School Systems - Reportable Offenses - Alterations
HB0123 expands Maryland’s school-reporting framework for student arrests and reportable offenses. It adds institutions and programs of higher education to the definition of “school system” when a student is enrolled there through a dual enrollment program, so the law’s notification and information-sharing rules would apply to those settings as well as K-12 schools. The bill also adds several offenses to the list of “reportable offenses,” including additional criminal law violations such as certain sexual offenses, child pornography-related conduct, human trafficking-related offenses, and other felony-level acts.
The bill preserves the existing requirement that law enforcement notify school officials within 24 hours when a student is arrested for a reportable offense or an offense tied to criminal organization membership, and it adds authority for a State’s Attorney to make the notification if law enforcement does not. It also requires the State’s Attorney to notify school officials of the disposition of the case. The bill continues to require confidentiality of the information, limits redisclosure, and directs the State Board to regulate how the information is used, transmitted, and destroyed. It also expands annual state reporting to include dual enrollment program information and related educational impacts when a student is removed or altered from their program.
HB0123 would amend Education Article § 7-303 and related reporting provisions, affecting local superintendents, principals, school security officers, law enforcement agencies, State’s Attorneys, county boards, and the Maryland State Department of Education. It would also require public schools serving grades 6 through 12 to designate at least one school security officer, and it would extend the bill’s reporting and student-removal provisions to applicable dual enrollment programs at higher education institutions. The bill’s effective date is July 1, 2026.
The overall tone of the bill appears protective and safety-focused, with the text emphasizing school security, victim protection, and information-sharing to support appropriate educational programming. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of public debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the bill’s structure, the likely policy rationale is to improve school awareness of serious off-campus conduct while preserving confidentiality and educational continuity for affected students.
The main points of potential contention are the expansion of reportable offenses, the inclusion of higher education dual enrollment settings within school-system reporting, and the breadth of information collected and reported by the state, including demographic data and academic outcomes. Privacy advocates may be concerned about confidentiality, data retention, and the risk of stigmatizing students, while school safety proponents may support the broader notification rules and the added authority for State’s Attorneys to ensure schools are informed.
HB0123 would amend Maryland Education Article § 7-303 to broaden mandatory reporting of student arrests for off-campus reportable offenses, add new offenses to the reporting list, and extend the definition of school system to include higher education institutions and programs used for dual enrollment. It would also authorize State’s Attorneys to provide notice when law enforcement does not, require additional annual reporting by MSDE, and extend certain removal, conference, and manifestation-determination-related provisions to applicable dual enrollment programs. Schools, law enforcement, prosecutors, and county boards would all be affected by the expanded notice, confidentiality, and reporting requirements.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented formal sentiment from hearings or floor action. From the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a school safety and student-protection bill, with a clear emphasis on notification, victim protection, and maintaining secure learning environments. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured directly, but the drafting suggests a policy goal likely to attract support from school safety advocates and scrutiny from privacy and student-rights stakeholders.
The most likely areas of contention are the expansion of what counts as a reportable offense, especially the addition of sexual offenses, child pornography-related conduct, and other felony-level acts; the extension of school-system reporting to dual enrollment settings at colleges and universities; and the collection and annual reporting of sensitive student data, including race, ethnicity, disability status, academic performance, and disciplinary outcomes. Opponents may argue that these provisions increase surveillance or risk unnecessary disclosure, while supporters may argue they are necessary to protect victims, inform school officials, and ensure safe educational placements.