Claiming children in the perennially cash-starved Baltimore public schools have been denied the fundamental right to an adequate education, the city is preparing to go to court to try to wrest tens of millions of dollars more a year in aid from the state.
The city, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, hopes a legal challenge can accomplish what decades of lobbying and a previous lawsuit have failed to do: substantially narrow the gap in per-pupil spending between Baltimore and well-off suburban districts.
But the legal grounds differ from an unsuccessful 1979 suit, in which the city and three poor, rural counties challenged the state's funding formula. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that financial inequities alone did not violate the state constitution's guarantee of a "thorough and efficient system of free public schools."
In the challenge expected to be filed next week, however, the city and the civil liberties group plan to argue not that spending is unequal but that the lack of money denies children the right to an "adequate" education.
At his weekly news briefing yesterday, Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke expressed frustration over repeated past efforts to get more state money for Baltimore schools.
"We've rallied, we've lobbied, we've had a governor's commission that essentially confirmed all that we have been saying, which is that targeted investments in low-performance schools make a big difference," Mr. Schmoke said.
"All of those programs where our kids have really demonstrated significant improved academic performance, all involved increased investments targeted on very simple things: counselors, lower teacher-pupil ratio, things of that nature. We think we have made our case in a lot of different forums, yet we still have this financial disparity."
Maryland would become the latest battleground in a flurry of school-funding suits nationwide. School finance cases are now pending in two dozen states, generally based on adequacy rather than equality. (Cases have not been brought in federal courts since a 1973 Supreme Court ruling saying that spending inequities did not violate the federal constitution.)
The new round of cases will require the courts, in many cases, to define adequacy. A decision for the plaintiffs in Kentucky in 1989, for example, led not just to adjustments in state aid but also to a sweeping mandate for school reform.
As part of its legal strategy, Baltimore is to show that schools in the city receive funding that isn't sufficient for them to meet standards -- such as student performance on tests and attendance and dropout rates -- set by the Maryland School Performance Program, a major reform initiative. In last year's state report, city schools met only two of 25 state standards. A new report is to be issued this month.
"We're glad the mayor is going to do this," said city schools
Superintendent Walter G. Amprey. "With the mayor's interest in justice and his background in the law, we'll put together the appropriate approach."
Dr. Amprey said the new suit, "will demonstrate that some schools have suffered as a result of a lack of funds. . . . Other things that apply to managing schools have been applied vigorously."
But that argument does not sit well with some in wealthy Montgomery County, which has the highest per-pupil spending in the state.
"The court isn't going to throw out the [state] funding formula just because some Baltimore schools are substandard," said Blair Lee IV, a Montgomery County developer and columnist. "There are lots of reasons Baltimore schools are substandard other than funding. The city years ago showed where its priorities were. It's not Montgomery's fault that Baltimore put developing the Inner Harbor over schools."
Del. Timothy F. Maloney, a Prince George's Democrat, said a Baltimore suit "would be a major mistake, unlikely to lead to an increase in resources for the city or an improvement in its schools."
Mr. Maloney, who is retiring this year after 16 years on the Appropriations Committee, said the General Assembly has "committed considerable resources to help Baltimore. In 1992, in the middle of a recession, we passed a tax increase and gave much of the revenues derived from it to Baltimore. That was the same year the city cut its property tax rate and gave its employees a raise.
"The real issues here are leadership, management, performance and accountability, not cash."
A commission on school funding appointed by Gov. William Donald Schaefer has recommended an increase in aid to poor school districts in the 1996 state budget. Mr. Maloney said that, "with a suit in the air, the natural reaction of the legislature might be to do nothing while it's in the courts. So the suit could be counterproductive."
Gov.-elect Parris N. Glendening could not be reached last evening. In effect, a school-funding suit would put Mr. Glendening at legal odds with his political ally, Mr. Schmoke, whose constituents delivered a crucial 75,000-vote margin for the Democrat in the Nov. 8 election.
The city has been talking about a suit for several years. In June 1993, Mr. Schmoke said that rather than litigate the matter, he wanted to work with the Commission on School Funding. He said, however, that he would revisit the idea of a suit as a last resort if the General Assembly did not increase state aid sufficiently.
The 23-member commission, led by Donald P. Hutchinson, president of the Greater Baltimore Committee, developed an ambitious plan to restructure the state's school funding system.
Montgomery legislators fought the idea, saying it would cost their county $21 million in anticipated funding over the next five years. Mr. Schaefer -- who appointed the commission last spring -- effectively scuttled the plan in November, saying that Maryland didn't have the money to fund it.
Last week the commission sent the governor a small wish list -- including $20 million in grants to poor schools -- to consider as he heads into his final legislative session in January.
Maryland spent an average of $5,978 per student on public education in 1992-1993, the last year for which statistics are available. Per-pupil spending ranged from $7,544 in Montgomery County to $4,898 in Caroline County. In Baltimore, per-pupil spending averaged $5,391 that year, while Baltimore County spent $6,203.
In testimony before the funding commission last fall, Dr. Amprey said the city needs at least $127 million more to ensure "adequacy." That would increase per-pupil spending in the city, with an estimated annual operating budget of $630 million a year, by $1,213 per pupil, roughly the gap between spending in the city and in Baltimore and Howard counties.
Dr. Amprey said the city school system desperately needs the money for additional teachers, psychologists and social workers; for employee training; books and supplies; dropout and truancy prevention; librarians; computers; art classes; and physical education.
The 1979 suit cost the city more than a $1 million in legal fees and related costs. The trial took four months and, with appeals, the case was not resolved for more than four years.