Board pauses action and solicits further work on proposed statewide literacy policy after extensive debate on retention and implementation

MSDE presented Version 3 of a proposed statewide literacy policy and the Education Policy Committee treated the item as information only to allow additional review and input. MSDE said it had received over 1,200 public comments and summarized changes made since the previous version: clarified Tier 1 core instruction, added criteria for reading interventions, reframed dyslexia language to be asset‑based, merged parent notifications with student reading improvement plans, added suggested consent language, aligned the policy to existing COMAR requirements, and adjusted the implementation timeline (staff noted an implementation‑date shift referenced as SY25‑26 / 25‑26 in the slides).

Dr. Smith reviewed specific changes and answered requests from the board about universal screeners and special education protections. She confirmed that all 24 local education agencies (LEAs) administer a universal screener under COMAR 13A.03.8 and that the most commonly cited screeners in current use were DIBELS/Acadience, I‑Ready, NWEA MAP and fluency/growth measures. She also noted that MSDE will ensure language that students with disabilities are not denied access to IDEA services under the new policy.

Board members engaged in lengthy, section‑by‑section discussion. Concerns and requests included:

• Retention policy framing: several members urged changing wording from "waiver" or "waive" to a more humanistic "consent" framing or to specify that retention should be "may be designated with parental consent" rather than automatic. One board member said they "will not support a policy that includes targeted retention." (Dr. McCarthy). Others warned against relying on a single screener as determinative and urged use of multiple data points.

• Equity: members worried language could disproportionately affect children from low‑income families, English‑learner households, or families less likely to engage in waiver processes. Members asked MSDE to provide uniform, research‑based materials describing risks and benefits and urged that interventions be provided at no cost to families.

• Implementation capacity: members requested MSDE provide numbers and timelines for how many educators have completed training in the science of reading and when full training is expected; they also pressed for clarity on whether professional learning would be embedded in school day schedules and how observations would be used (non‑evaluative instructional coaching vs. evaluative personnel actions).

• Documentation and workload: committee members questioned the feasibility of required meetings, timelines for notice (15 days) and plan development (30 days), the principal/district superintendent review workload for good‑cause exemptions, and where documentation would be stored.

• Special education protections: MSDE agreed to insert language clarifying that MTSS is not a substitute for special education and that students with disabilities would not be denied IDEA services because of the literacy policy.

Board members requested staff return with: a clear implementation timeline (resolve SY25‑26 vs. SY26‑27 language), counts and timelines for teacher training completion, two regulatory drafts where relevant, guidance language describing due‑diligence steps to contact families and recommended consent windows, standard state‑provided risk/benefit one‑page materials, and clarification on whether interventions will be provided in‑school at no cost to families. MSDE staff said they will incorporate the requested clarifications and return in committee and at the full board meeting in October for an update.

What’s next: the literacy policy is an information item. MSDE will make edits and provide followup materials for committee consideration in October and a fuller deliberation at the State Board meeting thereafter.