BrownWatch

View Original

MD Court Allows Consent Decree to Expire Despite Baltimore Public Fool System's Continuing Failure to Provide Adequate Education to Mostly Black Kids, who Have Near Lowest Math/Reading Levels in US

From [HERE] Maryland’s second-highest court has rejected arguments to bring back a decades-old consent decree stemming from a lawsuit over state funding for Baltimore City Public Schools.

In a 2-1 decision last week, the Maryland Appellate Court sent the long-running Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education case back to Baltimore Circuit Court with instructions to dismiss a 2019 petition that alleged the education provided by the school system remained “constitutionally inadequate.” The 1996 consent decree that mandated increased state funding, which the plaintiffs had sought to re-enforce, should also be dissolved, Senior Judge Deborah S. Eyler wrote in the majority opinion, finding it was no longer relevant.

The latest decision in the 30-year-long legal saga vacated a Baltimore Circuit Judge’s previous ruling regarding school funding, but still ultimately rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to revive the litigation over claims of deficient education standards at city schools. The lawsuit, initially lodged against the Maryland State Board of Education in 1994 by parents of city school students, led to the consent decree, funding fixes at the state level and an overhaul of the city school system’s governance.

City schools received more than $2 billion in increased state funding due to the consent decree and a related education funding formula was adopted by the state in 2002, according to the ACLU, which represented the plaintiffs alongside the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

“If parents of children currently enrolled in the BCPSS are so inclined, they may file a new lawsuit upon allegations of a present violation of the children’s constitutional right to a thorough and efficient public education, based on circumstances as they now exist,” the appellate court said in a summary of the majority’s opinion. [MORE]

According to the dissent:

The voluminous record and the briefs present staggering evidence in support of the Bradford Plaintiffs’ contention that children who attend many Baltimore City public schools do not receive an education that is adequate by contemporary standards. The studies and expert reports link the conditions in which children learn to their educational outcomes, and the overall conditions in Baltimore City public schools are exceptionally poor. Out of approximately 160 school buildings, only fourteen have working water fountains. Ninety-seven schools have inadequate electrical systems. Student accounts describe vermin infestations—including mice, rats, and cockroaches—in their classrooms. Eighty-nine school facilities require a complete overhaul to meet minimally acceptable standards.

As described in an expert report, well-maintained school facilities lead to improved school attendance and better academic outcomes, while substandard buildings impair student engagement and learning. In 2019, the State reported that 17.9% of BCPSS elementary students were proficient in Math, and 18.6% were proficient in English Language Arts (“ELA”); 13.5% of middle school students were proficient in Math, and 22.7% were proficient in ELA; and 21.8% of high school students were proficient in Algebra I, and 32.9% were proficient in ELA 10. BCPSS students scored lower in math and reading than students in all but a handful of other large school districts nationwide. Proficiency rates are even lower for students with disabilities: according to BCPSS data, only 5% of students with disabilities met or exceeded expectations in math or language arts. In sum, although I recognize that the State has directed enormous resources to BCPSS over the years, and that there are many reasons for the deplorable conditions in which Baltimore City school children must learn, it is still the case—as it was in 1996—that the conditions are intolerable and must be addressed by all parties, including the State, as mandated under Article VIII. [MORE]