Maryland special education work group finalizes 27 prioritized recommendations, debates role of restrictive placements

An update from the Maryland Department of Education’s special education work group on an addendum to its final report set out a 27-item prioritized plan and flagged a disputed approach to least-restrictive-environment (LRE) policy as the group moves from recommending actions to planning implementation.

Dr. Antoine Hickman, assistant state superintendent for the Division of Special Education, told members the meeting was intended “to give you an update on the progress of that, get some feedback from you, and tell you what the next steps are.” He said the division is still completing the addendum and will use quarterly meetings to track progress.

The addendum and priorities build on a series of earlier publications: an initial report published in December 2023, an interim report in July 2024 and a final report in December 2024, officials said. The Accountability and Implementation Board (AIB) permitted the special education work group to continue meeting so the addendum could be completed; staff said the addendum must be submitted by May 30 (date provided in the meeting).

Why it matters: The prioritized plan condenses roughly 130 original recommendations into 27 recommended priorities intended to guide state-level work on standards, instruction, staffing, early childhood, family partnerships, transition services, assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities and behavior supports. Work-group members and MSDE staff emphasized that most recent discussion has focused less on what to do and more on how to implement the priorities effectively across districts.

“Matter-of-factly, this process … has been one of transparency and collaboration, has been centered on kids and on their experiences and their outcomes,” co-chair Liz Zagby said in opening remarks, calling sustained implementation and stakeholder engagement central to the plan.

Key points from the meeting

- Prioritization and scope: Staff said the original recommendations did not expand much in number as topics widened; rather, they applied initial priorities to additional student groups and settings. Mr. Levison, who led discussion of how the prioritized list was developed, said the work reflects the “interconnectedness” of topics and that stakeholders largely endorsed the revised priorities after small-group feedback sessions.

- Content areas: The priorities cover standards and expectations, monitoring and comprehensive literacy, specially designed instruction and IEP implementation, the Maryland online IEP system (described in the meeting as a potential candidate for replacement or incremental improvement), teacher qualifications and workforce issues, an adequacy study and minimum school funding, LRE and disproportionality, early childhood (pre-K, child care, infants and toddlers), family–school partnerships, secondary transition, alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities, and behavior and discipline supports.

- Disagreement on LRE language: Several members raised objections to a framing they said risked “villainizing” nonpublic and more-restrictive placements. Participant David (surname not provided) argued that stronger general education supports, not punitive language about placement, are the solution. Dr. Liz Zagby and other leaders responded that the intent was not to vilify placements but to address state data showing high rates of restrictive placements and disproportionality in some districts; staff said roughly 3,000 students were awaiting nonpublic school placements and that 15% of each local budget can be used for Coordinated, Comprehensive Early Intervening Services (CCEIS), a funding lever discussed in the meeting.

- Implementation and supports: Multiple speakers urged that monitoring must be paired with technical assistance and financial and staffing capacity up front. “Monitoring is important, necessary, critical,” Mr. Levison said, and several participants warned that accountability without timely supports could set districts up to fail.

- Tracking and next steps: MSDE staff described a Smartsheet-based project tracker that will list tasks, leads, start and end dates and status for each recommendation. Staff said some positions have been repurposed to add monitoring capacity, an inclusion guide and a specialized instruction guide have been drafted, and a fiscal/adequacy study referenced in session materials was underway pending final budget decisions tied to a house bill referenced in the meeting.

Quotes

“This process … has been one of transparency and collaboration, has been centered on kids and on their experiences and their outcomes,” Liz Zagby said.

“What we need to do is think about our system and why our system is not producing great outcomes for kids,” Zagby added, noting inclusion rates for students with intellectual disabilities.

“What was really clear in almost every conversation … is that this is connected to that thing we talked about last month,” Mr. Levison said, describing how priorities were refined through small-group and large-group review.

What was decided and what remains open

No formal votes were recorded at this meeting. The group endorsed continuing to refine language—especially around LRE—and to focus near-term work on implementation details, stakeholder engagement and monitoring linked to support. Members were asked to submit written feedback by the deadline staff set (a request in the meeting for additional comments by the coming Friday) so the addendum and the appendix can be finalized.

Context and background

Work-group members repeatedly asked for explicit cross-mapping between the prioritized list and the state’s broader “blueprint” so the special education priorities are clearly aligned with statewide pillars in areas such as early childhood, educator quality and governance. Staff said they will add clearer alignment in the tracking materials.

Ending

MSDE officials said quarterly updates will continue through 2026 and encouraged members to send suggested wording changes for priority items they found contentious. Staff committed to circulate tracking materials and drafts for stakeholder comment as the division finalizes the addendum and prepares implementation steps.