MSDE outlines tougher standards for low‑performing schools and profiles Lakeland turnaround

Maryland State Department of Education staff told the State Board that the department will take a more rigorous approach to Comprehensive Support & Improvement (CSI) plans, vetting and rejecting compliance‑only submissions and pressing superintendents to implement concrete, measurable improvement and sustainability plans.

MSDE described federal identification categories (CSI lowest performing, low graduation rate, additional targeted support and improvement—ATSI—and not exiting schools), the identification-and‑exit timeline after pandemic waivers, and performance patterns showing the bottom‑5% schools have much lower proficiency and higher chronic absenteeism. The department stressed that districts must conduct root‑cause analyses, use them to develop focused improvement plans (benchmarked with measurable targets), and submit sustainability plans for MSDE approval.

MSDE said it will provide technical assistance: on‑site monitoring, targeted professional learning, enhanced fiscal monitoring to align spending with identified needs, and a partner network to support implementation. For the 2023 federal allocation, MSDE plans a per‑pupil formula distribution (rather than competitive grants) to allocate preliminary funds to LEAs; MSDE noted its total ESSA allocation decreased compared with prior cycles and urged LEAs to braid available funding streams.

As part of the presentation, MSDE profiled Lakeland PreK–8 (Baltimore City), describing a turnaround led by Principal Najeeb Jamal. Lakeland combined instructional strategy, departmentalized grades 3–8, added intervention blocks and community partnerships (UMBC tutoring corps, YMCA, Northrop Grumman funding for a community STEAM center), and implemented a two‑way dual language strand. The school’s pre‑pandemic gains (doubling/tripling proficiency in reading/math over several years) fell during the pandemic, but MSDE and Lakeland presented recovery indicators: improved diagnostic and attendance data, WIDA gains for ELs and targeted tutoring models.

Board discussion: members praised Lakeland’s model and urged alignment of funding timing (noting city budgeting cycles) and stronger state investment in school improvement. Several members argued for greater per‑pupil investments and systemic coordination of blueprint funds to scale what works.

Ending: MSDE said it will require stronger plans, monitor implementation, and return to the board with updates; Lakeland’s profile will be used as a case study for supports the department plans to scale.