|
INNOVATING TOWARD SUCCESS
EMPOWER LOCAL LEADERS
Many of the problems facing families, schools and districts are best addressed at the local level, rather than by state mandates that are almost necessarily to broad or rigid. Once the state has put the right standards and measures in place, and invested in effective teachers and leaders, the state must fi nd ways to support local innovation on critical issues—resisting the temptation to
answer every challenge with a state-level mandate.
Instead, we propose that Illinois begin moving toward a system where the state is clear about its expectations and priorities, develops a sophisticated array of indicators to measure student and school success, and then supports innovative and effective local efforts.
Critical to this process is the availability of relevant and timely information at every level, so that families, teachers, principals, superintendents and policymakers can make informed decisions, calibrate programs, respond to areas of greatest need and expand successful strategies.
Click here for "Innovation Fund" |
The Trouble with State Mandates
Many of the problems facing families, schools, and districts are best addressed at the local level, rather than by broad or rigid state mandates. For example, Illinois has one of the worst student–counselor ratios in the country, with an average of one counselor for every 690 students.41 Old thinking might prompt the state to require more counselors in every school. In our view, this would be a fl awed response. Why?
- Illinois does not have enough trained counselors waiting in the wings to meet such a new requirement.
- This would be an extraordinarily expensive new mandate (Adding just one new counselor to every school would cost the state over $200 million annually.).
- This would be an ineffi cient way to tackle the serious challenge of providing greater support to students for two reasons: (1) Some local schools/districts may have other strategies for providing student support that make more sense for their circumstances (lower class sizes, robust advisories, partnerships with local counseling programs), or (2) schools do not share the state’s commitment to enhanced counseling, and therefore lack the will and/or capacity to put additional counselors to good use. This does not mean the state should ignore this issue, or even that it would be wrong to have more counselors in every school. Instead, it suggests that the state support local efforts to respond to this issue, rather than forcing a particular solution across all districts.
|
