Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Alternate Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MSDE recommends changes to alternate-assessment rules, emphasizing checklist over fixed definition
Summary
Maryland education officials urged using an Appendix A checklist — not a regulatory IQ cut score — to determine eligibility for alternate assessments and outlined supports and a Sept. 30 review to target training; the committee recommended permission to adopt the changes.
MSDE told the Education Policy Committee it will recommend that the State Board adopt revisions to the alternate-assessment regulations that rely on an Appendix A decision tool rather than inserting a single regulatory definition of "most significant cognitive disability." Molly Connor, director in MSDE's Division of Special Education, said that enshrining a simple numeric cut or broad domain language in COMAR would likely increase the number of students found eligible for the alternate assessment and that a checklist-based tool preserves individualized IEP-team decision-making.
Connor said MSDE received nine public comments that represented a broad range of the disability community — including the Maryland Association of Non-Public Special Education Facilities, the Maryland Down Syndrome Advocacy Coalition, the Education Advocacy Coalition and Disability Rights Maryland — and that most comments requested training and technical assistance. MSDE proposes to conduct a school-level data review by Sept. 30 to identify buildings that need focused technical support and to provide targeted training, IEP-team handouts, office hours and co-developed instructional supports across the 2026–27 school year.
Connor stressed federal consequences: under ESSA, if more than 1% of students statewide participate in alternate assessments (or 10% of students with disabilities in some measures), a state is out of compliance and must seek a waiver. "Maryland has been out of compliance since 2015," she said, and MSDE's objective is to reduce participation below 1 percent. She told the committee that if the regulations are promulgated as written they would take effect this year but that teams should review eligibility decisions as part of annual IEP reviews — not by rushing changes in September.
After questions from members about timelines and effectiveness metrics, the committee moved and voted unanimously to recommend permission to adopt the alternate-assessment amendments.
