* Sen. Andy Manar is having a press conference today to unveil his revised school funding reform bill. Here’s the media handout…
School Funding Reform Act of 2015
The School Funding Reform Act of 2015 is a reintroduced version of last year’s Senate Bill 16, a proposal to replace Illinois’ dated General State Aid (GSA) formula with a new, need-based system.
Background
Illinois has the second most regressive public school funding system in the country: Districts with significant low-income populations in Illinois get less combined funding from state, local and federal sources than districts with more affluent students. Last year’s proposal passed the Senate and was designed to alleviate this disparity and increase transparency in the system.
The School Funding Reform Act is based on the findings of the bipartisan Education Funding Advisory Committee that was created to study this problem and recommend changes to a funding system that hadn’t been updated or reviewed since 1997.
SB 16 would have:
• Created a single, need-based funding formula (Primary State Aid); replacing GSA and an outdated grant-based system
• Prioritized state resources to help school districts and students who most need them
• Increased transparency by requiring individual schools to account for how they spend state funds, replacing the old district-by-district reports
• Included Chicago in the new, need-based formula—eliminating the Chicago Public Schools block grant
Updates
School Funding Reform Act of 2015 (SB 1) has evolved based on discussions with more than 400 local superintendents and statewide town halls involving parents and educators.
The new bill includes the following improvements to SB 16:
Regionalization: Considers regional differences when determining state aid for districts. The new legislation uses the National Center for Education Statistics’ Comparable Wage Index to measure variation in salaries and cost of living from district to district.
Low-income calculation: Calculates the low-income population of a district based on the number of students receiving services from the Illinois Department of Human Services (generally students below 200 percent of the poverty line). This replaces the number used under SB 16, which was based on the number of students receiving free and reduced lunch (generally students below 185 percent of the poverty line).
Adequacy study: Expedites a study that will analyze the adequate amount of funding for education and develop a base level funding for adequate student growth. The study will consider how student characteristics, tax rates and preschool expansion should be factored into the funding formula.
Adequacy grants: Provides additional funding for districts that are collecting taxes at or above state averages but are spending below a calculated adequacy target— the Education Funding Advisory Board’s adequacy recommendation weighted for each district. This would protect underfunded districts from losses under SB1.
ELL reporting: Requires school districts receiving state funding for English Language Learner (ELL) programs to report their revenues and costs related to bilingual education.
Special education flexibility: Ensures that districts with above average special education needs will be funded based on their number of special education students, rather than the statewide rate of 13.8 percent.
***Projections from the Illinois State Board of Education will be distributed when they become available. ***
- Anon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:09 pm:
So, where is the oversight to ensure that the school boards and administrators use state funding effectively? Are there additional steps that can be taken to monitor local school districts, if they don’t achieve financial or educational standards?
- Pen Name - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:10 pm:
One question that coming up last round was the assertion that the bill eliminated things like black history month - or at least the state requirements, allowing local districts to establish them on their own. Does anyone know if that still a component of this bill? Was that just overblown?
- Commander Norton - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:11 pm:
Pen Name -
That was an amendment that Sen. Manar put on the bill to appease Republicans who were grousing about mandates. He knew it had no chance of passing because not all mandates are created equal, and ones like Black History Month aren’t going anywhere. That’s not in the newly added language.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:20 pm:
@ Pen Name- Mandate relief was real and still is. It was not about Black History Month though, that does not have a real cost attached unless a district really gets into it. Special ed class sizes, transportation, AED training and the like were the targets there.
@anon- Go get yourself a copy of the school code and give it a read. Be prepared for a life time of excitement though. Accountability requirements are well in place. This bill addresses finance and splitting up the current pie (does not call for new funding at this time)
In the end it will push more money to CPS. That is what the DHS factor and rationalization of costs will do. The suburban districts were pretty angry about SB 16 as most would lose funding but still be subject to the endless mandates of the state, many of which were put in place due to CPS (just my opinion). The accountability pice you mention indicates that you have not read much on what schools have to do. I would challenge you to find a public body that has more measures of accountability than schools. Our volunteer school board members have to undertake mandatory training at their expense. To the best of my knowledge they are the only publicly elected body to have that mandate, and receive no compensation.
- Anon2500 - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:22 pm:
It will be interesting to see if the ISBE projections will compare what 100% GSA funding should look like under the current formula, or as before, a comparison of the bill to pro-rated funding.
- Educated in the Suburbs - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:30 pm:
“Mandate relief was real and still is.”
There are something like six pages of unfunded state mandates (one mandate per line) ranging from curriculum to clock batteries. Some of them are good ideas but need funding; some of them are simple common sense; some of them are onerous and pointless; and some of them are obviously just political point-scoring that the legislature has never thought of again but districts have to continue to comply every year even though exactly nobody has cared since.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:36 pm:
@ Educated in the Suburbs- Amen!
- DuPage - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:37 pm:
This bill looks like it will punish suburban districts that voted for referendums to raise their school taxes over the years. If Rahm wants more money for CPS, he should tell CPS to raise the Chicago school tax.
- Team Sleep - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:38 pm:
There are too many leaders at the federal and state level who act like “sacred cows” present the same quagmire as a runaway freight train: how do you stop it or at the very least divert the train from causing too much damage? We see it at the federal level (defense spending and Medicare) and state level (education) even when continued paths of spending or program management may cause severe sustainability issues. Kudos to Senator Manar for attempting to tackle the problem.
- Wordslinger - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:39 pm:
I think this will get real afte the governor’s proposed budget number gets plugged in.
- Hit or Miss - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:42 pm:
===Increased transparency by requiring individual schools to account for how they spend state funds, replacing the old district-by-district reports===
This is something that has been needed for years. A great idea.
- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:51 pm:
The lack of mandate relief and the taking from suburban schools to other schools is still the issue. If 70% of a suburban property tax bill goes to the local school district. How is that in any way appropriate? If the state is going to reduce these allotments in the suburbs, will they reduce state taxes for the suburbs? Or is that as unfair as the previous and current proposal? Just curious.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:58 pm:
@ Walter Mitty- SB 16 is about GSA funds from the state. Those funds are raised through state income and sales taxes.
The local tax levy money still goes to the district (the school levy is 60-70% of your property tax bill, the rest goes to other local and county taxing bodies). It does not pass through state hands it is collected by the counties and distributed directly;y to the schools. It should be noted that the property taxes assessed in Cook county are based on an EAV that is 16% of the fair market value of the property. The rest of the state is based on 33% of FMV. Even with Cook County assigned a state factor that is still a good deal for taxpayers.
- Bill White - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 1:02 pm:
Speaking of ridiculous government regulation, why should private restaurants be required to force employees to wash their hands after using the restroom? Sounds like governmental overreach to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5O0f3D99gc
Watch the video and then let’s talk about specific unfunded mandates . . .
- A guy - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 1:13 pm:
It’s moved a little closer, but it’s sure not there yet.
- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 1:15 pm:
JS.. I completely and agree and understand school funding..unfortunately. The point is, if you fund your schools locally and you get a low portion of pro rated funds from the state now, and you stand to get even less of that under this proposal, it’s a punishment. Where will the lost state money to the suburbs come from? Raise local taxes to make up the difference? Again, great if the suburbs get to opt out of paying their part of the state taxes… It sounds crazy, because that’s what this idea is…
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 1:53 pm:
==Again, great if the suburbs get to opt out of paying their part of the state taxes==
That’s just silly. So because we don’t get back what we think we should we should just get to opt out? I know what you are saying. I understand you are trying to make a point. I just think it’s a silly point.
If you live in a wealthy district why in the world should you not get less from the state? There are districts out there who can’t provide the level of support some of these suburban districts have because they simply don’t have the tax base to be able to do so. So, yeah, I have no problem redistributing state aid around the state to those that need it the most.
- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:03 pm:
Demoralized… The reason this is not ready yet, is because the supposed wealthy suburbs are also made up of working class families that chose a smaller house, a used car,and no vacations to send their kids to a better school. This concept is tantamount to changing retirement benefits that so many find sacred.
If the state wants to change the Constitution and not fund. Another story. It’s a silly point, I said as much, as I also said. So is this proposal.
The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
- MOON - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:03 pm:
Manar’s bill will never pass the house!
- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:06 pm:
I don’t think you ever raise a person up by bringing another down…. I am done. Sorry.
- Anon - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
How does this actually fix the education funding level in Illinois? It doesn’t. It just moves money around and creates winners and losers in the current substandard system. It’s also going to create a lot of hard feelings and exacerbate negative stereotypes about “rich people” and “poor people.”
In the end, it’s not about fairness at all. It’s about taking from someone and giving it to someone else. AKA “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:09 pm:
==I don’t think you ever raise a person up by bringing another down==
AFSCME might want to print that up on some signs and bumper stickers.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:43 pm:
@DuPage, Chicago Board of Ed has raised property taxes to the max something like 17 or 18 of the last 20 years, so not sure what your point is.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 2:46 pm:
@ Walter Mitty- I definitely get it. The district I run is definitely receiving a lower proportional level of funding than say East St. Louis. We are subject to the same mandates though. Chicago gets a vastly disproportionate share of funding when you look at student population (yes,Chicago is a major generator of revenue for Illinois). Not excusing it or supporting or opposing. It just is. It will get worse, unfortunately.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 3:10 pm:
==- DuPage - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 12:37 pm:==
CPS has raised property taxes.
==- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 1:15 pm:==
Suburuban districts are not entitled to state moneys. Pull up the bootstraps and quit whining.
- Nope - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 3:28 pm:
Get the moving truck ready. I moved to where I live because of the schools and my Home’s value and corresponding taxes are a function of that decision and my neighborhood school. If anything like this happens illinois can do without me.
- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 3:52 pm:
Precinct… By whining, you mean I should have bought a mansion in the neighboring district, a new car, and should have taken my kids to Disney or even the Dells?
I get it. But the reality is, we all make choices based on the rule of law.The Constitution say’s the state does need to provide public education. The conversation the last proposal was sorely needed for the funding issue. Since it still creates the winners and losers, I suppose the next iteration is seceding South of I- 80 from the North?
The half baked comments and the half baked proposals should be met with the same silliness. At least Andy doesn’t have a red office….
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 4:53 pm:
==Since it still creates the winners and losers==
There will never be a bill that doesn’t . . . unless you have a few billion extra stuck in the couch cushions.
- Precinct Captain - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 5:02 pm:
==- Walter Mitty - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 3:52 pm:==
The takers would see a major cut if they became their own state.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 5:11 pm:
==Since it still creates the winners and losers==
Also, it’s not really reform if you are going to hold everyone harmless. Kind of defeats the purpose don’t you think?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 5:59 pm:
== Since it still creates the winners and losers, I suppose the next iteration is seceding South of I- 80 from the North? ==
Using that logic, Illinois should be seceding from the Union since we send more dolalrs to Washington than we get back.
Some interesting data on federal funds distribution
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/
- forwhatitsworth - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 6:21 pm:
Last year’s SB 16 was viewed by many as an attempt to apply a O-sum concept of taking $ from the more affluent, mostly suburban school districts and giving a bigger piece of the pie to the less affluent districts. Sounds like a Robin Hood story and will be the same thing all over again if total state funding is not significantly increased.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 6:26 pm:
Since federal funds were brought up (thanks RNUG) it should be noted that typically, high poverty districts receive significant federal funding. This is especially true for CPS, Cicero, U 46,East St. Louis etc. Those funding sources are not considered in the new SB 1. If Manar is actually trying to do what he says he is trying to do then he should consider all funds in developing a profile of an individual district’s capacity to fund education. If federal funds (Title 1, Title 2, IDEA) were considered as local capacity, the so called winners and losers would look a bit different.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 6:57 pm:
I don’t see much of a chance of a bill like this passing. Everyone is for reform until their ox is gored. Change a formula and you make winners and losers, which means change can’t get off the ground.
I’m sure that Manar and other reform-minded folks have their hearts in the right place. But it is never easy to make changes when no on can agree on the problem. Lots of school districts are pretty happy with things as they are.
- Millennial - Tuesday, Feb 3, 15 @ 11:14 pm:
***Outside of Chicago*** The school funding problem is due to central and downstate counties over reliance on taxing residential real estate and under-taxing cropland.
For example, take Logan County:
Annual residential real estate taxes approach almost 2.8% of a homes assessed value. Taxes on cropland are less than one fifth of one percent, or btw $10-14.00 per acre. (an acre of cropland is worth $11,000-14,000.00). Cash rents for cropland range from $150.00 - $250.00 per acre.
If you raised taxes to say $20.00 per acre, you would immediately increase the school budget by 125%
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 8:45 am:
@ Millenial- you might be right but it is not by choice. The ILGA has something to do with that.
Not sure if you are aware but a new farm bill passed two years ago that dramatically impacted the crop land valuation. Increase in value for taxation has all but stopped.
The ag lobby is quietly one of the most powerful in the state. But I would support your effort to allow us to jump up taxes $20 per acre.
- iMark1978 - Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 9:00 am:
Of course this is all null, because the State cannot pay the school districts state aid on time anyways…