Maybe it was the nuisance of a court-appointed oversight committee charged with reviewing staffing decisions for their effect on special education services.
Maybe it was the recent scolding from a House committee in Annapolis, when delegates expressed amazement at how little progress had been made in instituting management improvements in city schools.
Maybe it was simply the embarrassment -- for the school system and for a mayor facing re-election -- at having, once again, the only schools on the state Department of Education's list of targets for reconstitution and possible state takeover.
Whatever the reason, city schools Superintendent Walter G. Amprey has thrown up a challenge that could threaten half a decade of remarkable progress toward school reform worthy of the name.
That's a sad turn of events after so many people in Maryland have accepted the short-term political pain of embarrassing headlines for the long-term benefits to everyone in this state of having schools that truly accomplish their mission of turning out students who can read, write, add, subtract and think.
Even before the state school superintendent, Nancy S. Grasmick, announced the two middle schools and one elementary school -- all in Baltimore -- that have been targeted for reconstitution, Dr. Amprey and the school commission president, Phillip H. Farfel, were challenging the list and denouncing the process of selecting the schools as flawed, unfair and insensitive to improvements already evident in the city schools. They made it clear that, unlike last year, this time around the state should expect no cooperation from the city.
NTC That's a shame, not just for the city, but especially for the students who simply are not learning what they need to know to become self- reliant, productive citizens.
The two schools targeted a year ago in the first reconstitution effort were also city institutions -- Douglass and Patterson high schools. But with Dr. Amprey's cooperation, plans to reorganize the schools were drawn up and, after some revisions, eventually approved and put into place. Now, those two schools are beginning to reverse a pattern of floundering and decline.
It hasn't been easy -- either in practical terms or on the egos of school officials -- but reconstitution is beginning to pay off for all the stakeholders in these schools.
Chief among those stakeholders are the students -- the young people whose lives will be shaped or stunted by what happens in those classrooms. Their parents, along with teachers and administrators, also have a major stake in the outcome of these ** efforts.
But they are not the only interested parties. At a time when taxpayers are rebelling against tax burdens that seem to produce no good results, the citizens of Maryland are equally interested in the progress of school reform.
That may be especially true in regard to Baltimore schools.
As Del. Howard P. Rawlings pointed out in a January 24 letter addressed to ''Community Leaders in Baltimore City,'' the city public schools receive some $400 million of the state's $2 billion budget for state education aid. That amount -- 20 percent -- may not be enough to meet all the needs of a system coping with all the problems that can hamper the achievement of poverty-stricken students. But it is certainly enough to merit close scrutiny from the House Appropriations Committee, which Delegate Rawlings chairs.
His letter, coming from a Baltimore legislator as dedicated to the city's welfare as anyone, should have gotten the attention of both Dr. Amprey and Dr. Farfel.
Yes, there are some promising initiatives under way in city schools. And no one doubts that city schools face formidable problems in poor, blighted neighborhoods.
But listen to Delegate Rawlings: ''The city is not alone. Other school systems in the state face obstacles. Yet, when the performance of city students is compared to that of the performance of students in other challenged jurisdictions -- many of whom spend less than the city on a per-pupil basis -- the performance of city students is far lower and in many areas is declining. This is unacceptable; we must look to management of the schools for a significant share of the answers.''
As of this week, the answer from Dr. Amprey and Dr. Farfel is that reconstitution is nothing more than punishment. Too bad they can't see the opportunities it presents, and the philosophical muddle their objections leave them in. Everyone wants accountability, but no one wants consequences.
Yet without consequences -- without the willingness to abandon failure -- schools will never improve.
Sara Engram is editorial-page director of The Evening Sun.
