| Maryland
Costing Out | Recent
Events | Useful Resources
Historical Background In 1983, Maryland's highest
court rejected an "equity" challenge to the state's education finance
system, in Hornbeck v. Somerset County Board of Education, 458 A.2d 758,
holding that the state constitution did not mandate equality in per-pupil spending
among the state's school districts. However, the court also held that the education
clause of the Maryland constitution embodies a right to "an adequate education
measured by contemporary educational standards." In 1994, the ACLU
and Baltimore City initiated suits against the state, alleging that the city's
students were not receiving an adequate education. In a 1996 summary judgment
decision, in the consolidated Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education
case, the trial court agreed, but the cause of the inadequacies was in dispute.
On the eve of trial, the parties entered into a settlement that provided a modest
increase in state funding for the Baltimore City Public Schools in return for
changes in school governance.
Plaintiffs returned to court in 2000, and the circuit
court declared that the state "is still not providing
the children of Baltimore City...a constitutionally
adequate education," has failed to comply with
the 1996 Consent Decree, and needs to provide "additional
funding of approximately $2,000 to $2,600 per pupil"
in 2001 and 2002. The state did not comply with that
order; but it did establish a commission (the “Thorton
Commission”) to study and make recommendations
on school funding.
In April 2002, Maryland enacted a new finance system,
based on the Thornton Commission's recommendations (see
below), including sending more state funding to high-need
districts, and to be phased in over six years. After
this major reform was passed, the Bradford plaintiffs
asked the circuit court to retain jurisdiction, pending
implementation. The court agreed.
Costing
Out
In June 2001, two independent studies of the cost of
providing sufficient funds to enable students to meet
Maryland's achievement standards were released. Both
recommend large increases in annual state aid to Maryland
school districts – as much as 44% more. The state's
Commission
on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence (Thornton
Commission), established by the legislature and governor
to study the school funding system, hired a nationally
known school-finance firm to determine the costs. Separately,
the New Maryland Education Coalition, a nonprofit citizens'
advocacy group, hired a different nationally known firm
to do the same.
While one firm used the
professional judgment methodology, the other used both the "successful schools"
and professional judgment approaches to analyze Maryland's school funding needs.
Despite some differences in their methodologies, they reached similar conclusions.
Recent Events
The latest decision in the Bradford v. Maryland
State Board of Education case came June 9, 2005,
when the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court)
ruled on an earlier state circuit court order that the
legislature should appropriate extra funds to the Baltimore
City School District to help manage budget shortfalls.
Though the Court of Appeals reversed circuit court Judge
Joseph Kaplan's determination that the Education Fiscal
Accountability and Oversight Act, which requires school
districts to eliminate deficits or face cuts in state
aid, was unconstitutional, its primary finding was that
other aspects of the order were not final, and thus
not subject to appeal. These aspects of the circuit
court opinion included the determination that Baltimore
City students were being deprived of their right to
a thorough and efficient education, as well as precatory
language urging the State to increase funding. As a
result of the Court of Appeals’ decision, both
sides in the case claimed partial victory; the State
heralded the confirmation of the Act's constitutionality
while the ACLU and Baltimore City underlined that the
case was still alive in the circuit court.
Other Litigation
In April 2006, students with the Baltimore Algebra
Project filed a motion in circuit court, requesting
temporary control over the state school board, and they
requested that the state provide $800 million for Baltimore
City schools. The students based their claim on Judge
Kaplan’s 2004 determination that the State had
under-funded the Baltimore City schools by $400 million
to $800 million since 2000. Judge Kaplan denied the
motion, but called upon the school district, the City
of Baltimore, the Bradford plaintiffs, and
the students of the Baltimore Algebra Project to work
together to determine the cost of implementing the “corrective”
actions mandated for the Baltimore City schools by the
State Board of Education.
Useful Resources
Molly A. Hunter, Maryland
Enacts Modern, Standards-Based Education Finance System:
Reforms Based on Adequacy Costing-Out Studies and Parallel
New York Court Funding Principles, Access Policy
Brief (2002).
Ensuring
All Children the Opportunity for an Adequate Education:
A Costing-out Primer, CFE/ACCESS Policy Brief (2002).
Diane W. Cipollone, Gambling on a Settlement: The Baltimore
City Schools Adequacy Litigations, 23 Journal of Education
Finance 87 (Summer 1998).
Last Updated: March, 2008
|
