Maryland education staff propose three‑year targets; board members press for disaggregated data and clearer metrics

Maryland Department of Education staff presented a set of draft baselines and three‑year targets aligned to the agency’s strategic plan and held a detailed question‑and‑answer session with the accountability committee.

Matthew Duque, the department staff member who led the presentation, said the proposals use the 2022–23 school year as the baseline for almost all measures and apply a mix of methods to set targets: linear trend extrapolation where sensible, the highest pre‑pandemic rate if recent trends declined, the highest single‑year growth when linear trends produced unambitious goals, and Maryland’s ESSA methodology (cutting the nonproficiency rate in half) for many proficiency measures.

Duque presented several headline targets: kindergarten readiness baseline 41.1% (2022–23) with a 2025–26 target of 55.4%; Grade 3 ELA baseline 48.0% with a 54.7% target; a decline in the share of grade 8 students meeting one or more ABC indicators from 46.8% to 32.1%; and college‑and‑career readiness (graduates meeting standards and completing a pathway) from 28.8% to a 36.5% target for 2025–26. He also described enablers addressing data reporting, expert review team visits, teacher workforce measures and social‑emotional supports, including suspension‑rate reduction targets derived from lowest pre‑pandemic rates.

Board members and committee participants focused their questions on how the targets were calculated and how the department will report and use the data. Board member Getty urged the department to use the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) not only as a measure but as a tool to improve early childhood programs and to share results with providers. Getty said: "to use this measure simply as a ready for kindergarten is underutilizing this assessment." Duque responded that the department can disaggregate results and said he would check availability of data that distinguishes children who attended early childhood programs from those who did not.

Several committee members requested that the department present targets disaggregated by student subgroups so that gains could not hide stagnant or falling outcomes for particular groups. One member suggested adding measurable usage metrics (for example, page‑views or downloads) to Enabler 1 so the department can track whether tools and reports are being used by families and practitioners; Duque said he had not yet explored those metrics but would look into feasibility.

Members raised concerns about small numerical changes that may be driven by limited survey years or sample sizes. On social‑emotional measures, one member said an increase from 6.4% to 6.9% for high school may not look ambitious and may not be statistically meaningful given only a few survey years. Chen Chen cautioned that changes of less than 1 percentage point may not be meaningful with small sample sizes and recommended projection modeling to set targets.

The committee also debated teacher‑diversity and retention metrics. Duque said the “new teachers of color” measure uses a definition tied to teachers with less than one year of experience in Maryland; he noted that out‑of‑state teachers who newly join Maryland would be counted. Baseline and target figures presented included 43.3% baseline for new teachers of color and a 47.8% target. Members discussed whether the state‑level target should be compared with student demographics or whether LEA‑level comparisons would better reflect local needs, and they flagged potential perverse incentives if LEAs were judged in isolation.

Duque noted some data limitations: graduation and pathway data were not finalized at the time of the presentation, some expert review team baselines do not yet exist because visits are new, and survey‑based social‑emotional measures have limited pre‑pandemic years. He also noted policy constraints that affect interpretation of some metrics — for example, a ban on suspending students in preK–2 affects elementary suspension rates.

There was no committee vote. The chair said Duque will take committee comments and recommendations to the full Board for presentation in January; the department will present targets for a full Board vote in January if Superintendent Wright agrees the materials are ready. Committee members asked that any presentation to LEAs include disaggregation and suggestions for how districts can translate state targets into local plans and supports.

The committee’s discussion emphasized two recurring themes: (1) preserve methodological rigor and clearly flag where data are limited or not yet finalized; and (2) add disaggregation and implementation guidance so districts and families can understand how state targets translate into local practice. Duque thanked committee members for feedback and agreed to follow up on requested clarifications before the full Board presentation.

The committee adjourned after the presentation and Q&A; no formal action was taken at the meeting.