Prince George’s County, State Education Officials Outline special-education monitoring, cite gaps and next steps

Prince George’s County Board of Education audit committee members on Feb. 4 heard a joint presentation from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) and Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) about how the state and district monitor compliance with special-education law and how the district follows up when monitoring finds problems.

The presentation, led by MSDE Assistant State Superintendent Antoine Hickman and MSDE branch chief Brian Morrison and by Tranel Bowman, PGCPS associate superintendent for special education, walked committee members through Maryland’s monitoring tools, PGCPS’s internal checks and the corrective steps that follow when reviews find noncompliance.

MSDE and PGCPS officials said the monitoring process is intended to check both legal compliance and educational results for students with disabilities, and that the state and district use largely overlapping review rubrics and metrics. MSDE described federal and state requirements it applies to local education agencies, and PGCPS described its own data dashboards, school-level accountability checklists and targeted support plans for schools that fall below district thresholds.

"The federal government requires us, as part of our general supervision process, to conduct comprehensive monitoring ... at least once every six years," said Brian Morrison, branch chief for policy and accountability at MSDE. Morrison described Maryland’s practice of monitoring local education agencies more frequently than the federal minimum, with large districts sometimes reviewed every one to four years depending on their determinations.

Morrison said MSDE reviews local policies and procedures for consistency with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR); conducts IEP record reviews (PGCPS’s size typically triggers about 80 IEP reviews); examines related-services logs, physical restraint and seclusion records where applicable; and performs case studies that include classroom observations and interviews with parents and staff.

Tranel Bowman described PGCPS’s internal monitoring practices, which mirror MSDE’s rubric and add district-level checks. Bowman said the district reviews approximately two IEPs per school and two per nonpublic school placement, performs a 4% related-services log review across disciplines, and runs business-intelligence dashboards that principals and central-office staff use for monthly compliance checks.

Bowman said PGCPS uses an accountability checklist, signed monthly by principals or designees, to record follow-up items and responsibilities, and that the district issues targeted support plans when schools fall below an 80% internal compliance threshold (MSDE uses a 75% threshold for triggering improvement plans). "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 of a local eligibility tool and training designed to reduce disproportionality.

Officials identified specific areas and numbers discussed in the report: MSDE’s monitoring rubric looks at as many as 89 special-education markers in IEPs; PGCPS typically reviews about 80–85 IEPs during a comprehensive monitoring cycle. The district reported six indicators rising to systemic noncompliance in the most recent Part B (ages 3–21) monitoring report; the overall item-level compliance figure reported in the presentation was about 91.45% with 8.51% noncompliant on the items reviewed.

PGCPS and MSDE officials described how corrective steps work when noncompliance is identified. Under the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) framework, states must apply a two-prong correction: (1) correct individual student errors (for example, ensure a missed annual IEP is completed) and (2) demonstrate 100% compliance in a subsequent sample. LEAs typically have one year to correct both prongs or face a state-assigned corrective action plan.

Judith White, PGCPS chief academic officer, described district family-facing resources. "If you are stuck, please contact our family support center, and they will put you in contact with the right staff member who can assist," White said. White and Bowman said PGCPS has produced a family support guide and a board-level special-education resource guide that the district distributes online and uses in community outreach.

Committee members asked about funding, timelines and how families can navigate the system. Antoine Hickman, MSDE assistant state superintendent, said chronic underfunding of IDEA is a national issue and increases pressure on local systems. "IDEA hasn't been funded as promised since it was agreed upon in 1975," Hickman said, adding that staff shortages for related-service providers and behavioral specialists also constrain services.

MSDE officials said the state submitted its annual State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report to the U.S. Department of Education on Feb. 1 and expects to assign LEA determinations and tiers of general supervision once local-level data are integrated into its systems. Morrison said MSDE aims to complete determinations before July and is targeting late April when possible; PGCPS staff said Part C (birth–3) monitoring reports were last released for 2021–22 and Part B (3–21) monitoring covered 2023–24 in the materials referenced.

Board members also pressed PGCPS for clarity about family experience and the referral process. PGCPS staff said the district tracks child-find and eligibility trends and that historically more than 80% of students referred for evaluation were found eligible; they said the district does not systematically capture whether a parent or a staff member initiated a given referral but can produce related trend data on request.

The committee closed after questions and thanked state and district staff for the presentation. PGCPS officials said they would share follow-up materials and monitoring reports after the meeting.

Ending: MSDE and PGCPS officials told the audit committee that they would continue to monitor indicators, implement targeted support for schools that fall below thresholds and that parents may request assistance through the family support center or by following the district’s published escalation steps. MSDE said it will finalize LEA determinations after integrating local data and the district will continue monthly compliance reporting to principals and area office leaders.