Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavior Discipline Exclusionary Practices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Work group urges MSDE to prioritize training, staffing and restorative practices to reduce exclusionary discipline
Summary
MSDE special education work group discussed rising exclusionary discipline and recommended state actions including training requirements, expanded behavioral supports in schools, revisions to codes of conduct and dissemination of exemplar programs.
Maryland State Department of Education work group members called on the department to prioritize staffing, training and policy guidance to reduce exclusionary discipline for students with disabilities and to scale restorative and preventative approaches across districts.
The work group devoted a large portion of the meeting to behavior and discipline, centering on statewide policies MSDE can adopt to reduce removals from classrooms and schools. Presenters framed exclusionary discipline as an increasing national and local problem: participants cited national data showing higher suspension and removal rates for students with disabilities and said COVID‑era impacts remain “very real” for many students.
In a presentation to the group, Nate Johnson summarized national trends and research on best practices, urging a multifaceted approach that emphasizes prevention, teaching coping skills, adult training and on‑site behavioral health supports. “If you could click through the next couple bullet points,” Johnson said as he outlined research indicating that prevention‑oriented, multifaceted approaches can reduce challenging behaviors.
Work group members listed several recurring recommendations: revise codes of conduct to remove suspension as a response for low‑level offenses such as ‘‘disrespect’’ in some cases; require or strongly recommend tiered, progressive discipline that prioritizes instructional and restorative responses; expand on‑site behavioral and mental‑health staff so teachers have alternatives to exclusion; require training for all staff (including non‑special‑education staff) on trauma‑informed approaches, functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP) implementation; and curate a statewide repository of proven curricula and programs so LEAs can adopt exemplars rather than duplicating research.
Several jurisdiction representatives described local changes that reduced removals: one participant said Worcester County’s revamp of its code of conduct and investment in supports led to “an extreme drop in officer referrals for our students of color and our students with disability.” Anne Arundel County staff described annual family notification and school orientation practices that reinforce disciplinary expectations and recommended MSDE distribute consistent materials statewide.
Members emphasized that many research‑backed practices already exist, but implementation has been uneven because of limited staffing and funding. Work group participants repeatedly said prevention requires adults in schools who are trained and available to provide immediate support; multiple members urged that prevention be treated as a staffed function rather than an unfunded expectation placed on classroom teachers.
MSDE staff acknowledged ongoing work across divisions, including training series the department recently offered and contracts with consultants to help with disproportionality and monitoring. Members urged MSDE to prioritize pilot sites, collect implementation data, and use exemplars to build leadership buy‑in.
No formal vote on a single behavior policy occurred at the meeting; instead the group identified priorities MSDE should research and include in the implementation plan that MSDE will draft and circulate for review.
