MSDE work group debates documentation rule in plan to tackle special-education disproportionality; item paused for rewrite

Maryland State Department of Education officials and a statewide special-education work group met virtually to review a proposed set of recommendations aimed at reducing significant disproportionality in identification, placement and disciplinary removals for students with disabilities.

Dr. Deann Collins, deputy superintendent for the Office of Teaching and Learning, opened the meeting and framed the session around a guiding question: what specific steps can MSDE take to help local education agencies reduce disproportionality. Dr. Collins said the group would move from a June discussion on least restrictive environment into recommendations and breakout groups to generate concrete feedback.

Dr. Hickman, MSDE’s assistant state superintendent leading the presentation, summarized Maryland’s methodology for identifying significant disproportionality: three analysis buckets (identification, placement and disciplinary removal), 14 categories of analysis across race/ethnicity groups and a state-adopted risk-ratio threshold of 2.0 (Maryland is among the most stringent states using that threshold). Hickman also described the multiyear and reasonable-progress flexibility options under federal law and said enforcement responses can include reserving or reallocating CCEIS funds to address root causes.

The work group reviewed a draft recommendation that would require MSDE to develop a “plan for a plan” with specific tasks and timelines — to be produced within 60 days — addressing standards, technical assistance, monitoring and additional documentation and justification when teams move students to more restrictive settings. Hickman said the plan should also include LEA action plans reviewed and approved by MSDE and mechanisms to share specialized expertise with general educators.

Several members pushed back on language that referenced “additional requirements for documentation.” David Stone, a work‑group participant, said the proposal risked adding paperwork that duplicates information already captured in IEPs: “It seems like a lot of documentation and paperwork mechanisms that would just really bog down the system,” he said. Multiple classroom teachers and service providers described lengthy IEPs and assessment appendices, and cautioned that more paperwork could pull educators out of direct instruction.

Dr. Hickman acknowledged those concerns and said MSDE did not intend to add unnecessary paperwork: “We do not want to have more paperwork, but we do wanna ensure that students are moved appropriately,” she said. Hickman said the goal is clearer justification for high-impact decisions while keeping documentation lean.

Parent advocates and attorneys argued for stronger documentation as a protection for families and students. One parent who described lengthy past IEP processes said detailed records helped ensure that decisions — particularly those that remove a student from the diploma track — are not made hastily. Leslie Margolis, who identified herself as a long-time attorney in special‑education matters, emphasized that least restrictive environment is a legal requirement and urged the group to treat placement decisions as matters that require ample deliberation and documentation.

After extended discussion, members proposed edits (one suggestion was to strike the word “additional” from the documentation line). The group did not reach consensus and, rather than approve the recommendation as drafted, agreed to pause the item and direct MSDE staff to rewrite the language to clarify that the intent is not to create redundant paperwork. The group decided to bring the revised recommendation back to a future meeting for further review.

The meeting then turned to a substantive briefing on significant disproportionality data. Hickman reviewed statewide trends: Maryland has identified 16–18 LEAs in recent years in one or more categories, with disciplinary removals a major driver of recent identifications; the presentation named specific LEAs with elevated risk ratios (for example, Anne Arundel, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Calvert, Dorchester and Harford) and others with rising ratios that qualified for reasonable-progress flexibility. MSDE described efforts to support identified LEAs, including requiring root‑cause analyses as part of CCEIS plans, facilitating professional development and coaching, aligning funding (section 611/619/CCEIS) to planned activities, and offering targeted monitoring and consultation.

Breakout groups were then convened to discuss technical questions: whether Maryland should revise its methodology (including possible alignment with COMAR discipline thresholds), how MSDE can better target supports, and what systemwide changes — from discipline codes to universal design and family engagement — should be sustained. Reporters from the small groups summarized shared themes: the need for clearer alignment between general and special education, consistent data collection and monitoring, deep root‑cause analysis at the LEA and school level, and more coaching and evidence‑based intervention models rather than one-off initiatives.

MSDE staff closed by committing to circulate a prioritization of recommendations, convene several short small‑group sessions (including an Aug. 9 overview and five additional opportunities for feedback), and return the rewritten documentation language to the work group. The agency also announced it would postpone a full-group meeting scheduled for Aug. 21 and instead use small groups and a later full meeting date to continue refining recommendations.

What happens next: MSDE will collect breakout notes and exit-ticket feedback, produce a prioritized list of recommendations, and present a revised recommendation addressing documentation redundancy for the group to consider at a future convening.