AS GOV. James R. Thompson indicated in his State of the State message, he wants reforms in elementary and secondary education, and in his March Budget Message he tied the next three years' funding to those reforms. But the amount he's proposing may not provide much incentive to the education community.

Thompson has offered elementary and secondary education $250 million in new money for programs over the next three years — $27 million in state fiscal year 1985 with the remaining money spread over the following two years — in exchange for reforms in effectiveness, equity and efficiency. Thompson's reform plans are not much more specific than that, and their vagueness may weaken his efforts. Then again, perhaps he is just leaving the education community room to come up with some specifics of its own.

While elementary and secondary education would receive state general funds totaling $2.211 billion in Thompson's fiscal 1985 budget, only $61 million of that amount is new money added to the previous year's budget. Of that $61 million, $34 million would go to the teachers' pension fund, leaving only $27 million in new money for programs, which are divided into general state aid per pupil and categorical grants. Thompson's budget falls far short of the State Board of Education's request for a $475 million increase in 1985 alone, with $285 million of that increase to go to programs and the rest to pensions. What the state board asked for was a 13.6 percent hike for programs; what it got was a 1.3 percent hike. Broken down further, the board asked for a 10 percent increase in the guaranteed per pupil support level but got 5 percent, and a 26 percent increase for categorical programs such as special education but got 3 percent. To be fair, if the board's request — described by Thompson as "unwarranted and unattainable" — had been budgeted, it would have eaten up most of the $506 million in new money the state has to spend on all programs in fiscal 1985. Thompson's reform package, which he dubbed "Contract for Educational Excellence," comes in the wake of 12 national education reports. In addition, five state task forces and commissions have been studying the issue. In his Budget Message Thompson said: "We have studied and studied the problems. Now is the time to act. ... I offer a challenge — a challenge that says we will provide significant new funding for our educational system but in return for reforms and more efficiency." During a budget briefing prior to his speech Thompson said: "I don't believe we'll get reform of the system without the carrot of the dollar."

In his speech, Thompson outlined the reforms he has in mind. In the area of effectiveness, he emphasized improvements in teacher and student performance without, however, going into details. A fact sheet attached to the speech was more specific: One reform would be to develop learning "targets" or "outcomes" which specify what a student should know. The state board has been working on such targets, and once they are in place, districts and teachers would be accountable for meeting them (see "The Rostrum" by Supt. Donald G. Gill on page 40). Other reforms included improvement of training and certification procedures for teachers to insure better preparation and quality and improved teacher salaries and working conditions. In the area of equity, Thompson spoke primarily of the funding structure which supports elementary and secondary education. He said that improvements could be made by reducing school districts' heavy reliance on local property taxes for revenue and by stabilizing assessments within that taxing structure. Thompson was silent, however, on what school districts should do to replace the revenues they would lose if they stopped relying on local taxes. Was he hinting at all that some type of income tax for education should be considered? The concept has been debated previously in the legislature. (Funding for local school districts comes from three sources: state general funds, local taxes and federal grants. Although the Illinois Constitution says that the state has the primary responsibility for financing public education, state support has been declining for several years: In 1979 it was about 42 percent; in 1983 it was down to 38 percent.)

In the area of efficiency, Thompson called on local school districts to improve their internal operations and make better use of available funds. Suggestions included school consolidation, reduction of administrative costs and reallocation of funds to support programs for subjects in high demand — again without specific proposals as to how these reforms can be carried out.

These same reforms have been mentioned in the national studies on education, and many educators agree that they are needed. That is often where the consensus ends, however. Disagreements arise over how the reforms could best be accomplished — and whether

Disagreements arise over how the reforms could best be accomplished — and whether they can be accomplished at all without a substantial influx of new money

they can be accomplished at all without a substantial influx of new money. As yet, Thompson's proposals for implementing his reforms seem more like a set of ground rules than a game plan. So far only one thing is clear: Educators will have to agree to some kind of reform in order to get the additional money — paltry as that sum may be. Thompson employed a similar carrot-and-stick strategy (though with a larger carrot) to get the reforms he sought for the Regional Transportation Authority (see "Tying the Strings to the RTA," January 1984, p. 37).

In contrast, although higher education didn't exactly get a windfall in Thompson's budget, it did get a 5 percent increase — about $57 million in new money — with no strings attached. The governor allocated $1.114 billion in general funds in fiscal 1985 for higher education. Of the $57 million in new money, a $47 million increase for higher ed operations would allow staff and faculty to receive salary increases of about 5 percent. The other $10 million would go towards economic and technology development programs within higher education. (Support for higher education comes from the state's general revenue funds, tuition and fee charges and federal grants.) Thompson's 1985 higher ed budget includes a tuition increase of about 6.5 percent recommended by the Illinois Board of Higher Education. His budget also raises the Illinois State Scholarship Commission's maximum monetary award from $2,200 to $2,400. Thompson also proposed reducing the insurance premium fee charged to Illinois Guaranteed Loan Program borrowers, thereby providing students with an additional $4 million.

In addition to the $10 million in the higher ed budget for technology development, the Capital Development Board's budget includes $3.5 million for remodeling at the University of Illinois to create a microelectronics research center, and the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs' budget includes $1.9 million to provide small and medium size businesses with higher ed's technical expertise.

Of course the central debate on both education reform and education funding will wind up in the General Assembly this spring.

As for the education system itself, reforms have been plagued by competing factions and the lack of a concerted politicized effort to get more funding. Perhaps Thompson is sending educators a signal that it's time to get their act together and take it to the Statehouse.

May 1984/Illinois Issues/13

'New money' in human services for priority programs

Department on Aging, $7 million (up 19.5 percent). The governor wants to expand the in-home care program to keep the elderly out of nursing homes. The program is expected to serve more than 15,000 a month (13 percent more than now served).

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), $15 million (up 8.6 percent). The new funds would allow investigations of child abuse to keep pace with reports, which are expected to increase 8.8 percent to about 73,000. DCFS would hire 250 more caseworkers, dropping the caseload from 50 to 40.

Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, $23 million (up 4.4 percent). This would allow a 30 percent increase in state grants to local mental health agencies. Despite this increase, local agencies will receive only one-third of the state mental health funds, but will provide nearly two-thirds of the beds for short-term patients.

Department of Public Aid, $39 million (up 1 percent) for four programs. There would be increases in efforts to collect child support owed by delinquent spouses to those who receive AFDC, to find jobs for more of the 133,000 who receive General Assistance, to operate 38 shelters for victims of domestic violence and to allow slight increases in state reimbursement to hospitals and nursing homes which serve Medicaid patients.

Department of Corrections (DOC), $50 million (up 16.5 percent). The increase will help operate new prisons in Jacksonville, Lincoln and Vienna and expanded prisons in Dixon, Sheridan and Dwight. DOC expects to bring capacity of the state corrections system to within 179 beds of the projected prison population by adding 3,166 beds: 2,525 in prisons and 641 in work release facilities.

Department of Law Enforcement (DLE), $10 million (up 12.7 percent). Thompson wants to hire 100 more officers: 50 investigators to crack down on organized crime under a new Strategic Anti-Felony Team (SAF-T) program which includes a new forensics lab; 25 investigators to monitor hazardous waste; and 25 state troopers to crack down on drunk and drugged drivers.

While the Department of Public Health didn't receive any of the new money, it shows a $1.3 million or 3.3 percent increase, mostly for scholarships for medical students who agree to establish family practices in rural areas which are short of doctors. Funds are also made available for the department to install a hot line and hire more investigators for nursing home complaints. Under another Thompson priority, the department and nine other state agencies will provide pre- and post-natal care for the estimated 30,000 teen-aged girls each year who are pregnant but unmarried. Primarily a federally funded service, the Parents Too Soon program is designed to reduce the infant mortality rate.

14/May 1984/Illinois Issues