Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data And Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State data show widening gaps for students with disabilities; Lexington case study offered as a model
Summary
MSDE researchers presented data showing increased special‑education identification (11.9% → 12.8%) and persistent racial disparities and proficiency gaps; former Lexington superintendent Paul Ash described a multi‑year strategy that reduced special‑education placements and improved subgroup outcomes through targeted programs, professional learning and leadership.
State researchers gave a detailed data presentation showing modest increases in the share of Maryland students identified for special education and large outcome gaps between students with and without disabilities.
Shandra Hazlett, Assistant State Superintendent for Assessment, Accountability and Performance Reporting, said the statewide share of students identified as receiving special education rose from 11.9% in 2015‑16 to 12.8% in the most recent year and varies by LEA from about 9% to 17%. Matt Duque, MSDE director of research, highlighted diagnostic categories (specific learning disability 26%, other health impairment 22%, autism 14%, speech/language 13.8%) and showed that Black students are disproportionately represented in some disability categories and in placements with greater restriction.
Assessment data presented for 2023 showed large proficiency gaps: for the statewide MCAP measures presented, about 7.2% of students with disabilities were proficient compared with 27% of students without disabilities, and Algebra 1 proficiency for students with disabilities was reported at about 3.3%. MSDE also noted that alternate assessment outcomes have not fully returned to pre‑pandemic levels.
During Q&A, staff clarified scope: state reporting includes nonpublic schools and is based on the Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP); indicator 14 (post‑school outcomes) was used for the post‑secondary metric and can include other training programs. Participants asked whether MSDE can disaggregate post‑secondary outcomes by disability type and run covariate analyses; MSDE said matching to the Maryland Longitudinal Data Center is possible and some disaggregation could be explored but certain analyses have not yet been completed.
The group then heard a national practitioner: Paul Ash, former superintendent in Lexington, Massachusetts, described a district‑level turnaround that combined tighter referral protocols, problem‑solving teams, focused professional learning, and development of in‑district tier‑3 programs. Ash said Lexington reduced special‑education enrollment from roughly 17% to 11% over several years and substantially raised subgroup proficiency by implementing a four‑year action plan and ongoing monitoring.
Speakers stressed that diagnosis alone does not change outcomes: several presenters emphasized strengthening general education instruction, building teacher collaboration, and designing supports so the student receives the right intervention at the right time. MSDE officials said the work group will consider what analyses and pilot strategies could be recommended for statewide scaling.
