Summer 2025 | VOL. 4, ISSUE 2

PRESIDENT'S CORNER

Hello, school board colleagues!

A quick reminder that there's still time to receive the special Early Bird discounted rate for MABE Annual Conference this October 20-21. Additional details about this year's gathering (shaping up to be another winner) are below, and I hope to see you there!

This issue of The MABE Scoop brings you a "What's Working Well?" Q&A with Rae Gallagher and Karen Yoho of Frederick County Public Schools on the success their school system has found with its creative Community Listening Sessions. We highlight recent challenges school systems are facing on the legislative front, and provide helpful summary information about the Supreme Court's recent Mahmoud v. Taylor case as well.

We're also glad to bring you word of several local school board members appointed by MABE who recently were named to key state commissions focused on advancing student well-being, and an update on MABE's new, forward-looking Strategic Plan, to be shared at this year's Annual Conference.

As always, please be sure to check out recent headlines of interest below, as well as information on MABE's ongoing trainings and member resources.

School board members don't get much of a "summer break," we all realize. But your hard work means success for students. Thank you for all that you do!

Karin Bailey (St. Mary's County)

MABE President

During the 2023-2024 school year, the Frederick County Board of Education launched its "Community Listening Sessions" to reach more of the public, in a less structured setting. We checked in with the the school board's Rae Gallagher and Karen Yoho for feedback on how their listening sessions are shaping up.

Q: Can you describe in a nutshell what your school board's Community Listening Sessions actually are?

KAREN: I'd describe them as an additional opportunity to interact with the public in a less formal setting. It's a sort of "road show" where we bring the Board to the community, rather than vice versa.

RAE: There is no Board work or decisions made during these sessions. Rather, we start with open-ended questions that allow stakeholders to share what brought them to speak with us, what concerns they want us to be aware of, and any successes they want to share about their school community.

Q: When did your school board's Community Listening Sessions launch?

KAREN: We held three sessions during the 2023-2024 school year, and another three this past school year. We plan to continue them moving forward. Any community member is welcome to participate.

Q: What inspired them?

KAREN: One of our school board members, (Board Vice President) Dean Rose, brought the idea to us. Our first session was held in our Board Room, but now we travel to different high school media centers.

RAE: We felt the opportunity to travel throughout the county and meet in a more personal, less structured way, while also being more accessible to some stakeholders wanting to meet, was a great combination.

Q: What part did your Board of Education play in establishing your Listening Sessions?

KAREN: The idea really gained traction when we were redoing our policy around public comment at our Board meetings, where many meetings were ending after 11:00 pm. In order for people to have time to speak in board meetings, we'd expanded public comment time to 60 minutes, but that meant shortening our time for interaction, given time constraints.

Dean Rose suggested the Community Listening Sessions in response, and our whole board at the time jumped on the suggestion. We then worked with our Ombudsman on related format and protocols. After each session, we have a helpful debrief during our public meetings to make improvements for the next Listening Session gathering.

Q: What sort of successes have your board's Community Listening Sessions produced?

KAREN: Because these sessions are less formal, board members have the opportunity to communicate directly with community members. Rather than just listening with passive expressions, as we do during public comment time at board meetings, we can actually interact more and provide additional information.

RAE: The biggest success I've observed is that we can build relationships with stakeholders, and provide information on topics in ways that simply are not possible during board meetings. The community can bring their concerns and questions to us, and we can have an actual dialogue.

Q: Why might these sessions have been meaningful to you, personally?

KAREN: I like that during our Community Listening Sessions, we typically sit among community members and hear directly from them, while also being able to provide feedback. We've received very positive reviews from attendees, and that's rewarding.

RAE: I agree. It feels much more personalized than the typical public comment time at board meetings.

Q: Would you recommend a similar tactic to other school board systems in Maryland?

BOTH: Absolutely!

Q: Can other school board members reach out to you if they'd like additional information?

RAE: We'd be more than happy to share details from our experience. Our Ombudsman also would be helpful, as she has been instrumental in planning and facilitating our listening sessions.

Rae's and Karen's contact information is available on the Frederick County Public Schools website or in the MABE Member Directory.

Have a suggestion for a future "What's Working Well?" Q&A with someone from your school system? Please contact us.

Federal policies and administrative actions, along with drastic proposed cuts to education spending, have expanded the importance of and heightened focus on developments in our nation's capital during 2025.

MABE's Federal Advocacy Committee monitors these issues throughout the year. It has held multiple meetings to discuss a variety of timely issues and to explore opportunities to engage in essential conversations across the federal education landscape. The committee, chaired by Jamila Smith (Charles County) includes MABE representatives from 12 local school systems.

Committee members have been navigating a wide set of issues, including:

• The July 3rd passage of the Trump administration's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R.1), signed into law July 4. H.R.1 makes dramatic cuts to Medicaid (a large source of federal funding for schools); includes the nation's first federally funded private school choice program; includes SNAP cuts which could affect free school meals; and eliminates spending to address air pollution in schools.
• The proposed elimination of dozens of longstanding funding streams, and the looming loss of $125M in federal aid this year for Maryland schools (part of $6.8B in education funds frozen by the Trump administration earlier this month). This loss could directly affect teacher and school leadership support; student support and academic enrichment; 21st-century before- and after-school care; students in rural areas or experiencing homelessness; Native students; English learners, and more.
• The Supreme Court's July 14 unsigned ruling which permits the administration to fire over 1,000 Education Department employees and "functionally eliminate the agency."
• Severe staff cuts at the National Center for Education Statistics, which administers the policy effectiveness-measuring National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also under threat.
• Requirements of educational institutions to sign a certification confirming they are DEI-free, or risk losing federal funding.

Given the rapid pace and multiple layers of litigation occurring around many of these initiatives, MABE has focused its efforts on thoroughly understanding each topic, while respecting the complexity of viewpoints held by MABE's statewide membership. Federal developments this year represent, to some, an unnecessarily tumultuous period of funding and programmatic instability for state agencies and local school systems. Others view at least some proposed changes as overdue opportunities to shrink federal bureaucracy, save taxpayer money, and empower states through reduced federal oversight.

Proposed block granting of federal education funds, for example, perhaps best represents these differing perspectives. Such a move presents its own set of challenges ("Block granting federal education funds comes with trade-offs"). Depending on one's interpretation of this year's volatile federal changes, it also could result either in redirecting targeted student support categories toward politically motivated funding allowances, OR could simply give states improved spending flexibility and greater local control of education decisions.

In any case, the MABE Federal Advocacy Committee will continue analyzing these important issues, and inform our membership of ongoing interactions with the Maryland federal delegation as our lawmakers deliberate in the months ahead. For more information, please feel free to contact me at any time.

Please remember to mark your calendars for MABE's Jan. 27, 2026 Legislative Day, to be held at the Governor Calvert House in Annapolis.

In these early days leading up to the event, we see our 2026 gathering focusing on officials' perspectives regarding the Blueprint and various funding challenges; a panel to discuss important federal policy developments; and a preview of 2026 MABE legislative priorities, including insights from local school board members.

The opinion, while long, is much more readable than most Supreme Court opinions, and I encourage board members and administrators to review both the majority and dissenting opinions, which not only present starkly contrasting views, but together provide a better and more nuanced understanding of the Court's majority opinion, which now represents controlling law. The full opinion is found here.

Overview

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying religious parents the ability to opt their elementary-aged children out of storybook lessons that promoted affirming views of gender identity and same-sex relationships. Though the ruling came at the preliminary injunction stage (meaning the decision was not final, but it was determining whether the parents should receive the right to opt out while the case moves forward), and is now back before the District of Maryland federal court, the 6-3 majority signaled a shift in how Free Exercise claims must be treated in the public school curriculum context.

The Court's ruling did not curtail what schools may teach, but it did signal that how schools teach it, and how they respond to objections, must meet a new standard of constitutional scrutiny. Here are some key takeaways:

1. Narrowing "Mere Exposure," but Requiring Significant Facts.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Court moved beyond the longstanding rule that schools may expose students to diverse ideas as long as they do not require agreement or participation. The majority narrowed the idea of "mere exposure," which remains constitutionally permissible, by distinguishing exposure with instruction that "presents certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected" (slip op. at 22).

The Court found that it is not "mere exposure" if a school system includes normative messages in its curriculum — that is, messages that signal social norms — particularly if those messages are targeted at young, impressionable students and are reinforced by a school's framing or teacher guidance. That change introduces a fact-specific standard that lowers the threshold for what may be considered constitutionally burdensome.

2. Affirmative Normative Messaging and Institutional Reinforcement Matters.

A central part of the majority's analysis was not just the storybooks' content, but the broader instructional framework. In addition to the books at issue, the Court considered, at length:

• Teacher guidance documents that purportedly encouraged correcting binary gendered thinking and framing gender identity as fluid (id., at 5-6); and
• Statements from school board members — whether or not quoted in full context — as evidence of institutional intent to promote particular viewpoints and discourage others (id., at 8-11).

The Court thus suggests that school systems face a stronger constitutional challenge if they combine value-laden content with official guidance that lacks viewpoint neutrality. In other words, it's not just the content itself, but how it is taught and how it is intended to be taught.

3. Age and Impressionability are Variables.

The Court repeatedly emphasized the age of the students as a factor in its analysis. In so doing, Mahmoud creates space for tiered scrutiny based on a sort of developmental vulnerability (id. at 13-14, 22, and 26 n.8) ("It goes without saying ... that the age of the children involved is highly relevant in any assessment of the likely effect of instruction on the subjects in question.")

The majority suggested that elementary-aged students and students with developmental disabilities are more susceptible to internalizing values as prescriptive. This opens the door to greater scrutiny for instructional content in early grades, while leaving the standard for high school curriculum relatively untouched for now.

4. Limits on Scope.

The Court made clear that this ruling does not give parents the right to opt out of any lesson they find objectionable, nor does it limit teaching diverse viewpoints. According to the Court, opt-outs and notice are appropriate in this specific case because the students were young, the Court viewed content and instruction as value-laden, and MCPS denied accommodations it offered elsewhere (id., at 36-38).

5. Advance Notice — Required Only in Normative Contexts.

The Opinion sets a rule concerning the constitutional standard for Free Exercise claims, but notes that the relief is fully fact dependent. The Court concluded its majority opinion by ordering MCPS to give parents advance notice if similar gender and same-sex materials are used again (id., at 41), insinuating that more broadly, advance notice and opportunity for opt out should be required in situations where normative content to be taught is likely to be contrary to religious exercise.

But the decision does not require notice for lessons that present diverse ideas in a neutral or non-persuasive way. If the content simply introduces students to different perspectives — without encouraging them to agree or disagree, there is no constitutional obligation to notify families. Parents do not have a veto on information presented. Whether to go beyond that and offer broader notice is up to each local board.

The Bottom Line.

The Court's decision doesn't require schools to remove inclusive stories or treat LGBTQ+ identities as up for debate. But it does impose a procedural expectation: when public schools present values as normative — especially those touching on sincerely held religious beliefs — they may need to provide a path for accommodations.

Districts should consider establishing clear procedures (either internal-facing or external) for handling religious objections, including directing parents through a defined process for requesting an opt-out. Districts should not necessarily allow opt-outs liberally but should require parents to specifically identify their issues and demonstrate that the objection is based on a sincerely held religious belief. The Court did not curtail what schools may teach — but it did signal that how schools teach it, and how they respond to objections, must meet a new standard of constitutional scrutiny.

Should any school boards want help in thinking these issues through in their local context, please contact me.

MABE is proud to announce the appointment of seven local school board members to state commissions that play vital roles in supporting Maryland students' health, safety, and educational success:

JONATHAN BRIGGS (Prince George's County) will serve on the MSDE Regulatory Review Advisory Committee, offering local board insights as the Committee examines and updates state education regulations to support clarity, efficiency, and equity.

RODNEY GLOTFLETY (Garrett County) will represent MABE on the newly established Maryland Collaborative to Improve Children's Oral Health Through School-Based Programs, created by HB 1143 (2025). This group will assess and strengthen school oral health initiatives, with an interim report due by Dec. 1, 2025.

JULIE HENN (Baltimore County) has been appointed to the Student Data Privacy Council, re-established by HB 769/SB 325 (2022), where she will help evaluate and recommend updates to safeguard student and parent data in today's evolving tech landscape.

NICOLE KREAMER (Charles County) will continue MABE's engagement with the Council on the Advancement of School-Based Health Centers (CASBHC), working to improve and expand access to vital health services for students across the state.

LAURA McKENZIE (Kent County) has been appointed to the Maryland Consortium on Coordinated Community Supports, a 25-member body advancing behavioral health and wraparound services under the Blueprint for Maryland's Future.

YONELLE MOORE LEE (Charles County) has been named Chair of the National Black Council of School Board Members Steering Committee (NBC), where she will lead national efforts to champion equity in education, and elevate the voices of Black school board members through advocacy and collaboration.

PHELTON MOSS (Prince George's County) has been appointed to the Early Childhood Advisory Council, where he will contribute to statewide efforts that promote school readiness and strengthen early learning systems for Maryland's youngest learners.

MABE extends our deepest thanks to these dedicated members of our association for their service and advocacy. Their leadership is instrumental in shaping a brighter future for Maryland's students.

MABE continues to actively seek opportunities for local board members to serve on state-level bodies and advisory groups. If you are interested in representing your board and lending your voice to statewide initiatives, please don't hesitate to contact us.

MABE Annual Conference will be here before we know it!

MABE's Conference Program Committee, co-chaired by Pat Dorsey (Carroll County) and Carol Mueller (Harford County), is hard at work on a full agenda featuring the most pressing issues affecting school boards.

Timely subjects will include Implementation of the Blueprint for Maryland's Future; school system funding; Artificial Intelligence policies; educational equity; student safety; staff shortages; redistricting processes; special education funding; book ban board policy best practices, and more.

State Superintendent Carey Wright will deliver remarks, as well as Dr. Aailyah Samuel, President and CEO of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL).

The conference will also include an informative legislative and legal update; the always-popular Student Panel; the annual Presidents Reception and Dinner; MABE's Annual Business Meeting; helpful networking opportunities; and a welcoming evening Happy Hour at The Westin for Sunday night arrivals.

To receive MABE's special Early Bird Registration discounted rate, please be sure to register soon! If you have any conference registration questions, please contact Anne Smith (Ph: 443-603-0392).

We encourage you to reserve your room at The Westin Annapolis at the special MABE discounted rate of $195/night (while discounted room supply lasts). We look forward to hosting you again this year at what surely will be a memorable gathering!

Pamela Boozer-Strother, MBA, CAE

Note: Some publications may require subscriptions.

MABE offers a diverse range of topics, and some programs may be customized to best meet your local board's unique needs. For additional information, please contact Molly Young, MABE Director of Board Development.

Thank you for your dedicated efforts on behalf of Maryland public schools and students!

MABE is gearing up to launch Engagifii, a new member database designed to enhance how we serve and engage with our valued members. We expect to to switch over to the new database later this year, and will share more information regarding the transition soon. Please stay tuned!

621 Ridgely Avenue, Suite 300

Annapolis, MD 21401

Ph: 410-841-5414 | 800-841-8197

MABE.org