Education - Public Schools - Service Contracts
HB1254 would establish a State policy favoring the use of public school employees, rather than private contractors, to perform functions for public schools. A county board that wants to enter into a service contract for school services would generally have to show that the contract is justified by specified circumstances or, if not exempt, submit detailed information to the Maryland State Department of Education. That submission would need to demonstrate that the board considered alternatives to contracting, compare the full cost of contracting versus using school employees, and show projected savings of at least 20% over the life of the contract, excluding savings from reducing employee pay or benefits.
The bill also requires a plan to assist employees who would be adversely affected by a service contract, including efforts to place them in vacant positions, advance notice, and, where feasible, contractor hiring of displaced workers. Service contracts would be subject to Department audits to verify compliance with the projected savings requirement, and audit findings would be public. In addition, the bill directs the Department to design a new paid, weekday professional development system for paraeducators and other education support professionals by July 1, 2027, and requires each county board to provide that training by June 30, 2028.
HB1254 would add a new subtitle to the Education Article governing public school service contracts and would impose new procedural, cost-analysis, and reporting requirements on county boards before they can outsource school services. It would also create a new statewide framework for professional development for paraeducators and other education support professionals, with implementation duties assigned to the State Department of Education and county boards. The bill could affect procurement practices, staffing decisions, labor relations, and training obligations in local school systems, while preserving stronger requirements in collective bargaining agreements or benefit programs.
The bill appears to have received generally favorable treatment in the House, where it passed third reading by a wide margin, 98-33, after receiving a favorable committee report with amendments. The available record does not include committee hearing transcripts, so detailed public arguments are not available here. The vote pattern suggests substantial support, but not unanimity, indicating that the measure was broadly acceptable while still drawing some opposition.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s limits on outsourcing and the administrative burden it places on county boards seeking service contracts. Opponents may object to the 20% savings threshold, the requirement to include broad cost categories in the comparison, the mandatory employee assistance plan, and public audits of contract savings. Supporters are likely to emphasize protecting school employees, ensuring outsourcing is used only when clearly justified, and expanding paid professional development for paraeducators and other support staff. The bill also leaves room for disagreement over how much discretion local boards should retain versus state oversight.