Bradford v. Maryland
History
Timeline
Plaintiffs
Bradford Documents
Similar Cases

The Continued Campaign for Funding
School Facilities
Other Issues
Documents

Bradford and Thornton timeline

1983: Hornbeck v. Somerset Co. et al-  Maryland Court of Appeals rules that state constitution does not guarantee equal funding for each school district, but leaves open the question whether the Constitution requires that children receive an “adequate” education.

1989-93: ACLU develops theory for new lawsuit based on state constitution’s guarantee of a “thorough & efficient” education, then uses it as leverage in the legislature as part of an attempt to obtain funding for City children. The legislative effort is largely unsuccessful.

1993-94: ACLU testifies before and works with staff of Governor’s Commission on School Funding (“Hutchinson Commission”), which finds that educating a poor child requires approximately $2,000 more per child to eliminate barriers to success.

December 6, 1994: ACLU files Bradford suit against the state of Maryland on behalf of at-risk children in Baltimore City, citing how the City has the lowest test scores from elementary to high school levels, lowest graduation rates and highest number of at-risk students in the state.  State counter-argues that funding is sufficient and that problems lie in school system’s management.

September 15, 1995: The Mayor, City Council and Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City also file a suit claiming that the State fails to provide sufficient funding for an adequate education. This lawsuit is consolidated into Bradford.

October 1996: Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan agrees with ACLU’s arguments and rules that the state constitution does guarantee children an adequate education (as measured by contemporary educational standards), and that students in Baltimore City public schools are not receiving that constitutionally adequate education.  He sets a trial date on the question of the appropriate remedy.

November 1996: On eve of the trial, Baltimore City, the State of Maryland and the ACLU enter into a Partnership Agreement under which City schools are established as a separate entity governed by a new school board and CEO.  The partnership also requires a Master Plan for management reform and student achievement. The agreement includes five-year funding for Baltimore City schools, beginning with $30 million for the first year and continuing with $50 million per year for the following four years.

April 1997: After a long debate, the Maryland General Assembly enacts the Partnership Agreement legislation (SB795).
http://mlis.state.md.us/1997rs/billfile/SB0795.htm

Spring 1998-99: The governor’s budgets threaten to erode full funding under Partnership Agreement.  The ACLU successfully advocates with legislators to ensure City’s fair share.

1999: Expert Metis Associates is hired to conduct “interim evaluation” of BCPSS’s progress. Meanwhile, the ACLU works with BCPSS to develop a Remedy Plan for adequacy. The plan is estimated to cost $265 million.

May 27, 1999: Governor Paris Glendening signs House Bill 10 into law. This bill creates the “Thornton” Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence to address statewide adequacy issues in funding.

Fall 1999: Thornton Commission begins meeting.

February 2000: Metis finds that there has been meaningful progress in improving education in Baltimore under the Partnership, but the schools still need significant additional funding — approximately $2,700 per pupil — for adequacy.

April 2000: Despite having a state budget surplus of over one billion dollars, requests by the BCPSS and ACLU for partial funding of the Remedy Plan result with an increase of only $8 million for BCPSS.

June 2000: Based on the results of the Metis report, Baltimore City schools and the ACLU file court papers in accordance with the consent decree asking Judge Kaplan to rule that the state of Maryland is required to provide substantial additional funding to Baltimore City schools for staff and programs to reach adequacy.

June 2000: Judge Kaplan rules that the education being provided to Baltimore City school students is still constitutionally inadequate and that it will take an additional $2,000 to $2,600 per child per year ($200-260 million) from the state to meet its constitutional obligation of an adequate education for Baltimore City children.

Winter 2000-2001: The State of Maryland appeals Judge Kaplan’s ruling, then withdraws its appeal, leaving the ruling as a final, binding order in the case, with the impact that the State must take action to comply with the ruling.

March 2001: Baltimore City schools receive additional $12 million (for a total of $20 million) for “Remedy Plan” appropriation.  Meanwhile, Bradford plaintiffs await Thornton Commission findings.

January 2002: The Thornton Commission issues its recommendations for a new funding formula, which is weighted for children with greater needs, and calls for a statewide $1.1 billion increase in funding.

2002: The ACLU works with legislative leaders, hires lobbyists and, with the new Maryland Education Coalition, builds the statewide Coalition to Support the Thornton Commission to advocate for passage of the Thornton Commission’s recommendations.  The ACLU also works with Baltimore City parents, students and supporters to generate thousands of letters to legislators and the Governor. 

April 2002: The Maryland General Assembly passes The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act (SB 856), which includes $1.3 billion for statewide education funding and a projected $258 million for Baltimore City schools, increasing funding overall but especially for at-risk children. Funding is to be phased in over six years.

June 2002: The ACLU returns to court and, over the objection of the Maryland State Department of Education, gets agreement from Judge Kaplan to continue judicial oversight of Bradford case, beyond the original five year consent decree. Judge Kaplan notes his June 2000 order for increased funding for BCPSS has not been met.

April 2003: Second year Thornton funds are included in the state budget. Facing a state budget deficit, the ACLU helps to re-energize state coalition to support the new formula and funding.

February - March 2004: The ACLU, working with the statewide Thornton coalition, floods Annapolis with over 50,000 post cards and holds a rally with over 12,000 people to support full funding of the Bridge to Excellence Act. The effort is successful, as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act is reaffirmed, ensuring that most of the funding will continue to phase in as anticipated.

March - August 2004: With a budget deficit of $58 million, BCPSS agrees to a fiscal recovery plan to pay down its deficit in two years. The ACLU returns to court attempting to restore funding to the BCPSS fiscal year 2005 budget and stop cuts to academic programs that negatively impact the students of BCPSS.

August 2004: Judge Kaplan rules budget cuts implemented to restore fiscal solvency to BCPSS have resulted in reduced educational opportunity to students and that $30-45 million in funds must be restored to the system, preferably with additional city and/or state revenue.  State announces plans to challenge the decision in Maryland’s Court of Appeals — the highest legal body in the state.

January 2005: With the state challenging Judge Kaplan’s August 2004 ruling in the Maryland Court of Appeals, the ACLU, Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore all asked the court to reject the state’s appeal. Their effort was joined by many other prominent groups and individuals — including Dr. Alvin Thornton, the Maryland League of Women Voters and the National School Boards Association — with Friend of the Court briefs designed to establish the legal precedent of Judge Kaplan’s ruling.

June 2005: The Court of Appeals sides with the ACLU and other groups, throwing out the state’s appeal on the grounds that one cannot preemptively challenge a ruling to get the trial judge out of the picture. The decision meant the governor and General Assembly would have to meet the annual funding requirements established by the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act.

CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY