MCPS special‑populations committee reviews services, highlights staffing shortfalls and requests data breakdowns

Montgomery County Board of Education Special Populations Committee members heard an overview of the district's special education services and data and raised questions about staffing, program placement and how the system tracks certain disability categories.

Diana Wiles, associate superintendent for the Office of Special Education, told the committee that Montgomery County Public Schools serves about 24,403 students with individualized education programs—"approximately 15.2% of our population," she said—based on data pulled Feb. 18. Wiles said about 40% of that special education population is Medicaid‑eligible and that the district serves roughly 2,600 prekindergarten students in its early education programs. "Services under IDEA are through an individualized educational program, and they are truly individualized services," Wiles said. "They are intended to meet the unique needs of a student, and they are required to give a student access and educational benefit."

Why it matters: committee members said the size and complexity of the special education population affect staffing, professional learning needs for general educators and budget planning. Chair Grace Rivera Oven opened the session by describing the committee's focus on the experience of students with disabilities across general education and specialized placements.

Key data and legal context

Wiles and other staff explained how three federal laws intersect in schools: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Wiles noted that IDEA provides the statutory framework for special education services from birth to age 21 and includes the federal disability categories used to determine eligibility. "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that students be eligible under 14 different disability categories," she said. Staff also described the district's child find obligation to identify children with suspected disabilities early and the requirement to reevaluate students' eligibility at least every three years.

On placements, staff emphasized the distinction between placement (an IEP team decision about the services and least restrictive environment) and location (the district's decision about where those services are delivered because of building capacity and transportation). Kelly Geron, supervisor of specially designed instruction, explained the district's continuum of services—from inclusive general education (LRE A) to combination models (LRE B), to self‑contained classes (LRE C)—and the limited number of separate day‑school seats.

Enrollment and setting breakdowns

- Total special education enrollment reported: about 24,403 students (≈15.2% of district enrollment, data as of Feb. 18). (Diana Wiles) - Approximately 63% of students with IEPs receive services inside the general education classroom for the majority of their day. (Diana Wiles) - About 27% of the district's students receiving special education services are also identified as emergent multilingual learners (EML). (Diana Wiles) - Approximately 350 students attend public separate day schools; about 652 attend private/nonpublic separate day schools. (Diana Wiles) - The district reported roughly 2,600 prekindergarten students receiving special education services. (Diana Wiles)

Committee requests and data calls

Board members asked staff for more disaggregated data. Rita Montoya specifically requested that the "other health impaired" (OHI) category be broken down into underlying conditions (for example, ADHD, asthma, diabetes) so the district can better target professional learning for general educators and related services. Montoya said she wanted OHI broken down "by what those are," and staff replied they could attempt to pull additional disaggregated information. Laura Stewart echoed the request and asked for similar breakdowns for specific learning disabilities.

Staff responses on categorization and data: Wiles and other presenters said federal eligibility categories are the entry point for services and that more granular information is collected and can be pulled for district analysis. "Other health impairment is…broadly interpreted. It could be a student that has ADHD, typically, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. That is a large number of students who are qualified under the other health impairment category," Wiles said.

Placement and programing concerns

Committee members described operational challenges when placement or supports are not working day‑to‑day. Members asked how the district reviews and revises plans when a student does not make progress. Staff described the IEP team process: teams implement interventions, collect data (often for 6–9 weeks), reconvene, and then revise goals or consider placement changes as needed. Kia Murphy, director of the Department of Special Education Services, presented a case study about a student identified as "Joanne," whose team ultimately determined she required a private separate day school after district resources were exhausted. Murphy described the reevaluation and centralized review process used to make that determination.

Staffing, contracting and speech‑language pathology shortages

Staff and board members discussed district staffing and contracted services. Wiles and other presenters said the district contracts for related services when vacancies cannot be filled, with speech‑language pathology (SLP) services commonly contracted. Presenters attributed post‑COVID shifts and national workforce shortages to contraction of in‑person SLP availability and increased telehealth use.

Late in the meeting staff provided an SLP staffing snapshot: about 375 FTEs for speech‑language pathologists with roughly 345 of those FTEs filled—implying about 30 FTE vacancies—while earlier presenters had described "approximately 40 or so vacancies" in some remarks. Staff said they monitor contractor performance and field school‑level feedback when agencies are posted to a school.

Parental rights, stakeholder engagement and resources

Staff reviewed due‑process safeguards and the district's obligation to provide parents a procedural safeguards notice at least annually; those materials are available in multiple languages and through MSDE. Marybeth Mataranes, family support services specialist (named in the presentation materials), coordinates parent resources, workshops and system‑level supports; staff urged families to consult the Special Education Citizens Advisory Committee (CCAC) and district resource fairs (the presentation announced a May 10 resource fair at Seneca Valley High School).

Formal action

At the start of the meeting the committee approved the prior meeting minutes by voice vote after a motion to approve and a second were made; no roll‑call tally was recorded in the transcript. (Motion to approve moved from the floor; second not specified.)

Next steps and committee direction

Committee members asked staff to: - Provide disaggregated counts within the "other health impaired" and specific learning disability categories when feasible. - Clarify school‑level supports and monitoring steps used when placements or interventions are not producing expected progress. - Share more detail about contractor monitoring and SLP vacancy mitigation strategies.

Chair Grace Rivera Oven closed the meeting and scheduled the committee's next meeting for May 5.