Maryland’s Blueprint for Education was designed to lift all students—especially the most vulnerable—through bold investments in early learning, teacher pay, and career readiness. But for rural counties on the Eastern Shore, the Blueprint is creating new burdens rather than lifting old ones.
Its vision is admirable. But its structure is rigid, its mandates inflexible, and its assumptions about local capacity dangerously out of touch. Nowhere is the disconnect more damaging than in special education.
Rural Counties, Real Struggles
Dorchester, Somerset, Kent, and Caroline counties are grappling with high student need and low tax bases. These communities face higher poverty, limited healthcare access, and workforce shortages—all while being held to the same fiscal match requirements as wealthier jurisdictions.
- Somerset County has the highest poverty rate in Maryland (20.1%) and a median household income of $52,462.
- Dorchester County reports 16.3% poverty, with one in four children living below the poverty line.
- Caroline County has seen early childhood poverty rise by 160% over the last decade.
- Kent County appears more affluent on paper, but that’s skewed by second-homeowners and retirees. Local students still face serious hardship, though funding formulas don’t reflect it.
These metrics matter. The Blueprint’s cost-sharing model relies on income and property data that inflate rural wealth, making it appear that these districts can afford more than they can. The result? Mandates without matching support.
Special Education: Legally Required, Logistically Ignored
Students with disabilities are entitled under federal law (IDEA) to services like speech therapy, occupational support, and behavioral intervention. Yet the Blueprint does little to fund or strengthen special education systems. There’s no Medicaid reform to streamline reimbursements, no pipeline for certified staff, and no investment in the infrastructure needed to keep districts in compliance.
The consequences are predictable:
- Students wait weeks—or months—for evaluations.
- IEP meetings are delayed due to staff shortages.
- Services lapse. Support positions remain vacant all year.
Rural districts don’t have a bench. If a specialist quits, there may be no one to replace them. And while these challenges mount, the Blueprint adds more: universal pre-K, new outcome metrics, instructional reforms—without addressing how schools are supposed to meet federal disability mandates at the same time.
Compliance Without Capacity
In small districts, central office staff juggle too many roles. One administrator might oversee special education, student services, Blueprint compliance, and Medicaid billing—all at once. That means less time for instructional leadership and IEP quality, and more time chasing deadlines that do little to help students.
The administrative burden is overwhelming—and it’s breaking the back of special education leadership in counties already stretched thin.
The Staffing Crisis Gets Worse
Yes, the Blueprint raises teacher pay. But it doesn’t solve the staffing crisis, especially for special education.
Eastern Shore districts struggle to attract certified special educators, therapists, and aides. Yet they’re still required to provide services—whether qualified professionals are available or not. That leaves teachers managing complex classrooms with minimal support, while also being expected to roll out new Blueprint initiatives. It’s unsustainable.
And Now, Federal Uncertainty
As state pressure grows, so does federal instability. With ongoing discussions about defunding or dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, IDEA enforcement could become even more decentralized. If that happens, states will bear the full weight of compliance—and rural districts will have even fewer protections.
In that environment, advocacy isn’t optional. It’s essential.
What Real Equity Requires
Equity doesn’t mean asking Caroline or Somerset County to match Montgomery County’s output with a fraction of the resources. It means recognizing when a system needs flexibility instead of penalties—and providing it.
Maryland must:
- Adjust the Blueprint’s local match formula to reflect actual district wealth and student need
- Fund a statewide infrastructure for Medicaid billing and compliance
- Provide tiered implementation timelines for rural districts
- Fully fund special education mandates rather than assuming they’re already covered
Without those changes, we risk systemic failure—starting with the students who need the most help.
Collaboration Must Lead
None of this is an argument against the Blueprint. Its vision matters. But good policy must evolve to meet reality. On the Eastern Shore, the reality is this: we believe in equity. We believe in reform. But we cannot meet ambitious goals without the tools to do so.
Parents and educators must work together—now more than ever. Advocacy and collaboration are the only paths forward. Because for students with disabilities, delays in reform aren’t just inconvenient. They’re life-changing.
Maryland has the chance to get this right. But only if it listens.
By Jennifer Dyson
About the Author:
Jennifer Dotson is the founder of CoEqual, a national special education advocacy platform. A former special education teacher, disability policy advisor, special education advocate, and mother of five, she provides one-to-one advocacy services nationwide and lives in Maryland and West Virginia. [email protected]
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.