Education funding reform plan to be unveiled
Tuesday, Feb 7, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Geiger and Garcia…
Illinois Senate leaders are poised to add a contentious issue to their already complicated attempt to break the budget stalemate in Springfield as they turn their attention this week to changing the formula used to funnel state tax money to schools.
Senate President John Cullerton said Monday that his Democratic lawmakers would be briefed Tuesday on the schools plan as part of the broader, 12-bill package that Cullerton and Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno have been pushing as a way out of the state’s 19-month budget impasse. […]
Sen. Andy Manar, a Democrat from Bunker Hill who has long pushed for an education funding overhaul, said that while the schools portion of the package is still in flux, it is likely to mirror the commission’s suggestion that each school district should have its own specialized funding goal. That target would be set using criteria such as the number of children living in poverty and how much money is available from local property taxes, an acknowledgment that it often takes more resources to bring many children in those areas of the state up to speed than in wealthier areas.
But the legislation also would include a so-called hold harmless provision, which means districts wouldn’t receive less state money in the future than they do now, at least at the start. Just how much more money lawmakers would pump into the education system is still up for debate, but any increase likely would have to be phased in over time given the state’s deep budget problems.
* Finke…
Sen. Andy Manar, D-Bunker Hill, a major proponent of school funding reform, would only say Monday that, “I’ve been working on it every day since the commission finished its work and that continues. I believe the direction coming from both leaders is clear. They want to try to get a bill passed.”
Rauner said he’s still digesting the report from the commission. He also said it wasn’t the commission’s job to draft a bill that could be considered by lawmakers.
“What they did was lay out the parameters for a bill to get drafted,” he said. “I’ll talk to the General Assembly about who should draft. My sense is, I think the senators, I don’t know, I think they’re working on something. If they’d like our administration to draft something, we can do that.”
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:21 am:
Why hasn’t anyone reported that THERE IS a 449 page draft bill, presented to the Rauner Commission, with a run done by ISBE for every school district as to the fiscal effects of the 449 page draft bill?
- Rod - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:33 am:
I discussed this several times on this blog. Reporters acted as if the draft didn’t exist, I do not know why. The draft I saw which was an LRB draft had some holes in it. Also as far as I can tell ISBE has not disseminated funding estimates on a district by district basis using the LRB draft bill.
There could be a big problem and that is the number of amendments that may be needed coupled with President Cullerton’s blasts on lobbyists trying to derail the grand bargain. If the grand bargainers block amendments the new funding bill could be a mess.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:39 am:
Rauner still can’t speak intelligently about his commission’s report (he’s still digesting it)? He was tweetin’ about it last week.
Is that all we are to expect from our government leaders these days? Tweets? No substance?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:41 am:
The only way this ever passes is as part of the grand bargain. Too many people will try to game it if it is an individual bill.
- Rod - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:44 am:
Well Henry the bill won’t be simple at least based on the draft I have seen and it will cost a lot as we have all discussed before to reach what is called adequacy. Governor Rauner no doubt is having a case of the nerves over the cost of up to $6 billion more a year for k-12 spending, its a lot to digest.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:51 am:
== the cost of up to $6 billion more a year for k-12 spending ==
That flat income tax hike just keeps getting higher and higher.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:53 am:
Rod - Rauner wasn’t talking about the bill. He was talking about the report issued by his commission. The one that he was tweetin’ about last week. But apparently this week he still has nothing of substance to say about it. Heck, based on what he said, he doesn’t even know what the legislature is doing with it.
Just what does our governor do other than write checks, tweet, wear costumes, and hang out at high schools?
- City Zen - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 11:02 am:
Does the plan include seeds to plant a magical money tree?
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 11:03 am:
RNUG is right: The only way this ever passes is as part of the grand bargain.
Because it is so bad for special education, and many school districts.
Manar seems to want to turn Illinois into Texas, as Manar told the Commission on Jan. 17 that
there was “drastic overidentification” for special ed in Illinois.
Tell that to parents who fight every day for services for their child.
These same false claims were made in Texas until the Houston Chronicle late last year did a series of stories on how Texas had (illegally) reduced special ed over the last 10 years.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 11:05 am:
=The only way this ever passes is as part of the grand bargain. Too many people will try to game it if it is an individual bill.=
You should have been there for the commission meetings! Part of what they tried to do is change the number of elements that go into the Evidence Based Model in order to drive down the cost.
When you change or manipulate the any of the factors, it is no longer an Evidence Based Model and simply becomes a means to distribute money with out the expected outcomes or accountability. Same old, same old.
- Piece of Work - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 11:55 am:
Keep taxing and taxing the residents of Illinois. Parents who send their kids to parochial schools won’t be able to afford it. Right now, 58-62% of their sky high real estate bills go to public education and they see tuition climb at the private schools.
More and more parochial schools will lose students and some will close. Those kids will go to public schools, and no more revenue will flow to them but costs will go up significantly.
Illinois is toast, way too much debt and way too many people with high expectations.
- new kid on block - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 12:01 pm:
If it does pass as part of a grand bargain in the Senate, when it gets to the House, can Madigan make changes or does the interdependence of the package mean that they have to take it all or leave it all?
- concerned parent - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 12:10 pm:
==Parents who send their kids to parochial schools won’t be able to afford it. Right now, 58-62% of their sky high real estate bills go to public education and they see tuition climb at the private schools.
More and more parochial schools will lose students==
Very true, @Piece of Work. And the commission never came to a consensus on private school tax credits: https://capitolfax.com/2017/02/01/school-funding-commission-produces-framework-leaves-lots-of-questions/program
So whether you send your kids to private or public, you should hope they come up with a plan whenever (or if ever) this deal is done.
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 12:11 pm:
== when it gets to the House, can Madigan make changes or does the interdependence of the package mean that they have to take it all or leave it all? ==
If the House changes it, then the bill(s) have to go back to the Senate for passage in their amended form. If they want to get it done by the end of the month, better not change whatever passes the Senate.
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 1:03 pm:
Really, RNUG? If they want to get it done by the end of the month, better not change whatever passes the Senate.
There is almost a zero chance the Illinois House will just accept whatever passes the House.
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
Sorry, last word should be Senate.
- Pro Choice Dem - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 1:06 pm:
==Those kids will go to public schools, and no more revenue will flow to them but costs will go up significantly==
So what is it that the Dems don’t understand (aside from being in the pocket of the Teachers Union)
- PoW - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 1:17 pm:
You’ll have to answer that Pro Choice Dem
from Pro Life Repub
- Pro Choice Dem - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
It was a rhetorical question, PoW.
It’s not even about idealism vs. pragmatism. It’s about creating viable policy vs staying a viable politician, and pols on both sides tend to choose the latter. (FYI, I’m a pro school choice Dem. Pro life for the most part too.)
- Mama - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 8:01 pm:
- RNUG - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 10:41 am: “The only way this ever passes is as part of the grand bargain. Too many people will try to game it if it is an individual bill.”
RNUNG, that is exactly what went wrong the last 2 years.
- Rod - Tuesday, Feb 7, 17 @ 8:11 pm:
Henry Dr. Purvis without question provided Governor Rauner with the draft bill, some General cost estimates for adequacy, and the Commission report. I got all of those things as did anyone who closely followed the work of the Commission, which by the way was detailed and exhaustive. When the Governor said he was studying the report he clearly meant the entire package.
- itsjustme - Wednesday, Feb 15, 17 @ 12:53 pm:
To winners and losers and Rod, the 449-page bill was not officially endorsed by the commission, it was just some draft language. Then Will Davis filed it. There is a story about it here http://nprillinois.org/post/one-small-step-big-school-funding-reform