Michael D. Johnson is executive director emeritus of the Illinois Association of School Boards. This is part one of a five-part series.
Editor’s note: In September 2000, Michael D. Johnson became just the fifth full-time executive director in the 98-year history of the Illinois Association of School Boards. He retired from that role in May 2007 but returned in July 2007 as executive director emeritus to focus on the transition to a new executive and to help with fundraising for the Association. He will relinquish that role and end 11-plus years of service with IASB in June 2012.
This is the first of five articles Johnson will write for The Journal, outlining what he and the Association has done and where he believes both are heading. In this issue, Johnson reviews IASB’s relationship with its membership and the challenge of “education reform.”
Eleven years ago this month, I began a new phase in my life — one that took me out of the classroom and central business office for the first time in 27 years. I enjoyed my time teaching and coaching. I also appreciated the opportunity to become a principal. Later, when I began my first superintendency in 1981, I didn’t expect it would eventually lead me to IASB.
I don’t regret the route I took and as I look back, I believe each stop was a deliberate step in a continuing path as an advocate for public education.
As executive director of the Illinois Association of School Boards, I have attempted to help this Association help its members to become effective school leaders and advocates for local school governance. It is a mission that doesn’t waver, year in and year out.
In fact, I think local school boards are better prepared than ever.
IASB has increased its membership rate despite consolidation, mergers and reorganizations. In September 2000, 868 of 895 districts, or 97 percent, were IASB members. As of September 2011, 851 of Illinois’ 864 districts, or 98.4 percent, have Association membership.
Last year, 3,048 of our 5,966 board members attended at least one IASB event, and 711 attended three or more. Similar participation rates are reflected among superintendents. Continued growth in participation at division meetings, workshops and the annual conference means that the message is getting through loud and clear: come to IASB if you want the knowledge, skills and resources to become a better school board member or superintendent.
While these numbers may be impressive, local school districts still come under attack from state lawmakers, state officers and special interest groups who think they can educate students and operate schools more effectively than local boards and administrators.
The challenges come in two forms — adding to what they want school districts to do or removing support for what school districts are already doing.
The additions come in all varieties: national standards, financial oversight, charter school expansion, forced consolidation, overhaul of FOIA requirements, private school vouchers, mandatory nutrition requirements, changes to election deadlines, unfunded “green” initiatives, increased “bullying” policy requirements, civil union act requirements … and there’s more.
Loss of support also comes from various sources: state versus state competition for “Race to the Top” dollars, higher local contributions to teacher pensions, reductions in transportation reimbursements, late payments for general state aid, reduction in categorical grants, elimination of teacher and principal mentoring, elimination of regional superintendent funding, failure to pass bond authority to borrow money to repay debts, failure to fund approved capital projects, restricting mandate waiver requests. The list goes on and on.
The latest barrage — in the form of the Education Reform Act — is part of a national movement for “increased accountability” that began several years ago.
The call for “education reform” is not new. But this time new, louder voices were in the middle of the din — voices that were accompanied by a large war chest of campaign contributions.
The package of reform measures that emerged from months of discussion and negotiations was adopted with the passage of SB 7, which contains education reform provisions regarding teacher tenure, teacher dismissal, teacher seniority, teacher strikes and mandatory school board member training.
The bill was a follow up to last year’s SB 315 — the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA) — which was approved in January 2010 in an attempt to bolster Illinois’ chances of being awarded a federal “Race to the Top” grant. Illinois, of course, did not receive the “Race” grant, but the legislation remained in place to strengthen the teacher and administrator evaluation processes. Those stronger performance evaluations formed the basis of many of the provisions contained in SB 7.
IASB and the other school management representatives were heavily involved in these discussions. Our goal, as always, was to represent the best interests of school boards. But newer players also emerged, including “Stand for Children,” a national organization based out of Oregon. While there is nothing unusual about special interest groups forming to raise debate over public policy issues, this particular group was quite aggressive. Not only in how many reforms it pushed for, but also by how much money it raised and contributed to Illinois state races last fall.
In fact, a lot of criticism has been aimed at the group and its founder, Jonah Edelman, who bragged on camera how easy it was to sway Illinois lawmakers with monetary incentives. Many education leaders responded angrily to this claim, and even members of the organization are questioning the motives of its leaders.
We don’t blame large corporate donors from wanting to join the debate. We welcome open and honest discussion of all issues concerning public education. There is, however, a fundamental difference in how organizations attempt to influence such proposals. Special interest groups use money and lots of it. IASB and our partners in the Illinois Statewide School Management Alliance rely on facts, data and testimony from local boards and districts.
A lot has already been reported on the Education Reform Act. You can read a summary of SB 7 online at https://www.iasb.com/govrel/sb7analysis.pdf, so I won’t go into any great detail here. Suffice it to say, some of the measures will actually give districts more flexibility. Other requirements will make it harder for boards, superintendents and teachers to use discretion or local negotiations for resolving conflicts the reforms will also create.
What is important to remember is that your district does have a say and a place at the table on all matters relating to public education. We can’t and won’t win every battle. Our goal is to maintain excellence in local school governance in support of quality public education. That’s the battle cry and mission of your Association.
That hasn’t changed in the past 11 years, and it won’t change in the next decade.
Next issue: IASB finances