Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Obtuse, unbalanced, contradictory and highly controversial
Next Post: Is Gordon’s nomination in trouble?
Posted in:
* Gov. Pat Quinn wants to cut transportation spending for schools by $95 million - a 50 percent cut from two years ago But, at the same time, he’s pushing a new a massive school consolidation plan to eliminate more than two-thirds of all school districts The Champaign News-Gazette gets to the heart of this contradiction…
Gary Lewis, superintendent of Catlin schools, said Quinn’s proposal is at cross purposes.
“He proposes consolidation, but you will have to have more transportation when schools consolidate,” Lewis said. […]
“School consolidation means more busing and less local control,” [Heritage Superintendent Allen Hall] said. “Quinn had better not cut transportation funding if he wants consolidation.”
* And then there’s this…
Rep. Roger Eddy, a Republican from Hutsonville where he’s school superintendent, said studies show the targets of consolidation – small schools where less money is spent per pupil – typically have higher standardized test scores, with smaller class sizes and more parental involvement.
“It’s hard to make the argument that we’re doing this for education purposes and to save money because the data doesn’t show that,” said Eddy, who has served on several consolidation study panels in the past two decades.
Consolidation has historically pitted progress and efficiency against local control and sentimentality. Since there were 12,000 school districts as late as World War II, in small towns the school has been the community center and local point of pride. But merged schools mean pooled resources, and advocates say they are better able to retain top teachers and afford the latest technology.
* The history…
Efforts to force consolidation of school districts and trim regional offices of education have been blocked in the past. Lawmakers, in a sweeping 1985 education reform package, required consolidation with the goal of no fewer than 1,500 students in any district with kindergarten through 12th grade. It became an issue in the campaign for governor and the legislature repealed it months later. In 2003, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich, in his first budget address, proposed eliminating regional offices of education, a plan that never bore fruit.
I noticed plenty of debate over this issue in yesterday’s live-blog. I was actually pretty surprised by it. So, let’s continue today. Your thought?
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:19 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Obtuse, unbalanced, contradictory and highly controversial
Next Post: Is Gordon’s nomination in trouble?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Have to love Roger Eddy’s opposition. Yet another Republican screaming for cuts but then opposing cuts that might impact their own district.
Comment by Jasper Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:26 am
We have witnessed enough school consolidations to know that it is not a real solution to budgets or improved education but rather the opposite.
It is time to bury that old line of bull.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:26 am
proposed eliminating regional offices of education
That these are not AUTOMATICALLY targets for elimination shows how far from reality the budget cutting is. Or, how impacted by special interests it is.
In a modern society, with communication/web based information dissemination, there is NO reason for these at all. NONE.
In fact, in growing suburban areas, you might make the case for MORE school districts, not fewer.
D300 Dundee is a prime example. It used to be a huge rural area. No longer.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:32 am
Politically, consolidation will never work. Further administrators and boards are futher distanced from the people they serve. Plus, in my experience, students do better in smaller school districts.
In regards to regional superintendents, are they not elected officials who have been elected to office for the next 3 1/2 years. Further, ISBE does not have the staff to do their jobs. Plus, counties pick up the salaries for most of the staff.
Comment by TrstMay Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:39 am
As was discussed yesterday, the proposal was to consolidate the 866 school DISTRICTS, reducing them by 2/3. This doesn’t mean individual schools will be consolidated. That a republican is beginning the misinformation campaign is not surprising.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:41 am
Well, Roger,
You’re going to have to come up with an alternative to Quinn’s plan other to just put it in a shredder.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:45 am
==This doesn’t mean individual schools will be consolidated.==
Where do the savings come from? Eliminating administrative positions?
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:48 am
When I see the data showing that large central schools with large class sizes produce better educational outcomes, I will favor consolidation.
My children attend a small rural school with appx 90 kids in grades K-8 (about 10 kids per class). The school receives less than 20% of its funding from the state. The below average students perform above the state average for all students at their the grade level. (Including the poor and LD.) The teachers know all the students and track them from grade to grade. The parents are involved. Every child has the opportunity to participate in extra curricular activities.
The school is everything a parent would want, everything a teacher would want, everything a child would want. And, the per capita expenditure is low.
What is the value of the children being able to walk to school? What is the value of the parents walking to the school and meeting the teachers at the front door?
Many of these small schools are both successful and cost effective. When consolidation has been pushed in the past, the result has often been the closure of local schools a detachment between educators and the community, and higher costs as new buildings are constructed and additional bus routes are required.
Small schools are a model for what education should be. Perhaps that’s why the folks from Chicago want to close them.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:49 am
Regional Offices of Education could be eliminated with no impact felt whatsoever.
I read Quinn’s plan as merging districts, I say just eliminate the district and let each school stand alone with their own administration.
Comment by John Bambenek Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:50 am
Some growing areas have added school districts in recent years, a number in the expanding suburban rim around the Fox River and in McHenry County.
School consolidation has been the third rail for politicians in rural America for decades. The Great Plains states have gone through wrenching battles over it for a long time as they depopulated.
I doubt if Quinn is willing to go to the wall on this. If he is, he’d better prepared to do virtually nothing else for the rest of his term.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 10:51 am
It’s not just downstate. Why does New Trier Township need separate administrators for its high school district and for Kenilworth, Wilmette, Winnetka, and Glencoe?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:02 am
==Public Servant==
You are deluding yourself if you think district consolidation won’t lead to the reduction in the number of schools.
Comment by Fed-Up Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:04 am
I agree about eliminating the ROE. During the election, the local candidate said the office’s main job was insuring that teacher certifications were up to date. Any competent secretary with a modern database should be able to handle the whole state. Regarding consolidation, there is no reason there are over 800 districts in a state with only 102 counties. While it might make parents feel good about small districts, a larger district will allow a more diversified curriculum.
Comment by Logical Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:06 am
Obviously none of you know what a Regional Office of Education (ROE) does. There are hundreds of statutorily mandated actions required of ROEs. If they are eliminated, who will perform these duties required by law? In addition, since the downsizing of ISBE to half of its personnel a decade ago, more and more ISBE duties have been shuffled to the ROEs to perform on ISBE’s behalf. These tasks have been done and done without additional funding. So instead of blabbering about something of which you have no knowledge, go visit your Regional Superintendent and find out what he or she does for schools and school children.
Comment by retired Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:10 am
“D300 Dundee is a prime example. It used to be a huge rural area. No longer . . .” How did D300 fair with respect to the housing market downturn? What happens when oil prices peak again?
Not so sure that more school districts in outlying suburban areas is a great idea . . .
Comment by Not So Quick . . . Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:11 am
Maybe we should have just hiked the income tax by 5% and called it a day because no one wants to lose anything.
So why are so many talking school consolidation rather than the consolidation of districts (administration)?
Comment by Shemp Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:12 am
I live in a community where there are 2 towns right next to each other with populations of about 17000 each and they each have their own k-12 school district and we have a separate high school district for ONE high school! That means 3 superintendents making $130k each not to mention they each have their own highly paid administrative team. In that case, consolidation needs to be forced. I don’t know about the regional offices. Our office does a lot of good. Maybe they can be consolidated instead.
Comment by K3 Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:15 am
Oh and I have another cost savings idea-retired school administrators can make up to $650a day (or something like that) and still receive their gigantic pension. End that practice and maybe the state and local school districts will save money
Comment by K3 Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:20 am
There are hundreds of statutorily mandated actions required of ROEs. If they are eliminated, who will perform these duties required by law
We would eliminate those requirements, also. Part of cost cutting is getting rid of such “mandates” which dont do much of anything.
I bet more than a fair amount of ISBE stuff falls into the same category.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:21 am
Shemp, I think the assumption is that once you consolidate districts, some schools within the new district will be closed for efficiency and savings. That may not always be true, but it’s not unreasonable.
In all likelihood, one of the former districts will dominate on the new school board, and will be perceived as giving short-shrift to the needs of those in the old, “other” district.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:22 am
It’s about the money. Local school districts function as tax enclaves, shielding high equalized-assessed-valuation per pupil tax bases from supporting students in neighboring lower EAV areas.
Comment by Anon III Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:22 am
How did D300 fair with respect to the housing market downturn?
They got a much needed break from constant growth!!
In fact, if you want LESS sprawl, you want SMALLER districts. Can you imagine that Carpentersville and Lake in the Evil would have sprawled as much as they did if the town and the district were the same? That is, if the towns had had to pay for the whole cost of their sprawl?
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:25 am
Bambe: I say just eliminate the district and let each school stand alone with their own administration.
I hope that is your version of snark. Have you even been in a school in the past 40 years? Economies of scale, teacher quality, purchasing, evaluation, special needs?
Apart from the drive by comments: Consolidation is needed and there are provisions in the School Code to allow it. But the only time it’s achieved is when a district is at or near bankruptcy. There should be more incentives provided by the state to encourage consolidation. I give forced consolidation zero chance in Illinois.
Comment by LG Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:27 am
@Shemp -
These changes are politically inevitable, my friends, as I’ve been warning for some time.
The Republicans have created a monster that they cannot control.
For years, state government has been a pass-through for funding local government.
When Republicans scream about high taxes in Springfield, that like to ignore that those taxes fund a great deal of local government units, and most voters don’t realize what state government funds indirectly in their community either.
So, those “pass throughs” to local government are the easiest thing for state government to cut. Rep. Eddy thinks that transportation funding is vital to his area? Fine. As school superintendent, he can campaign for a referendum to raise property taxes in his school district to pay for it.
Regional Superintendents are popular folks because they spend alot of taxpayer money that they never actually have to collect. Let the Regional Offices of Education raise property taxes too to fund their vital mission, and let’s call it a day.
BTW, this is just the start. If not this year, then next year we’re going to see massive state cuts to pass-through funding for municipal government as well. Mark my words.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:28 am
@fed-up
Here’s the pertinent text from the speech.
***
Illinois currently has 868 school districts, and our fiscal reality demands consolidation.
I am proposing the formation of a commission that will review the number of school
districts in our state.
Consolidation lowers administrative overhead, improves efficiency and will save
taxpayers $100 million.
I am also proposing eliminating state funding for the salaries and office costs for
regional school superintendents.
The $13 million annual savings will be spent in the classroom, rather than on
administration.
***
Seems pretty clear he’s talking about school districts, but since you’re relying on your chrystal ball, can you tell me what the winning lottery numbers are for the next Pick 5? I can use the money, since my pension is about to get raped.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:30 am
This is once again an idea born of desparation with little thought behind it. I am sure if you were to take a poll of all of the members of the GA and the Gov., and ask them to explain school funding, and to name and describe the jobs of each administrative position in the district offices they would not be able to do it. So they don’t know what is entailed in the implementation of this major change in how current schools operate.
An example would be: If you bus kids in both districts and the larger district has it’s own buses and you consolidate the larger district will then have to purchase buses to cover the added students. The transportation director of the larger district typically gets up at 3:00 am to go out and survey the district roads in the winter to determine if it is safe to run the buses that day. Will it be possible for the transportation person of the larger district to also cover the roads of the smaller district and still have time to make the call to not bus before the buses go out? If not you have to have someone help him/her so you have not eliminated that position. This is just one job the district offices do. The point is that consolidating districts does not automatically mean elimination of all personell of one of the districts.
Also smaller schools in our area do very well in fund raising for items that are not covered by state funding and property taxes. you would lose the feeling of community that drives this effort through consolidation.
One of the biggest obstacles consolidation faces is that smaller typically rural districts are funded by property taxes on farm ground. These small districts refuse to be absorbed by the typically urban larger districts that border them, because those districts are funded by property taxes on city real estate and those taxes are usually higher, sometimes by quite a bit. The rural property owners cannot afford to pay a higher rate.
Elimination of the tranportation reimbursement at the same time as pushing consolidation is ridiculous. Elimination of the trnsportation reimbursement was the way districts were able to afford having their own bus services which are cheaper than hiring an outside service and is much easier to control the character of those who are driving the children. Throwing this out there at a time when the state isn’t paying districts what they owe is going to put a greater burden on the local taxpayers and make consolidation that much more difficult.
GA and the Gov., please do some research before you propose a program/bill.
Comment by Irish Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:50 am
This consolidation is just the tip of the government consolidation iceberg in Illinois. The level of duplication and redundancy across multiple different governments, agencies, and elected officials is crazy.
And the defensiveness of school administrators doesn’t actually help — I’ll crosspost my comment on that issue below:
>>>
I don’t need to go down to Granite City to help Harry Briggs save $750,000, and Jack Lavin doesn’t either. Harry could start by NOT filling the “Substitute Administrator” position posted on his website:
http://sharepoint.gcsd9.net/sites/EmploymentOpprotunities/Lists/Employment%20Opprotunities/Vacant%20Positions.aspx
He’s trying to hire secretaries too. I love em, but I’d reduce em and make the professional staff work harder before I go back to the well for more tax increases.
Oh yes, and the total compensation cost for the 30 administrative staff in his district is $3,545,100.07, with an average cost of $118,170.
So finding a way to get by with 24 instead of 30 administrators would be a start.
http://schoolcenter.gcsd9.net/education/page/download.php?fileinfo=MjAxMC0yMDExQWRtaW5Db21wZW5zYXRpb24ucGRmOjo6L3d3dy9zY2hvb2xzL3NjL3JlbW90ZS9pbWFnZXMvZG9jbWdyLzU0NWZpbGU0MzM1LnBkZg==
Comment by Vibes Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:55 am
==Consolidation is needed and there are provisions in the School Code to allow it. But the only time it’s achieved is when a district is at or near bankruptcy==.
That is patently untrue. But it does need to be the district’s doing rather than being forced on them by “the city folks”. The excellent downstate school district in which I was educated proactively merged with two other close-by and similarly situated districts a number of years ago after I graduated. None were “near bankruptcy”. The boards of the three districts realized that by consolidating they could hire fewer, but more highly credentialed and experienced teachers, could provide a greater variety of courses, and with a larger pool of students they could expand extra-curricular clubs, activities and sports. No new facilities were required. The high schoolers all went to classes in buildings in one town. The middle schoolers were taught in another, and the elementary kids went to another town. It continues to be a successful and well rated district.
OTOH, if the geography of a consolidation is too wide it becomes untenable for teachers, parents, and students. If that sort of consolidation is forced, there will be more and more home schooling in rural areas.
Comment by Responsa Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 11:57 am
I not sure your points are valid Irish. He didn’t mention eliminating ALL positions at the consolidated districts. I don’t see why taxes on farms would need to be computed as if they were urban real estate when the districts combine, but that concern could be brought before the commission that is studying the matter. As for cutting the transportation reimbursement, the problems you mention would exist whether the districts were consolidated, or not, but I agree that there are consequences to any policy change.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 12:07 pm
The governor, who has been a disaster thus far needs to BUTT the heck out of local school issues. It’s not the fault of communities that work hard to preserve great schools in their areas that he and his administration can’t manage their affairs in springfield.
Any republican who supports this bs will face a primary and I can’t imagine suburban democrats ever having a career in politics again if they support this crap.
You live in the suburbs because you want local control and accountability for your kids school, not some hack governor coming in to screw things up.
As for new trier, that’s new triers business not senator meeks and certainly not some out of touch governor.
Comment by shore Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 12:24 pm
The suggested consolidation of school districts raises the question as to why Illinois has more government entities, like school districts, than any other state. According to the Illinois Comptroller’s website, when it was run by D. Hynes, Illinois has around 7000 units of local government, at least 1000 more than the next contender, Pennsylvania. This may explain why there are almost 700 government employee pension plans in Illinois, according to the Illinois Dept. of Insurance’s Biennial Report on Illinois government employee pensions. (Perhaps Mike Madigan would like to address all of Illinois’ government employee pension problems and not just those of the few state plans). Seems to me there are cost savings throughout Illinois from consolidation/elimination of local government units to say the number in California or Texas. Each probably has a well paid boss and employees, all striving for the retirement pension and healthcare brass ring, and adoring private sector contractors anxious to do business with them and donate for the right to do so. We mere mortals will never get a real handle on the fiscal issues surrounding each group like school districts, mosquito abate districts, sewer districts, etc. because there is no central repository. So I guess we’ll just tear into the only suggestion for some organizational sanity. Maybe consolidation of some school districts is a bad idea, but that shouldn’t stop us from at least reviewing the fiscal impacts of our nation leading number for local government entities in a state known for corruption.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 12:26 pm
As long as we are talking about educational funding, does anyone here have an issue with eliminating the “tuition waivers” provided by the General Assembly that the Governor proposed? How about also eliminating the free rides given to children of university employees?
There are 177 members in the GA who can give a total of 8 years tuition each year (2 - 4 yr; 8 - 1 yr., etc. however they want to divide it out). 177 multiplied by 8 by an average tuition of $10,000 (probably low) is over $14 million!
According to the budget released yesterday there are nearly 46,000 university employees. If 5% (2,300) have a child in school, again using the $10,000 tuition number that is another $23 million! I’m going to bet since the university employees are unionized as well, they’re making decent money, yet we’re subsidizing their children’s education at the very institutions that are screaming for more money! Make sense of that!
OK members of the General Assembly, I just showed you how you can save $37 million, will any of you have the guts to put it into legislative language?
Comment by Both Sides Now Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 12:29 pm
What they are really worried about is that if districts are consolidated maybe football programs would be consolidated. No more Friday night lights in Rubeville.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 12:30 pm
==“240 superintendents making more than the governor of the state of Illinois makes — I think that they can afford to tighten their belts and be able to pay for transportation,” said Jack Lavin Quinn’s chief of staff.==
And for every person that says my “small” school is great, I can’t live without it…there are five times the people (usually in a district next door) that say my “big” district is great and I can’t live without it.
Comment by Bobby Hill Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 1:12 pm
Cook County Commoner is correct. The real issue is getting rid of the thousands of patronage havens by reducing the number of government entities (and their pension plans).
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 1:23 pm
== Both Sides Now ==
1) It’s a 50% tuition waiver, not 100% as your calculations suggest.
2) Unions only represent some University Employees.
Time to recalculate…
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 1:51 pm
Both Sides - The savings don’t work that way. Your simplistic math of multiplying x waivers by x tuition levels is an unrealistic savings amount. The cost of a class is the same if there is one student or 100 students. The schools are not reimbursed $X per student that is why it is a tuition waiver.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 1:55 pm
Does it not seem “strange” that elected Rep. Eddy is a member of the House Appropriations-Elementary & Secondary Education Committee (and the Republican spokesperson), while also serving as the superintendent of the Hutsonville CUSD. Somehow this suggests an inherent conflict-of-interest! And upon his retirement(s), what of his pensions and benefits? In 2009, he made $90K while his wife received $41K as a teacher.
Comment by A-noni-mouse Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:01 pm
YDD ==Rep. Eddy thinks that transportation funding is vital to his area?==
Transportation is mandated by the state. His district has to provide it.
Many of these administrators are present to meet mandated requirements for paperwork, teacher evaluation, etc. Funding cuts need to come with removal of mandates.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:26 pm
While were at it we could eliminate the Township form of government and a few other taxing bodies, Mosquito abatement, TB, consolidate selective service boards, and eliminate most state Boards except the ones Ms Madigan are on why start a fight we cant win.
Comment by fed up Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:29 pm
The legislature is in the midst of “education reform.” It would be nice is reform, restructuring, and funding were based on research into what works best to educate our children instead of posturing on what looks good and fits into a sound bite.
Are large districts more cost effective? Do they provide better learning outcomes? We’ve been consolidating districts for decades, but I don’t see the outcomes improving. (If they were improving, the education reform proposal would be cut and dried.)
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:31 pm
OK so it’s only $11.5 million instead of $23 million (give or take a few $)that is being given away to the University employees and their children each year. Like the GA has never argued over less $ than that before? And as a state public servant with a kid in college myself, I’d love to have that perk! Instead Madigan is worried about my pension!
And yes, A-noni-mouse - the base cost of a “class” (building, professor, etc.) is the same regardless of how many students show up or how many PAY or how many are on scholarships or tuition waivers or whatever you want to call them. BUT the 50% the children of university employees do not pay to the schools contributes to the University’s overall deficit and thereby the deficit of the state. The simplistic math is MORE PAYING STUDENTS = MORE INCOME = LESS DEFICIT!
Comment by Both Sides Now Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:35 pm
Here’s some research conducted by an Eastern Illinois University professor regarding school closings in Illinois. I haven’t read it but thought I would pass it along in case anyone else is interested in looking at it: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/47023332/The-impact-on-rural-Illinois-communities-when-the-local-high-school-is-closed
Comment by Cubs Win Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:54 pm
We should consolidate as many governments as possible.We have way to many warlords, bosses, assessors,chairmen,trustees and taxing bodies. We have double the number that Pennsylvaia has. And their population is about the same as ours.Lets start cutting back.
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Consolidating school districts bloats administrations, it doesn’t reduce them. They just create more administrative positions and departments to handle the increased load.
Transportation costs will either come out of educational funds or be added to local property taxes. Another unfunded mandate.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 4:24 pm
Consolidate here. Consolidate now. Start with the schools. Move to the townships. Let’s aim to eliminate 1000 units of local governments by 2020 and make us #2 in the nation.
Simply put, why does Illinois need thousands more units of local government than 5x larger California?
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 6:23 pm
I am shocked, a Republican double dipping, why is Rep. Roger Eddy give any oppinoin being a state representative and also school superintendent. I guess they are both part time jobs, which looking at it that way, are all school superintendent part time jobs, man they are paid a lot for that gig
Comment by 13th Thursday, Feb 17, 11 @ 9:21 pm