Public and Nonpublic Schools - Student Elopement - Locative Devices
HB1182 requires public schools, the Maryland School for the Blind, the Maryland School for the Deaf, and nonpublic schools to adopt policies and procedures addressing student wandering and elopement. The bill defines “wandering” as leaving a classroom or area on campus without permission, and “elopement” as leaving school campus without permission. It also requires schools to notify a parent or guardian the same day an elopement occurs and to review wandering or elopement behavior at least annually as part of a student’s IEP or behavior intervention plan.
The bill further authorizes schools, under limited conditions, to coordinate a student’s voluntary use of a locative device and monitor the student’s location during wandering or elopement incidents. That use is restricted to students with a documented history of wandering or elopement in an IEP or behavior intervention plan, requires informed written parental consent, and requires that the device not record audio or video of others, or have those features disabled in educational settings. The bill also directs the State Department of Education to issue advisory guidance on incorporating locative devices into student plans and on privacy and data protection, while preserving school discretion over whether and how to implement such devices.
HB1182 would amend the Education Article by adding new provisions governing school responses to wandering and elopement and by repealing and reenacting existing subtitle language to reflect the new framework. It also creates explicit limits on data collection, access, retention, and safeguarding of information obtained through a student’s voluntary use of a locative device, and it states that schools are not required to provide, purchase, reimburse, manage, or monitor such devices or related service plans. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable. The House passed the bill on third reading unanimously, 128-0, indicating broad support and little visible opposition in the recorded vote. The bill’s structure also suggests an effort to balance student safety with privacy and parental consent, which likely helped build consensus.
The main points of contention, to the extent they are reflected in the bill text, center on privacy, surveillance, and implementation burden. The bill addresses these concerns by limiting use to students with documented needs, requiring written consent, restricting access to authorized personnel and emergency responders, and prohibiting mandatory purchase or use of locative devices. Another potential issue is school discretion: the Department’s guidance may inform implementation, but schools retain discretion over whether and how to use locative devices, which may lead to variation across districts.
HB1182 would expand Maryland education law by creating a new statutory framework for addressing student wandering and elopement in both public and nonpublic schools. It imposes new school-level policy, notification, and annual review requirements, and it authorizes a narrowly defined use of locative devices for students with documented wandering or elopement behavior. The bill also adds privacy, data retention, and access restrictions for information collected through those devices, while directing the State Department of Education to issue advisory guidance. Schools are not required to buy, provide, or monitor devices, and parents or students cannot be compelled to use them.
The recorded legislative sentiment is overwhelmingly positive. The House approved the bill unanimously on third reading, 128-0, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement on the need to address student safety concerns related to wandering and elopement. The bill’s emphasis on consent, privacy protections, and school discretion likely contributed to its favorable reception.
The principal concerns involve student privacy, potential surveillance, and whether schools should be responsible for implementing and monitoring locative devices. The bill responds to those concerns by limiting use to voluntary, consent-based situations for students with documented needs, restricting the type of device and the data that may be collected, and prohibiting any requirement that schools or families purchase or use the technology. Another possible tension is operational: schools must create policies and procedures, but the Department’s guidance is advisory and schools retain discretion, which may create uneven implementation across systems.