Note: This post was written by artificial intelligence (NotebookLM) using Title 4 of the Maryland Education Article (2025) as its source. I’ve been using NotebookLM to study the Education Article for fun and to see what insights an AI model might pull from the text. The posts are part of my experiment to learn (and laugh a little) along the way. I am posting them to keep them organized for myself to share if anyone else finds them useful. Take them with a grain of salt!

Introduction: Beyond the Bake Sale

For most parents, interaction with the local school system happens in familiar settings: parent-teacher conferences, PTA meetings, and volunteering at the annual bake sale. We see the day-to-day operations—the teachers, the principals, the curriculum—and assume we have a basic understanding of how things work. Behind this visible layer, however, lies a complex legal framework that dictates nearly every aspect of school administration.

This legal code is filled with specific, detailed, and often surprising rules that govern everything from student rights to the balance of power between administrators and the school board. These are not abstract legal theories; they are the ground rules that shape the educational environment for every child in the public school system.

This article pulls back the curtain on Maryland’s Education Code to reveal five of the most unexpected laws that quietly shape your local schools.

——————————————————————————–

The List: Unexpected Rules in School Administration

1. Your Child’s Schoolwork Belongs to Them, Not the School

Under Maryland law (§ 4-130), a county board of education is explicitly prohibited from claiming ownership, property rights, or copyright to a student’s work. The law defines “student work product” broadly, including creative and academic output such as written reports, essays, tests, homework, personal class notes, art projects, and even computer software.

This rule is a powerful protection of student creativity and intellectual property. In an age where a high school coding project could become the next big app or a piece of art could have commercial value, this law ensures that the student who created the work is the one who owns it. It affirms that the purpose of school is education, not the acquisition of student-created assets.

“A county board may not claim ownership rights, property rights, or the copyright to the student work product of a student enrolled in a public school under the jurisdiction of the county board.”

2. The Superintendent Is the CEO, But They Can’t Vote

The county superintendent is a central figure in any school system, serving as the executive officer, secretary, and treasurer of the county board of education. According to § 4-102, they must attend all meetings of the board and its committees. They are, in effect, the chief executive responsible for the administration of the entire school system.

However, the law draws a firm line when it comes to policy-making power. While the superintendent is encouraged to provide advice and expertise on any question the board is considering, the statute is clear: the superintendent has no vote. This creates a deliberate separation of powers, ensuring that the appointed administrator who executes policy does not also have the power to create that policy through a vote. The board sets the course, and the superintendent steers the ship.

“The county superintendent may advise on any question under consideration but may not vote.”

3. State Law Provides a Guardrail Against Ideological Book Banning

As debates over school library collections intensify nationwide, Maryland law provides a clear and direct standard. The state’s official policy for school library media programs, outlined in § 4-142, is designed to ensure that materials are provided for the interest and instructional support of all students.

Crucially, the law states that materials cannot be excluded or removed from a library simply because of “partisan, ideological, or religious disapproval.” This provision serves as a powerful guardrail against censorship based on personal or political viewpoints. Furthermore, the law protects librarians and support staff from retaliation for upholding this standard, empowering them to curate collections that serve the entire student body without fear of professional reprisal.

“Materials may not be excluded or removed from the catalogue of a school library media program because of partisan, ideological, or religious disapproval.”

4. Schools May Be Required to Pay Legal Fees for Employees Accused of Misconduct

Under § 4-104 of the Education Code, a county board is required to provide legal counsel for an employee—such as a teacher or principal—who is sued for an action taken in the performance of their duties. This protection applies as long as the employee was acting within the scope of their employment and without malice.

Case law has further clarified this requirement. According to legal annotations accompanying the statute, courts have interpreted this duty to apply whenever there is a “potentiality of coverage.” This legal principle separates the board’s broad duty to defend an employee (funding their legal counsel) from a narrower duty to indemnify (paying a final judgment against them). In essence, the school system must provide a defense based on the mere possibility that the employee’s actions were within their professional duties, even if a court ultimately finds they were not. This raises complex questions for the public and the school system about liability, accountability, and the allocation of taxpayer funds.

According to legal precedent, a Board of Education was required to reimburse defense costs for a teacher sued by a former student because there was a potentiality that some of the teacher’s alleged actions—separate from the counts involving sexual abuse—fell within the scope of their professional duties.

5. High Schools Must Support Parenting Students with Designated Lactation Spaces

Recognizing that students face diverse and complex life circumstances, Maryland law requires school systems to actively support pregnant and parenting students. Section 4-139 mandates that each school system develop policies to help these students continue their education and achieve their goals.

One of the most specific and practical requirements under this law is the provision of lactation spaces. Every high school must designate a private space for lactating students that includes seating, a flat surface for a breast pump, and access to an electrical outlet. The law explicitly states that this space cannot be a bathroom or a closet. This is a distinctly modern and supportive policy that addresses the real-world needs of students, removing a significant barrier that could otherwise force a student to choose between their education and their child.

Is not a bathroom or closet.

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: The Rules We Don’t See

The administration of our public schools is far more complex than it appears on the surface. It is guided by a detailed legal code filled with specific, and sometimes surprising, provisions that have a direct impact on everything from a student’s intellectual property rights and access to information to the fundamental structure of administrative power. These five laws are just a small sample of the intricate legal machinery operating behind the scenes.

These rules demonstrate a continuous effort to balance administrative authority with individual rights, protect academic freedom, and adapt to the changing needs of students and society. Knowing these rules exist, what other assumptions about our school system might be worth questioning?