An article yesterday stated incorrectly that Education Alternatives Inc. had paid for more than one out-of-town trip by city schools Superintendent Walter G. Amprey to testify about Baltimore's school privatization experiment. In fact, Dr. Amprey said that the company paid for a trip this week to Hartford, Conn., but no others.
The Sun regrets the errors.
Baltimore Superintendent Walter G. Amprey yesterday launched his strongest public attack yet against critics of the city's school-privatization venture and said he hopes to expand Education Alternatives Inc.'s role to at least four more city schools.
At a hastily called news conference, Dr. Amprey confirmed that the city is seriously considering turning over daily management of Patterson High and three West Baltimore elementary schools to the for-profit company.
The city would need approval from the state to let EAI manage Patterson, one of two targets of a new measure allowing state intervention in failing schools.
The four schools would bring to 16 the number run by EAI -- the original nine "Tesseract" schools and three others where it has since taken on noninstructional services -- and give the company control of millions more dollars in city money.
Dr. Amprey's announcement came a day after he flew to Hartford, Conn., to testify before the City Council there about Baltimore's experiment in privatization.
It marked his latest in a series of trips to other cities paid for, he said, by EAI.
Dr. Amprey went to Hartford, which is considering letting EAI manage all its schools, to voice support for the company and counter what he describes as a campaign of "distortions and lies" waged by the nation's two largest teachers' unions.
"I'm prepared to do battle with anyone or any group that continues to keep us stuck and paralyzed in not making a difference for our youngsters," said the superintendent, in his third year at the helm. "It's time to move. A society is judged based on how it treats its children, and we're not doing well.
"I've had added incentive [to testify in favor of EAI] recently, though, because I've been reading about in other cities lies and distortions about what's happening in Baltimore -- quotes from me, things that I've been saying at meetings I never attended, discussions that have gone on with me and the mayor and EAI, lies about what teachers were paid, test scores, when the tests haven't been administered."
He took issue with a Hartford Courant account of his testimony, which appeared in yesterday's editions of The Sun, in which he was quoted as saying he would like to see EAI run all of Baltimore's public schools, if he could.
Hartford, where Superintendent T. Josiah Haig is being forced out in June, is considering giving EAI control of its entire 32-school district and its $171 million annual budget. The proposal is subject to the approval of the City Council and the school board -- and, according to the city's top lawyer, it must also be put out for bid to allow an opportunity for competing firms.
Dr. Amprey said his comments in Hartford had been "misrepresented" and "taken out of context."
But, in fact, while being questioned by a Hartford City Councilman, he said, "I would have EAI managing my entire schools [district] if I had the ability to do that."
Asked by the councilman why Baltimore had not given EAI control of more schools from the beginning of the experiment in 1992, Dr. Amprey replied: "Nine was all I could get at the beginning. If I could have done it with a systemwide approach, it would have been easier. . . . I asked for nine; I wished I asked for 178."
But Dr. Amprey said yesterday that he had also repeatedly told the council that he hoped to eventually "kick EAI out of town" -- after the company sets an example for other schools, teaching them how to run more effectively and efficiently.
The superintendent is moving forward with the possible EAI expansion despite mounting opposition from critics who call privatization an unproven experiment.
Critics also say EAI-run schools enjoy an unfair advantage because they receive much more money per-pupil.
Irene Dandridge, the Baltimore Teachers Union president, reacted angrily yesterday to Dr. Amprey's counteroffensive.
"He is just upset with the union because he blames us for EAI not expanding around the country," Ms. Dandridge said.
She also criticized the superintendent for lobbying on behalf of EAI in other cities.
"I question the propriety of the superintendent of schools in Baltimore City flying around the country trying to sell EAI to other cities," she said. "I think there's plenty for him to do in Baltimore. It really doesn't look good."
Ms. Dandridge, echoing some teachers and city lawmakers, said EAI has been "forced" on Lemmel Middle School, which signed a contract with the company in March, despite widespread opposition from teachers.
Likewise, she said, many teachers at the three West Baltimore elementaries Dr. Amprey wants EAI to manage -- Gilmor, George Kelson and William Pinderhughes -- vehemently oppose the idea.
The 8,500-member city union's parent, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association, have mounted a high-profile campaign against EAI. Recently, a growing number of lawmakers, parents and community activists have opposed expansion of the company's role before a formal evaluation of its progress.
The debate is likely to play a significant role in the race for mayor if Kurt L. Schmoke and City Council President Mary Pat Clarke, one of EAI's most vocal critics, square off in the Democratic primary.
For his part, Mr. Schmoke has appeared to move away from the sort of blank-check enthusiasm that greeted EAI when it came to Baltimore. At a Board of Estimates hearing on the school system's operating budget two weeks ago, the mayor called for a closer review of city spending for the private company.
"Did EAI do what they said they were going to do? We need to know whether, in fact, they had the same overall cost or had more [money] to run the schools," Mr. Schmoke said. "EAI has made a representation about what they can do with our children in our schools -- that they can increase academic achievement and that they can improve the noninstructional side for the same amount of money."
Ms. Clarke, says that's what she's been saying all along.
"The EAI schools all get more money, and it's coming from other schools," Ms. Clarke said. "They're costing more per-pupil than what's spent across the system. All I ever said is give every school the same opportunity and resources and let's compete."
School budget officials note that per-pupil spending at all of the schools has increased since EAI took them over. In an effort to stave off state intervention at Patterson, the city school district had proposed removing all 130 staffers and forcing them to reapply for their jobs.
State Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick rejected the plan, saying it lacked specifics, but applauded the staff housecleaning as a "bold" measure. The city is now expected to write a revised plan that Dr. Amprey says will likely still call for removal of the staff.
A recent AFT report points out that test scores fell, and class sizes grew at Tesseract schools, which receive more money per pupil than do nearly all of the others in the city.
The Baltimore union has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the privatization experiment, and the AFT is asking the Clinton administration to investigate whether EAI violated federal law by cutting services for disabled and poor students at "Tesseract" schools.