Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland educators’ licensing rule on investigation alerts draws debate; board delays publishing change
Summary
The Maryland Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board on Feb. 6 debated proposed amendments to COMAR 13A.12.06 that would formalize an internal “alert” on an educator’s licensure record during an investigation; after objections about possible stigma and fairness the board tabled permission to publish and asked MSDE for revised wording.
The Maryland Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board on Feb. 6 debated proposed amendments to the disciplinary-action regulation (COMAR 13A.12.06) that would clarify when the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) or local agencies may place an internal “alert” on an educator’s licensure record during an investigation.
Board members and MSDE staff centered the discussion on whether a short, internal flag that marks a file as “under investigation” could unfairly stigmatize educators before a final determination. Jamie Sapien, in-house counsel for the Maryland State Education Association, told the board during public comment that placing a flag on an educator’s file “before there’s even a determination” risks treating a teacher “guilty until proven innocent” and would create administrative burdens for local education agencies (LEAs).
MSDE licensure staff explained the proposed language clarifies longstanding practice rather than creating a new step. Kelly (last name not provided), an MSDE licensure official, said the flag is visible only to MSDE licensing specialists and trained licensing partners in LEAs and is not public. She described automated workflows that create a flag when a candidate’s application answers indicate criminal history or when MSDE receives a match from national educator-discipline or sex-offender databases; in those circumstances MSDE opens an investigation and notifies the educator and, when appropriate, the employer.
MSDE counsel Sean (last name not provided) told the board the alert does not remove any procedural protections. He said the alert is internal, temporary and narrowly tailored; MSDE must remove it if the investigation finds no grounds and a separate part of the regulation preserves the educator’s rights to appeal. Sean explained the legal distinction between criminal charging standards (beyond reasonable doubt) and administrative/licensure standards (preponderance of the evidence), and said an internal notice to licensing partners does not, in his view, violate due process.
Some board members raised historical objections and fairness concerns. Several members noted past votes against similar language because an internal flag—visible to those who issue licenses—can create a stigma even if the investigation later clears the educator. Members also said many investigations are handled by LEAs internally and that a requirement to notify MSDE of every local investigation would be an unreasonable administrative burden; MSDE staff said the proposed text does not require reporting every local inquiry, only matters that implicate the licensing grounds listed in the regulation.
After extended discussion, board members proposed a narrower wording change to reduce misinterpretation: limit the internal alert to records “being investigated by the department to determine whether grounds exist for denial or disciplinary action.” The board decided not to grant permission to publish the current draft in the Maryland Register at this meeting; members asked MSDE to revise the language, circulate the change to stakeholders, and return with the revised proposal at the next meeting.
MSDE staff said they will draft a revised memorandum for the State Board of Education and work with board members on messaging and any clarifying application language or FAQs to reduce confusion among applicants. The board emphasized protecting students while preserving clear procedural protections and communication to affected educators.
The board did not vote on a final promulgation motion and agreed to revisit the amended language at a subsequent meeting after MSDE circulates a proposed revision and additional stakeholder input.
