'After graduating from Yale with a degree in history (1971), Schmoke studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1976'.
You see below the reasoning given for the takeover of Baltimore City Schools. The statement says that the final agreement would be a partnership of parents, communities, unions, and the schools. What we see are citizens in Baltimore all shouting that none of this policy works for them. The citizens in Baltimore originally supporting this takeover thinking it was just to be used for gentrification did not understand that the goal was a Wall Street privatization platform with schools being taken by charters and forced education curricula----but that was already written when these takeovers of city schools started in Clinton's last term in office.
Again, none of this would have happened if Federal education funding had not seen big cuts by Reagan and Clinton and if Maryland had not allowed for a shortfall in education funding to Baltimore schools-----and allowed a systemic fraud and corruption move revenue out of the education system in Baltimore. This is what created the failures of schools in Baltimore.
All OF THIS INVOLVED BREAKING LAWS AND AIDING AND ABETTING CRIME BY STATE AND CITY OFFICIALS.
'However, both state and city officials stressed that any final agreement would be a partnership among the schools, the state, parents, local communities, unions, and business groups'.
Flash forward to today and you see all the financial problems and demands from lawsuits for failure to provide equal protection in schools is solved by simply mass closings of Baltimore City schools. There wasn't a shortfall of money to fund schools----it just wasn't getting there. Grasmick used the special needs lawsuit as a way to gain control of the Baltimore School system but she wasn't interested in solving this problem---she simply did not want the Equal Protection laws regarding Disabilities enforced. As of today there is no special needs education in Baltimore and children are returning to a warehousing in underserved and underfunded schools.
Published Online: January 31, 1996
State Takeover Of Baltimore Schools Mulled
By Jessica Portner
Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening and Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke are considering an arrangement that would increase the state's control over the city's public schools and boost state aid to the financially troubled district.
The tentative plan would replace Baltimore's superintendent and school board with a team of executives and a new board appointed by both city and state officials, Ronald A. Peiffer, an assistant state superintendent, said last week.
The discussions between the mayor, the governor, and state Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick also call for the city to drop a potentially costly lawsuit challenging the state's school-funding system.
Though the plan faces substantial local opposition, it could end years of squabbling between the state and the district over funding and management of the 104,00-student school system and its $650 million budget.
"We could spend millions of dollars on lawyers instead of on students, and that's not what the mayor wants to do," Clinton R. Coleman, a spokesman for Mr. Schmoke, said last week.
State officials did not disclose how much additional money the city might receive under a cooperative arrangement with the state.
But some local education advocates and school board members said city officials would be unlikely to accept a plan that failed to close the spending gap of about $1,000 per pupil between the city and its more affluent suburbs. Baltimore spends about $5,000 per pupil, compared with some neighboring districts that spend, on average, close to $6,000, according to the state education department.
Linda Prudente, a spokeswoman for the 8,100-member Baltimore Teachers' Union, said teachers are also concerned that an agreement could mean a cut in their salaries and benefits. "If you look at the worst-case scenario, it could be very scary for teachers," she said.
The efforts by Gov. Glendening to win more control over the Baltimore schools mark the latest in a series of state-level interventions in big-city schools.
A Trade-Off Since 1989, New Jersey has taken control of three faltering districts--Jersey City, Paterson, and Newark.
In Ohio, a federal judge last year ordered the state superintendent to take charge of the Cleveland public schools after budget difficulties and management problems had plunged the district into "a state of crisis." (See Education Week, March 15, 1995.)
And the Illinois legislature last year gave Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley broad authority over the city's schools, allowing him to appoint a management team and a new board to run the district. (See Education Week, June 21, 1995.)
What is unusual about Baltimore, experts said, is the fact that relief from protracted legal battles could be a major incentive for an agreement.
"The Baltimore situation is slightly different because it appears as an out-and-out trade--that is, power for legal relief and money," said Michael Casserly, the executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington-based group that represents large urban districts.
The city's school-funding lawsuit against the state is one of several that could end as a result of the ongoing negotiations, officials said last week.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued the state on behalf of several Baltimore students, charging that the state does not provide enough money to deliver a "thorough and efficient" education.
And a Maryland disability-rights organization has been engaged in a decade-long suit against the city, charging that special-education students are not receiving services they are entitled to under state and federal laws.
Less Local Control? Despite the support from the mayor's office, some Baltimore school officials argued last week that increased state involvement bucks a trend toward concentrating power at the school level.
"This proposal is top-down as opposed to a grassroots, community-generated one. It's exactly the opposite of where the country is moving," said Phillip Farfel, the Baltimore school board president.
However, both state and city officials stressed that any final agreement would be a partnership among the schools, the state, parents, local communities, unions, and business groups.
Mr. Coleman, the mayor's spokesman, cast the idea as the latest in a series of bold strategies to improve the city's schools.
In November, the city ended a closely watched experiment with Education Alternatives Inc. by terminating the Minneapolis-based company's five-year contract to run nine city schools after only three years. (See Education Week, Nov. 29, 1995.)
"We have long said that we need more resources in our schools," Mr. Coleman said. "I don't think anyone can argue with making changes that would benefit our children."
In other developments last week, state education officials said 35 Baltimore schools, whose students have performed poorly on state tests, must be overhauled or lose local control. That would bring to 40--more than a fourth of all city schools--the number of Baltimore schools under the state's reconstitution program, which requires school officials to completely reorganize schools.
Also, Baltimore Superintendent Walter G. Amprey announced a proposal to defer 10 days' pay for school employees until July as a way to reduce the district's $23 million deficit.
This is the dialog in Maryland about having the state seize control of Baltimore City Schools and as you see by the comments below-----both sides were right. The protest leader knew the problem with city schools was revenue and in this particular case special needs education. Rather than fund Equal Protection legislation----Baltimore made sure the funds were not available to do so. This is how neo-conservatives like Johns Hopkins think. The Federal funds that should have gone to Baltimore City schools were allowed to be lost through fraud and corruption. Is that Johns Hopkins fault?
YES, BECAUSE HOPKINS MADE BALTIMORE A COMPANY TOWN BY SEIZING ALL CONTROL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC REVENUE. HOPKINS DISMANTLED ALL OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC JUSTICE AND CREATED THIS SYSTEMIC FRAUD AND CORRUPTION THAT ATTACKS GOVERNMENT FUNDING, PUBLIC REVENUE, AND PUBLIC SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
Nancy Grasmick served as Maryland Education leader at the same time schools were defunded and education policy was designed to lower student achievement with such policy as taking textbooks out of classrooms and teaching math even with beginning students with calculators giving us high school graduates that cannot read or do math. Not without coincidence----Grasmick went to work with Hopkins after she retired.
As all parents of students with disabilities knows-----what Grasmick and the state appointed school board did with special education was to dismantle the public structures for support of those children and created all kinds of special needs private corporate non-profits that come to schools and do nothing. One parent described it as such-----THEY JUST KEEP CHANGING THE NAMES OF THESE SPECIAL NEEDS NON-PROFITS AND THEY DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.
That is because these non-profits are not meant to serve the public-----THEY ARE MEANT TO FUNNEL MONEY THROUGH THAT THEN GOES TO SUBSIDIZE THE RICH.
This is exactly how US Non-Governmental Organizations work overseas under the guise of helping developing worlds as US global corporations tied to development profits soar. They are bringing this model to the US replacing our public sector with third world NGO non-profits. Now they are after our K-12s.
'Protest leader Connie C. Goodly said the problems in special education would be solved with an influx of resources, not a change in management'.
_"We're not saying, 'We're tossing everyone out,'" state Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said in an interview. "What we're saying is that there has to be some leadership. ... Hopefully, the people who are part of the permanent system could benefit from that leadership, and we could leave at some point with a functional system."
So, Reagan/Clinton defunded the Federal education agencies to create this appearance of failure and then Nancy Grasmick as State Education leader pretended to send in professionals to repair the SPECIAL EDUCATION system when they simply wanted to dismantle the public structures and replace them with corporate private non-profits that now move the fraud and corruption into different hands. As we see below, the fraud and corruption in city schools was there-----often it involved hiring too many staff because as everyone knows unemployment was soaring in Baltimore then as now so stacking the payroll helped support families. No doubt less noble frauds were happening as well.
THANK YOU CONNIE GOODLY FOR BEING THE EARLIEST FIGHTER FOR STRONG PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN BALTIMORE CITY!
"We are going to fight to preserve local control," said Goodly, administrative assistant to the unions' presidents. "We don't want outsiders coming in."
I give Baltimore City Teacher's Union a hard time because they have become a rubber stamp to bad education policy but it is because they lost this fight in 1997. Communities and citizens need to step up and help teachers and parents fight this Wall Street privatization of K-12!
State seeks a role in managing city schools
By Sara Neufeld, Sun Staff Baltimore Sun 1996
The Maryland State Department of Education yesterday asked a federal judge to send state managers into several Baltimore school system departments, intensifying a power struggle over who will run the city's schools.
Under the state's plan, meant to address the problems in Baltimore's beleaguered special education program, the state would send eight administrators "to manage and direct" school system operations including human resources, information technology, guidance and transportation, plus a lead administrator. They would provide "ongoing daily direction, technical assistance and management oversight" for at least three school years under a plan submitted to U.S. District Judge Marvin J. Garbis, who oversees a 1984 lawsuit over special education.
"We're not saying, 'We're tossing everyone out,'" state Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick said in an interview. "What we're saying is that there has to be some leadership. ... Hopefully, the people who are part of the permanent system could benefit from that leadership, and we could leave at some point with a functional system."
City school officials, meanwhile, argued in court papers and interviews that the plan amounts to a state takeover without that controversial title. They also criticized the state for proposing that the school system pay $1.4 million a year to cover the cost of state overseers, saying it would hamper their efforts to wipe out a crippling deficit.
"We're well on our way to completely eradicate our deficit by the end of [the upcoming school year] as long as we don't get more unfunded mandates," said school board Chairman Brian D. Morris, who called the state's plan an additional, unnecessary, layer of bureaucracy.
Last month, as services to children with disabilities deteriorated in the wake of the school system's financial crisis, Garbis asked the parties in the lawsuit to detail how he might expand the state's authority, as Grasmick suggested he should do.
Last week, the state outlined two proposals. Under the first, and more severe, the judge would order an outside takeover of the system, meaning a court-ordered administrator would assume the authority of the local school board. Under the second, the judge would give the state the power to make changes in the system, working alongside the existing management and with the court resolving disputes.
In court papers filed yesterday, which was the deadline for the parties to respond to each other's proposals, the state asked Garbis to order the second option, saying it would bring changes faster than an outside takeover would and is necessary "to be sure that another school year is not lost."
City school officials argued that the problem with special education is chronic under-funding of the school system, citing a 2004 ruling by Baltimore Circuit Judge Joseph H.H. Kaplan, who oversees a school finance case. Kaplan ruled that the state is hundreds of millions of dollars short of adequately funding the city schools.
As evidence that the problem is managerial and not financial, Grasmick pointed to more than $4 million in federal money for special education that the school system received last school year but did not spend.
Lawyers for students with disabilities, in their court papers, said control of the special education department, along with transportation, human resources and other departments that affect special education, should be turned over to an outside authority, not the state. They said the state's plan is "devoid of essential elements," including state accountability to the court and strategies for returning control to the school system.
The students' lawyers sued the school system and the state 21 years ago, alleging that students with disabilities were not receiving services to which they were legally entitled. The lawyers say conditions are as bad now as they were when the case was filed. They point to widespread teacher vacancies, huge class sizes and buses that failed to show up last school year.
Garbis' decision could have major implications for Maryland's gubernatorial race. Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat who has said the city schools are turning around, is expected to challenge Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. in the election next year. Last year, Ehrlich and O'Malley sparred over who would bail the city schools out of their financial crisis.
Grasmick, rumored to be a possible running mate for Ehrlich, said she is offended by the implication that the state's actions are politically motivated.
The state has argued that it does not have the authority to compel the city schools to adequately serve children. How much authority it does have is another topic of dispute.
In 1997, the city agreed to give the state partial control of its schools in exchange for increased state aid, in hopes of settling the special education suit and the school finance suit. From then on, the school board has been jointly appointed by the mayor and the governor, with the state education department screening applicants.
Grasmick said nothing in the legislation that created the "city-state partnership" gave the state control over the school system's daily operations. But Morris, the school board chairman, and board member Kalman R. "Buzzy" Hettleman said the state's authority is substantial.
"The state is not at all an outsider," Morris said.
Yesterday's court filings highlighted the bitter relationship that has developed between the school system and the state education department.
Last week, the city said the state should be providing it with more training and support without taking away local control.
Yesterday, the state wrote that such a "cooperation model" is "certain to fail given the twenty-one-year experience with cooperative approaches tried through this litigation ... and the erosion of trust" between the state and the city.
Outside Maryland State Department of Education headquarters in Baltimore yesterday morning, about 15 teachers, aides and students protested the state's proposal at a demonstration organized by the Baltimore Teachers Union.
Protest leader Connie C. Goodly said the problems in special education would be solved with an influx of resources, not a change in management.
"We are going to fight to preserve local control," said Goodly, administrative assistant to the unions' presidents. "We don't want outsiders coming in."
This was a great editorial written at the time of all the discussion. As you see DO IT FOR THE KIDS ran through these discussions on both sides. Mr Kane prefaced the idea of getting businesses and their employees involved and adopt a school to help its success. That was indeed the goal to handing Baltimore City Schools to the state----as we see today all the steps taken since this state takeover has been to privatize our school structure. Baltimore businesses are not simply helping----they have created corporate non-profits that control the schools and we have that corporate school board that sees schools as individual businesses. So, the idea of getting businesses to help has become making schools into businesses with outsourcing all public employment to corporate non-profits.
THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE STATE CONTROL AND IT WAS DELIBERATE. ALL THE PLAYERS KNEW THIS WAS THE GOAL.
Help wanted: One tough school chief
March 26, 1997|By GREGORY KANE
THE DEBATE about how education will proceed in Baltimore City rages unabated. I am thankful to Adrian W. Rich of Baltimore, who wrote a thought-provoking letter in response to Saturday's column about a proposed amendment giving the state total control of Baltimore's schools.
"It is reprehensible that certain politicians and band-wagoning media persons are only now expressing their 'vehement' opposition to the proposed City-State education partnership. ... My argument is this: if the State feels that it can perform the essential task of educating Baltimore's children better than Baltimore City has been able to - then let them."
I've heard this argument the past two weeks. Let's let the state take total control of Baltimore schools, for the sake of the children. (Contrary to what Rich believes, City Council President Lawrence Bell stated emphatically he was all for a city-state partnership in education. He conceded that schools need better management. He was opposed to the amendment that would give the state control of the city's education. That nice "partnership" thing would be over.) The "let's do it for the kids" line of reasoning assumes those opposed to a state takeover don't care about the children in the city's schools. But we do. We care so much that we want to see them well-educated and then, if they choose to remain in Baltimore, live in a city where they have some say in their children's education.
We care so much that we haven't given up hope that the city might be able to turn its educational fortunes around. Everybody agrees that city schools need better management. So let's give Mayor Kurt Schmoke and the school board another shot at naming a superintendent. Input from state school Superintendent Nancy Grasmick and the state school board would be welcome, because the person who turns around Baltimore's schools would have to be the pedagogical equivalent of Josef Stalin.
He or she would have to be a whip-cracker not hesitant to demote or fire anyone who does not get results. This superintendent would be someone who wouldn't hesitate to visit the homes of chronically truant students and have a chat with their parents.
"Folks," this superintendent would say, "your child hasn't been to school in a month of Sundays. Exactly what kind of parents are you?"
Such a superintendent would be, in other words, a son of a bitch. But our son of a bitch. Such a superintendent would not be popular, of course. Many would demand his or her resignation. If that happens, it would be with the understanding that the state would then take over control of city schools.
There are other things city residents could do rather than flop back, prop our feet up and then say, "Let old Nancy Grasmick take over running city schools." It's our city, we've got to get involved. I'd take a wealth of good PTAs over a city-state partnership any day of the week. Of course, parental involvement is so lax that one city middle school teacher told me he's taught at some city schools that have no PTA. How do we cope with such a revolting development? Here are a couple of ideas:
Adopt a school. City State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy says she tTC has done it. Private businesses and government agencies throughout the city should consider doing it. They all have educated workers who are needed in the classroom: tutoring, reading to students, providing those role models they all need. Employers should consider the benefits of letting their workers take two to three hours off a week to participate in an adopt-a-school program.
Read Jane M. Healy's book "Endangered Minds" and demand that educators everywhere read it. Healy, who holds a doctorate in educational psychology, describes how today's children think differently from those of an earlier era and suggests ways that parents can better prepare them for school. Then we can get on to the more difficult task of convincing the parents of city school children that reading and talking to their children during their first two years of life are not an option; they're imperative. Several studies have shown that parents who do this send their children to school more prepared to learn than those parents who don't.
The key to overcoming Baltimore's educational crisis may lie in teaching the parents of the city's schoolchildren as well as the children themselves.
Pub Date: 3/26/97
Below you have an example of true O'Malley double-talk as the makes it sound like he is fighting for more control of Baltimore City by the citizens of Baltimore when in fact he signed an agreement that took even more control of the Baltimore City School system from the citizens. I have never seen any one person so despicable than Martin O'Malley.
Anyway-----what he did was take all control of the School Boards financial actions away and hand it to a financial committee----just as was done with the Baltimore Development Corporation that now decides all economic policy behind closed doors with no public input. That is what this independent financial authority has as a goal. So, the problem is unconstitutional funding of public schools and systemic fraud and corruption taking what funds are given to public education and the solution is handing financial control over to the same groups creating these conditions in the first place.
'and in turn, the school board would relinquish its power to an independent financial authority, a majority of whose members would be appointed by the Governor'
'Also, the agreement would have enabled the Governor to rip up union contracts with Baltimore teachers on July 1'. This is why Baltimore Teacher's union is left to support all this bad policy.....
The only changes since this statement has been to create the 'schools are business model' and the closing of a hundred schools. That takes care of funding issues say Johns Hopkins.....not to mention the Master Plan. The citizens of Baltimore demanded their Constitutional rights and Johns Hopkins closed down the schools.
This is how Wall Street took hold of urban schools and is now using that control to build these very privatized charter structures. For Republicans who think this is good because you like charters and school choice -----the goal is the opposite---NO CHOICE. The citizens of Baltimore are now forced to silence over this issue because school closings have made the competition for school access difficult. Teachers are silenced because the the number of teachers losing jobs with each school closure and fear that protesting these Michelle Rhee Wall Street school takeover policies will cost them their jobs.
IT IS THE MOST AUTOCRATIC AND VISCIOUS CORPORATE POLICY BROUGHT TO MARYLAND BY NEO-CONSERVATIVE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY AND THEIR CORPORATE MARYLAND ASSEMBLY POLS.
O'Malley Rejects State Bail Out of Baltimore City Public Schools to Keep City Control
March 15, 2004
Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, after a long weekend of talking with parents, teachers and legislators, came to the conclusion "that we better reform Baltimore's school system by taking more responsibility, not less." This ended a long back and forth negotiation and discussion with Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich, Jr. over who would financially save the city's bankrupt public school system.
In the end, the mayor on March 8 decided not to accept a state bailout offer by Governor Ehrlich. Instead, Mayor O'Malley decided to use most of the city's rainy-day fund to pay the school system's bills in conjunction with a $16 million loan from the local Abell Foundation.
O'Malley and other local officials determined that it was their responsibility to rectify the problem and not the state's. It was more important to remain in control of the city's schools. O'Malley will now have to focus on correcting the weaknesses in financial oversight that allowed the school system to incur this deficit. He stated that, "this means more local control, more local responsibility, new accountability that was left out of the original city/state partnership, and reform of the school board to make it more accountable."
As a result of the mayor's decision, Baltimore's City Council voted on March 8 to approve an emergency loan of $42 million to the troubled school system. This move eliminates any immediate threat of a state takeover of the city's schools. With this infusion of cash, the system averts widespread layoffs and teacher pay cuts as a result of a $58 million deficit discovered by the recently appointed school administrator.
O'Malley in announcing his decision went on to say that, "the citizens of Baltimore and Maryland, who are investing in our children's education, should know that new accountability will come with this new investment. What has occurred in our school system is unacceptable. If there is waste; if there is overspending; if there is mismanagement; and if there has been corruption, it will be stopped. It will be corrected. Fiscal discipline will be restored. We must safeguard the progress are children have made."
This decision came after three-weeks of negotiations between the Mayor and Governor over a bailout strategy and package. The Governor had offered to advance the city $42 against next year's school aid and in turn, the school board would relinquish its power to an independent financial authority, a majority of whose members would be appointed by the Governor. Also, the agreement would have enabled the Governor to rip up union contracts with Baltimore teachers on July 1.
In O'Malley's announcement he laid out the basic steps that will be taken as part of a memorandum of understanding between the city and the Baltimore City Public Schools. It will require cooperation, serious examination and changes of existing fiscal practices, an introspective look by the school system at its structure, and some very tough decisions.
The mayor ended his announcement by saying, "we will reform our schools. We will hold adults accountable for public investments. And more importantly, we will educate our children."
This is another example of an urban mayor's involvement and leadership along with a commitment to the success of a city's school system. While this is not the easiest of solutions, it is one that O'Malley feels best serves the interests of the city and its children who attend public schools. He and his staff will now become more fully engaged in the financial decision-making, the system's policies, practices and structure, and work very closely in a new partnership with the Baltimore City Public School's new school administrator.
Of course all that O'Malley said above about holding people accountable was hogwash. Below you see several years later the same levels of fraud and corruption exists. What O'Malley was referencing back in 2004 was the coming of Race to the Top and testing and evaluation that was being written by the Bush Administration and US corporations. None of this has anything to do with achievement ------it was the chronic loss of funding and resources that are still absent as funding of Baltimore City Schools is still corrupt.
Audit: Baltimore City Public Schools Playing Fast and Loose with Public Funds
John K. Ross|Oct. 8, 2012 5:13 pm
Preliminary findings from the city’s second sexennial audit, obtained by the Baltimore Sun, reveal more fiscal hjinks:
The Baltimore school system spent more than $2.8 million on overtime in fiscal 2010, even though it was doubtful that employees worked all of the hours for which they were paid.
Three employees earned a combined $250,000 in salaries while working for both the school system and a state agency during the same hours.
And the school system failed to collect nearly $1.5 million in debt dating to 2009, including $336,000 in bonuses paid to employees who hadn't earned them.
…The auditors also found financial oversight to be so inadequate that officials paid millions of dollars in contracted work that wasn't verified, lost 1,400 computers and allowed dozens of employees access to adjusting payroll even though it wasn't required for their jobs.
…School board oversight was lacking, particularly in its ethics and financial disclosure policies. Auditors found several instances of conflicts of interests. The system paid one employee for both part-time work in the central office and nearly $34,000 as a contractual vendor for instructional services. The employee owned the vendor business—and had the authority to approve purchases in the school system's automated procurement system.
In addition, 105 school system employees had home addresses that matched the addresses of vendors hired for instruction, special education and consulting services. A review of eight procurement payments showed that seven went to vendors who were also system employees.
…Oversight of contracts and procurement was lacking. For example, auditors found that the system continued to pay a contract for special education instruction that expired in 2008 and was never renewed by the school board, for a total of $6.9 million through June 2010. The audit doesn't specify whether any work was done after the contract expired.
The system failed to verify bills submitted by school bus contractors. A review of monthly invoices showed that contractors billed for driving time and mileage totaling nearly $350,000, using the exact same hours and minutes for about 50 buses every month. And, in one instance, a contractor bus aide reported that no students were transported for two days due to a water main break, but the company still billed the system $327 for each day.
According to the state's acting legislative auditor, school officials “might have [an] explanation for things or provide documentation that would basically cause the finding to go away."
Where are the citizens of Baltimore as regards literacy, education, housing, community revitalization, health, and economic development? If you notice all these things involve public services that are now almost privatized courtesy of Schmoke's then mentor Clinton......VERY BAD SHAPE. Schmoke as O'Malley and other Baltimore pols are simply tools----but they chose to be tools instead of leaders.
'as demonstrated through his initiatives in such areas as literacy, education, housing, community revitalization, health, and economic development'.
So, Schmoke was the politician moving Baltimore City Schools to this capture and he abdicated saying that the city could not solve this problem on its own. I want to make clear------Schmoke did it because he graduated from the neo-conservative Yale and the neo-liberal Harvard which are both Wall Street ----global market universities as is Johns Hopkins. Schmoke handed control to the state because Baltimore was to be taken by this Wall Street privatization crew. This was back in 1997------Clinton was corporatizing universities as fast as he could-----and Wall Street was modelling its next capture-----K-12 public schools. O'Malley is simply an opportunist that will do anything to advance his own interests.
'After graduating from Yale with a degree in history (1971), Schmoke studied as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University, and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1976'.
This is why as well that Baltimore City Democratic Party is neo-conservative. I looked at an article that describes Schmoke and his pathway to the big times and it all comes with a pathway through the Ivy Leagues.
Schmoke came by way of State's Attorney and prosecutor in a city that has absolutely no white collar criminal agency and systemic fraud and corruption. Schmoke proved himself capable of SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, AND SPEAK NO EVIL----the very qualities that make Baltimore a third world society. Below you see where Schmoke was behind the policies that most in the city are now fighting-----we now have that tradition in Sheila Dixon and now Rawlings-Blake------all simply taking orders from Johns Hopkins.
In Baltimore Johns Hopkins has made sure they are the only way to employment and power.
THIS CAN EASY CHANGE.......STOP ALLOWING BALTIMORE TO BE A COMPANY TOWN!
Biographical Sketch of
Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke
Kurt L. Schmoke, now in his third term as Mayor of the City of Baltimore, was born in Baltimore on December 1, 1949. He attended the City's public schools and graduated with a bachelor's degree in history from Yale University in 1971. After attending Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar, he received his law degree in 1976 from Harvard Law School.
He entered law practice with the Baltimore firm of Piper and Marbury and, in 1977, joined President Carter's White House Domestic Policy Staff. A year later, he returned to Baltimore as an Assistant United States Attorney. Four years later, Mr. Schmoke was elected State's Attorney, the City's chief prosecuting officer.
Mr. Schmoke was first elected Mayor of Baltimore on November 3, 1987, becoming the first African American voted into that office. He has gone on to develop a reputation as one of the most innovative mayors in the nation, as demonstrated through his initiatives in such areas as literacy, education, housing, community revitalization, health, and economic development.
In his first inaugural address, Mr. Schmoke announced his intention to make Baltimore "The City That Reads." Since then, Mayor Schmoke, in partnership with Baltimore's public and private sectors, has established a cabinet-level City agency and a private foundation to fund, coordinate, and expand adult literacy programs throughout the City. He has also strongly supported educational innovation and led a successful campaign to win more state funding to boost student achievement in Baltimore's public schools through a landmark City-State partnership.
Under Mayor Schmoke, Baltimore has been a leader in the national effort to tear down dilapidated, crime-plagued high-rise public housing developments and replace them with lower density, low-rise communities that better support the healthy development of families. Mr. Schmoke's other housing initiatives include establishing the Baltimore Community Development Financing Corporation, which pools private and public resources to renovate abandoned City dwellings; and developing the Settlement Expense Loan Program, which gives home buyers up to $5,000 to meet settlement costs.
Mayor Schmoke has made Baltimore a national model for neighborhood revitalization. His community development projects include the transformation under way in the Sandtown-Winchester community in West Baltimore and the neighborhoods surrounding the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in East Baltimore. In 1994, these neighborhood revitalization efforts received a major boost when President Clinton selected Baltimore as one of only six Empowerment Zone cities in the nation. This designation brings millions in federal funds to support job development, housing, and social service projects in targeted, low-income neighborhoods, as well as tax credits and incentives for businesses located in these neighborhoods. As a result of its success in bringing jobs and businesses into the Zone, Baltimore has been recognized by the Clinton administration as a "top performer" among Empowerment Zone cities.
Believing that every crime is one crime too many, and every victim is one victim too many, Mayor Schmoke has demonstrated a strong commitment to public safety. He has improved the effectiveness of the City's Police Department; implemented community policing throughout the City; ordered successful drug and gun sweeps to stabilize neighborhoods; and is the first mayor in Baltimore to put police bike patrols on the streets and security cameras on street corners.
Since the end of the 1980s, Mr. Schmoke has supported a national drug policy that views substance abuse primarily as a public health problem, and has called for a national dialogue on this issue. He also has been a strong advocate for needle-exchange programs as a way to combat the spread of AIDS, initiating in Baltimore what is now the largest local government-sponsored needle-exchange program in the nation.
In the area of economic development, Mayor Schmoke has worked aggressively and with considerable success to attract, retain, and expand businesses in the City, especially in areas of projected job growth, such as the health sciences, tourism, and information technology. As part of his efforts to foster economic growth, he is overseeing a host of new development initiatives for Baltimore's downtown and Inner Harbor areas, leading some to speak of the City's "Second Renaissance."
In championing Baltimore's economic development, Mayor Schmoke has upheld the principle of inclusion. He has implemented policies designed to improve the participation of minority and women entrepreneurs in the economic life of the City. As a result, Baltimore was named one of the top cities for women entrepreneurs in the nation, and minorities have participated in a number of the City's major development projects.
Mayor Schmoke was elected to his third term in November 1995. On December 3, 1998, he announced that he would not seek a fourth term as Mayor of the City of Baltimore. At the time of his announcement, President Clinton issued a statement praising Mr. Schmoke for being "a wonderful partner in our efforts to improve the quality of education for all children, increase the availability of health care and housing, enhance economic development in our inner cities and revitalize our neighborhoods…" The statement concluded: "I am grateful to the Mayor for his public service to Baltimore and our nation and I look forward to making the most use of every day remaining in his current term of office to continue our work together."
IS THAT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED???