Board hears heated public comment on $70,000 Instructional Empowerment Title II proposal; no final vote recorded

The Queen Anne's County Board of Education heard more than an hour of public comment and board discussion Jan. 15 about a proposed Instructional Empowerment professional development contract that staff said would be paid from federal Title II-A funds and cost about $70,000 for work at three schools.

Supporters framed the proposal as targeted professional development for teachers in three feeder-path schools; critics said the district had not provided adequate vetting, had weak sole-source documentation and risked spending grant dollars on a program without robust, independently verified evidence of effectiveness. No final open-session vote on the contract appears in the meeting transcript.

Why it matters: Title II-A funds are restricted federal dollars intended for educator development, and public commenters, teachers and some board members pressed the district for clearer evidence that this specific program is the best use of limited grant funds during a budget shortfall.

District supervisor Amber DePasa, who manages Title II-A grants, told the board the money being proposed comes from an amended Title II-A allocation and that the district had braided leftover funds from prior fiscal years to create the opportunity. “We are looking to bring the PD to our teachers from these three schools,” DePasa said, and described the district’s selection process as collaborative among CNI supervisors, stakeholders and the executive team. She said the proposal would serve roughly 200 staff and affect about 2,000 students, and that the largest per-school costs were for teacher kits, coaching and digital licenses rather than the workshop itself.

Multiple public commenters — including teachers and the president of the Queen Anne's County Education Association — urged delay and additional review. One teacher who said she has piloted the approach elsewhere told the board she could not find peer-reviewed, independent studies demonstrating success for the high-school classroom contexts in Queens Anne’s district and questioned long-term licensing and implementation costs. “I can’t risk a year of [students] on a program that I don’t know for sure is going to make a difference,” the commenter said.

Other concerns raised in public comment and during board discussion included: - The sole-source justification: several board members and commenters said the document provided was weak and did not show that no reasonable alternative existed. - Piloting and prior local experience: commenters pointed to a previous program run in another Maryland county and said outcomes there were mixed; staff said Kent Island High School is running a related book study and plans local implementation using different funds. - Costs beyond the first year: commenters asked about ongoing license, renewal or expansion costs; DePasa said the vendor’s digital license would require a renewal fee and that the district expects a “minimal renewal fee” after an initial June-to-June license period. - Use of Title II-A: some speakers argued Title II-A could instead supplement staffing (for example, to reduce class size) and that teachers should be surveyed before committing funds.

DePasa said the district had looked at other vendors and approaches but selected Instructional Empowerment because it provides packaged, ready-to-use materials and a coaching and monitoring component that other vendors did not offer in the same way. She described the program’s federal evidence rating as “Tier 3” under Every Student Succeeds Act criteria and said that, in the district’s view, that rating supported adoption for a limited pilot at three schools (elementary, middle and high school at a single feeder chain).

Board members pressed staff for more written detail on recurring costs and a clearer accounting of alternatives. One board member asked for annual renewal cost figures and for documentation showing the district compared multiple vendors. Another board member asked that teachers be surveyed and that the board receive the formal sole-source rationale and copies of any vendor agreements before taking a final vote.

The January 15 transcript records extended discussion and public comment but does not record a final open-session vote on the Instructional Empowerment contract. The superintendent and staff indicated the matter would come to the board for a vote; transcript text shows members asking for additional documentation and transparency prior to taking action.

What’s next: Staff said they would provide further documentation and are prepared to answer additional questions before a vote is taken. The board’s procedural request for more written comparisons and clearer long-term cost estimates was the central outcome of the discussion in open session.

Sources: Queen Anne's County Board of Education meeting transcript, Jan. 15, 2025; statements by Amber DePasa (grades 3–12 ELA supervisor) and multiple public commenters.