The emerging form of Chicago school reform

Lourdes Monteagudo was once a poor immigrant attending the Chicago Public Schools. She later taught for eight years in the schools. Three of her children attend the public schools. Today she is principal of the New Sabin Magnet School. On April 26 she advocated overhaul of the system when Chicago school reform arrived in Springfield.

Monteagudo stood in the well of the Illinois Senate and argued her case. "I come before you as a first hand inside witness to the many atrocities that plague our schools," she told the Senate Elementary and Secondary Education Committee. Then she enumerated atrocities:

"I have seen parents ignored, insulted, or frankly pushed out of schools because they're asking questions that no one wants to answer. . . ."

"I have witnessed the manipulation of budgets and the backroom deals among friends. . . ."

"I have seen incompetent people be promoted because they belong to the right cliques. . . ."

"I have seen young teachers punished for questioning unsound practices. I have also seen these good teachers leave the system because they cannot take the frustration and isolation to which they are subjected. . . ."

"Most of all I have seen bright eyed and bushy tailed children turned into zombies, emotionally scarred for life by teachers, principals, rules and programs that are worthless. . . ."

Chicago school reform had, as all knew it must, come to the Capitol. It was the next step in a process begun 18 months before by Mayor Harold Washington, who convened the education summit to address growing awareness of the schools' failures. A 19-day teachers' strike last fall outraged and mobilized parents. Then U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett called Chicago schools the country's worst. Parents and business people were mad and demanded improvement. And politicians promised change.

The Senate Elementary and Secondary Education Committee spent seven hours listening to Monteagudo and others testify on a package of Chicago school reform bills. Chicago Mayor Eugene Sawyer was the main attraction, an appearance that drew five television cameras to the Senate galleries and House Speaker Michael J. Madigan to the Senate floor. Sawyer claimed the problems had existed for years and promised in the 1988-89 school year to:

• Shorten terms of school board members from five to three years and increase the board from 11 to 13 members.
• Cut by 5 percent noninstructional central administration expenses.
• Put the the general superintendent of schools and school principals on performance contracts.
• Shorten the time period for removal of incompetent teachers and principals.
• Create local school bodies made up of parents, teachers, administrators and the local community to set goals, make budgets and help run schools.
• Appoint a blue ribbon panel to examine distribution of funds and look for new money.
• Name a watchdog agency to monitor reform and report to the public.

June 1988 | Illinois Issues | 10

And the mayor said that education reform will require more money, although he did not have a figure yet.

Senators heard, too, from State Superintendent of Education Ted Sanders who outlined the State Board of Education's plan for school reform. The state board wants:

• An authority to monitor the progress of reform and to be able to put Chicago Public Schools into receivership if reform is not forthcoming.
• Early childhood education programs for all four-year-olds judged at risk of failure, class sizes at statewide averages, and removal of disruptive students from normal classrooms — all within three years.
• Reduction of the size of the central office bureaucracy, stronger roles for principals and parents.
• Development within five years of options for choosing schools.
• Encouragement of multiyear labor contracts and increased funding, from both state and local sources.

Senators took testimony on the plans being pushed by four groups. Monteagudo represented the United Neighborhood Organization and the Developing Communities Project in supporting S.B. 1837, an initiative by the multiracial business group, Chicago United. The business interests back creation of the Chicago Education Authority, a parallel to the School Finance Authority, to oversee reform and overcome the Chicago School Board' s lack of credibility. "Because true and clear information is so unavailable, we feel that maybe the only way we will be able to get some answers is to join the business community in their request to form the Chicago Education Authority," Monteagudo told senators.

It is not an idea embraced by all. Mayor Sawyer offered his monitoring board as the answer to the Chicago United proposal. "I just don't think we ought to create another level of bureaucracy. We've got enough levels now, and I think the board has the statutory responsibility anyway for the education of our children."

James Deanes, who heads the Parent Community Council appointed by the late Mayor Harold Washington, was more adamant. "I think in the 1800s it was called an overseer. Now in 1988 they're calling it oversight. Something has taken us back," he told the committee. Deanes continued, "We don't want to gain a measure of control on the one hand and give the control to a super board on the other."

A second legislative proposal came from the Concerned Parent Network in a bill sponsored by Sen. Dawn Clark Netsch (D-4, Chicago). The network claimed to be the sole "parents only" initiative. The network maintained that professionals must be in charge of schools, while being accountable to a parent-led governing body. Specifically S.B. 2045 would have local school improvement councils hire principals and the principal select teachers with final approval of the district superintendent. Class sizes would be reduced, administrative expenses capped, and the time given a poor teacher to improve performance shortened.

Sen. Miguel del Valle (D-5, Chicago) presented S.B. 2144, the third reform proposal of the day and the initiative pushed by Chicagoans United to Reform Education (CURE). "This bill goes the farthest and has the most provisions that have been addressed here today," he said. The proposal over three years would turn most educational decisions over to a school governing council, comprised of six teachers, six parents, six community residents and the principal. The central bureaucracy would be scaled back. Parents could eventually pick any school in the city for their children. And there would be incentives for those teaching in the toughest schools.

And the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance offered the final proposal. Its bill, S.B. 2222, sponsored by Sen. Richard Newhouse (D-13, Chicago) would establish over three years at each school local school management councils, half parent and half teacher. It would reduce the central bureaucracy and put principals on performance contracts. "We're concerned that if teachers don't have a significant role in decisionmaking at the local school level, that classroom reform will not happen. We'll have reform in the hallways, but nothing that gets into the classroom," G. Alfred Hess, the panel's executive director, told the committee.

June 1988 | Illinois Issues | 11

There was more high level criticism of Chicago schools in the Illinois House on May 11. Federal education secretary Bennett outlined his views on reform to a joint session of the Illinois House and Senate. (He also acknowledged later that after charging that Chicago schools were the country's worst, he had his staff check to see if he was right. They found others, including St. Louis schools, to be worse.) The elements of Bennett's proposals were not that different from the reform proposals kicking about Springfield and Chicago.

Bennett called for greater involvement of parents in schools by allowing them to choose schools their children would attend and to help select teachers and principals. He said principals must be accountable and able to hire and fire staff. And he suggested that the size of the Chicago school bureaucracy be reduced, referring to it as a "blob." He said, "The iron law of the blob is this. As the number of students in the district increases, the size of the central bureaucracy will increase. As the number of students decreases, the size of the bureaucracy will increase." And he urged alternative ways to certify teachers.

Where Bennett differs from many others is in the need for money. He said there should be no money without reform that addressed accountability. "American people don't really object to spending money on education. . . but they like to believe they're spending it on something worthwhile. Indeed what we have found over and over again, it is not how much you spend, it is how you spend it."

Although Bennett's beliefs paralleled many of those pushing reform, his talk highlighted the political differences. He got standing ovations from Republicans and polite applause from Democrats. But then Sen. Arthur Berman (D-2, Chicago), chairman of the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee, asked, "Can't we get the same kind of commitment for education that this administration has given the Contras?" Applause came from the Democratic side of the aisle, while Republicans booed.

There are other proposals. There will be more. The form that reform will take was emerging. Nearly everyone wants increased parental involvement. Educators call it school-based management; community groups talk of empowering parents. Most favor trimming the central administration. More accountability and authority for principals runs through all proposals — so do things like smaller classes, longer school days and school years.

The sticking points have become visible too. Teachers will resist measures to weaken tenure. Principals want increased authority equal to their increased accountability. And then there is money. The kinds of things that need to be done will cost money, money that legislators from in and out of Chicago are reluctant to provide to a system that does not work now. The education authority will be easiest to sell downstate and hardest to sell in Chicago.

But Chicago school reform extends beyond Chicago. There will be no new money for Chicago schools without reform. There will be no state tax increase without reform. That gives a stake in the outcome to students in other districts, human service providers and public universities that say they need more state money.

School reform is potentially divisive. Before the issue arrived in Springfield, efforts to keep the groups talking had succeeded. In Springfield various champions expressed hope for a final agreement. After the hearing, the Parent Community Council's Deanes said that he was encouraged by what he heard and believed that all could reach agreement on a reform package. "It's just historic that these groups have worked as hard as they have."

Two days after the Senate hearing Sen. Berman summoned the players to his office. Discussions were fruitful, he said. No one dumped the basic principles in their respective plans and there was agreement to move on. "I think it's beautiful to see the great commitment that these non-paid citizens have put forth on the complex, technical proposals," he said. The groups continued negotiations. The committee meanwhile decided to move onto the Senate floor a Berman bill under committee sponsorship as a vehicle for changes. With the bill, S.B. 1839, will go one Senate attempt to improve Chicago schools.□

June 1988 | Illinois Issues | 12