MSDE work group urges sharper IEP standards and stronger monitoring after data shows wide gaps for students with disabilities

The Maryland State Department of Education convened its Special Education Work Group to focus on translating years of recommendations into enforceable action, presenting state data that show students with disabilities lag far behind their peers and prompting calls for clearer IEP standards, better monitoring and higher expectations.

Assistant State Superintendent Chandra Hazlett presented outcome data for students with disabilities, saying the most recently released 2023 figures show low proficiency: "our students with disabilities were pretty consistent at 7.2 percent" in mathematics 3–8 and about 11.9 percent in ELA 3–8, with gaps of roughly 20 and 39.5 percentage points compared with students without disabilities. Hazlett also reported Maryland's four‑year graduation rate for students with disabilities had risen to about 69.3 percent, the highest in five years, but still significantly below peers.

Work group members and public commenters identified three recurring barriers: siloing between general and special education, inconsistent statewide supervisory practice and low expectations embedded in policy and practice. "Funding for students with disabilities is unconscionably low," said participant Buzzy, arguing that resources are often allocated based on school capacity rather than individual student need.

MSDE staff framed IEPs as the vehicle for access to grade‑level standards. Molly Connor reviewed the IEP process from referral through annual review and emphasized that Maryland's IEP system (Maryland Online) requires an academic goal to be aligned with a grade‑level standard before a goal record can be closed. Connor said roughly 90 percent of students with disabilities should be held to the same standards—with specialized instruction and accommodations—and that about 10 percent of students with disabilities (about 1 percent of all students) take alternate assessments tied to reduced‑depth essential elements.

Dr. Brian Morrison, MSDE's branch chief for policy and accountability, described monitoring practices used to identify noncompliance: LEA self‑assessments, desk audits of up to 80 student records per LEA, monthly record reviews of service delivery and time‑intensive case studies that combine classroom observation and stakeholder interviews. Morrison said monitoring culminates in a comprehensive report that starts a one‑year correction timeline consistent with federal OSEP guidance.

Speakers pushed MSDE to embed higher expectations into compliance instruments and to require that IEP goals be reasonably calculated to narrow the gap between present levels and grade‑level standards. "Only 3 percent of students who take the alternate assessment are included in general education classrooms 80 percent or more of the time," co‑chair Liz said, adding that about 6 percent of students with IEPs are educated in entirely separate schools with no access to nondisabled peers—figures she said the work group must confront.

Public commenters described classroom and system realities: Miss Reed, a reading specialist, told the group that a district review of one software‑based reading intervention showed "every single student in a class spent less than 10 minutes reading the differentiated text assigned," and urged stronger vetting of technology and more intensive teacher‑led interventions. Betsy Perry, a Montgomery County special education teacher, flagged teacher shortages and heavy caseloads as constraints on implementing improved IEP practice.

The work group did not take formal votes. Instead, members moved to convert discussion into specific, actionable recommendations: MSDE will compile Padlet and sticky‑note inputs from the meeting into draft recommendation language, seek expert panel input where needed, and return refined proposals with timelines for the group to vet. Participants requested MSDE post monitoring instruments and relevant data publicly; Morrison said the agency plans to make those documents available online.

Next steps: MSDE will circulate a meeting summary and additional data by the following Monday, provide reading recommendations ahead of the next meeting (scheduled for Nov. 1), and present compiled draft recommendations to the work group for refinement and formalization.