HB1204, enacted as Chapter 339 and titled the Ace’s Law, creates a new subtitle in the Education Article addressing student elopement from school. It defines “elopement” as a student leaving school campus without permission and “wandering” as leaving a classroom or area on campus without permission, while not leaving the campus. The bill requires public schools, the Maryland School for the Blind, the Maryland School for the Deaf, and nonpublic schools to notify a parent or guardian within 24 hours when a student attempts or accomplishes elopement, unless the student already has an IEP or behavior intervention plan that addresses wandering or elopement behavior.
The bill also requires annual review of a student’s wandering or elopement behavior by the school or IEP team, with relevant stakeholders involved in updating the IEP or behavior intervention plan. In addition, schools must report annual elopement data, including the number of incidents and the steps taken to reduce them, with disaggregation by jurisdiction, disability, race, gender, age, and placement type. County boards and the State Department of Education must verify zero-incident reports, make recommendations when reports cannot be verified, and compile the information for submission to the General Assembly and public posting.
HB1204 further directs the Maryland State Department of Education to provide guidance, develop an accountability system, analyze trends, and adopt regulations to implement the subtitle. Schools must also develop their own policies and procedures, and any school or county board that fails to comply, or that reports a student with 10 or more elopement incidents in a school year, must submit a systemic, evidence-based corrective action plan. The law takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact is to add a new statewide reporting, notification, and accountability framework for elopement incidents in both public and nonpublic schools, with special attention to students with disabilities and behavioral supports. It expands administrative duties for schools, county boards, and the Department, and it creates new data collection obligations and public reporting requirements that may affect school discipline, special education practices, and parent communication procedures.
The available vote history suggests broad legislative support, with the bill passing the House 135-2 and the Senate 47-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, and the final status indicates the bill was approved by the Governor. The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable, with the narrow dissent in the House suggesting limited opposition rather than major controversy.
HB1204 adds Subtitle 11A to the Education Article, creating new statutory duties for public schools, the Maryland School for the Blind, the Maryland School for the Deaf, and nonpublic schools regarding student elopement and wandering. It requires parent/guardian notice, annual reporting, verification of zero-incident reports, corrective action plans for noncompliance or high-frequency incidents, and Department-issued regulations and guidance. The bill also expands the role of IEP teams and behavior intervention planning for students whose elopement or wandering behavior is addressed through special education supports.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, as reflected by overwhelming passage in both chambers and final enactment. The House vote of 135-2 and Senate vote of 47-0 indicate broad bipartisan support. No committee discussion was provided, but the voting record suggests the measure was viewed as a child-safety and school-accountability bill with little organized opposition.
The main policy tension is between mandatory parent notification and the exception for students whose IEPs or behavior intervention plans already address wandering or elopement, which may raise questions about how much discretion schools retain and how families are informed. Another possible point of concern is the administrative burden of annual reporting, data disaggregation, verification of zero-incident reports, and corrective action planning, especially for schools with limited resources. The bill’s focus on students with disabilities may also prompt debate over privacy, labeling, and whether the reporting framework could unintentionally stigmatize certain students, though the available vote record does not show substantial opposition.