Seeking a new state superintendent of education

By SAMUEL GOLDMAN

With the departure of Ted Sanders as the state supterintendent of education, Illinois suffers yet another setback in its frustrating efforts at school reform. Sanders is the third superintendent in the last 10 years. A brief look at the work of all three reveals that each began a much heralded process for reform; each set in motion legislative and gubernatorial activity; each provoked an enormous amount of movement by state bureaucrats; each had some success and each left a huge unfulfilled agenda. Is it any wonder that many local school officials have adopted a certain cynicism toward state-directed reform as they wait for yet another Superintendent of Education?

One cannot fault Sanders for his efforts nor for his leaving. His tenure and his strategies simply continued a set of public policies that are inherently doomed to fail and are, perhaps unconsciously, designed to stimulate turnover in the office. The basic premise for educational reform in Illinois seems to be predicated on the notion that change will occur as a result of state mandates and related transfer of unspecified amounts of additional dollars to local school districts. State bureaucrats and legislators have no problem promulgating mandates first and looking for dollars later. Seasoned school officials know this very well so they give hesitant commitment to the mandates and wait for the superintendent of education to bring them the dollars. When the dollars do not arrive in the expected amount, the mandates are put in serious jeopardy, the superintendent's dreams (not to mention his credibility) are shattered and it is time to look elsewhere for career fulfillment. Exit one state

Whoever succeeds Sanders is well advised to keep one eye on history and one foot in the saddle unless some dramatic changes are made in . . . public educational policy . . .

supperintendent, enter another and as Yogi Berra once said, "It's deja vu all over again." Whoever succeeds Sanders is well advised to keep one eye on history and one foot in the saddle unless some dramatic changes are made in the basic premises that underly public educational policy in Illinois.

The politics of education in Illinois are bruising and oftentimes destructive. They represent the most demanding reality of the superintendent's job. Finely tuned political skills are an absolute necessity for the incumbent. But this alone will not suffice to bring about the needed reform in Illinois schools.

We need a different approach to educational reform — a new set of premises for promoting positive change in schooling in Illinois. First, public policy must recognize the complexity of bringing about change in some 970 different and perceptually autonomous school districts. Of singular importance is the notion that while the legislature can promulgate, it is the local school districts which must effectuate. Second, a process must be developed which is self sustaining no matter who the state superintendent of education may be. A major element in this process is holding local school boards accountable for meeting certain clearly defined standards of performance. At least one variable in the state funding formula should be tied to performance. Third, locally oriented incremental reform activities should be encouraged and supported with incremental state dollars. Beacon schools should be identified as models of educational excellence and school districts should be funded to emulate them. Fourth, locally oriented in-service programs for all school personnel should be funded according to identified and documented need. Fifth, school board members should be encouraged to participate actively in "education issues workshops" in order to bring them into the educational problem-solving machinery of the state. Many school superintendents complain that their boards simply do not know enough to make wise judgments about needed reforms. Sixth, universities should be more involved in school improvement. Perhaps their major contribution would be to help local school districts identify local needs and then to help develop an action plan for meeting these needs.

One of the more obvious weaknesses of "top down" reform efforts is the unintended consequence of local inertia. Too many local school officials just wait to be told what to do by the state. The new premise of school reform would push them to take initiative in leading their school districts. And while the state superintendent of education plays an important role in this process, the role is not so vital as to cause the effort to collapse whenever the incumbent leaves. □

Samuel Goldman is professor of educational administration and higher education at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

June 1989 | Illinois Issues | 34