Professional Standards Board defers adoption after debate over 'exceptionalities,' ableism and in‑district training pathway

At its October meeting the Professional Standards Board continued a detailed, row‑by‑row review of public comments on proposed educator preparation regulations and paused final adoption after extended debate over specific wording and program oversight.

Public comment began with Robert Echols, a commenter who previously worked in MSDE’s division of educator certification and program approval. Echols argued the proposed “industry training” licensure pathway is “light on customary details” and “a knockoff version of alternative programs,” and recommended it be removed from the regulations: "This proposed pathway needs to be removed from the regulations." MSDE staff responded that the department is not recommending removing the pathway at this time and stressed that many concerns can be addressed through technical assistance and phased regulatory work.

Board members spent substantial time on terminology raised by commenters. A coalition asked regulators to replace euphemistic phrases with the explicit term "students with disabilities"; MSDE said it had made non‑substantive changes and recommended keeping most language as drafted while replacing the term in two specific regulatory lines that reference IEPs and 504 plans. Legal counsel Sean Fitzgerald advised the board that adding terms such as "ableism" to regulations likely constitutes a substantive change under the law (a threshold that would require repromulgation), so the board agreed to consider additions like "ableism" during a second phase of promulgation or via technical assistance rather than in this immediate adoption.

Members also debated the in‑district training (industry training) pathway created to replace an older transcript‑analysis route. Supporters and several district representatives said rigorous, district‑based pathways can expand the teacher pipeline and help districts recruit and retain teachers locally. Other board members, higher education representatives and some commenters warned the pathway risks creating uneven tiers of preparation if approval and oversight are not sufficiently robust. Possible safeguards discussed included requiring higher‑education representation on review panels or formalized review panels to vet district plans.

MSDE officials underscored that no program reviews have been conducted since 2017 because the department paused reviews while promulgation was in progress, and they noted House Bill 1219 (2023) establishes an intern stipend program administered by the Maryland Higher Education Commission. Because multiple issues remained unresolved, Chair Melita Kitchen said the board was not ready to adopt the regulations at this meeting and scheduled a virtual continuation in November to finish public comments and consider adoption.

The board’s next steps include: finishing public comment review in November; documenting the non‑substantive change replacing "exceptionalities" with "students with disabilities" in two regulatory lines; flagging requests like adding "ableism" for phase 2 or technical assistance; and exploring additional vetting or oversight mechanisms for in‑district training programs.