Work group asks MSDE to develop a 60‑day plan for better IEP implementation, monitoring and data alignment

The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Special Education work group spent its virtual meeting pressing MSDE staff for concrete steps to ensure Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written clearly, implemented consistently and monitored with aligned data.

Dr. Hickman framed the session around a single question: "How can MSDE ensure that effective implementation of IEPs, including technical assistance, monitoring and uniform data collection?" Work group staff summarized exit‑ticket feedback calling for more accessible technical assistance, evidence‑based practices (and room for emerging practices), and monitoring that balances collaborative support with enforceable accountability.

Public comment underscored the stakes. Alan Hernandez, a 19‑year‑old who spoke during public comment, described classroom experiences that left him "not understanding the importance of [my] IEP because no one tried to explain it to me well enough," and urged the group to consider families who do not speak English. Work group members noted that parents and students often experience IEPs differently than practitioners do and recommended translators and follow‑up to capture those perspectives.

MSDE staff reported concrete next steps. Dr. Hickman said the agency has begun discussions with the Office of the Attorney General about where recommended language might fit within COMAR and is reviewing guidance referenced as technical assistance 19‑01 and 19‑07. He also said MSDE plans to implement a revised monitoring protocol for the 2024‑25 school year and will involve stakeholders in developing resources, revising documents, and providing technical assistance.

Work group members and breakout groups pushed for several practical changes: a regionalized TA model coupled with coaching, user‑friendly monitoring tools that link IEP goals to monitoring measures, parent feedback mechanisms at IEP meetings, and clearer statewide alignment of assessment and progress‑monitoring tools so districts and parents "talk the same language." Several participants urged MSDE to preserve useful efficiencies (such as responsible use of cut‑and‑paste in electronic IEPs) while addressing misuse that creates paperwork concerns.

Miss Abby, who summarized the recommendation for the group, described the motion as "to outline the broad parameters around which MSDE will develop a plan for a plan" and said the hope is that "MSDE would come back in 60 days with the timeline for how we're going to begin to tackle this problem." The group did not register any formal objections during the meeting.

The work group scheduled further review: breakout discussions will inform an exit ticket and MSDE will return with draft timelines and updates in forthcoming meetings. The next meeting was announced as March 20 (virtual, 4–6 p.m.).