COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Urban legends. Old wives’ tales. Tabloid news. They may sound credible - but often, in reality, they have no basis in fact.

For instance, I was told many years ago that if you spun to your left enough to get dizzy, you could spin an equal number of times to your right and regain your equilibrium. My two children have finally outgrown the stage at which twirling around to make themselves dizzy was considered a fun game. Miraculously, they survived this passage of childhood without injury or permanent brain damage.

And no, I never suggested to my children that they spin the opposite direction when I caught them making themselves dizzy. But, how often do we challenge the validity of what we hear and assume as fact?

Children are not, it seems, the only ones who enjoy spinning until they are dizzy. To listen to any incumbent legislator's campaign propaganda, you would think the Education Reform Act of 1997 (House Bill 452), addressed some real concerns about public education accountability and guaranteed every child in Illinois’ public schools equal access to "fair" school funding. That certainly is a spin in one direction.

If we were to challenge the legislators’ assumptions, we could certainly spin it in the opposite direction. The Education Reform Act of 1997 might be viewed as containing some initiatives that have little or no relationship to the improvement of public education. Ironically, these are the very provisions that are being held up by lawmakers as significant accountability measures.

For example, school districts are wondering whether it is even possible to comply with the administrative cost cap provision of the bill. The technical requirements of the provision are confusing and out of sync with current public school budget and audit requirements. The law limits the rate of growth in administrative cost to the lesser of (1) the percentage growth in the Consumer Price Index or (2) the percentage growth in instructional cost. One of the unfortunate details of the law is that it contains an artificially broad definition of administrative cost and a correspondingly narrow definition of instructional cost.

Even if public school board members and employees agreed with the policy intention of the provision (and there is significant disagreement over the need for the administrative cost caps), they would be faced with trying to implement a major piece of legislation that, among other things, doesn't take into account increases in mandated costs and costs that are out of a school district’s control. Excluded from the calculation of administrative costs are: Workers’ Compensation, Unemployment Insurance, liability insurance, health insurance costs, the cost of lawsuits filed against a district or judgements against a district, and pension costs.

Nor does the bill account for certain basic instructional costs school districts must pay. Tuition payments under Functions 4110 (Payments for Regular Programs), 4120 (Payments for Special Education Programs), 4130 (Payments for Adult/Continuing Education Programs), and 4140 (Payments for Vocational Education Programs) are all excluded from the calculation of instructional cost.

These flaws ensure that trying to comply with the cap requirements could seriously hamper school districts' ability to provide reasonable administration of the educational program. That in turn will prove to be a serious stumbling block to efforts to provide a quality education, to increase student achievement and to provide accountability - the very outcomes lawmakers want.

And that’s not all. The Education Reform Act of 1997 also contains a provision on performance contracts for administrators. Sounds great to citizens who are often reminded that public schools are failing our children and that the leaders in our schools are out of touch, or worse, are taking advantage of the taxpayers. Of course, the people doing the reminding know little about public education administration and fail to realize the amount of dedication and love that board members, administrators, teachers and staff all bring to their collective effort - educating our nation’s children.

This provision begs the question: are citizen-elected boards of education not holding their superintendent employees accountable? The performance contracts likely will have little impact on redefining relationships between boards of education and superintendents. In a district where the board and superintendent are at odds, the law won’t improve the relationship. In a district where the relationship is cooperative and professional, the law won't destroy what has already been developed. So why is the provision necessary? Will the implication that boards have been derelict in their responsibility to monitor administrative performance make board members feel appreciated for what they give to their communities? Will talented college students be interested in entering a profession in which the state has implied there is little room for trust or validation?

Politicians have long used public education to get themselves elected. People care about the education of children and it is too easy for politicians to prey upon that concern. Whether they impugn the job that public schools are doing or stress their contributions and plans to make the education of our youth better, it seems they all have something to say about education in their campaigns. In case you wonder whether I exaggerate, I ask you to recall a certain candidate for Illinois Secretary of State in the 1998 Spring primary race who proudly placed an education theme on his campaign signs: "License Plates for Education." My goodness, where does it stop?

Those of us who support and work for the public education of our children have been subjected to attacks on our intentions and contributions. We have silently allowed politicians to suggest ridiculous solutions to problems which may (or may not) exist in our schools. Too often we allow the public to listen to the political spin without spinning back.

It makes me wonder whether I should have spun my children in the opposite direction they spun to make themselves dizzy. Perhaps I should at least have given it a try.