Reviewing

\ ej - a - 'ka - shan\

In 1985 Illinois began the process of redefining education in its public schools.

Major reforms were passed by the General Assembly and signed by the governor. One year later, with the "crisis" label transferred from education to liability insurance, we offer two views of Illinois' education reforms. Neither the current state superintendent of education nor the state's last elected superintendent view the job as done. Both laud the 1985 reforms but suggest that effort, attention and resources will be needed for a long time to come to carry through the intentions of the new laws.

14/May 1986/Illinois Issues

Illinois school reform: after the cheering stopped

By MICHAEL J. BAKALIS

IT WAS a curious setting for school reform. No single educator or group started the movement. No politician led the crusade. None of the media can claim credit for arousing a public awareness concerning the need for change. Until a weak eleventh hour presence, the state's business community was visibly invisible. The public opinion polls reported the majority of the state's citizens believed the schools were already doing more than a good job. And perhaps most significantly, no large group of citizens was vocally calling for educational change — for only 22 percent of the state's population had children enrolled in the public schools. Yet in 1985, the Illinois legislature passed the most comprehensive package of school reform legislation in over a decade.

The politicians and the media heralded the new laws as initiatives which would put Illinois at the forefront of the nation in the school reform movement. The educators, normally a more conservative group, applauded the effort but were more temperate in their praise. Most adopted a stance of cautious optimism — they would wait and see. Now, almost a year later and after the cheering has subsided, it is instructive to look again at why this flurry of activity occurred, what really was accomplished, and what it means for Illinois' educational future.

Illinois' public schools were no better or worse in 1985 than they had been in 1980. Yet the legislature moved on educational issues this past year as they would not in previous sessions. Much of this activity was a matter of timing. The much publicized national report on education, A Nation at Risk, had successfully triggered widespread concern and debate about the quality of United States schools. Other states across the nation initiated state reform activities, and Illinois could hardly sit idly while others moved. The state also continued its slow but steady wrenching economic transformation from a predominantly heavy manufacturing and agricultural state to one increasingly dependent on a newly emerging service economy — precisely the kind that put a high premium on a variety of educational skills. And finally, as always in Illinois, political developments played a major part. While he had not publicly revealed his plans, Gov. James R. Thompson was looking toward seeking an unprecedented fourth term in 1986. If he were to be successful in yet another gubernatorial bid, Thompson would need some dramatic and solid accomplishment on which to run. He carefully crafted that campaign platform with his Build Illinois program and his school reform issues. In a unique special session of the legislature, the governor dramatically called for school reform and presented his agenda. In less than the hour he used to deliver his education message, the man who most educators had viewed as anti-education for the previous seven years now became the champion of the schools. In such a strange and unique combination of circumstances did school reform come to Illinois.

The package passed by the General Assembly was both an educational and a political document. Once the school reform wagon began to roll, numerous groups sought to jump on board. The legislature took the initial step in 1983 with the formation of the Commission on the Improvement of Elementary and Secondary Education. The speaker of the House initiated his own effort as did the various professional education associations as well as school reform groups which sprang out from the private sector. As the field became more crowded the need became apparent to deal and appease, to revise and compromise, since each of these educational groups was also to one degree or another representing political constituencies whose influence must be respected. Thus a number of bills which would have dramatically restructured the Chicago public schools into a decentralized system died on the political trade-offs. Proposals to substantially increase teachers' starting salaries were abandoned as the realities of the financial cost to the state became clear and as the political consequences of a tax increase to pay for them became even clearer to individual legislators. Casimir Pulaski Day was made an official school holiday, not because of the great revolutionary hero's commitment to schools but as a result of pure Illinois-style politics. The Germans and Von Steuben and the French and Lafayette would have to wait for another day. Right now there were more Polish wards in Chicago.

But for all the politics, the educational document that emerged was remarkable in a number of ways. By some political courage and through much compromise difficult issues were addressed. School administrators are now required to undergo a process of recertification so that their skills as educational manager/leaders will remain current. Major changes were enacted to upgrade the standards for entrance into the teaching profession. And the new mandatory school district teacher evaluation requirements have accomplished what most believed could never be done. In terms of the long-range effect on Illinois education, the evaluation of teachers may be the most significant component of all that was passed. Once administrators are trained to implement the process, it will be, if used correctly, the single most important element in regulating and monitoring the quality of men and women who instruct our children and give substance and character to the entire educational system.

May 1986/Illinois Issues/15

Emotional issues of educational "turf" were squarely faced as the state moved toward greater regionalization in the delivery of various educational services. A watered-down effort to bring some sense of local decision making to the Chicago schools was made, requiring each city school to establish school improvement councils which will have a limited voice on the expenditure of money and an advisory role on the curriculum and the employment of school personnel. The legislature even addressed the school district reorganization issue — one long regarded as both educationally and politically too explosive to handle. In an age of bigness, centralization and anonymity, the local school remains to many the last symbol of the virtues of smallness, community and identity. What the legislature said was that for whatever positive traits they have, small districts cannot provide the choices needed for a quality education and are too expensive and inefficient to maintain. Predictably, a groundswell of community opposition surfaced, the governor and others who advocated these changes have softened their position, and some revisions were made this spring by the legislature. If any one aspect of the reform package was miscalculated and ill-conceived, it was this one. Rather than focusing on the definition of educational quality and the capacity of a given district to deliver such quality, the original legislation concentrated on somewhat arbitrary enrollment numbers to be maintained in elementary, secondary and unit districts. In this case an effort at reform bred counterrevolution. That the legislature was even willing to take on the issue, however, was both surprising and commendable.

Other important issues were addressed in a variety of ways. Mandatory testing of students was set at various specified grade intervals. School districts are required to issue public "report cards" on district performance. Both assured that citizens and the legislature should have more systematic, complete and regular comparative information on what really is going on in the schools. Money for additional emphasis on reading and early childhood education, two areas the media had particularly supported, was also provided. Unlike some of the other reform efforts in the nation, Illinois did address the needs of special educational populations: Money for new and pilot programs was authorized for children in need of remediation, for the gifted, and for the problems of truancy, discipline and dropouts. Financially the legislature provided about $400 million in additional aid to education, which represents more new dol-

lars than in any previous year. About $100 million of that total was to implement the reforms. Thus the reform package of 1985 justifiably brought cheers from many. A skeptical educational establishment was both pleased and surprised by such uncharacteristic concern and action on the part of state lawmakers. Few were totally satisfied, for no single group received everything it had wanted. Yet it was a credit to the political leadership that consensus among these historically contentious groups was achieved, and by and large all were prepared to applaud what had been collectively accomplished.

What has become even clearer in the past
year is that the reform initiatives were not completed as the
legislative session ended in July 1985; they have just begun

In the ensuing year, however, it has also become clear what was not done in the so-called "year of education." The large money issues, for example, were virtually ignored. The school aid formula remains essentially unchanged, and even more importantly, the method of raising school revenue was not addressed. The seemingly inevitable need to increase the state income tax or the sales tax for educational revenue remained politically taboo options. And the largest cost item of the reforms proposed by virtually every group — substantially increasing teachers' salaries — was left untouched due to the potentially large number of dollars involved.

For the most part the reform effort had little effect on curriculum. What had been the school curriculum prior to 1985 remains almost totally the same today. If there was concern that our curriculum was not geared toward the realities of a changing economy, there is little evidence that the concern found its way into the reform legislation. If anything, we are left today somewhat more confused as the Illinois Board of Higher Education's initiative toward a more basic, structured and traditional curriculum seems to be squarely in contradiction to the Illinois State Board of Education's emphasis away from "courses" toward the achievement of "competencies."

Nor was any real effort made to address the way we "deliver" education in our school systems. No initiative surfaced which would have allowed for options and flexibility in terms of class hours, days of the week or how the school year might be structured. The old 9 to 3, Monday through Friday, September through June mentality on the time when schooling should occur continues to hold fast and strong.

And once again the enormous special problems of the Chicago Public Schools were handed band-aid solutions with the legislature demonstrating either its lack of understanding or its lack of concern with the state's largest and most troubled school system. Whether you search among downstaters or Chicagoans, Republicans or Democrats, the Chicago schools have few champions in the legislative halls of Springfield.

What then can we conclude now that the cheering has died down? Overall the legislative reform effort was good for what it tried to do. It should be viewed first and foremost as an accountability package — the emphasis is on checking, monitoring, evaluating, assessing, testing and reporting. This is hardly surprising since it is an initiative passed by non-educators who fairly accurately reflect the questions and concerns of their constituents. While this emphasis on accountability is needed and will hopefully make educators think more carefully about the "what" and "why" of their actions, what is sorely missing is the need to encourage those activities, settings, programs and environments which stimulate increased productivity, higher motivation and greater dedication among students, teachers and school administrators. It is as though our considerable knowledge of what motivates humans to the highest levels of achievement went unnoticed in the school reform package. The revolution in thinking that is currently characterizing the nation's private sector and the exciting renaissance going on in various parts of corporate America on these same issues seems to have stopped at the Illinois classroom door.

Perhaps more significant for the long term, however, is not the sum of the individual legislation, but rather the action of the state itself. Local control of schools continues to diminish as a new, more vigorous and involved state presence is implied in the school legislation and becomes explicit as the State Board of Education promulgates its rules and regulations to implement the 1985 package. The role of the legislature in educational matters has now become paramount. We may have technically created a State Board of Education in 1975; by 1985 that board had effectively become the Illinois General Assembly.

What has become even clearer in the past year is that the reform initiatives were not completed as the legislative session ended in July 1985; they have just begun. Important steps have been taken at the state level, and programs are already making the transition from legislative language to school district reality. Today there is a climate that is receptive to change, and most view the coming changes with guarded enthusiasm There is also a sense that, except for those financial issues, the state has done just about all it can or will do. Attention must now shift to Illinois' 1,000 local school districts who must respond to these state initiatives and, more importantly, go creatively beyond them. For in the long run the most meaningful and lasting school reform will come from the districts — in their schools and classrooms.

Michael J. Bakalis is dean, School of Education, Loyola University of Chicago. During 1984-1985 he was executive director of the Illinois Project for School Reform.

16/May 1986/Illinois Issues