The system's court filing contends that Baltimore "is performing better than other school districts across Maryland in a number of areas in providing services to special education students," and those districts aren't the subject of lawsuits.
"This doesn't mean in any way that I think we have our act together," Alonso said in an interview, but said improvement should be rewarded. He said the system is spending a "flabbergasting" amount of time and money on professional development for special education.
In 2000, the parties in the suit agreed to 15 measures by which the system would be evaluated. Over the years, the court agreed the system was in compliance with eight of the 15.
Of the seven areas remaining, the system says it is now in full or substantial compliance with three: It's integrating students with disabilities into classes with their nondisabled peers, with appropriate support; it's sending them to schools in their neighborhoods; and it's taking their disabilities into account in determining and executing appropriate discipline.
The state monitoring report, however, says "there has been no significant progress made" in reducing the disproportionate number of special education students who are subject to disciplinary action.
The lawsuit's special master, Amy Totenberg, issued a report last winter concluding that the system was integrating most special education students into regular classes but often without giving them the support they need, particularly in secondary schools.
Since the system has in the past improved only to slide backward again, Alonso said he could understand if Garbis isn't ready to start loosening the reins. "If I were a judge, I might be nervous," he said.
The system had made strides before a budget crisis in 2004, which prompted a breakdown in serving special education students. In 2005, Garbis ordered a team of state-appointed managers into the system. The team remains, but with fewer people and with a relationship that Alonso describes as more collaborative than supervisory. Grasmick attributes much of the recent improvement to the team's work.
Alonso said he wants a clear definition from the court of what constitutes success and how long that success must be maintained before the court will lift the oversight, which costs the system millions of dollars a year. The system must cover the costs not only of its own lawyers but also of the plaintiffs' attorneys, the special master's office, the four state managers and expensive makeup services to children as determined by a court formula.
