The state of the State

By CYNTHIA PETERS

Madigan's conference on education reform

WHILE EDUCATIONAL reform has risen to national prominence, the chance for significant legislative reform this year seems to be declining, despite efforts to develop reform proposals — such as House Speaker Michael J. Madigan's Conference on Education Reform and School Improvement held in Springfield in March. Legislators and educators appear to be 180 degrees away from each other in their approach to reform. Educators want money for reform and legislators want reform for money.

As of late March, the chances for significant legislation to arise from such divergent views seemed slim. At that time, the only reform package on the table was Gov. James R. Thompson's, which ties the next three years funding to reforms in three areas (see Thompson's education proposal on page 12). Although the plan has been criticized as vague, there still remains the possibility that some legislator somewhere will develop bills for some portion of the plan. But any bills that are introduced will have to carry an extremely low price tag. As Senate Education Committee Chairman Arthur L. Berman (D-2, Chicago) noted in his remarks at Madigan's conference: "There will be no package of great solutions submitted to this session of the legislature because there is no dramatic amount of new money."

The conference was a microcosm of the continuing conflict between state and the education community. Many of the state's major educational leaders were speakers at the conference including: Ruth Love, superintendent of Chicago schools; Stanley O. Ikenberry, president of the University of Illinois; and Michael J. Bakalis, former state superintendent of public instruction. Teachers' unions were represented by Reg Weaver, president of the Illinois Education Association (IEA), and by Robert Healey, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. The various education leaders spoke — sometimes eloquently — about the problems facing education to about 600 conference participants.

Throughout the speeches — and the five panel discussions on problems concerning school finance policy, adapting education to a changing economy, curriculum, discipline, and teacher preparation and certification — educators repeatedly talked about money. They often demanded large influxes of new money as the necessary condition for reforms. And legislators repeatedly told the conference participants that there are no large amounts of money to be had — not this year, nor next year, nor probably the year after that.

While the conference preceded the governor's Budget Message by several days, the handwriting had been on the wall since February when Thompson announced he would not seek an extension of the income tax increase and would tie education money to reform. But some educators either had trouble reading the message or adding up the figures; many of the most persuasive presentations asked for what the education community has been demanding in vain for years: full funding for public schools. The conference provided educators an opportunity to state their case once more, but at the end of the day there was little sign of a consensus about what can be done under the present economic and political circumstances.

Education's pleas for money are not helped by the fact that reformers are unable to agree on what to do. During the conference, nearly all the major issues were discussed, including student performance; competency testing; minimum curriculum requirements; teacher preparation, certification and

4/May 1984/Illinois Issues

salaries; and, of course, funding. While the conference participants seemed to agree on the problems, they didn't always advocate the same solutions. For instance, they debated whether a reported decline in the quality of teachers could be better solved by toughening teacher preparation and certification procedures, or by raising teachers' salaries. Should schools become more technically and vocationally oriented, or should they stress a return to basic academic skills?

However, one concern common to most educators was summed up by Love: "We are now asked in the public schools to provide parenting, socialization, assimilation, manners, morals, immunization, sex education and it could go on and on and on. I think it's about time that the schools determine what they are willing to be held accountable for."

Despite Madigan's comment that participants were at the conference "not to point fingers at each other or look for blame," some participants couldn't resist shaking a finger at the General Assembly. Joan Levy, president of the Illinois Association of School Boards, sharply criticized legislators for passing mandates without providing money to implement the programs. Levy accused legislators of continuing to tamper with local property taxes by increasing homestead exemptions which further erodes the local tax base. The legislature should "stop playing politics with the children of Illinois," she said. And IEA president Weaver called on the legislature to "do the politically courageous thing and pass an extension of the income tax."

If lawmakers were accused at the conference of being too political about education, educators also got some critiques: Michael Bakalis, an educator himself, urged the education community to look at some of its own shortcomings. Funding is part of the problem, but the education system itself has been "long on rhetoric and short on performance," he said. "Education today suffers not so much from a scarcity of dollars but from a shortage of vision."

But it was Berman who may have summed up the views of many legislators when he told participants at a panel discussion on education financing that the education community must get specific about reforms and must develop a broader coalition of political power to push those changes through the legislature. He reminded participants that only 27 percent of all taxpayers paying to support public education have children in school; the other 73 percent may want other programs for their tax dollars. When a legislator is running for election, there's "no reason to upset 73 percent of constituents to help 27 percent," he pointed out.

Educators will have to get politically involved at the local level, Berman said. If educators want a politically sensitive tax increase, it's up to them to persuade taxpayers at the local level that it's necessary. Without such help, Berman concluded, "we will continue to talk to each other, and there will be no movement. "

May 1984/Illinois Issues/5