Consent Agenda Items
AN UPDATE ON THE STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
PREPARED BY:
MARYLAND STATE
EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION · NEA
May 20, 2014
The State Board of Education (SBOE) reviewed and approved the following:
 April 22, 2014 minutes
 Personnel
 Budget Adjustments for April 2014
Action Items
Adoption of PSTEB Proposed Amendments to Regulations
Dr. Jean Satterfield, Assistant State Superintendent of Certification and Accreditation,
presented the following amendments to request the Board’s approval of the proposed
changes to regulations:
 COMAR 13A.12.02.23: Modifies certification and recertification requirements for
teachers of blind and visually impaired students.
 COMAR 13A.12.02.29: Creates an Instructional Leader: STEM, PreK – grade 6
certification as endorsement to an existing professional certificate; this specifies the
post-baccalaureate credits and teaching experience requirements.
SBOE unanimously approved.
MEETING DATES FOR
THE STATE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
June 23, 2014
July 22, 2014
August 26, 2014
Regulatory Review
Ms. Dr. Charlene Dukes, SBOE president, explained to the Board members that state
regulations are required, by law, to review every eight years to see if they are relevant, need
updating or revision.
Mr. Tony South, executive director, Maryland State Board of Education, presented a report
of the Stakeholder Review Committee. After reviewing 45 chapters, the committee
recommendations to the Joint Committee on Administrative, Executive and Legislative
Review (AELR) are: 30 are in need of amending, four need to be repealed and 11 require
no action.
Comments:
 Ms. Linda Eberhart, SBOE member, asked how and if Maintenance of Effort
concerns fall in this area; wasn’t sure if this was the time or place but there is much
confusion regarding this issue to her and the public she talks with.
o Response: Dr. Dukes responded that the SBOE may need to revisit this
issue to see if there are legislative adjustments they may want to advocate
for in the next legislative session.
o Mr. James DeGraffenreidt, SBOE member, gave a brief history and
explained that the Board had laid out a road map to address the problems
that existed in the old law. The new legislation adopted last year addressed
all of them.
 Ms. Eberhart asked about regulations dealing with tax credits for working students,
computer coding, technology education, financial literacy and adult education.
o Response: Mr. South explained that some issues such as tax credits are
beyond the SBOE jurisdiction and just because a regulation such as the
adult education regulation is recommended for repeal, it doesn’t absolve the
Board of interest in the issue.
o Dr. Dukes suggested that the Board take a deeper dive into some of these
issues at future meetings.
SBOE approved sending the recommendations to AELR.
Information and Discussion
Financial Literacy Education (FLE) Annual Report
Dr. Lynne Gilli, program manager, Career and Technology Education Instructional Branch,
introduced her team and reported on the history and current status of the Maryland State
Curriculum for Personal Financial Literacy.
 The six student objectives are:
o Make informed, financially responsible decisions
o Relate careers, education and income
o Plan and manage money
o Manage credit and debt
o Create and build wealth
o Manage risks and preserve wealth
 All 24 Local School Systems (LSS) offer instruction in FLE from grades three
through twelve; most (18) embedding the FLE graduation requirement in
Government and Social Studies courses; 6 LSS require a stand-alone FLE course.
Comments:
 Mr. James DeGraffenreidt, asked to what degree are we teaching math versus
financial literacy?
o Response: Dr. Gilli responded that the curriculum is more than calculations,
it’s about changing student behavior.
 Mrs. Madhu Sidhu, SBOE member, complemented the report, but noticed there was
very little about assessments.
o Response: They are in the process of developing vignettes where students
need to make real-world decisions; very PARCC-like.

Dr. Dukes, asked if MSDE was providing a report to the General Assembly as to
how far we have come with FLE?
o Response: Yes, it was distributed this year. Both the Governor and
Treasurer complimented and said we took a good and measured approach.
Maryland Association of Student Councils Update
Ms. Vanessa Diggs, director, Youth Development Branch, introduced guests from the
Maryland Association of Student Councils (MASC) to deliver their annual report.
 Mr. Lance Ledebur, executive director, MASC, discussed the joys of working with
and advising the very capable, motivated and engaged students of MASC over the
years.
 Ms. Devon Ogburn, president of MASC, gave her report on the annual MASC
Convention held at Richard Montgomery High School. There were 67 workshops
developed and presented by students; there was good representation from around
the state, but the Eastern Shore counties had limited participation.
Comments:
 Mr. Christian Hodges, SBOE student member, expressed enthusiasm for all the
work MASC does and said it is hard to capture the scope of the organization without
actually attending one of their events.
 Ms. Donna Hill Staton, SBOE member, was amazed and impressed at the work and
presentations from members of MASC.
 Mr. Guffrie M. Smith, Jr., SBOE member, added that the organization is great
because they mentor other students and are great role models to their peers.
 Dr. Dukes, asked for an example of what the students felt were important leadership
skills learned at the workshops.
o Response: Learning to grow and overcome barriers they may see in their
lives; communication skills.
Race to the Top (RTTT) Update
Dr. Jean Satterfield, gave the SBOE a monthly assessment of the projects included in
Maryland’s RTTT program. She explained that 50 percent of the projects have been
approved by USDE; LSS onsite visits began last week; one specific project would be
highlighted:
 11/29* LEA Technology Grants - $4.7 million provided to 22 participating RTTT
LEAs to support RTTT Ed Reforms (such as PARCC, Common Core, Teacher
Principal Evaluations) and LEA infrastructure projects.
 As an example, Dr. Janet Wilson, Superintendent of Garrett County Public Schools
(GCPS), explained how they used the Technology Grants to bring the schools up to
speed:
o Broadband and wireless were coming to the county, but the school buildings
MSEA Board Briefs
Page - 2
(5/20/14)



had no way to access them. These funds allowed them to make every
public school in Garrett County wireless.
o They are now able to use a Governor’s grant to access Telepresence using
software called Blue Jeans; it makes you feel like you are there with the
speaker. GCPS is using it to provide Advanced Placement courses where
enrollment is declining and fewer teachers are available. The geography of
Garrett is such that it is not always possible to have a teacher scheduled to
travel between schools. With the use of a proctor at the “other” school, the
AP teacher can teach in both locations simultaneously.
o They are looking into professional development possibilities with
Telepresence.
Mr. DeGraffenreidt, expressed hope that the Telepresence technology will be
expanded past AP offerings for students.
o Response: Partnerships with colleges are already underway.
Mr. DeGraffenreidt also asked about the status of other RTTT projects.
o Response: 33 projects out of 51 will be completed by September which is
the end of year number 4; they have requested no cost extensions that
should be approved; 50 percent already have been; quality is being pushed
through to the end; MSDE is in the process of finalizing the sustainability
plan.
Mrs. Sidhu, inquired about PARCC field testing status.
o Response: Dr. Henry Johnson, Assistant Superintendent, Curriculum,
Assessment & Accountability, reported that it is going very well; there were
a few glitches with Help Desk issues at Pearson in early March, but none
since then; using the model of every school field testing was very helpful to
both the school systems and to MSDE.
State Superintendent’s Update
Teacher Principal Evaluation (TPE) Regional Forums
Dr. Jack Smith, Chief Academic Officer, summarized the five regional meetings held in early
May in compliance with state law requiring the SBOE to solicit information and
recommendations from each local school system regarding revisions to the current Teacher
Principal Evaluation regulations prior to proposing new ones. The meetings were
conversational and mostly listening; a powerpoint was presented with extensive explanation
as to what ESEA is, what waivers are all about and yes, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is still
in effect – that’s why the waivers are so important. Dr. Smith further emphasized the point by
sharing the example USDE made of Washington State who withdrew some of the student
growth provisions in their TPE. In return, USDE took away the waivers and they are back to
NCLB.
Comments:
 Dr. Lillian Lowery, Maryland State Superintendent, commented that life is all about
choices; with the waivers we can look at growth, not just pass/fail.
Additional comments from Dr. Smith and Dr. Lowery included: If we walk away from the
flexibility that we have been granted and not use student testing, we need to understand the
consequences, we need to make an informed decision; this is what our educators want.
 Mr. Smith, Jr., commented that it would make no sense to go back to a binary
system of pass/fail.
 Mr. DeGraffenreidt, commented that we must do what is best for our students and
best for our teachers. We need to know the impact a teacher has on our students.
Dr. Lowery further commented that we will not be using student growth until the 2016-17
school year; we heard our teachers who said they want to get it right; agreed with Dr.
Smith’s statement that what we would do if there was no law or waiver would be to do what
is best for students and that is what we are doing.
 Ms. Eberhart, asked about sunset provisions and using the data we now have
available.
o Response: Dr. Lowery explained that the new legislation is much more
prescriptive in when student data can be used.
Dr. Lowery then thanked Dr. Smith for the Regional Meetings to get the voices of people
from around the state heard.
MSEA Board Briefs
Page - 3
(5/20/14)
Public Comments

Ms. Janice Wright addressed the Board regarding Special Education concerns. She
prefaced her remarks by saying she would comply with Mr. Tony South’s request
that she not speak of an unresolved incident until his staff could further investigate.
However, she expressed concern that MSDE was not upholding COMAR regarding
an illegal restraint incident with her child. Further she wished to protest the
promotion by Harford County Public Schools of an assistant principal from John
Archer to be the head of the Secondary Special Education division. She alleges
inappropriate conduct by this individual and asked the Board to intervene in his
appointment.
Recognition
Dr. Darla Strouse, executive director, Partnerships and Development, gave a brief history of
the Teacher of the Year program and it’s growth in the 23 years she has had the pleasure of
coordinating; she spoke of the hard work and dedication Maryland teachers exhibit every
day; acknowledged MSEA President Betty Weller in the audience.
 Dr. Strouse introduced each Teacher of the Year, their superintendent and principal
if present. They each took pictures with Dr. Lowery and the entire State Board of
Education.
 Dr. Dukes, extended congratulations to the 24 Teachers of the Year.
 Dr. Lowery, added, you are why we are number one. Thank you, thank you, thank
you.
Opinions
MSEA Board Briefs

Amanda B. vs Baltimore County Board of Education (14-24) - affirmed for the
decision of the local board because it is not arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal.

Amber J. vs Montgomery County Board of Education (14-25) - affirmed the local
board’s decision.

Association of Supervisory and Administrative Personnel vs Prince George’s County
Board of Education (14-26) – Denied the Motion to Dismiss and affirmed for the
decision of the local board because it is not arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal.

Brian K. vs Montgomery County Board of Education (14-27) - affirmed the local
board’s decision denying the Appellant’s request for a bus stop at his house.

Frederick Classical Charter School, Inc. vs Frederick County Board of Education
(14-21) - affirmed for the decision of the local board because it is not arbitrary,
unreasonable or illegal and deny the request for a declaratory ruling.

In the Matter of COMAR 13A.05.09.02B (14-28) – the SBOE declares that the DJS
youth placed at the Harriet Tubman facility are children awaiting foster care
placement as defined in COMAR 13A.05.09.02B(2) and therefore, satisfy the
“homeless student” definition set forth in COMAR 13A.05.09.02B(4). As such the
local board is required to appropriately implement the regulations pertaining to
homeless programs set forth in COMAR 13A.05.09.01 et seq. with regard to these
youth.

In the Matter of Education Article 7-104 (14-29) – declare that Local Board Policy
3000, Section IV.H violates Md. Educ. Code Ann. 7-104; SBOE declines to issue a
definitive declaratory ruling on how a school system can operationalize and
implement the statue.

Barry McGill vs Baltimore City Board of Commissioners (14-22) – adopt the ALJ’s
Proposed Decision as our Final Decision and affirming the local board.
Page - 4
(5/20/14)

Nick Myers vs Calvert County Board of Education (14-23) – the Board issues the
following declaratory ruling:
1. Local Board Policy #1012 and Procedures #1012.1 do not violate education law.
2. The board’s delegation of authority to the superintendent to develop procedures
to implement Board policies is legal
3. The local board is not “bound to abide by” the administrative procedures
developed by the superintendent but it may choose to do so.
4. The public is required to follow the administrative procedures developed by the
superintendent.
5. Board Policies are separate and distinct from administrative procedures
developed to implement board Policies.

Nehemiah’s Vision, Inc, et al. vs Prince George’s County Board of Education (14-30)
– appeal dismissed.

Stanislav and Irina P. vs Montgomery County Board of Education (14-31) – case
remanded to the local board.
NOTE: For additional details and information, all handouts are stored and filed
chronologically in the SBOE file cabinet on the 4th floor.
MSEA Board Briefs
Page - 5
(5/20/14)