One-party control increases potential for innovation

By JENNIFER HALPERIN

In Minnesota, many parents are sending their children to innovative "charter schools." These schools are free from most state regulations, allowing teachers and administrators flexibility in planning classroom activities.

In Michigan, state officials are pondering ways to come up with money for public schools without using property taxes. Gov. John Engler pushed to end the controversial reliance on this tax.

What do these two scenarios have in common? They result from public officials' willingness to try new solutions to serious problems. But while several of Illinois' Midwest neighbors have opted for "cutting edge" problem-solving techniques like these, the Land of Lincoln is commonly labeled a lagger, not a leader.

The reason? Jim Nowlan, senior fellow at the University of Illinois' Institute of Government and Public Affairs, says it's because the state has competitive parties, distinct urban and rural areas and identifiable regions with competing needs. Different agendas breed hostilities among legislators when they come together under the Statehouse dome. So it has been difficult to put together a measure with enough support to pass.

"Since it's easier to beat a bill in the legislature than it is to pass one, it's less likely there will be significant change," he says. "This represents a difference from Wisconsin, Oregon, Minnesota, Washington — states that are more willing to experiment."

But now that the Illinois House, Senate and governor's mansion will be controlled by one party, the scenario here could change. Senate President James "Pate" Philip, Gov. Jim Edgar and likely House Speaker Lee Daniels could work together to pass "experimental" programs — such as charter schools, an idea Edgar promoted unsuccessfully last year. Democrats thwarted those proposals on behalf of their teacher union friends.

As soon as Republicans learned they had won control of the next House of Representatives, Daniels was ticking off things he hoped his party finally could push through the chamber. Charter schools, as well as vouchers that could be used at private schools, were among the items high on his list.

But whether Edgar, Philip and Daniels will work together smoothly enough to approve innovative ideas remains to be seen. There's no love lost between the governor and Senate president, and Daniels has been out of the power loop for so long that no one's sure how he'll fit into the personality equation. Outgoing Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan made reference to a "three-headed governor" the day after the November election; whether those three heads get along or end up fighting will determine how innovative Illinois becomes.

Until now, Illinois has taken a watch-and-wait approach to everything from cutting burdensome Medicaid expenses to groundbreaking programs in education.

"If you were to ask a student of American Federalism about approaches to policy-making across the United States, some states would be classified as being in the vanguard of change and experimentation in the use of government to solve problems," says Nowlan. "Others would not be at the forefront. Illinois would probably be identified as part of the latter category for most of its history."

Beyond political and regional divisions, Nowlan attributes Illinois' caution to a go-slow approach to government.

"There would be those who contend that a cautious approach is best: You get to observe other states and what they've been doing. ... But I can really appreciate the hands-on, take-charge style of leaders who try things out if they're frustrated with the status quo. My attitude is: If there's a problem, trying something is better than not trying something."

Nowlan cites education reform. In many states, lawmakers have had serious discussions about letting parents help decide what schools their children attend, he says. Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin have started experimenting with such programs. And more states are trying charters to free public schools from rules.

"In some states it's easier to make changes in education because interest groups are less adversarial, less strong, less divided," Nowlan says. "Minnesota, for example, is more homogenous and willing to utilize government to address problems."

Terry Whitney agrees. An education policy specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures, he says: "From my perspective, Minnesota has been the first to head down the path of education reform in several areas, and it reflects the environment in the state legislature. Minnesota is cutting edge."

One reason for this difference is the type of person attracted to public life in both states, Whitney says. "In terms of elected officials, there's not just one party in Minnesota, but [the climate] is a lot less partisan, a lot less politicized — in fact completely opposite from the political scenario in Illinois. They just don't get ingrained in partisan divisions to the same extent that you do in Illinois."

And more homogenous demographics make a difference too, he says, because competing regional and cultural groups can make it harder to pass innovative legislation if one faction believes its members would suffer under the new program.

"A state that's not as highly diversified as the multi-ethnic states like Illinois, California, Texas and New York can sometimes make it easier to take chances and do things differently," Whitney says.

Despite Illinois' regional and cultural divisions, the new political realities could move the state closer to the forefront of experimentation. Now is the state's chance to shed its image as a lagger. 

36 / December 1994 / Illinois Issues