Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Strategic Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSDE presents strategic‑plan draft aligned to Blueprint pillars; board raises wording and data questions
Summary
MSDE presented a draft update to its strategic plan organized around the five Blueprint pillars. Board members praised alignment but asked for clearer wording on identification of students with disabilities, SMART targets, data timelines and implementation levers.
Maryland State Department of Education staff presented a draft update of the agency strategic plan, organized around the five pillars of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, and sought the State Board of Education’s input on high‑level goals and measurable outcomes.
State Superintendent Carrie M. Wright said the draft reframes the 2023 plan to align with Blueprint pillars and the aligned metrics the board and the Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) have adopted. Alex Reese and Phil Lester (MSDE) walked the board through proposed goals and outcome measures for each pillar—early childhood access, high‑quality diverse teachers and leaders, college and career readiness, resource alignment for student success, and governance/accountability.
MSDE proposed concrete outcomes tied to aligned metrics (examples include increasing kindergarten readiness as measured by the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA); increasing percentages of fully licensed teachers and teacher retention, including teachers of color; improving proficiency in reading and math; reducing chronic absenteeism; and increasing access to school‑based counselors and psychologists). MSDE noted some pillar‑5 accountability measures are placeholders pending the AIB accountability/assessment task force recommendations.
Several board members raised substantive points during discussion. Dr. Mili McCarthy warned that draft language on pillar 4—“decrease gaps in identification of children with disabilities”—could be read as discouraging necessary special‑education referrals and urged rewording to avoid a gatekeeping signal. Dr. Lewis and Miss Medina agreed, urging language that emphasizes accurate identification, equitable practices and professional development rather than lower identification counts. Miss McCusker and others pressed MSDE to ensure strategies include levers the department can influence (for example, how to realistically reduce student‑to‑counselor ratios when staffing constraints exist) and to attach SMART targets with baselines and timelines.
MSDE said further development will add implementation strategies, owners, and numeric targets; staff also noted data‑collection timing is a constraint and that the agency has charged its data teams to explore more timely reporting for indicators such as chronic absenteeism.
MSDE did not ask for a board vote; staff said the next step is strategy design and stakeholder engagement, with a plan to return to the board in committee before a full vote in July or August.
