MSDE outlines staged state review process for educator preparation programs

Maryland Department of Education staff on the board’s June agenda outlined a new, phased state review and approval process for educator preparation programs as MSDE implements regulations adopted earlier this year.

The announcement came in a presentation by Dr. Jason Keyes, manager of educator preparation program approval at MSDE, who said the department has built a multi-stage process grounded in the new COMAR language and national best practices. "We are given an EPP of 180 day notice before we start any reviews," Keyes said, describing a six‑month preparation window intended to reduce burdens on programs.

The nut graf: MSDE’s approach combines lengthy notice and technical assistance with multiple evidence streams so determinations reflect sustained performance rather than a single site visit. The department will accept off‑site documentation, surveys and focus groups, conduct site visits (virtual, on‑site or hybrid), and provide a 30‑day targeted submission period after visits to allow programs to submit additional evidence before a final determination.

Under the plan, programs will be grouped in cohorts (two EPPs at a time) for technical assistance and will submit evidence asynchronously over several months. Keyes described the review components as drawn almost verbatim from COMAR 13A.0706 and the Blueprint legislation: essential components (for example, literacy/science of reading, cultural responsiveness, partner schools and clinical experience), subcomponents and specific COMAR indicators. "This COMAR really just went into effect 04/01/2024," Keyes noted.

MSDE emphasized a data‑triangulation model. Evidence will include program overviews, off‑site artifacts (syllabi, assignments, assessments, videos), candidate and mentor surveys, focus groups and observations in partner schools. Site visits are expected to last one to three days depending on the program’s needs and the strength of off‑site evidence. If reviewers still identify gaps after the visit, programs will have 30 days to submit additional materials before MSDE makes a determination.

On determinations, Keyes said the department will issue full approval (five years), conditional approval with a timeline for remediation (commonly up to two years), probation (which bars new enrollments) or, in rare cases, revocation. He cited national reviews showing probation or revocation are uncommon.

Recruitment and training of reviewers are an immediate priority: MSDE plans a recruitment push to assemble volunteer experts (faculty, teachers, administrators, nonprofit professionals and MSDE staff) and provide three to five full days of training, including calibration and unconscious‑bias modules. Keyes acknowledged the program relies on volunteers and called recruitment "a recruitment effort for sure."

Board members pressed MSDE on technical details. Dr. Terrell Shockley asked about obtaining employment and retention data for program completers; MSDE said it is exploring connections with the Maryland Longitudinal Data System (MLDS) and MHEC to leverage Department of Labor data, but that linking individual candidates to employment records remains technically challenging and is "in the works."

Keyes said MSDE will begin notifications in September (the department will provide 180 days' notice) and expects reviews to proceed in earnest the following March. In the meantime, MSDE will continue technical assistance sessions (15–20 planned in the near term) and send a monthly newsletter to deans and program contacts.

The presentation concluded with an offer of follow‑up technical assistance and an invitation for board members to help identify reviewers and broaden distribution of MSDE communications. The department posted supporting handbooks, worksheets and matrices on its website and encouraged questions as it rolls out the first reviews.

What’s next: MSDE will recruit and train reviewers through late 2024, issue 180‑day notices beginning in September, and carry out cohorted reviews with the staggered evidence submissions and targeted one‑month follow‑ups that Keyes described.