Audit committee reviews Prince George’s County special-education monitoring, compliance and family supports

Prince George’s County Board of Education Audit Committee Chair Dr. Tiffany Anderfoil convened the committee on Feb. 4, 2025, to review how Prince George’s County Public Schools monitors special-education services, responds to state oversight and supports families navigating IEPs and dispute resolution.

The committee heard a joint presentation by Prince George’s special-education leaders and staff from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) describing the state’s comprehensive monitoring process and the district’s internal monitoring, business-intelligence reporting and family supports.

The presentation outlined how MSDE conducts policy and procedures reviews, IEP sampling (about 80–85 IEPs for large districts), case studies, classroom observations and related-services audits. Brian Morrison, branch chief for policy and accountability at MSDE, said, “we do a policies and procedures review.” He described MSDE’s two-pronged correction process required by the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP): correcting individual student records and then showing 100% compliance on a subsequent sample.

Tranel Bowman, associate superintendent for special education at Prince George’s County Public Schools, described the district’s aligned monitoring approach and some district-specific steps. Bowman said the district uses the same indicators the state applies and adds targeted reviews such as an eligibility tool for emotional-disability determinations. “We have been definitely able to reduce by at least, 20 percent of those students that were identified historically with an emotional disability,” Bowman said.

The presentation included specific compliance measures and thresholds. MSDE’s rubric includes roughly 86 special-education indicators drawn from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and COMAR (Code of Maryland Regulations). For large local education agencies (LEAs) like Prince George’s, MSDE samples about 80 IEPs; Prince George’s staff explained that the district also reviews two IEPs per school and two per nonpublic placement. The state’s compliance threshold for triggering an improvement plan is 75%; the district said it uses an 80% threshold internally for targeted supports.

Judith White, chief academic officer for Prince George’s County Public Schools, said the district has increased its business-intelligence capability to produce monthly dashboards that show active students, expired IEPs, expired evaluations, least-restrictive-environment (LRE) distributions and other trend data. The district reported an example snapshot dated March 6, 2024, and that in a recent monitoring cycle about 37 schools had fallen below the district’s 80% threshold and were assigned support plans.

MSDE officials described the state timeline for determinations and monitoring cycles: statewide indicator data for school year 2023–24 were submitted to the federal government on Feb. 1, 2025; MSDE aims to complete local determinations before July 2025 (staff noted a target of late April–early May if feasible). MSDE staff also described targeted monitoring when the state receives credible allegations of noncompliance (for example, a recent targeted review of orientation and mobility services for blind and low-vision students).

Committee members focused questions on funding and family experience. Dr. Antoine Hickman, assistant state superintendent for early intervention and special education at MSDE, placed monitoring and district strain in the broader funding context: IDEA has been chronically underfunded at the federal level since its enactment, and rising need plus workforce shortages increase pressure on LEAs. Hickman said the state continues to press for resources while working with LEAs on monitoring and corrective steps.

On family navigation, Judith White explained the district’s family support center and resource guide. “If you are stuck, if you can't get anywhere, please contact our family support center, and they will put you in contact with the right staff member who can assist,” White said. The district also said it has a Board of Education Special Ed Resource Guide and a family toolkit that staff and parents have reviewed and found more user-friendly than earlier materials.

District staff described concrete follow-up actions tied to monitoring results: (1) issuing improvement plans for indicators below thresholds, (2) convening IEP impact or makeup-service meetings when monitoring shows missed services, (3) coaching principals through a monthly special-education accountability checklist with rolling follow-up items, and (4) deploying contracted assessment services or Presence Learning where staffing gaps slow timelines.

Committee members pressed the district on how referrals begin and whether referrals come from parents or school staff. District staff said they track referral-to-eligibility trends (noting more than 80% of students assessed are found eligible in recent trend data) but do not systematically track who initiated each referral; staff said they can produce that breakdown if requested.

No formal committee actions or votes were taken. Committee members asked for follow-up materials cited in the presentation; staff said reports and monitoring documents shared by MSDE and the district would be circulated after the meeting.

The meeting closed with the committee thanking MSDE for its participation and agreeing to distribute follow-up materials when received.