Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Literacy Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maryland board hears wide debate over draft literacy policy and retention proposals
Summary
At a July state‑board meeting, MSDE presented a draft comprehensive literacy policy anchored in the science of reading. Board members praised the research focus but raised concerns about mandatory retention, equity, screening frequency and implementation timelines; MSDE sought more public feedback before adoption.
The Maryland State Board of Education spent the bulk of its July meeting reviewing a draft statewide literacy policy that would align classroom practice with the science of reading and set statewide expectations for screening, intervention and accountability.
MSDE officials, led by Superintendent Monifa Wright, described the draft as a starting point and said it grew from a charge to "look to what isn't currently in statute," review strong policies in other states, and apply research and best practices to Maryland classrooms. Dr. Dennis Smith, MSDE's literacy lead, told the board that national research suggests nearly all students can learn to read with explicit, systematic instruction and that the state must provide consistent supports across districts.
The policy draft centers on four pillars: (1) a continuum of teacher knowledge and professional learning, (2) assessment and parent notification, (3) instruction and targeted interventions, and (4) accountability tied to implementation. MSDE officials said the department has received heavy public engagement — roughly 900 pieces of feedback as of one count — and plans implementation guidance documents to avoid turning the policy into a purely compliance exercise.
Much of the board's discussion focused on retention. MSDE presented studies from a range of states and academic literature indicating that early‑grade retention, when paired with supports, has shown mixed results. "Positive outcomes were also found in similar policies in Chicago as well as in Florida," staff said, while also noting negative side effects observed elsewhere, including increases in disciplinary incidents in some cases.
Several board members urged caution. Board member Rachel McCusker said the simulations in the draft suggested a high number of students in historically underserved communities could be affected and asked for a phased implementation so supports are in place before retention is used as an outcome. "If we end up with assessments that add gigantic amounts of time, then we have to figure out where we're going to change," McCusker said, urging attention to master scheduling, staffing and parent resources.
Other members voiced equity and capacity concerns. Dr. Michael Geddes, reflecting on classroom realities, said retention places concentrated burden on children and teachers and argued that interventions should start earlier in pre‑K and kindergarten. Several board members asked MSDE to report back with clearer timelines, a common screening approach, and implementation details so local districts can plan staffing and budgets.
MSDE's team reiterated that the draft does not set immediate policy changes and that no final decisions have been made. Officials said they are working on revised COMAR language, guidance materials for LEAs, a vetted list of screeners, and resources for parent notification and engagement. The board also announced a public comment session on literacy policy in August and indicated it would not consider adoption until at least September.
Next steps: MSDE will continue compiling feedback, revise the draft, produce implementation guidance and return to the Education Policy Committee and full board for further review before any formal adoption vote.
