With Historic Law, Maryland Offers Model to Address National Problem of Inequity in School Facilities
There is a hopeful story being written today in Baltimore City, a story that began with an all-too-familiar plot: school buildings without sufficient heat, air conditioning, adequate lighting or drinking water—perennial barriers to learning that most children and teachers in Baltimore City Public Schools have had to deal with daily. Sadly, lack of such basic necessities plagues many urban school systems like Baltimore, where poverty reigns with over 85 percent of the students eligible for free and reduced price meals. Victims of false economy, urban school buildings continue to deteriorate because the current funding model can only support Band-Aid repairs to the crumbling buildings, as opposed to construction of new, efficient buildings.
In urban districts around the country, there is no extra money to make even the most critical repairs, much less build new schools. The children taught in these buildings have the highest incidence of childhood obesity and asthma and the greatest challenges to educational success. The problem is exacerbated because the buildings cannot support basic learning tools like computers or science labs that students need to meet core curriculum requirements. Meanwhile their peers in more affluent communities are attending new schools with the tools and technology to give them a 21st century education.
The ACLU of Maryland believes that these deficiencies run counter to our state constitution. In 1994 we filed a lawsuit on behalf of Baltimore's public school students, , arguing that Maryland's Constitution guarantees children-- particularly those most at risk due to poverty--a "thorough and efficient" education. The judge agreed with us and since then, we have been working year in and year out to make sure the state lives up to this promise to all children.
Today, the ACLU of Maryland is proud to stand with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley as he signs the Baltimore City Public School Construction and Revitalization Act of 2013. This will fund $1 billion in new and fully renovated schools for some of the poorest communities in the country, and represents the largest investment in Baltimore's school buildings in Maryland history. This new chapter is a culmination of more than a decade of work on inequitable school facilities by the ACLU of Maryland's Education Reform Project, and has been hailed as a model solution to a problem that plagues nearly every poor urban school district in the nation.
Under the model promoted by the in our " new and existing funding streams are combined to leverage $1 billion in capital up front, using a third-party quasi-governmental authority to finance bonds and oversee construction. The law signed today will commit funds from the city, state, and school system to build or fully renovate 50+ schools over the next six years. This innovative model upends the traditional school construction funding model by building new or fully renovated schools on a compressed construction timeline, but paying for them over 30 years. After some of the worst city school facilities are addressed in the first phase, other sources of revenue will be needed to finish the full $2.4 billion construction plan.
The ACLU of Maryland pursued this successful campaign by combining research, policy proposals and analysis, organizing, legislative advocacy, and working with community and school groups in the Baltimore Education Coalition to highlight the need for a solution to an intractable problem.
This visionary solution is a smarter way to use state and local dollars. Doing the wholesale renovations will allow school districts to take advantage of existing low interest and construction costs while realizing the economies of scale that come with bulk purchasing and building. In the long run, school systems like Baltimore City will save money by replacing old, dilapidated buildings with state-of-the-art schools that are safer, healthier, and promote better learning.
While every school system has its own unique funding structures, hopefully other struggling school districts, cities, and states can learn from this innovative model and write a happier ending for their students, too.
Learn more about schools and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.