Joseph L. Bast, Herbert J. Walberg, Robert J. Genetski
In Part 1 of this report, we replied to the March 1996 report of the Governor’s Commission on Education Funding.’ Chaired by Stanley 0. Ikenberry, the president emeritus of the University of Illinois, the Commission’s charge was to “develop and recommend an action plan for the reform of the primary and secondary education funding system in Illinois, with emphasis on the areas of equity and fairness.” (page 1)
In this second and final part of our report, we advance an alternative set of principles for school finance reform in Illinois. In many ways, these principles follow the lead of the Governor’s Commission. For example, we too seek to create a connection between funding and outputs; we seek to clearly define academic standards; we call for substantial property tax relief; we try to give affluent districts a bigger stake in the state funding system; and we offer a constitutional amendment to protect taxpayers from “bait and switch” trickery once reform legislation is enacted.
Our disagreements with the Commission usually arise from how these principles are implemented. For example, the Commission proposes to link funding and outputs by stronger enforcement of laws that allow the state to take over and otherwise intervene in the operation of local schools. We believe this approach hasn’t worked in the past, and new efforts along these lures would undermine local control and accountability. The Commission wants clearly defined academic standards, but seems content to allow the state to develop those standards, design the tests, and interpret the results. We doubt that the state can do this without arousing justified dissent from families that span the political, religious, and ideological spectrums.
The Commission would make $1.6 billion in property tax relief possible by increasing state taxes by $2 billion. We believe this is a poor trade in light of empirical evidence showing that state funding is associated with lower test scores, and also because income taxes are inferior in several ways to property taxes. We wish the Commission had explored, instead, the possibility that increasing school efficiency could make property tax relief possible.
Each of these disagreements was spelled out in Part 1 of this report. Having criticized the Commission’s recommendations, we feel obligated to put forward an alternative plan of action. Like the Commission, we propose eight principles of school finance reform. Principle 7 presents The Heartland Plan, a proposal that incorporates the earlier principles. Principle 8 presents a proposed constitutional amendment that would implement The Heartland Plan.
The Heartland Plan is meant as a point of departure for further debate. It was not designed through a consensus process and does not have any political patrons (that we know of). We believe it answers the challenge to “come up with a plan” based on the principles of reform. We realize the plan is only a brief outline of what the final product would have to be, and we welcome the help of others in modifying and improving on our beginning.
In Part 1, we observed that the Commission had little to say about the mediocre and sometimes disastrous state of public education in Illinois. Absent such an overview, we wondered how a case could be made for either fundamental reform or increased levels of funding. We provide the missing information in an essay in Appendix A titled “The Condition of Education.” That essay summarizes the condition of education nationwide, in Illinois, and specifically in Chicago. We take the opportunity to respond to the new crop of apologists who claim our schools are “good enough” or are failing for reasons beyond anyone’s control.
One of our most important recommended reforms is to give parents the ability to choose the schools their children attend. We understand that the proposal is controversial, due at least partly to misconceptions about how educational choice programs can be designed and financed. We address those issues in Appendix B: “Is Educational Choice the Answer?” Included in that essay is a review of who supports choice and answers to commonly asked questions.
As Illinois lawmakers grapple with the difficult issue of reforming the state’s education finance system, we hope they find the information and analysis contained in this report of use. We look forward to working with members of the Governor’s Commission, elected officials, educators, taxpayers, and concerned parents in the months ahead.
