Maryland ARP ESSER Fund Application Stakeholder Engagement Report
Summary
Maryland's American Rescue Plan ESSER Fund Application Stakeholder Engagement Report, dated July 30, 2021 and updated October 4, 2021, from the Maryland State Department of Education. The front matter lists the State Board of Education members, with Clarence C. Crawford as President, Mohammed Choudhury as State Superintendent of Schools and Larry Hogan as Governor, followed by the department's nondiscrimination statement. The report says the State plan application resulted from an extensive consultation process, starting with an initial draft built from input across department divisions and regular webinars with groups representing homeless and migratory children.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
- Issuer
- Congressional materials
- Document type
- Department Of Education Pdf Www Ed Gov Eca459Cd00
- Case
- Department Of Education Pdf Www Ed Gov Eca459Cd00
Cite this document
“Maryland ARP ESSER Fund Application Stakeholder Engagement Report.”
Original at www.ed.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/department-of-education-pdf-www-ed-gov-eca459cd00/
, SHA-256 a85f83bdbada9e8a2138b420bad36912dd5739f9d126333ad55b1257db8d8384.Full text
Maryland
American Rescue Plan Elementary and
Secondary School Emergency Relief
(ARP ESSER) Fund Application
Stakeholder Engagement Report
July 30, 2021
Updated October 4, 2021
Maryland State Board of Education Members
Clarence C. Crawford.
PRESIDENT
Charles R. Dashiell, Jr., Esq.
VICE PRESIDENT
Jean C. Halle
Gail H. Bates
Shawn D. Bartley, Esq
Chuen-Chin Bianca Chang MSN, PNP, RN-BC
Lori Morrow
Susan J. Getty, Ed.D.
Brigadier General Warner I. Sumpter, USA, Ret.
Vermelle Greene, Ph.D.
Dr. Joan Mele-McCarthy D.A., CCC-SLP
Rachel L. McCusker
Holly C. Wilcox, Ph.D.
Kevin Bokoum, Student Member
Mohammed Choudhury
STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
Larry Hogan
GOVERNOR
The Maryland State Department of Education does not discriminate on the basis of age, ancestry/national origin,
color, disability, gender identity/expression, marital status, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation in matters
affecting employment or in providing access to programs and activities and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts
and other designated youth groups. For Inquiries related to Department policy, please contact:
Equity Assurance and Compliance Office
Office of the Deputy State Superintendent for Finance and Administration
Maryland State Department of Education
200 W. Baltimore Street - 6th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2595
410-767-0426 - voice | 410-767-0431 - fax | 410-333-6442 - TTY/TDD
2
MARYLAND AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EMERGENCY RELIEF
(ARP ESSER) FUND
STATE PLAN APPLICATION:
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT REPORT
Maryland’s ARP ESSER State Plan application is the result of an extensive consultation process
with stakeholders from across the State.
Initial Draft
The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) determined that the most effective
approach in developing the ARP ESSER State Plan application was to create an initial draft plan
involving the input of multiple MSDE divisions and drawing upon the knowledge that MSDE
staff had accrued through their engagements with stakeholders over the entire duration of the
pandemic. For example, MSDE staff held regular webinars with groups representing homeless
and migratory children, created a survey that asked stakeholders to identify the highest priority
academic, social-emotional, and/or mental health needs for these student populations, and
consulted with Youth REACH Maryland (an organization that advocates for homeless youth) for
assistance with identifying the number, characteristics, and unique needs of youth and young
adults experiencing housing instability in the State. Another example of SEA engagement with
external interest groups is the MSDE’s Juvenile Services Education System Executive Director,
who sits on Maryland’s Department of Juvenile Services State Advisory Board, a body which
consults and advises the State’s Secretary of Juvenile Services regarding policies and programs
to improve juvenile justice and educational system services across the State, and which
comprises representatives from State agencies, the judiciary, and community stakeholders.
MSDE staff members were actively engaged in consultation with various stakeholder groups
following the release of the ARP ESSER State Plan application template in April 2021, and the
input and feedback gathered through these interactions helped inform the development of
initial draft of the plan in May and early June 2021.
First Review Stage - ESSA External Stakeholder Committee
On June 7, 2021, this initial draft was shared with the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) External
Stakeholder Committee. This group has previously
served the MSDE in an advisory role on other
significant Statewide educational issues, for example
in developing Maryland’s ESSA Consolidated State
Plan. The membership of the stakeholder committee
represents a broad cross-section of educational
interests drawn from across Maryland, including (but not limited to) representatives for
parents/families, LEAs, teachers, principals, and advocates for civil rights, children with
disabilities, etc. (see Attachment A for ESSA External Stakeholder Committee Membership).
3
While Maryland does not have any federally recognized tribes, a representative of the
Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives who serves as the Director of Ethnic Commissions, a
role which includes responsibility for the State’s Commission on Indian Affairs, sits on the
stakeholder committee.
The ESSA External Stakeholder Committee was afforded the opportunity to provide input both
through a virtual meeting (held on June 10, 2021) and by submitting comments directly to
MSDE staff subsequent to the meeting.
Second Draft
The initial draft plan was substantially revised based on the feedback received from the ESSA
External Stakeholder Committee. Among the most significant revisions made following the first
review stage was a comprehensive re-writing of the State’s proposed priorities in section A.2 of
the draft plan to reflect the following ESSA External Stakeholder Committee recommendations:
1) Positioning the ARP ESSER State Plan application in the context of the broader initiative
to reform education in the State through the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future;
2) Highlighting the importance of technology investments and supports, the need to
engage parents/families, and the provision of support (particularly SEL/mental health
supports) on an ongoing basis to students and their families as all being crucial elements
underpinning the State’s priority to re-open schools; and
3) Providing more details on the new Statewide mental health program currently being
implemented.
Second Review Stage - Maryland State Board of Education
Following the incorporation of feedback from the ESSA External Stakeholder Committee, an
updated draft of the plan was then shared with the Maryland State Board of Education (State
Board) for review at its meeting on June 22, 2021. Among its responsibilities, the State Board
sets educational policy and standards for Maryland for pre-kindergarten through high school
and passes regulations that have the force of law. It is customary for the State Board to review
and approve Statewide plans of the magnitude of the ARP ESSER State Plan application. The
membership of the State Board, which is appointed by the Governor, comprises both educators
and non-educators, as well as one student member, and is geographically representative of
Maryland. Following review and discussion, including providing members of the public an
opportunity to comment on the draft plan at the start of the meeting, the State Board voted to
publish the updated second draft of the plan on the MSDE website and invite public feedback
on the plan.
Third Review Stage – Public Comment
The complete second draft of the plan was posted on the MSDE website and, in accordance
with the MSDE’s customary practice when seeking public input, the public was invited to
comment on the draft plan over a two-week period (from June 25 through July 9, 2021). In
addition to posting an announcement on the SEA website (including the homepage) inviting
public comment (Attachment B), the MSDE also promoted review of the draft plan via a press
4
release (Attachment C) and social media postings. An online survey (Attachment D) was created
to capture public input, which also collected data on the respondents.
A final total of 736 respondents completed the online public
survey, with representation from all 24 Maryland local
school systems. Approximately 58 percent of survey
respondents reported having children currently enrolled in a
Maryland public school, with circa 63 percent of those
respondents reporting having children in elementary school
grades (preK-5), 40 percent of those respondents reporting
having children in middle school grades (6-8), 42 percent of
those respondents reporting having children in high school grades (9-12), and one percent of
respondents selecting the “other grade level” option. [Note that the grade level response
percentages do not add up to 100 percent because respondents can have children enrolled in
multiple grade levels.]
Approximately 43 percent of survey respondents identified as educators employed in a
Maryland public school system, with circa 57 percent of those respondents associated with
elementary school grades, 21 percent of those respondents associated with middle school
grades (6-8), 25 percent of those respondents associated with high school grades (9-12), and 11
percent of respondents selecting the “other/not affiliated with a specific grade band” option.
[Note that the grade level response percentages do not add up to 100 percent because
respondents can identify with multiple grade levels.]
The survey asked respondents to rate the importance of various elements included in the draft
plan on a one to four scale, with one not being a priority and four being a high priority.
• The three issues identified as being priorities for Maryland in section A.2 of the draft
plan all received high levels of support:
o Approximately 87 percent of respondents classified “accelerating student re-
engagement” as a medium or high priority; the weighted mean score for this
element was 3.4.
o Approximately 94 percent of respondents classified “supporting mental and social-
emotional health” as a medium or high priority; the weighted mean score for this
element was 3.7.
o Approximately 91 percent of respondents classified “addressing the impact of
disrupted instruction” as a medium or high priority; the weighted mean score for
this element was 3.5.
• With one exception, all the proposed strategies/interventions identified in the draft plan
as ways to address the academic impact of lost instructional time received high levels of
support:
o For nine out of the 10 strategies/interventions listed, the level of respondent
support for these being either a medium or high priority use of funds ranged
from approximately 60 percent to 90 percent. The weighted mean scores for
these strategies/interventions ranged from 2.7 to 3.4.
5
o The only strategy/intervention that the majority (approximately 54 percent) of
respondents classified as either being a low priority use of funds or which should
not be a priority use of funds was formative assessments. The weighted mean
score for this strategy/intervention was 2.4.
• All the proposed strategies/interventions identified in the draft plan relating summer
learning and enrichment programs received high levels of support. For all nine
strategies/ interventions listed, the level of respondent support for these being either a
medium or high priority use of funds ranged from approximately 70 percent to 90
percent. The weighted mean scores for these strategies/interventions ranged from 3 to
3.5.
• A substantial majority (approximately 86 percent) of respondents classified the
proposed strategy/intervention relating to after-school programming in the draft plan as
being a medium or high priority use of funds. The weighted mean score for this
strategy/intervention was 3.4.
As well as posting the second draft of the plan on the MSDE website and inviting public
comment, an announcement (Attachment E) was also sent to local superintendents on June 25,
2021, inviting their feedback on the draft plan by July 9, 2021. Furthermore, during the week of
June 28, 2021, the second draft of the plan was sent to two members of the Superintendent’s
Parent Advisory Council to share with the entire council for comment. The Superintendent’s
Parent Advisory Council is a stakeholder group that advises and gives input to the State
Superintendent of Schools and the MSDE on educational matters that impact student
achievement and academic success, and the role of parents/family members. Membership
comprises 13 parents from diverse backgrounds and geographic locations, and three State
partners: the Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, the Maryland PTA, and the Maryland Resource
Parent Association (formerly known as the Maryland Foster Care Association). The second draft
of the plan was also shared with the student representative from the Maryland Association of
Student Councils and re-sent to the ESSA External Stakeholder Committee. The members of
these various stakeholder bodies were asked to submit their feedback by the July 9 deadline.
In addition to the responses captured via the online public survey, the MSDE received four
separate emails/letters commenting on the plan: from a parent of a child in a Maryland public
school, from the Maryland Out of School Time Network, from the Maryland State Education
Association, and from a local superintendent (see Attachments F-I)
Third Draft
Based on the comments received from the various stakeholders during this third review stage,
the MSDE once again revised the draft plan. For example, additional language recognizing the
importance of providing professional development and social-emotional/mental health
supports to educators, in particular as a staff retention strategy, was added to the plan, and
many minor textual edits were made for the purposes of clarification in response to comments
received.
6
Fourth (Final) Review Stage - Maryland State Board of Education
An updated third (and final) draft of the plan was presented to the State Board at its July 27,
2021, meeting. As with the previous State Board meeting, members of the public were
provided an opportunity to comment on the draft plan at the start of the meeting. Following
review and discussion, the State Board voted to approve the final draft of the Maryland ARP
ESSER State Plan application, without requesting any further edits, and submit it to the U.S.
Department of Education on July 30, 2021.
Enclosed:
Attachment A – Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) External Stakeholder Committee
Attachment B – ARP ESSER State Plan Application Website Announcement Screenshots
Attachment C – ARP ESSER State Plan Application Press Release, June 29, 2021
Attachment D – Public Comments Survey Template
Attachment E – Memo to Local Superintendents, June 25, 2021
Attachment F – Cline Email, July 4, 2021, and Understanding the Role of Technology
Interventions in the Classroom
Attachment G – Maryland Out of School Time Network Letter, July 7, 2021
Attachment H – Montgomery County Public Schools Letter, July 8, 2021
Attachment I – Maryland State Education Association Letter, July 9, 2021
Attachment J – Maryland American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary Emergency
Relief (ARP ESSER) Fund Presentation to the State Board July 27, 2021
7
Attachment A – Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) External Stakeholder Committee
Every Student Succeeds Act External Stakeholder Committee Membership
Member Organization Position
Theresa Alban, Ph.D. Frederick County Public Schools Superintendent
Terry Ball Maryland Association of Elementary Executive Director
School Principals (MAESP)
Teresa Beilstein 2020 Maryland Teacher of the Year Teacher – South Shore
Elementary - AACPS
Barbara Dezman NAACP Original Member of ESSA
representing NAACP
Emily Dow, Ph.D. Maryland Higher Education Commission Assistant Secretary of
Academic Affairs
McKenzie Allen Maryland Alliance of Public Charter Executive Director
Schools
Caroline Boice Department of Legislative Services
Cheryl Bost Maryland State Education Association President
Kenya Campbell AFT-Maryland Secretary-Treasurer
Keith Colston Governor’s Office of Community Initiatives Director, Ethnic Commissions
(including Commission on
Indian Affairs)
Lynn Cullins Superintendent’s Parent Advisory Council Parent Member
Brian Dulay Maryland Business Roundtable for Executive Director
Education
Cristina Duncan-Evans Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU) Teacher Chapter Chair
Drew Fagan, Ed.D. College of Education – University of Associate Clinical Professor,
Maryland Applied Linguistics and
Language Education
Stephanie Farmer Baltimore City Public Schools; Maryland Principal – Vivien T. Thomas
Association of Secondary School Principals Medical Arts Academy; Past
(MASSP) President MASSP
Frances Glendening Maryland Association of Board of Executive Director
Education
Kelly Griffith, Ed.D. Talbot County Public Schools; Public Superintendent; PSSAM
School Superintendents’ Association of President-Elect
Maryland (PSSAM)
Rachel Hise Department of Legislative Services
Ryan Kaiser Baltimore City Public Schools Teacher; Maryland Teacher of
the Year 2015-2016
Addie Kaufman Maryland Association of Secondary School Executive Director
Principals (MASSP)
Athanasia H. Former Maryland Teacher of the Year Art Teacher – Baltimore City
Kyriakakos Public Schools
Rachel London Maryland Developmental Disabilities Executive Director
Council
Leslie Margolis Disability Rights Maryland Managing Attorney
1
Member Organization Position
Afie Mirshah-Nayar Montgomery County Public Schools; Principal, Paint Branch High
Maryland Association of Secondary School School;
Principals (MASSP) President
Lori Morrow Maryland State Board of Education Parent Member
Judy Nguyen Student Member of the St. Mary’s County Member of the Maryland
Board of Education Association of Student Council
Dianne O’Grady- University System of Maryland Maryland Center for
Cunniff Computing Education
Nicole Parr Cecil County Public Schools Program Coordinator for
Career and Technical
Education
Christina Peusch Maryland State Childcare Association Executive Director
Peggy Pugh Local Assistant Superintendents of Local Assistant
Instruction Superintendents of Instruction
– Washington County
Rene Averitt-Sanzone Parents’ Place of Maryland Executive Director
Nancy Shapiro, Ph.D. University System of Maryland Associate Vice Chancellor for
Education and Outreach
Sharelle Stagg Prince George’s County Public Schools Assistant Principal, Greenbelt
Elementary School, Former
Teacher of the Year 2012-
2013
Darryl Williams, Ed.D. Baltimore County Public Schools; Public Superintendent
School Superintendents’ Association of
Maryland (PSSAM)
Janet Wilson, Ph.D. Montgomery County Public Schools; Associate Superintendent,
Original member representing PSSAM Office of Shared
Accountability
John Woolums Maryland Association of Board of Director of Government
Education Relations
Emory Young Superintendent’s Parent Advisory Council Parent Member
Estelle Young Greater Baltimore Urban League Director for New Initiatives
Representative Maryland PTA
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Invitees to June 10, 2021, Meeting
Name Office Position
Haleemat Adekoya Governor’s Summer Intern Student at University of
Maryland Baltimore County
Tiara Booker-Dwyer Division of Career and College Readiness & Assistant State Superintendent
Office of Leadership Development and
School Improvement
Rhodri Evans Division of Student Support, Academic Lead Academic Policy Specialist
Enrichment, and Educational Policy
2
Name Office Position
Marcella Franczkowski Division of Early Intervention and Special Assistant State Superintendent
Education Services
Mary Gable Division of Student Support, Academic Assistant State Superintendent
Enrichment, and Educational Policy
Deborah Grinnage- Juvenile Services Education System Executive Director
Pulley
Donna Gunning Office of Policy and Fiscal Analysis Executive Director
Chandra Haislet Office of Performance Reporting and Executive Director
Accountability
Steven Hicks Division of Early Childhood Assistant State Superintendent
Lily Klam Governor’s Summer Intern Student at University of
Maryland College Park
Sylvia Lawson, Ph.D. Office of the Deputy for School Deputy Superintendent
Effectiveness
Kelly Meadows Division of Educator Certification Assistant State Superintendent
and Program Approval
Lora Rakowski Communications Director
Dara Shaw, Ph.D. Office of Research Executive Director
Susan Spinnato Division of Curriculum, Instructional Director of Instructional
Improvement, and Professional Learning Programs
Marcia Sprankle, Ed.D. Division of Curriculum, Instructional Assistant State Superintendent
Improvement and Professional Learning
Carol Williamson, Ed.D. Office of the Deputy for Teaching and Deputy Superintendent
Learning
3
Attachment B – ARP ESSER State Plan
Application Website Announcement
Screenshots
Posted on the Maryland State Department of Education’s home webpage
(http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/Pages/default.aspx), June 25-July 9, 2021 (see announcement
in right-hand column)
Posted on newly created ARP ESSER webpage on Maryland State Department of Education’s website
(http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/ARP-ESSER/index.aspx), June 25-July 9, 2021
Attachment C – ARP ESSER State Plan
Application Press Release, June 29, 2021
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: lora.rakowski@maryland.gov
MSDE SEEKS INPUT FOR AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS EMERGENCY RELIEF PLAN
Draft Plan Posted for Review; Survey Now Open Through July 9, 2021 to Solicit
Public Comment
BALTIMORE, MD (June 29, 2021) - The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE)
seeks public input for its draft of the State plan for American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and
Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding. The draft, along with a public comment
survey, can be found at: http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/ARP-ESSER/index.aspx.
The survey will be open for input through July 9, and MSDE will consider all feedback when
finalizing the plan.
Through the ARP, the U.S. Department of Education will allocate approximately $1.95 billion to
Maryland and local school systems to meet the urgent needs of schools and students in the
aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this month, MSDE hosted a stakeholder meeting
to renew and provide input on the plan, which addresses:
Accelerating student re-engagement: speeding up the return to in-person instruction for
all students in the 2021-2022 school year, while also providing the necessary supports,
especially in the areas of technology/broadband access and outreach, to ensure that
students and parents/families remain engaged;
Supporting mental and social-emotional health: addressing the mental health and
social-emotional learning (SEL) needs of students, particularly among underserved
students most affected by the switch to remote learning, and parents/families and
educators; and
Addressing the impact of disrupted instruction: using evidence-based strategies to
lessen the impact of disrupted instruction on student learning that has occurred over the
past 15 months, and supporting local school systems as they do the same.
The final plan will be presented to the Maryland State Board of Education for approval on July
27, before submission to the U.S. Department of Education on July 30.
###
Attachment D – Public Comments Survey
Template
Feedback: State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER)
The Mary and State Board of Educat on s seek ng the commun ty's nput on the "State P an for the Amer can Rescue P an E ementary
and Secondary Schoo Emergency Re ef Fund." Th s p an s a so known as Mary and's p an to use ARP ESSER funds.
BACKGROUND:
The ARP ESSER funds are prov ded to states and oca schoo systems to meet the urgent needs as a resu t of the mpact of the
COVID-19 pandem c. Each state must comp ete and subm t a state p an to the US Department of Educat on demonstrat ng
comprehens ve p ann ng by the state and support to the oca schoo systems for the effect ve use of ARP ESSER funds to reopen
schoo s safe y; support susta ned access to n-person nstruct on throughout the summer and nto the next schoo year; and to address
the academ c, soc a , emot ona , and menta hea th needs of students.
Th s survey s request ng your feedback on Mary and's p an to use ARP ESSER funds. The fu p an can be found here:
http://mary andpub cschoo s.org/about/Pages/ARP-ESSER/ ndex.aspx.
Thank you for comp et ng th s short survey and prov d ng your feedback.
1. In what county do you live?
2. Do you currently have children enrolled in a public school in Maryland?
Yes
No
1
Feedback: State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER)
3. In which grade levels do you have children enrolled in a public school in Maryland? (select all that apply)
E ementary (Pre-K to grade 5)
M dd e (Grades 6 to 8)
H gh (Grades 9 to 12)
Other grade eve
2
Feedback: State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER)
4. Are you an educator in a public school system in Maryland?
Yes
No
3
Feedback: State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER)
5. What grade level are you associated with?
E ementary (Pre-K to grade 5)
M dd e (Grades 6 to 8)
H gh (Grades 9 to 12)
Other/Not aff ated w th a spec f c grade band
4
Attachment E – Memo to Local
Superintendents, June 25, 2021
TO: Local School Superintendents
FROM: Karen B. Salmon, Ph.D.
(b) (6)
DATE: June 25, 2021
RE: State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
(ARP ESSER) Fund
Under the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, established via the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (March 27, 2020), and further funded under the Coronavirus
Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act, 2021 (December 27, 2020) and the American
Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021 (March 11, 2021), the U.S. Department of Education (USED) awarded grants to
states for the purpose of providing local school systems (LSSs) that receive funds under Title I, Part A of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) with emergency relief funds to address the impact the
COVID-19 pandemic has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation.
On April 21, 2021, Dr. Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary of Education, sent a letter to all Chief State School
Officers describing the ARP ESSER Fund, which provides nearly $122 billion to states and LSSs (of which
approximately $1.95 billion has been allocated to Maryland) to meet the urgent needs of schools and students. In
March, USED made available to each state the first two-thirds of its ARP ESSER allocation, or about $81 billion
in immediate support nationwide (of which Maryland received approximately $1.3 billion). With the distribution
of these funds, USED released a state plan template for the ARP ESSER Fund, which is designed to promote
comprehensive planning by states and LSSs for the effective use of ARP ESSER funds to reopen schools safely
this spring; support sustained access to in-person instruction throughout the spring, summer, and into next school
year; and to address the academic, social, emotional, and mental health needs of students. Each state is required
to submit its own ARP ESSER plan to USED. Upon approval, USED will make each state’s remaining ARP
ESSER allocation available for use, totaling another $41 billion in funding nationwide (of which Maryland is
allocated approximately $600 million).
The Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) has developed a draft ARP ESSER state plan. This draft
state plan is based on input received through multiple meetings and communications with stakeholders over the
course of the COVID-19 pandemic, dating back to March 2020. The draft state plan also reflects updated content
based on input from the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) External Stakeholder Committee (meeting held on
June 10, 2021).
Under the stipulations of ARP ESSER, in developing the state’s plan the MSDE is required to: 1) engage in
meaningful consultation with various stakeholder groups, including local school superintendents, as well as
providing the public with the opportunity to submit feedback, and 2) incorporate this input, where appropriate,
into the plan. On June 22, 2021, the Maryland State Board of Education (State Board) voted to publish the draft
ARP ESSER state plan on the MSDE website and invite public comment. The draft state plan will be posted on
the MSDE website and open to public comment for two weeks (from June 25, 2021, through July 9, 2021). To
help facilitate this public input, the MSDE has developed an online survey that will be posted on the MSDE
200 West Baltimore Street • Baltimore, MD 21201 • 410-767-0100 • 410-333-6442 TTY/TDD
MarylandPublicSchools.org
Local School Superintendents
June 25, 2021
Page 2
website, alongside the draft state plan, allowing members of the public to comment both generally and on
specific areas of the draft state plan.
This communication serves as an invitation for local school superintendents to provide feedback on Maryland’s
draft ARP ESSER state plan. The draft ARP ESSER Plan can be found at
http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Pages/ARP-ESSER/index.aspx. Please submit comments on behalf of
your LSS by July 9, 2021, via email to rhodri.evans@maryland.gov. Please note that certain evidential artifacts
referenced in the draft state plan are not web accessible; they only exist as electronic attachments. If you would
like to review these non-web accessible artifacts, please submit a request to rhodri.evans@maryland.gov. Copies
of all comments received from local school superintendents will be shared with the State Board and will be
included as artifacts as part of the ARP ESSER state plan submission to USED.
Following the July 9, 2021, response deadline, the MSDE will review all the comments submitted by local
superintendents, members of the public, and other applicable stakeholders and revise the draft state plan, as
appropriate, based on this input. A final draft of the state plan will be presented for the State Board’s review and
approval at its meeting on July 27, 2021. If approved by the State Board, Maryland intends to submit its final,
complete ARP ESSER state plan to USED on July 30, 2021.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Mary L. Gable, Assistant State Superintendent,
Division of Student Support, Academic Enrichment, and Educational Policy, by email at
mary.gable@maryland.gov or by telephone at 410-767-0472.
2
Attachment F – Cline Email, July 4, 2021, and
Understanding the Role of Technology
Interventions in the Classroom
Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 5:39 AM Lisa Cline (b) (6) @rp3agency.com> wrote:
Good morning, Ms. Gable.
I was pleased that find your survey online and answer it based on my knowledge about what I’ve
observed here in our school district (Montomgery County Public Schools).
In short, a great many effects of pandemic learning on our children could have been mitigated to
a certain degree by powering down the online learning and directing children to read, write and
create.
Last spring, when the switch was flipped into Zoom Autopilot, I saw an immediate disintegration
of curriculum delivery. (b) (6) called it “torture” to sit at a computer for 6 hours a day — and
that didn’t include the hours doing homework and sorting out the message platforms that MCPS
insisted on retaining (i.e., Synergy, which was incompatible with MyMCPS, so students and
parents never knew what grade was being given until the last day of the quarter).
Early education experts called the sedentary learning style with not breaks and no offline
alternatives (as per MSDE Digital Best Practices) — believe me, I tried and tried and tried to
obtain both — called MCPS’s handling of our children child restraint and sensory deprivation.
Kids absolutely crumbled. Those who didn’t pretty much hate school now.
The antidote is to go into Fall with a clean slate (not screen!). Invest in books that kids can bring
outdoors and in the car and hold onto and share with family and friends. Books invite discussion
from those around you. Books are real. Books don’t serve pop-up screens and distractions and
harm to eyes.
In short, please do not use any of this relief fund money to line the pockets of EdTech vendors.
Buy books. If we want our children to succeed, we must give the them age-appropriate tools that
have demonstrated, time and again, to expand their minds and foster a love of learning.
All the very best,
Lisa Cline
Gaithersburg, MD
Understanding the Role of Technology Interventions in the Classroom
Review Essay from MCCPTA Safe Technology Subcommittee
NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED BY MCCPTA. FOR DISCUSSION.
For more information and queries, contact:
Lisa Cline, (b) (6) @aol.com, Co-Chair MCCPTA Safe Technology Subcommittee
Dr. Assya Pascalev, (b) (6) gmail.com, Co-Chair MCCPTA Safe Technology
Subcommittee
Dr. Sunil Dasgupta, (b) (6) @hotmail.com, Chair, MCCPTA Health and Safety
Committee
For nearly three decades, public educators, technology entrepreneurs, and corporate
philanthropists in the United States have sought education reform through technology
interventions and standardized testing.1 Based on our survey of the research, we see a
persistent disconnect between deductive expectations of technology interventions and self-
reporting survey results, on the one hand, and available empirical evidence of actual student
performance, on the other. Large public school systems such as MCPS face the enormous
challenge of finding the right balance between continued optimism about the role of technology
and the reality of the learning process. To do this right, we must explore the relative merits of
digital and non-digital learning. We propose three steps toward this end.
First, determine age, subject-matter, and student appropriateness of digital content and
technology interventions in the classroom. Some material is better delivered online while others
using books—right now we do not know which materials are in fact better delivered digital and
which are better delivered non-digitally. We also do not know how the digital-non-digital balance
ought to shift with age. It is also the case that some students with IEPs need greater access to
technology, which should be accommodated. Second, make a distinction between access to
materials and learning. While making content available online for teachers, students, and
parents is valuable, especially when the curriculum is continually updated, actually learning on
screens is problematic as the literature review below shows. Third, develop mechanisms for
regularly monitoring digital and screen-use by MCPS students, teachers, and parents so that
the digital-non-digital balance may be adjusted over time.
The Johns Hopkins Report
In 2017, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) commissioned The Johns Hopkins
Institute of Education Policy (Johns Hopkins) to conduct a review of its Curriculum 2.0. John
Hopkins reported its findings in March 2018. The central recommendation was that MCPS adopt
an externally-developed curriculum including software platforms for the delivery of English
Language Arts and Math content.2 In April, MCPS opened a Request for Proposal (RFP) to
solicit a new curriculum and this process is expected to be completed by December 2018.
The Johns Hopkins Report is a much-awaited investigation of the MCPS elementary and middle
school curriculum in language arts and math. While the report addressed wide-ranging issues of
alignment and appropriateness of materials and curriculum, based on the publicly-released
Executive Summary, it did not address the relative differences in learning outcomes of
digital/software platforms and non-digital tools such as books, which it has nevertheless
recommended to MCPS.
Through the summer of 2018, MCPS curriculum review team members have made
presentations to MCCPTA area meetings on the Johns Hopkins Report and the RFP process.
These presentations confirmed that neither the Johns Hopkins Study Report nor MCPS itself
has systematically considered the relative merits of digital and non-digital learning. MCPS
officials have emphasized the RFP required the new curriculum to use both digital and non-
digital delivery; a purely digital or a purely non-digital curriculum would be rejected. This
requirement means that curriculum with a 90-10 digital-non-digital balance would qualify for the
RFP as would a curriculum that was 30-70 digital-non-digital. However, without systematic study
of the relative merits of digital and non-digital curriculum, including age and subject-matter
appropriateness, we do not know how to evaluate the different content mixes that will be offered
by different vendors.
While MCPS officials said they would look into this issue now, it is important to develop a
transparent and inclusive mechanism of assessment. The Executive Summary of the Johns
Hopkins report describes the community input received by the study group as “survey data of
the views of stakeholders.” The nature and details of what information this survey data included
is not shared. In contrast, the report notes that, “the research team conducted 52 focus groups
and interviews at 20 MCPS elementary and middle schools with 324 educators – including both
teachers and central staff – collecting 2,441 comments.” The seeming exclusion of systematic
community input from parents and, notably, teachers in a setting outside the school where they
may be able to respond more freely exposes the study to deficiences stemming from
inadequate stakeholder voices.
State law is pushing in the direction of more discovery on this issue as well. In 2018, the
Maryland General Assembly passed HB1110 in, a bill which asks the Maryland State
Department of Education (MSDE) to investigate the effectiveness and safety of technology
interventions in classrooms across the state. HB1110 became law in April 2018.3
Does Technology Improve Learning Outcomes?
The central question here is how technology interventions improve learning outcomes. The
promise of technology is widely held. As Thomas Friedman famously argued more than a
decade ago, access to technology was making the World Flat, which implied that technology
removed social and economic barriers to economic and social mobility. Teachers, schools, and
society in general have largely accepted this promise. Legislators in California and Florida, two
of the largest states in the U.S., have passed laws requiring digital textbooks.4 Technology
access has been pushed as an instrument of education equity.5
In the face of this technological optimism, actual empirical research on the impact of technology
on learning in the classroom is actually sparse and sobering. Part of the problem appears to be
the multicausal nature of the learning process, which makes it hard to disentangle the impact of
technology from the quality of the curriculum and teachers, and the effects of a difficult home
environment. The largest study to look at the problem is a multinational OECD (Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development) report published in 2015. The OECD report
correlates computer availability and use in classrooms a number of countries with performance
on standardized testing to arrive at this stark observation:
“In 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries reported that they have a
computer at home, but only 72% reported that they use a desktop, laptop or tablet computer
at school. Only 42% of students in Korea and 38% of students in Shanghai-China reported
that they use computers at school – and Korea and Shanghai-China were among the top
performers in the digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests in the OECD
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012. By contrast, in countries
where it is more common for students to use the Internet at school for schoolwork, students’
performance in reading declined between 2000 and 2012, on average.” 6
In a 2017 review essay, University of Maryland researchers Patricia A. Alexander and Lauren
M. Singer examine exisiting research since 1992 on the narrower question of reading
comprehension differences between print and digital texts. They found that when reading texts
longer than one page, the research showed better comprehension outcomes with print rather
than with digital texts.7 The research atrributes this to the disruptive effect of scrolling on
screens. Their own research shows a paradox in the students self-reporting better
comprehension with and clear preference for digital texts but performed better in actual tests of
comprehension when using printed matter.8
The paradox between the technological optimism of advocates and the reality of contradictory
and undiscernible results provided by empirical studies of technological interventions in
education goes beyond students alone. A 2014 survey of 400 educators and administrators and
1,000 middle and high-school students sponsored by CompTIA, an IT trade association, found
“75 percent of educators think that technology has a positive impact in the education process.”9
This finding stands in contrast to the studies such as the 2015 OECD report that do not support
a positive correlation between technological intervention and learning outcomes. It is worth
noting that 2015 OECD report, showed modest gains from technology interventions in some
classrooms (with low to moderate use).
The prevalence and persistence of this paradox is puzzling. Potentially, two factors are at play
in the MCPS deliberations over choosing its new curriculum. First, we believe there is significant
industry pressure on the purchase and possibly continued maintenance of the curriculum
contract. In this context, it is worth noting that Discovery Education, which has been at the
center of the conflict of interest concerns, offers almost all-screen-based curriculum. Second,
years of professional development extolling the importance of “innovation” in learning has
predisposed teachers to viewing input as output, access as equity, and many teachers appear
to be in a race to be cutting edge, often ignoring MCPS Technology Office’s prohibitions on
certain apps and programs.
While California and Florida are pressing forth on digital learning, the State of Maine, the first
state to adopt a one-to-one laptop program, has discontinued the program after a decade of
data showing no impact on learning outcomes.10 Recent newspaper articles report that early
leaders in the technology industry now insist on a no- or low-tech learning environment for their
own children.11 In higher education, professors are increasingly banning laptops from the
classroom.12
Does Technology Reduce the Achievement Gap?
On equity, school-based technology was one hope for leveling the playing field for minorities
and poor families. The actions of the California and Florida state legislatures reflect in part an
intent to bring down the cost and improve access to curriculum. Technology firms have backed
initiatives like the Khan Academy to deliver material where teachers are either unavailable or
unable. In developing countries, access to education through handheld devices is believed to
enable leapfrogging over absent infrastructure such as school buildings.
However, empirical evidence of success is hard to find. Arguments in favor of increased
technology interventions for equity reasons, typically, mistake input for outcome or add variables
so that the impact of technology becomes impossible to discern. Moreover, as the paradox of
expectations of learning among students and teachers show, there can be significant
differences between self-reported survey results and actual performance.
A widely-cited 2014 Stanford study, for example, identified relatively lesser access to computers
among poorer and minority students as the crux of the learning problem, thereby making access
to computers the preferred solution.13 One of the few empirical examples of success in the study
comes from Talladega County, Alabama, which is described as “a district where 73 percent of
students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, dropout rates were high, and college-going was
low” which, “over the course of just two years…led to an increase in graduation rates from 63
percent to 87 percent and a climb in college acceptance rates from 33 percent to 78 percent.
During the same period, the high school had significant decreases in suspensions, alternative
school referrals, and dropout rates, preventing failures that had previously routinely occurred.”14
On closer examination, rather than evaluating the impact of technology on learning, the report
finds that increased teacher interaction is necessary to make technology interventions work.
This raises the obvious question whether increased teacher interaction without the technology
intervention might have had similar results. The study speaks to technology interventions
without changes in teacher engagement here:
“Results from these efforts have been largely disappointing. In some cases, students
demonstrated improved outcomes on tests of similar information tested in a similar format;
in most, they performed about the same as students taught by teachers during the same
time period. One recent study, for example, used rigorous methods of random assignment
to evaluate the impact of a variety of math and reading software products across 132
schools in 33 school districts, with a sample of more than 9,400 students, and found no
significant difference on student test scores in classrooms using the software as compared
to classrooms not using the software. Another large study using random assignment
methods to evaluate the effectiveness of students’ exposure to a phonics-based computer
program also found no effect in terms of gains on reading comprehension tests.” 15
If anything, the conclusions suggest that technology without adequate one-on-one teaching can
be counterproductive. The OECD’s director of the Office of Education Research, Andreas
Schleicher, stated that, “One of the most disappointing findings of the [2015] report is that the
socioeconomic divide between students is not narrowed by technology, perhaps even
amplified.”16
What are the Dangers of Increased Screen and Computer Time?
There is little doubt that the introduction of smartboards and Google Chromebooks in school
have marked a dramatic shift in content delivery in classrooms. In 2012, Florida state legislature
reflected this shift when it passed a law requiring 50 percent of all classroom instruction to be
digital by 2015.17 A 2016 Children and Screen Time advisory report from the Office of Education
for Santa Clara County, CA, similarly highlights the importance of technology in enhancing
learning opportunities.18
Neither Florida nor Santa Clara County are known to have conducted audits of their claims
about the impact of technology, but a 2016 study reported in the Journal of Pediatric Health
reported strong correlation between screen time and sleep health.19 Research on screen time is
problematic because the making of control and experimental groups of human child subjects
would violate most research board reviews.20 Still, the medical research community has decided
that there is sufficient cause to take notice.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that “parents and caregivers develop a
family media plan that takes into account the health, education and entertainment needs of each
child as well as the whole family…proactively think about their children’s media use and talk
with children about it, because too much media use can mean that children don’t have enough
time during the day to play, study, talk, or sleep.”21 Furthermore, Common Sense Media, an
organization devoted to balance in screen time, reports that 59 percent of parents say their kids
are “addicted” to their screens, while 66 percent say their kids spend too much time on
screens.22
The use of medical authority in this debate presents contradictions. The Santa Clara screen
time advisory references an American Academy of Ophthalmology report stating, "there is no
convincing scientific evidence that computer video display terminals (VDTs) are harmful to the
eyes," but the reference to the assertion links to the Health Physics Society Journal, which
thereafter does not identify a source from the American Academy of Ophthalmology.
Meanwhile, the American Academy of Ophthalmology website displays the organization’s
recommendation to limit screen time to prevent eye strain and damage. In short, the Santa
Clara advisory from 2016 does not factor in the American Academy of Opthalmology’s
warnings, but the organization is cited as a source.
Finally, student screen and internet usage has raised questions about privacy. A number of
states and school districts are cracking down on child privacy laws. Baltimore County Public
Schools has taken extra steps to ensure privacy of student data23 and the state of Texas is
considered a pioneer of child privacy laws and efforts with the passage of HB2087, which
provides strong privacy protections for student data within Texas public schools.24 MCPS itself
has been trying to lock-down servers and examine its custodial responsibilities with respect to
student data, but this remains an early work in progress. Anecdotally, parent reports to the
MCCPTA Safe Technology Subcommittee suggest a race among teachers to introduce more
technology, some of which may violate the Children’s Online Privacy and Protection Act
(COPPA) and are not vetted by the MCPS Technology Office. This leaves the MCPS CTO and
team to play catch-up with actual practice inside schools.
Finding the Balance
HB-1110 instructed the Maryland State Department of Education to evaluate the effectiveness
and safety of technology interventions in classrooms across the state. The Johns Hopkins study
did not anticipate this coming state requirement and seemingly did not address the issue of
digital learning effectiveness.
Based on the study and other official MCPS reporting of the study, we do not know how much
time Montgomery County school students spend on the computer at school or at home. Further,
we do not understand what the impact of technology interventions has been on learning
outcomes in MCPS classrooms. Specifically, what ages or what subject matter benefit most
from screen-based learning and where screens can be detrimental. The study does not provide
evidence of learning measures to determine where we stand on these questions. Nevertheless,
it recommends externally-developed digital platforms for delivery of the new curriculum despite
current research calling into question the effectiveness of curriculum significantly delivered via
screens.
It would be worthwhile to draw a distinction between how MCPS (and other adults, including
parents) access the new curriculum and how students access and learn the material. Online
access can be a big convenience, especially when the curriculum needs to be continually
updated and more resources are added and printed text books are expensive and many are
outdated before they make it to the shelf. However, actual on-screen learning outcomes or how
screens might distract students is a different analytical problem as the literature review above
demonstrates. Separating access and learning challenges would help us develop and adjust the
right balance between digital and non-digital content.
Finally, there is a strong argument to be made for regular monitoring of digital use within MCPS
by teachers, students, and parents. We do not even know how much time students of various
ages spend on screens. Anecdotally that teachers in middle and high schools direct students to
use apps that are not approved by MCPS Central Technology Office. Equally, we know that
even elementary school children are sometimes able to access inappropriate content when they
use their own devices on school property, including the school bus. A straightforward
correlational analysis of student login duration (probably available within MCPS) and test
scores, for example, can be a starting point. Over time, the analysis should reveal how we
should adjust the digital-non-digital balance. We can further improve our understanding of
challenges with periodic survey of teachers, students, and parents.
1 Andrea Gabor, After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform (New
York: The New Press, 2018).
2 Johns Hopkins University School of Education, “Montgomery County Public Schools: Curriculum Review
and Analysis,” Summary and Recommendations submitted to Montgomery County Board of Education.
March 2018, p 9. Lead author: David Steiner, Executive Director, Johns Hopkins Institute for Education
Policy.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/curriculum/integrated/ExecutiveSummaryMCPS.PD
F
3 Public Schools – Health and Safety Best Practices – Digital Devices
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=HB1110&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys
=2018RS
4 Patricia A. Alexander and Lauren M. Singer, “A new study shows that students learn way more
effectively from print textbooks and screens,” Business Insider, Oct. 15, 2017.
http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-
10?utm source=facebook&utm content=bottom-bar&utm term=mobile
5 Linda Darling-Hammond, Molly B. Zielezinski, and Shelley Goldman, “Using Technology to Support
At-Risk Students’ Learning,” Stanford Center for Opportunity in Education. September 2014
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
6 OECD, Students, Computers and Learning Making the Connection, 2015, p 15. https://read.oecd-
ilibrary.org/education/students-computers-and-learning 9789264239555-en#page21. See also, John
O’Connor, “Study Finds More Classroom Technology Doesn’t Mean More Learning,”
https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2015/09/15/study-finds-more-classroom-technology-doesnt-mean-more-
learning/
7 Lauren M. Singer, Patricia A. Alexander, “Reading on Paper and Digitally: What the Past Decades of
Empirical Research Reveal,” Review of Educational Research Volume: 87 issue: 6, page(s): 1007-1041.
Article first published online: July 21, 2017; Issue published: December 1, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317722961
8 Patricia A. Alexander and Lauren M. Singer, “A new study shows that students learn way more
effectively from print textbooks and screens,” Business Insider, Oct. 15, 2017.
http://www.businessinsider.com/students-learning-education-print-textbooks-screens-study-2017-
10?utm source=facebook&utm content=bottom-bar&utm term=mobile
9 Anna Matthai, “Students and Teachers Agree: Let’s Bring In More Tech,” CompTIA Website.
https://www.comptia.org/about-us/newsroom/blog/comptia-blog/2014/12/10/students-and-teachers-agree-
let-s-bring-in-more-tech
10 Robbie Feinberg, “Do Laptops Help Learning? A Look At The Only Statewide School Laptop Program,”
National Public Radio, August 18, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/08/18/536875865/15-
years-later-how-did-it-go-with-maines-school-laptop-program
11 Chris Weller, “Silicon Valley parents are raising their kids tech-free — and it should be a red flag,”
Business Insider, February 18, 2018. http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-parents-raising-their-
kids-tech-free-red-flag-2018-2. See also N. Bilton, “Steve Jobs was a low tech parent,” The New York
Times, 10 September 2014. https://nyti.ms/1qMfdln
12 Melissa Korn, “I’d Be an ‘A’ Student if I Could Just Read My Notes,” The Wall Street Journal, March 12,
2018. https://www.wsj.com/articles/id-be-an-a-student-if-i-could-just-read-my-notes-1520865531
13 Linda Darling-Hammond, Molly B. Zielezinski, and Shelley Goldman, “Using Technology to Support
At-Risk Students’ Learning,” Stanford Center for Opportunity in Education. September 2014.
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
14 Linda Darling-Hammond, Molly B. Zielezinski, and Shelley Goldman, “Using Technology to Support
At-Risk Students’ Learning,” Stanford Center for Opportunity in Education. September 2014, p 13.
https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-pub-using-technology-report.pdf
15 G. D. Borman, J. G. Benson, and L. Overman, “A Randomized Field Trial of the Fast ForWord
Language Computer-Based Training Program,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31, no. 1
(2009).
16 Sean Coughlan, “Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD,” BBC 15 September 2015.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796
17 Gina Jordan, “Explaining Florida’s Shift To Digital Textbooks,” September 25, 2012,
https://stateimpact.npr.org/florida/2012/09/25/explaining-floridas-shift-to-digital-textbooks/
18 Santa Clara, CA, Office of Education, “Children and Screen Time,” June 2016.
https://www.sccoe.org/resources/families/Documents/SCCOE-Report-English.pdf
19 Justin Parent, Wesley Sanders, and Rex Forehand, “Youth Screen Time and Behavioral Health
Problems: The Role of Sleep Duration and Disturbances,” J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2016 May; 37(4): 277–
284. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000272 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4851593/
20 Kayt Sukel, The Truth About Research on Screen Time, November 06, 2017.
http://www.dana.org/Briefing Papers/The Truth About Research on Screen Time/
21 American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s Media Use,”
October 21, 2016. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/american-academy-
of-pediatrics-announces-new-recommendations-for-childrens-media-use.aspx
22 “Dealing with Devices: The Parent-Teen Dynamic,” May 3, 2016,
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/technology-addiction-concern-controversy-and-finding-balance-
infographic
23Tara Garcia Mathewson, “Who is keeping student data safe in the era of digital learning?,” October 18,
2017, http://hechingerreport.org/keeping-student-data-safe-era-digital-learning/
24 “New Texas Cybersecurity Laws,” GT, August 21, 2017, https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2017/8/new-
texas-cybersecurity-laws
Attachment G – Maryland Out of School
Time Network Letter, July 7, 2021
Statement From MOST Network on MSDE’S State Plan for the ARP ESSER Fund
July 7th, 2021
The Maryland Out of School Time Network (MOST) commends MSDE’s State Plan for the ARP ESSER
Fund for its focus on equity and students’ social and emotional well-being. Addressing opportunity
gaps and keeping young people's needs at the center of our work should underpin efforts to re-
open and schools and facilitate learning. Our organization remains committed to gathering feedback
from youth development professionals across the state and providing comments to MSDE based on
our findings. We have shared the ARP Plan with our networks and encouraged youth development
professionals to complete the state’s feedback survey.
Last summer, MOST convened a series of roundtable discussions to gather input from stakeholders
on ways community-based, youth-serving organizations could collaborate with schools and school
districts in response to the pandemic. This spring, we convened similar conversations to develop
recommendations for recovery fund spending. MOST generated two documents from these
discussions (Leveraging Recovery Funds and The Case For Partnership), both of which have
considerable alignment with MSDE’s articulated priorities. The following recommendations for
MSDE’s ARP Plan are derived from these feedback sessions.
To strengthen the ARP Plan, we recommend more closely aligning ARP spending with the Blueprint
for Maryland’s Future to sustain newly created programming with the phase-in of additional per-
pupil funding through the Concentration of Poverty (CoP) Grants.
This approach would more fully integrate Community Schools into the ARP Plan as well. Specifically,
we recommend:
1) Prioritizing Community Schools for the state set-aside afterschool and summer investment.
2) Investing in training, professional development and technical assistance for the expansion of
community schools and integration of expanded learning.
An open RFP which distributes the investment over three years is an efficient way to expend the
funds; however, it creates a funding cliff at the end of that period. Community Schools will be
receiving increased per-pupil funding for which afterschool and summer learning opportunities are
an allowed and encouraged use. Once ARP funds are expended, they can be replaced with CoP
investments and sustained over time. With expanded learning as one of the four Community School
Pillars, all of Maryland’s more than 300 Community Schools should have a high-quality afterschool
and summer learning plan. When a new RFP is released, we encourage extensive outreach and
additional grant applicant technical assistance in order to increase the equitable distribution of
funds.
The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future created a Director of Community Schools position which has
been successful in providing support for Community Schools at the state level. With so many new
schools and counties being introduced to Community School Model for the first time, investing in
additional infrastructure for training and technical assistance will be critical to support quality of
implementation.
We also encourage MSDE to provide guidance to local school districts on making partnership
opportunities with ARP funds more transparent and accessible. For example, Baltimore City Schools
recently offered a multi-part series entitled “Doing Business with City Schools” which covered topics
around contract, procurement policies, data sharing, and applying for ESSA level designation.
We look forward to continuing to track and share with our networks this historic investment in our
schools.
Attachment H – Montgomery County Public
Schools Letter, July 8, 2021
Attachment I – Maryland State Education
Association Letter, July 9, 2021
July 9, 2021
Sent via email
Mr. Mohammed Choudhury, state superintendent
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Dear Superintendent Choudhury:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Maryland State Education Association (MSEA), which
represents 75,000 educators and school employees who work in Maryland’s public schools. In
this capacity, we seek to provide input and guidance relative to MSDE’s plan for the allocation
of American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ARP ESSER)
funds.
The United States Department of Education requires a State Education Agency (SEA) to create
a publicly available plan for the use of ARP ESSER funds, which is reached through
meaningful consultation with stakeholders, including educators, school staff, and their unions.
Collaboration with and reliance upon the expertise and invaluable perspective of the educators
who serve our students day in and day out is essential to effective planning, as was reflected in
the Department’s guidance to state commissioners and grant guidance stating that “educators
and their unions should be an essential component of the process.”
In an effort to protect and enhance educator voices, we are identifying a series of topic areas
that we hope you will consider and will improve equity, increase stakeholder engagement, and
ensure clarity with reopening and planning for the 2021-2022 school year.
Topic Area 1: General Feedback on ARP ESSER Plans and the State’s Current Status
and Needs
It is not evident that MSDE underwent thoroughness in soliciting feedback and engaging
stakeholders on its proposed evidence-based strategies. We believe that meaningful
engagement and participation in planning by teachers and staff is essential to building trust and
ensuring the best possible allocation and use of resources and the highest degree of support for
students. For example, MSDE’s plan indicates it will allocate approximately $188 million to
high-quality tutoring programs but excludes the mention of LEA engagement in determining
best practices for the implementation of such programs. This concerns us because such
programming, without the consideration of current stakeholders, leaves the opportunity for
external entities to operate in schools where they are likely disconnected from the community,
students, families, and most importantly, the school systems and educators who instruct those
same students. At a time where students are returning to an in-person learning environment
after a year of virtual learning, it is vitally important that students have as much predictability
and familiarity with school staff as possible. MSDE should reconsider its methods for soliciting
input and ensure staff currently operating in school buildings are offered first rights to
providing tutoring services.
Relative to surveys that were conducted, MSDE would benefit from considering the following
questions: How was this survey advertised to the public? How many surveys were
administered? How much time was given to the public to take the survey? What follow-up was
given to survey respondents? The approach MSDE took to engage LEAs should be utilized in
the future when engaging with external-facing stakeholders/the public, particularly rank and
file, classroom-based teachers, and staff.
Topic Area 2: Safely Reopening Schools and Sustaining their Safe Operations
The ARP ESSER plan outlines the importance of consulting with diverse stakeholders to help
address how funding and resources will be accessed by LEAs. While the latter is somewhat
addressed in terms of other state and federal programs, the only stakeholders mentioned
throughout MSDE’s plan are the SEA and LEAs. There is no discussion of how or when
feedback from educators, parents, students, or other groups will be considered in applying or
assessing the use of ARP ESSER funds relative to addressing academic learning loss, reopening
safely per the CDC and MDH guidelines, or implementing the MSDE Monitoring Program.
More specifically, Section C.1.viii. identifies educators and their unions as stakeholders from
whom input must be sought, yet the term “union” is not used once by MSDE in its plan, nor is
there any mention of how bargaining units or their representatives will be involved in such
regional monitoring.
It is of utmost importance that MSDE and MDH continue to coordinate with LEAs to ensure
efficient and effective social distancing, contracting tracing, and facility upgrades, especially
in communities where vaccine hesitancy is prevalent and the COVID-19 infection rate is high.
Any future plans should address accountability for systems that are not complying with MSDE
and MDH health and safety guidance, including a reporting system that may be utilized by
school employees, students, and/or parents. Additionally, that guidance should be clear enough
that all members of the school community will adhere to it to ensure the health and safety of
all school employees, students, and surrounding communities.
Finally, decisions that affect how and when schools are open should always consider the health
and safety of students as well as educators and how the educational program will be affected
by that decision. Too often, changes are made that overlook the considerable concerns of
educators at all levels. In the past, this has created intense stress, anxiety, and exponential work
to accommodate last-minute transitions.
Topic Area 3: Planning for the Use and Coordination of ARP ESSER Funds
MSEA supports the need for structures around the usage of funds, including the development
of processes providing for broader and more relevant stakeholder input, but setting aside $16
million of ESSER funds to establish a Compliance and Monitoring Branch is an overreach and
extension of unnecessary bureaucracy. The creation of this Branch is also duplicative of the
role the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (Blueprint) Accountability and Implementation Board
(AIB) is designed to serve. The AIB is charged with developing a Comprehensive
Implementation Plan for the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, evaluating plans and data
submitted by LEAs, and monitoring school system compliance with the Blueprint and school-
level expenditures. MSDE should instead coordinate its efforts by monitoring the actual use of
funds, working in tandem with the AIB and its regional teams. This would require only a
fraction of the $16 million initially set aside for this Compliance and Monitoring Branch. It is
crucial that MSDE maximizes its funds to areas of urgent needs identified by LEAs, rather than
create parallel systems. Alternatively, MSDE could consider utilizing some of the funds it
intends to create the Compliance and Monitoring Branch to create a reserve fund for
emergencies. Presently, MSDE does not have plans to create such an emergency fund and with
the variability of the past year and a half, it is an avenue of predictability worth pursuing.
Topic Area 4: Maximizing State-Level Funds to Support Students
The COVID-19 pandemic brought about unprecedented disruption in student learning and a
significant impact on students’ mental and social-emotional health. This disruption impacted
subgroups of students who, even before the pandemic, were performing below their peers and
not receiving access to the great education we know Maryland provides. While the learning of
both English learners (EL) and children with disabilities suffered disproportionately, there is
no acknowledgment of the other marginalized groups of students whose learning was also
severely impacted, including, but not limited to, students who identify as members of the
BIPOC and LGBTQ+ community. As such, all evidence-based programmatic support should
target all historically marginalized groups and MSDE should seek advice from groups leading
this work such as PFLAG and FreeState Justice.
Additionally, MSDE should communicate to the public the standards it intends to apply when
selecting partners to administer evidence-based summer/enrichment programs as well as
supplemental tutoring programs. The use of a competitive grant competition among LEAs and
community-based agencies to develop or enhance afterschool programs when faced with
prescriptive requirements of the Blueprint to increase instructional effectiveness through
professional learning and peer collaboration time during the school day is misaligned. Instead,
the Blueprint requires more teachers to permit collaboration in order to continuously improve
instruction through regular review of individual student needs and the development of plans to
address those needs, including tutoring or working with the most challenging students. While
LEAs should receive information and guidance about tutoring programs MSDE partners with
to support its evidence-based work, it should be able to develop supplemental tutoring
programs provided through existing school employees, hire tutors as bargaining unit members,
and add permanent tutoring positions, wherever possible. The use of ARP ESSER funds to
accelerate the implementation of the Blueprint and career ladders would result in a significantly
greater impact than a competitive grant program that would last over a period of three years.
Topic Area 5: Supporting LEAs in Planning for and Meeting Students’ Needs
A core focus is the need to ensure that all students and educators are equipped with the
necessary resources to address the learning loss due to remote learning. All educators, including
ESPs, need access to extensive professional development and pedagogical resources to address
student learning loss with a focus on students who experienced the most detrimental learning
loss, like children with disabilities who also identify as members of the BIPOC and LGBQT+
community. This also includes the additional programs that have been created to address the
social-emotional needs of students through the regional crisis response and clinical support
teams. The creation of the Crisis Response and Clinical Support Teams and the Afterschool
Grant Programs are among the new programs that MSDE has proposed to address academic
learning loss and the social-emotional needs of students. However, the following remains
unclear: Who will staff the Crisis Response and Clinical Support Teams?; How will it ensure
this program does not adversely affect the retention and recruitment of counselors, social
workers, and therapists needed in our schools? How will MSDE coordinate services of students
with the Crisis Response Teams and students who receive services at their school?
Additionally, how does MSDE plan to equitably use ARP ESSER to recruit staff for afterschool
and extended day programs? How will MSDE use the LEAs to hire within bargaining units
first, and not make partnerships with private entities who often operate and profit with other
motivations not aligned with the goals of ARP ESSER recovery?
Topic Area 6: Supporting the Educator Workforce
Supporting the educator workforce is a multi-tiered issue. From addressing the need to hire
more educators and other professional positions to addressing the mental health needs of
educators, we need to consider all school member communities that were impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic, from administrators to ESPs. How will special educators be expected to
address the backlog of hours and support for students with IEPs, 504s, or other out-of-
classroom services? Additionally, how will MSDE assist LEAs to address the need for
recruiting more school counselors, psychologists, and social workers to support students this
upcoming 2021-2022 school year? To this end, MSDE’s plan must prospectively address
current and future sources of stress and trauma and how educators themselves will be involved
in finding ways to cope and deal with them. There must be a concerted effort by MSDE to find
ways to reduce workload and not add to it by creating new requirements.
It is imperative that as Maryland looks to reopen schools, we anticipate the gaps that exist and
the needs of LEAs. Overall, there is a great need for educators to participate in professional
development (PD) to be fully prepared for the 2021-2022 school year. Yet, statewide
participation in PD has been extremely low; and clear steps have not been outlined to identify
dedicated time for PD that is meaningful and relevant as educators prepare for the fall. We also
advocate that these PD experiences be job-embedded opportunities. Furthermore, there is still
a digital divide for educators and students, especially Education Support Professionals (ESPs),
and food insecurity issues that are prevalent all over the state.
Topic Area 7: Monitoring and Measuring Progress
There is no doubt that educators, school personnel, and families alike want a full return to in-
person learning next school year. While some students benefited from distance learning, we
know students generally learn best in the classroom. As LEAs plan for a full return to school,
they must have adequate resources and guidance to do so. To date, the ARP ESSER planning
document for LEAs has yet to be released, leaving LEAs needing to allocate funds with little
oversight, guidance, or accountability. This, in turn, has delayed exclusive bargaining
representatives (unions) from gaining access to critical information, which may result in the
inability of LEAs to bargain in good faith over funds that are largely subject to collective
bargaining.
The monitoring and measuring plan seem to lack detail concerning how LEAs will incorporate
stakeholders in its planning. How will they meet the requirement for stakeholder feedback in
the curation of this plan? MSDE’s omission of these details leaves no assurance for the
inclusion of critical stakeholders. As MSDE continues to refine its plan, we ask that it include
unions and other professional organizations as experts for both monitoring and measuring
progress.
MSDE suggests LEAs consider using or developing a Family Advisory Council for ARP
ESSER funds use, but again, neglects to provide any guidance about Family Advisory
Councils, who they can and should be composed of (e.g., educators, union representation), and
what role, outside of monitoring federal funding, they can and should serve. It would be
essential for MSDE to provide clarification on such a Council if it is advising LEAs to consider
them in their planning.
Finally, the MSDE should communicate to LEAs when early fall assessments will begin and
work with LEAs to determine the best start date. The timing of assessments can truly alter
Attachment J - Maryland American Rescue Plan
Elementary and Secondary Emergency Relief
(ARP ESSER) Fund Presentation to the State
Board July 27, 2021
File and source
- File
- department-of-education-pdf-www-ed-gov-eca459cd00.pdf
- Size
- 6,317,262 bytes
- SHA-256
- a85f83bdbada9e8a2138b420bad36912dd5739f9d126333ad55b1257db8d8384
- Original
- www.ed.gov