MONTGOMERY

COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

www.montgomeryschoolsrnd.org

MARYLAND

October 24, 2016

Ms. Lyda L. Astrove, Esq.

Dear Ms. Astrove:

Thank you for your correspondence regarding a recent decision from the Maryland State Board
of Education (State Board) which upheld the Montgomery County Board of Education's
termination of a special education teacher for incompetence. You ask whether, in light of the
State Board's decision, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) plans to review the
Individualized Education Programs (IEP) of certain students during the relevant time period to
determine whether they are eligible for compensatory education services.
As I believe you will agree, the State Board's decision reflects MCPS' commitment to hold all of
its teachers accountable for high-quality teaching. The fact that one special education teacher
did not meet MCPS' high standards does not mean that the teacher's students did not receive the
free appropriate public education (FAPE) to which they are entitled. During the relevant time
period, educational services at the school were provided through the co-teaching model, in which
special education and general education teachers work in cohorts to plan, develop, and
implement lessons to meet the needs of all students. School administrators, as well as the special
education resource teacher, also worked with the teachers to facilitate students' success.
As set forth in the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision, which was adopted by the State
Board, the terminated special education teacher did not fulfill his responsibilities as a cohort
team member. However, his team members worked diligently to ensure that his failings did not
impact their students. For example, other cohort members assumed his lesson planning
responsibilities (which were ordinarily rotated among the cohort members.) The focus of the
ALJ's decision was on the competency of the teacher, not the measures undertaken by other staff
members to remediate the teacher's deficiencies and ensure student success. Thus, the ALJ's
decision does not discuss in detail the steps that were taken by other team members, such as the
special education resource teacher, to review and revise IEPs to ensure their appropriateness. It
is our understanding, that both the special and general education team members proactively took
steps to ensure that all of the students in the terminated teacher's classroom received appropriate
educational services.
As you note, the ALJ's decision reflects that when a new principal was appointed for the school
beginning in the 2010-2011 school year, she was concerned that the special education students
"were not making academic progress." That summary of the principal' s testimony needs to be
placed in context. The principal testified that she sought to ascertain why the students "were not
making academic progress as quickly as they should have" and determined that there needed to
be an increased focus on lesson planning. The principal testified that, prior to the start of the
2011-2012 school year, and repeatedly throughout the school year, teachers were provided with
850 Hungerford Drive e Rockville, Maryland 20850

Ms. Astrove

October 24, 2016

"intense professional development around lesson plans." The principal further testified that
subsequent data showed that "our teachers were building their capacity and making adequate
progress with planning lessons and that it was, in fact, having an impact on student learning."
Furthermore, it is important to note that the concerns which led to the intensive professional
development surrounding lesson planning were not an artifact of the co-teaching model. As set
forth in the ALJ's decision, the co-teaching model was implemented at the school at the
beginning of the 2011-2012 school year. Since it was implemented, the co-teaching model at
the school has been an effective service delivery model for both special and general education
students.

We appreciate your concern regarding the impact an incompetent teacher could have on the
students s/he serves. We most emphatically share that concern, which is why MCPS, through its
professional growth process, acted to dismiss the teacher in this matter. As a result of the
diligent efforts of the school team, there is no cause to believe that the performance of the
terminated teacher served to deny students the FAPE to which they were entitled. Moreover, as
you know, the IEPs of special education students are reviewed by the entire IEP team at least
annually, and more frequently if requested by a parent/guardian or team member. Thus, any
concerns with student achievement would have been addressed at that time at the IEP meetings.
MCPS will continue to monitor the services currently provided to students in the co-taught
classes served by the terminated teacher during the relevant time period to confirm their
appropriateness.
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us. If you have any further questions or concerns,
please contact us at the Office of the General Counsel at 240-314-4840, or the Office of Special
Education at 301-279-3604, or via e-mail.
Sincerely,

Joshua I. Civin
General Counsel

Chrisandra A. Richardson
Associate Superintendent
JIC:CAE;:pgw
Copy to:
Dr. Navarro
Dr. Williams
Ms. Margoles