee to voice strong opposition to the proposed regulations governing intra-district student transfers within
local school systems.

On May 16, 2019, MABE's letter to Dr. Karen B. Salmon, State Superintendent of Schools, and Dr. Justin M. Hartings, President of the State Board, requested the consideration of several major concerns and objections as the State Board considered modifications to regulations governing intra-district student transfers within local school systems.

State Accountability System

On April 17, 2019, MABE wrote to Dr. Karen B. Salmon, State Superintendent of Schools, and Dr. Justin M. Hartings, President of the State Board, to provide input as the State Board of Education considered modifications for the 2019 accountability system. Specifically, MABE’s comments addressed the potential single-year adjustment of Maryland’s current Star Rating System. MABE's letter raised several concerns about modifying the system at that time.