Letter to Editor: Should We Be Satisfied with the Education Mid-Shore Kids Are Getting?

The Maryland legislature has resumed and once again public education reform (the Kirwan Commission’s Blueprint for Maryland’s Future) is in play. The price tag has only grown due to COVID, but so too has evidence that many Maryland kids do not have the education that makes for a lifetime of positive opportunities. Debate too often starts and ends with arguments about tolerable budget consequences and the inadequacy or generosity of current spending on education. Nor have partisans hidden their hopes and fears about winners and losers from Kirwan. Vocal supporters tout claims for communities of color in urban and densely populated suburban districts (most obviously Baltimore City and Prince George’s county). Vocal opponents focus on higher taxes and few if any benefits for more rural areas and whiter parts of the state.

Instead, debate should start from known facts of recent educational opportunity for kids, in particular for kids in the five county Mid-Shore region. We make no claim to know how much provision of educational opportunities would suffice. We do think that low levels of provision relative to the rest of the U.S. and the rest of Maryland argue against satisfaction with current education provision on the Mid-Shore. As we shall see, with the arguable exception of Queen Anne’s, many Mid-Shore kids are not being provided with a competitive level of educational opportunity.

What does big data from the work of Diversity Data Kids (diversitydatakids.org) tell us? Their indicators cover education, health and environment, and socio economic factors widely accepted as shaping American kids future incomes and life expectancy for each of the census tracts in the U.S. In effect, high levels of one or more sets of factors can compensate in terms of life opportunities for low levels on others. Of course, low levels on the other sets of factors as well compound limited opportunities. A relatively low level of educational opportunity clearly cannot offset low levels of other opportunity shapers. Indicators of educational provision span early childhood education, elementary math and reading scores, high school graduation rates and advanced placement course enrollment, college enrollment, teacher experience. Student poverty reduces provision, and the educational level of neighborhood adults boosts it.

We can stack Maryland census tracts by level of educational opportunity and cut the stack into five sections from the lowest 20% to the highest 20%. Kids going to school in the MODERATE (the middle 20%) category have about average educational opportunity when compared with other children in Maryland. Kids in the VERY LOW level have less educational opportunity than kids in the other 80% of Maryland census tracts. Kids in the VERY HIGH level have more educational opportunity than kids in the other 80% of Maryland census tracts. What share of Mid-Shore kids is in each section of the stack based on 2013-2018 data?

NONE of the five Mid- Shore counties has a noticeable share of kids in the VERY HIGH band so this band is left out of the chart above. Only Queen Anne’s has a majority of it’s kids in the HIGH band. While about 1 in 5 of Talbot’s kids are in HIGH category, the majority are in the MEDIUM/MODERATE band. About 1 in 5 are in LOW band, more than twice the share in Queen Anne’s.

Of the other Mid-Shore counties only Kent has a noticeable share of kids (about 1 in 5) even in the MODERATE band with a majority in the LOW category and almost 1 in 5 in the VERY LOW band. Caroline has all kids in the LOW category , an indication of equal if limited opportunity. Dorchester trails badly with 90% of it’s kids in VERY LOW in harsh contrast with Queen Anne’s and Talbot which had none.

It’s time for Maryland education policy makers and voters to think beyond the challenges in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County.

Davis B. Bobrow and Jeffrey Miller
Talbot County