Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Deadliest Chicago day in 13 years
Next Post: Ill Allman replaced by Three Doors Down
Posted in:
* This is a good idea…
The lawmakers tasked with fixing how Illinois distributes funds to its public schools want to keep a laser-like focus, but that means a lot of other school funding issues are being left to linger for now.
Illinois’ school funding task force, which met for the first time last week, is only looking at how the state pays for schools — not how much it needs.
The commission will not consider other school funding issues such as property tax relief, pension costs and collective bargaining reforms, although those are important issues that the state will have to address, according to state Rep. Avery Bourne (R-Litchfield).
“We have working groups in the state, right now, that are working on (other) reforms and issues,” Bourne said. “This one is centrally focused on the school funding formula.”
They could easily get bogged down in Turnaround Agenda demands, or teachers’ union demands or school management demands or whatever. Best to just stay focused on the formula, which is complicated enough as it is.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Deadliest Chicago day in 13 years
Next Post: Ill Allman replaced by Three Doors Down
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Agreed. Stay focused on just how the funds are distributed.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:07 am
Is it possible they could accomplish one real thing of substance in 2016??? I really, really want to be optimistic about this!
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:16 am
Kudos to them for keeping this focused. If they attempted to discuss those other issues you may as well just stop the meetings because they will go nowhere. They may not accomplish anything anyway but at least they won’t get bogged down with the others stuff.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:21 am
From the article: “Other issues — including where to get those funds — have to be left alone for now.”
When you privatize education, those funds will not be needed.
Comment by Dr X Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:21 am
Umm…this is incredibly naive. The way that the various formulas work and how the money gets distributed is directly impacted by how much money goes into it. I really don’t see how they will have any success if the cost question is left unanswered. But maybe that’s the point.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:22 am
You can’t divorce spending, tax and operational issues. For example, a “fair” system of distribution might use school compensation rates and per pupil spending to establish state funding distribution. If a district can afford to pay six figure salaries to instructors for 178 contact days, pay 90% of health insurance benefits and pay the teacher contribution for pensions, one could argue that regardless of assessed valuation they don’t need significant state contributions. The higher the compensation rates, the lower the state funding.
That brings in collective bargaining issues.
It all has to go together to be fair and effective.
Comment by Illinois bob Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:24 am
Which reimbursement funds are they looking at? General State Aide? Transportation? Special Education? Etc..
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:26 am
How can you create a formula for distributing money if you don’t know how much money you need? It doesn’t make sense. Setting a formula without considering how much the state will contribute won’t help the situation - that’s what we do now. They need to determine what the State contribute and then figure out how to divvy it up.
Comment by fantasyland Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:27 am
Wrong. Pointless exercise in wasting time doing it this way. It’s algebra and only looking at the “distribution” side of the equation is steering the results. Ignoring WHERE the state gets the $$ to distribute to begin with will only result in a flawed formula. Again.
Comment by Big Muddy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:31 am
Correction - I meant to say ‘formula’ not funds.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:33 am
I don’t think they need to consider the funds yet. Not at all. They should sit down and figure out what they SHOULD be doing in terms of the formula from density to EAV to income to population, etc. If you throw money/funds into the talks now, the whole thing will break down before it gets started.
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:49 am
If all you do is focus on the formula, that means you also have to focus on finding new revenues because no legislator in their right mind will vote for a bill that takes money from their schools and gives it to CPS. You have to create new money and include a hold-harmless clause.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:55 am
FIRST, answer “what should we do?”
THEN answer, “how can we best get there?”
Comment by Shemp Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:58 am
Not. The funding formula takes into account “local effort” which is the property tax rate for that district.
So property taxes is pertinent to the funding formula discussion. If they opt for a lower property tax rate, i.e. tax relief, it affects how much money the school funding formula doles out to that district.
Focused sounded good tho……
Comment by Team Warwick Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:01 am
===If a district can afford to pay six figure salaries to instructors for 178 contact days, pay 90% of health insurance benefits… ===
That’s a “Zonker” way of looking at it…
I’m glad some are not involved in this discussion.
To the Post,
It should be 100% about the math and figuring out where the monies and the shortfall of poorer districts need the state to reconfigure funding.
Collective bargaining and prevailing wage will not… and DO NOT… figure in the math of ending monetary funding dollar amounts.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:11 am
==I’m glad some are not involved in this discussion.==
Amen
==Collective bargaining==
You bring that into the discussion now and you might as well end the talks. Some people haven’t learned from the failures of the “Turnaround Agenda” talks. Instead of accepting realities they continue to whine about something that they want instead of focusing on something that can get done. It’s those kind of people who should be kept as far away from these discussions as possible because they won’t provide any sort of useful input.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:19 am
==to be fair==
What is “fair?” I mean, I know in your head “fair” is getting rid of collective bargaining and cutting teacher salaries but I’m pretty sure in the minds of others that isn’t “fair.”
Trying to figure out “fair” is going to kill these discussions because nobody will want to lose anything. If you are going to have a formula the formula has to be allowed to work. If you want to make sure nobody loses then I think it’s a waste of time to have a formula. Get rid of the formula, give everyone what they have now and let them fight over any increases. Either you have a formula or you don’t. Manipulating it won’t get us to any better of a place than we are now.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:24 am
….lip service.
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:28 am
Wow.. They formed a committee. Seriously. Illinois schools are funded by local tax revenue. What the State decides to ACTUALLY pay is just the ground floor in suburban areas which compromises a huge portion of the State population. This is going nowhere. If they really wanted to make a difference, they would work on consolidating these districts in the suburbs into unit k-12 districts. The studies all say no savings because they look at all schools. Focus on these suburbs. The other studies are flawed because it requires schools in debt to consolidate with those in the black. New trier, Stevenson, D211,D214, all high schools that could be combined with “feeder” schools. 800 some districts in the state… It’s not just a money savings, it also closes the leadership gap. Take a look at how many districts in our state have a retired administrator sharing 100 day positions for Superintendent etc. It’s much more than you think…
Comment by Echo The Bunnyman Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:55 am
A Rauner appointed task force is going to involve Turnaround Agenda items being part of any recommendations.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 11:58 am
@OW
“That’s a “Zonker” way of looking at it…”
OW, if you don’t understand that choices in spending made by schools should affect their state subsidies, and that spending on “luxuries” is an indication of not having “need”, then perhaps you’re better off staying in your Mom’s basement and posting here fifty times per day.
It’s like giving a welfare check to someone making payments on their Bentley every month.
Sound, sensible and prudent spending should be factor in “deserving” state funds from taxpayers outside your district. You may be OK with subsidizing this largesse, but then folks like you ARE part of the problem…
Comment by Illinois bob Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:29 pm
@Demoralized
=What is “fair?” I mean, I know in your head “fair” is getting rid of collective bargaining and cutting teacher salaries but I’m pretty sure in the minds of others that isn’t “fair.”=
Gee, now you’re in my head, dem? Besides being dead wrong, as usual, it’s getting pretty old having you fabricate false positions for me in order to have something to criticize.
If you knew how to read, you’d know that I’ve never asked for salary cuts, only freezes for certain pay excesses. I have no problem with collective bargaining, only public employees striking. Perhaps you were climbing into the wrong end of my anatomy. My brain is on top.
Comment by Illinois bob Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:34 pm
Bob:
Your arrogance never ceases to amaze. Have a nice day.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 12:57 pm
===If a district can afford to pay six figure salaries to instructors for 178 contact days, pay 90% of health insurance benefits… ===
I’ll leave this anger and distain here to mock, it’s a “Zonker”, LOL!
Districts are in the free market for teachers. That’s how it works. The unions protect teachers from ignorant distain like some here have.
“Simple”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:01 pm
Let’s see. We have commissions,committees, policy institutes,think tanks, consultants, lobbyists and last but not least, polling data. Its no wonder our elected officials are a bit confused.
Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 1:23 pm
@OW
=Districts are in the free market for teachers. That’s how it works. The unions protect teachers from ignorant distain like some here have=
Free market for teachers? You obviously don’t understand public school culture and process. Try firing a recalcitrant, ineffective senior faculty member sometime, and replacing them with a far more effective younger instructor. Doesn’t happen unless you buy the senior faculty into early retirement at ridiculous cost to the taxpayers.
BTW, turn up the lights in your Mom’s basement. It’s “disdain” instead of “distain”.LOL
Comment by Illinois bob Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 3:39 pm
@Illinois Bob 12:34pm
So, if strikes are disallowed, are you then in favor of mandatory arbitration?
Comment by Hieronymus Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 3:48 pm
- Zonker -
You focus on being honest, about your arguments and yourself…
and I’ll worry about spelling errors.
Capiche?
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 3:49 pm
Any formula will have to take the district’s property wealth into consideration. A wealth district will not need as much state aide as a poor district. Consolidating school districts does not save money. Admin cost may be a little less, but transportation cost will increase due to the increase in the size of the district.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Aug 10, 16 @ 10:33 pm