|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Home About the Education Reform Project Bradford v. Maryland Thornton Commission The Continued Campaign for Funding School Facilities Other Issues Documents |
DocumentsLegislation/Regulations ***************** Maryland Constitution, Article VIII: The section of the Maryland State Constitution used by the ACLU to argue that Baltimore City public school students needed, and were legally obligated to, receive more funding. Senate Bill 795: Passed in the 1997 session, this bill enacted the provisions of the Partnership Agreement. Senate Bill 856: Otherwise known as the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act, this 2002 bill legislatively implemented the findings of the Thornton Commission. Public School Facilities Act of 2004: Cross-listed as Senate Bill 787 and House Bill 1230, this piece of legislation implemented the $2 million emergency fund suggested by the Task Force to Study Public School Facilities. The act also followed the task force’s suggestion that the State should provide $250 million in school construction funds every year for eight years. http://mlis.state.md.us/2004rs/billfile/SB0787.htm Thornton Commission Final Report: This document from 2002 calls for an additional $1.3 billion in funding for public schools across the State. Thornton Commission website: http://mlis.state.md.us/other/education/ Earthman Report: An ACLU-sponsored 2004 study by Dr. Glen Earthman that looked at how the 31 different criteria for judging school facilities affect student achievement. Four State Study: A 2003 report issued by the ACLU, this study looked at how four states — Ohio, Wyoming, Arizona and New Jersey — evaluated and funded upgrades to school facilities. The League of Women Voters Baltimore City study on high stakes high school assessments Complaint in Bradford v. Maryland Excerpts from the complaint: A selected list of quotations taken from the ACLU’s complaint in Bradford v. Maryland. 2000 Filing: The ACLU went back to court in 2000, arguing that the Partnership Consent Decree required the state to provide more funding for the city schools. 2002 Filing: With the passage of the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act, the ACLU asked Judge Kaplan to extend his oversight of the Bradford case so that his court would continue monitoring the implementation of state funding and school reform efforts. 2004 Filings: After a multi-million dollar deficit threatened to undermine recent progress, the ACLU returned to court, asking Judge Kaplan to acknowledge that a constitutional right to education trumped financial solvency. Filing 1, Filing 2. Memo in support 2005 Appellate Filing: The ACLU’s response to the State’s challenge of Bradford in the Maryland Court of Appeals. 1996 Order: This is Circuit Court Judge Joseph H. H. Kaplan’s approval of a motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the Bradford case. This ruling found that Baltimore City schoolchildren were not receiving a constitutionally adequate education. 1996 Consent Decree: This is the agreement between Baltimore City, the State of Maryland and the ACLU agreed on to avoid going to trial in the Bradford case. The terms of the agreement dramatically restructured the management structure of the Baltimore City Public School System and secured $230 million in additional funding over five years. 2000 Order 2000 Opinion: Judge Kaplan’s decree that Baltimore City schools needed an additional $2,000 - $2,600 per student. 2002 Order 2002 Opinion: Judge Kaplan’s ruling extending the oversight of the Bradford case beyond the initial five-year period. 2004 Order: Judge Kaplan’s response to cuts stemming from the BCPSS’s large deficit and the timeline for funding his 2000 order. 2004 Opinion: Jude Kaplan’s full opinion about the BCPSS budget cuts and the failure to implement his 2002 decision. 2005 Order 2005 Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion: The response by the highest court in Maryland upholding Judge Kaplan’s 2004 ruling. December 6, 1994 — ACLU Announces Filing of Bradford v. Maryland November 12, 1996 — ACLU Declares Victory for the Children of Baltimore in Education Suit November 12, 1996 — Framework Reached to Resolve Three Baltimore City Schools Suits July 9, 2003 — Thornton Funding Required to Provide Constitutional Adequacy for Schools January 13, 2004 — ACLU Releases Expert Report on Maryland School Facilities August 20, 2004 — Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan Rules in Favor of the Students of Baltimore City Public School System August 25, 2004 — Judge calls for ‘Continued Progress Towards Constitutional Adequacy’ for Baltimore City Schoolchildren January, 2005 — Dr. Thornton, State, and National Groups Join City Parents in Court March 7, 2005 — Baltimore City Parents and Students Ask State’s Highest Court to Uphold Education Funding Decision June 9, 2005 — ACLU/Bradford Plaintiffs Statement on Court of Appeals 6-9-05 Ruling Questions and Answers — Regarding the Bradford v. Maryland suit filed by the ACLU of Maryland Failure To Comply — A 2004 fact sheet on how the State of Maryland failed to comply with Judge Kaplan’s 2000 order for additional funding for Baltimore City schools. Give Them the Resources They Need — Reaction from Bradford witnesses on the return to court in 2004. Geographic Cost of Education Index — An explanation on how GCEI works and how the state has failed to implement it properly. What is the Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act of 2002? ACLU Position Statement on School Facilities School Facilities Deficiencies: A chart explaining how much it would cost to fix all the facilities problems in Maryland’s school buildings. It also shows how much it would cost just to fix Baltimore City. The Increasing BCI: A chart showing how the increasing Building Construction Index—a measure of construction costs—has raised the cost of repairing Maryland’s school building deficiencies. ACLU Testimony in Opposition to High Stakes High School Assessments The Baltimore Sun, April 4, 2002: State Must Fund Education Equality by Bebe Verdery, director Education Reform Project The Gazette, February 14, 2003: Education Funding: Unlikely Political Football by Bebe Verdery, director Education Reform Project July 7, 2004 Ross Declaration: Comments by expert witness Dr. Steven Ross about BCPSS’s plan to pay down its debt July 23, 2004 Expert and Witness Testimony: Depositions of Dr. Steven Ross, an expert on education, and Bradford witnesses Chantel Morant and Keith Bradford. |
|||||
 |
||||||
CONTACT US | SEARCH | PRIVACY POLICY |
ACLU OF MARYLAND | 3600 CLIPPER MILL RD, SUITE 350
|
|||