AIB Special Meeting - January 10, 2025

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps it would be helpful just for the benefit of everyone who might be watching or listening to talk for a minute about what we mean when we talk about collaborative time. Under the Blueprint for Maryland's Future, the law calls for teachers to have less time teaching in front of the classroom so that they can have a little more time during their working time to collaborate in professional learning communities, working with their colleagues to analyze student outcomes and work collectively on lesson plans to meet within grade and within subject matter across grades, to collaborate on lessons and evaluating how students are doing, and then developing and identifying needed interventions for students and actually working with them one-on-one and in small groups to help them master the content and stay on track for college and career readiness, which is of course what we call the North Star of the blueprint – that we want all of our students to be college and career ready before they leave high school and by the end of 10th grade for as many as possible, so that they have those really robust opportunities while in high school for post-CCR pathways. The blueprint calls for phasing in this additional time over an eight-year period beginning in the next school year. In the blueprint's model, the way to bring this additional time and make it possible is you need more teachers in each school. In order to implement the collaborative time that the blueprint calls for, the estimate was that an additional 25% of teachers would be needed across the state to make this additional time possible for all teachers. That equates to between 12,000 and 15,000 additional teachers. As the chair talked about just now at our briefing last month, the State Department of Education shared data that shows that we have currently in our existing workforce over 6,000 teachers who are what's called conditionally certified or not fully certified in our classrooms, and another over 2,000 essentially vacant positions that are being filled by either other staff covering for those classes or by long-term substitutes or other types of staff. So the current condition in our schools is that we don't have enough certified teachers for our existing needs, and that really raises the question of the ability for the local school systems to be able to begin implementing this piece of the blueprint starting in the next school year. Happy to answer any other questions or carry on.

So there have been – prior when the commission was meeting, there was a shortage in teachers at that time, so it's not a new thing that we have conditionally certified teachers in the state, that's been an ongoing challenge. But since the pandemic, the percentage has significantly increased from a thousand or less teachers to over 6,000. And typically many of our districts maybe only had a handful of conditionally certified teachers, who now have hundreds. So the challenge since the pandemic has really been how to help teachers who are in our classrooms and are conditionally certified to earn that full certification. This is oftentimes referred to as grow your own, to look to those folks who are already in our schools and want to be in the classroom and help them become fully certified. So there was legislation a couple of years ago to support grow your own programs more both in postsecondary and also in our high schools to get students more interested in teaching. And then last year, legislation passed around creating pathways for conditionally certified teachers to become certified in more innovative ways. So there have been some actions taken to address this demand. However, the number of conditionally certified teachers is still growing, so hopefully we're almost at the top of the curve and some of these efforts are going to start to yield more results. But at this point, I think we also need to think about what other innovative strategies there are for higher education and in the school systems. I'm sure there are lots of ideas about what we could do to support bringing more teachers into our classrooms.

Okay, yeah, I really appreciate this and I think we do have a national and certainly a statewide teacher shortage and we have to address that first. And so I think anything that we can do to be putting those efforts into the right spaces. I have a couple questions. My first one is: will there be then some sort of a redirection – if this would be considered, is there some sort of redirection of funds that would allow for the real focus on attracting, retaining, training teachers? And then my second question is for school districts, because we know that our school districts across Maryland are so unique and some are certainly ready to start to explore collaborative time, some are not. Will there be opportunities for some districts to move forward if they are ready to do so?

No, I think that was well said.

Yes, oh Mr. Chair, you kind of stole my thunder, I was going to beat that drum a little bit more. I do understand the teacher shortage, I understand it's uneven across the state, but it is real and it is national. And so I don't want the AIB to unnecessarily burden the districts with trying to staff those new positions even though I think they're important for teachers to be able to collaborate and meet our students where they are. But I did want to uplift those comments from last meeting as well, just to say that it's fine for us to consider adjusting the timeline of implementation on this particular initiative, but we have to make sure that when the deadline does come that we're not in the same position. And I think it's pretty naive of us to pretend like the teaching profession doesn't have an image issue, an image issue that's been created by policies at the state and local level, and it makes people not want to be teachers, it makes students not want to be teachers. And I'm hopeful that when we say things like 'everything's on the table, we want to think about all different ways that we can address the teacher shortage,' that we are not just reiterating ideas that we have, but we are being honest with the reality of what's going on in schools and why people – students – might not want to spend another 30 years in them after they've already spent 13. So I'd like to engage more in this topic with some ideas that make schools more welcoming places, more joyous places. I think that we need to get more conversation with both teachers and administrators frankly to see what is it that we can do to make the jobs of teachers things that bring them happiness, so that the kids will see the happiness and that they'll actually want to consider their career. But if we're just going to dredge up the same ideas that we've had, I don't think we're going to be in any different kind of position in three, four, or five years. It might take to implement collaborative time. Thank you.

Yeah, Vice Chair Kerwin, and then also Member Moo and Member Stapleton.

Sure. I want to express appreciation for Commissioner Robinson's comments; I think they are right on point. And I think if we are going to push back the implementation of this initiative, which makes good sense given the circumstances, we do need to make some investments in both trying to understand how we can make the profession more attractive along the lines that Commissioner Robinson mentioned. I think there is another point I want to make: it seems to me that there are two avenues for filling this gap. Basically, there is the grow your own, but those people are already in the classroom by and large, getting more certified teachers into the classroom. As far as I know, there are two sources: those coming out of our higher education institutions in teacher preparation programs, and teachers we recruit from other states. So it seems to me that we need a real marketing campaign to try to – there are many positive things despite the issues Commissioner Robinson mentioned. There are some very attractive things in Maryland in comparison to other states: the compensation issues, the career ladders, the promise of collaborative time, etc. So we need a real marketing campaign, it would seem to me. But the other thing that I hope we can think about, working with higher education institutions and MHEC, is how we put more emphasis on building our teacher preparation program. To me, there is an analogy: I remember in the 1990s I was president of College Park, and as we approached Y2K, there was enormous concern about not having enough computer science folks in the workplace, and there were initiatives to grow the size of computer science programs, and they were very successful. In fact, after Y2K we had an abundance of computer science folks. So one of the things that I hope we will take some time to think about is creating some conversations and partnerships with the higher education sector about the crisis we face in our state and the importance of building and strengthening our teacher preparation programs. As Member Robinson said, we can't just pause this and hope the problems are going to take care of themselves; we've got to be proactive in addressing this shortfall. Thank you.

Member Moo, yes.

Yes, so I guess just to further this conversation, piggyback off of what Dr. Kerwin said and Member Robinson, I think looking at this as not just a recruitment challenge but it's also a retention challenge, because I think that's the other element that we haven't spent enough time talking about. And I think Member Robinson's portion of this is talking about not just making the profession attractive for people coming in, but also what are we doing to make this a sustainable profession for those who we currently have. What are we doing in order to make schools a place where teachers don't feel beaten down every day, where they feel valued, they feel empowered? And what are we able to do to create positive work environments that not only attract people into the profession but also make the current people that are teaching feel valued and want to stay? I know we've talked on previous occasions about really studying this more robustly through potentially a supply-demand study, doing some kind of deep dive into the numbers both the numbers that MSDE presented last week but also how these project out in the future, how these trends compare to other states. I think Maryland is unique because we import many teachers; how have those trends been changing over time? And as Member Kerwin was saying, what are we doing to talk to those current educators or people who are looking to become educators in states outside of Maryland and talk about all that we have to offer in terms of our career ladders and higher starting salaries and positive working conditions and all the other elements that are really positive about the blueprint that can serve as a magnet for people that want to be in the education space. And also doing some qualitative focus groups and talking to current teachers or perspective teachers on what is keeping them in the profession, what would make them choose to stay additional two years or three years or five years in a Maryland school, or for those not yet in the profession, what would get them to eventually land and stay in a Maryland school. So I think there's just a lot more learning and research that can be done. I don't know how we go about initiating the study if we have partners that have knowledge or expertise or interest that would be willing to partner with us on this, but I think we need a lot more information in order to better strategize about how we can maintain better retention of our teachers and elevate the recruitment of new teachers.

I think it's my turn. So I want to go in a slightly different direction. Member Lynch had asked a couple of questions when she started and I don't think we've touched on one of those questions, which was: the districts are very different and unique, and there may be some districts that are in a position to go forward with some collaborative time or potentially some schools within some districts. Is it possible that we could either devote some technical assistance funds or carve out some of the funding to support this sort of activity and use it as a pilot so that they can inform other districts about how well it went, what to do, what not to do?

No, I was just going to say I think that goes very well with making additional investments using funds that will not be able to go towards collaborative time in the short term to support those LEAs that are prepared and able to move ahead, either district-wide or by schools, and also building on that to model different approaches to providing collaborative time in terms of school scheduling and thinking about roles and use of time. There may be very innovative ways to do this that don't involve bringing as many additional teachers on board.

Yeah, just one more comment. First of all, I really appreciate Member Stapleton's point and I think we certainly should advocate that that be done. In those districts where it is possible, and in fact I know there are some districts that are finding ways to build collaborative time. There was a marvelous example in Frederick County where beginning science teachers were working with more experienced teachers and practicing the delivery of instruction in front of them before they went into class. That's sort of an example of how collaborative time is supposed to work. So there undoubtedly examples out there that are working. But I want to come back to Member Moo's comment. I think it would be beneficial – what we need is, I don't know what to call it, a business plan so to speak, a model of what is it going to take to get us how many new teachers do we need, and what is a scenario, an example of how we with a timeline, what is it going to take to build up to the capacity that we're looking for. And I think it would be good if the board charged you, Madam Executive Director, to find a way to do the kind of analysis and model building that would show what it's going to take to get us to where we need to be with new teachers.

I think actually this question was brought up by Member Lynch at the very beginning, but I don't know if we got more context around this. Can we talk a little bit about or help me understand how adjustments in the timeline, what the fiscal impact of the adjustments to the timeline are, and how if in any way this impacts the foundation amount?

So the blueprint has dedicated funding to support collaborative time that is part of the foundation formula. There's a specific amount of per pupil funding allocated dedicated to collaborative time implementation beginning in fiscal year 26, beginning in the next fiscal year, and then over the next eight years it phases up to the full amount. In the coming year it's $163 per pupil, and then at full implementation it would be $1,527. The way the formulas work, you take the estimated cost and then bring it down to a per pupil estimate in order to distribute the funds through the formula based on enrollment. It is a part of the foundation program, it's like a carve out of the per pupil foundation amount. In the first year it's that $163 per pupil that is currently in the foundation formula for collaborative time. There are other amounts that are a percentage of the overall foundation amount. The way our funding formulas work, there's the foundation amount and then the three other formulas for students with special needs – called At Promise program in the blueprint – for compensatory education which uses free and reduced price meal count as the proxy, multilingual learner formula, and special education formula. Each for each student they get an additional amount above the foundation amount calculated as a percentage of the foundation amount. So a multilingual learner would get 113% of the foundation amount. So they are connected mathematically in law.

Well, the Blueprint for Maryland's Future is funded through a special fund that has dedicated revenue sources to support the cost of implementing the blueprint initiatives. The special funds primarily come from gaming and also online sales tax revenues, but there are other smaller revenue sources as well that have been dedicated to the fund by the General Assembly over a number of years. The long-term projection for the blueprint fund as everyone's aware is that there is a structural deficit that begins in the out years. We'll have to see what the latest data from the Department of Legislative Services produces around those projections, but in the out years there is a projected shortfall in revenues to cover the full cost of the blueprint. There is also separately a General Fund budget deficit that the state is facing in the current and upcoming fiscal year in FY25 and FY26. The General Fund deficit – the blueprint is not contributing to that General Fund deficit, it is part of the special fund. So I think there is some confusion potentially about thinking that the General Fund deficit includes the blueprint, which it does not.

Very factually, it is not contributing to that at all.

Thank you so much. It's more or less a comment. I'm just very appreciative of this discussion during this meeting because it demonstrates that we're not just kicking the can down the road when it comes to collaborative time. We know factually that we have shortages, we know factually some of the things that Member Robinson brought up about the teaching profession. It shows that we are seriously considering strategies for retention, recruitment, looking at higher education partnerships, even bringing up the financial impact that Member Moo just brought up, recognizing the diversity of individual LEAs and their readiness to possibly move forward with implementing some type of pilot and getting support for that collaborative time model. So just to wrap it up, this has been a really good discussion showing our tenacity as a board moving forward.

Yes, Doc, Member Dos kind of reminded me as well. I do also appreciate the inquiry stance that we've been taking. I think it's important to gather information that we need to make better decisions, and pilots are part of that and research is part of that. All those things help us make better decisions. I also believe that there is an opportunity to gather information from people that don't get as much publicity. So I do think at some point there should be a concerted effort to not only talk to teachers but talk to students as well. I don't know how to best facilitate that, but I think that's a piece that we're missing. I don't feel like every constituency gets as much opportunity to share their perspectives on the teaching profession and what's going on with it. So as we're gathering information, let's not omit voices that are relevant to the discussion.

No, I think before the discussion of the motion you discussed our upcoming board meetings. We have a joint board meeting with the Board of Education on January 28th and there will be additional items on that agenda related to other topics including pre-K and the career ladder, and particularly the career ladder. Under current law, the LEAs are required to submit a plan to implement collaborative time over the next eight years by July 1, which, given the conversation happening this legislative session, is not something that we would be able to expect the LEAs to submit such a plan by that date. So that's something we can discuss further with the State Board.