Suburban superintendent lashes out at Chicago
Tuesday, Jul 10, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* As you already know, the Republican legislative leaders have stalled the pension reform negotiations over the question of whether Downstate and suburban schools should make their own employer contribution to the pension fund. They’ve demanded a study to demonstrate that Chicago is doing pretty well with school funding, and that the city’s claim that it is being forced to unfairly shoulder its pension contribution burden on its own is overblown.
That study won’t be completed until August, so the pension reform talks are on hold until then. But Margaret Longo, the superintendent of Forest Ridge School District 142, penned an angry op-ed in the Southtown Star that lays out the city’s advantages…
The Chicago Public Schools educate 16 percent of the children in Illinois, with the suburban and downstate districts educating the rest. The state’s funding formula for Chicago Public Schools — money for special education, bus transportation, free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs, summer school and educational service centers — is based on fiscal year 1996 student population totals that have not been updated.
Since then, CPS has lost enrollment, but the money has stayed with the school system, which now has a disproportionate share of funding relative to the number of students it serves.
As an example, Chicago Public Schools receive funding for teaching disabled students through a grant based on the old enrollment figures. CPS now educates 15 percent of the students with disabilities but receives 42 percent of the funding for special education. Is this the free lunch you spoke of, Mr. Speaker?
Another illustration of the disproportionate funding for Chicago Public Schools concerns students lacking English language skills. CPS has 26 percent of such students but an outdated formula results in the school system getting 40 percent of the money to educate them.
A more recent example is the federal grant program entitled “Race to the Top III.” Chicago Public Schools receive 89 percent of the money allotted to public schools in Illinois, or $19 million of the $21 million disbursed.
School districts throughout Illinois deal regularly with unfunded and underfunded mandates, and, thanks mostly to local taxpayers, our schoolchildren still get services despite the lack of federal and state funds. The taxpayers pay because most government education funds do not follow the students.
If you asked suburban taxpayers if they would rather pay $164 more per year toward teacher pension costs (to supposedly equal how much more Chicago taxpayers pay) or get millions of dollars for their schools that now go to CPS through an unfair and archaic funding formula, I think they would choose the latter.
Discuss.
- the Patriot - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:49 am:
Good point. The TRS shift to local districts is nothing more than a way to shift more dollars to Chicago. Since this will only cut down state pensions the savings can then be resdistributed by ISBE to all districts(theoretically) which will include Chicago.
Bluntly, you are taking money you are sending downstate and are going to give Chicago a cut. If it is about fairness and balane, then we should know where the real imbalance is before we do the shift.
- Nieva - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:50 am:
I am expecting a response from the speaker at any moment……….
- M O'Malley - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:54 am:
I think the Speaker is talking about Illinois citizens (downstate and Chicago) having to pick up the pension for Ms Longo’s $237k salary to run 2 grade school’s (first to 5th grade) and one junior high (6th to 8th).
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/ftf/ftf_teacher.php?tid=150750&year=2011
- Freeman - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:54 am:
Very well written and educational.
One of the points I hadn’t realized previously? === The Legislature passed a law providing for annual contributions in excess of $400 million to the CPS pension fund, starting in 2010. Check out the CPS budget, which is posted online, Mr. Speaker.===
Interesting stuff.
- Former State Employee - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:58 am:
Regardless of her personal situation, the woman makes some very strong points.
- steve schnorf - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:01 pm:
so the game is joined…
- M O'Malley - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:03 pm:
Coming up with 2 points (disabled and ESL) without giving any concrete dollar amount is not a strong argument. Second, she should state id any other district receives Federal Grant money if you are going to make that argument. And let’s not forget the school board’s that give out raises at the very end of a contract because they know the district won’t be paying any part of the pension.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:05 pm:
Another point about special education funding, CPS can use this money however they wish. They don’t have to account for how it’s spent. Many of those funds are used outside of special education classrooms and programs.
For districts outside of Chicago, you not only have to accouunt for how the funds are spent, you have to do it in advance, especially concerning special education staff and classroom structure.
- Obamas Puppy - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:10 pm:
Keep looking at the shiny object of the cost shift while the real issue is making people decide between two bad choices. You cannot solve this problem with less money, devote a revenue stream and I know teachers would be willing to match it in order to make these systems solvent.
- Sir Reel - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:16 pm:
Supt Longo raises the issue of State & federal support per student for the Chicago school district, compared to other school districts. According to her, the Chicago school district is getting more per student. I wonder if this will be part of the study.
However, the original issue remains - all other school districts have little incentive to control teacher salaries, esp end-of-career pops, since they don’t have to pay for teacher pensions. Some level of local participation is needed.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:25 pm:
===devote a revenue stream===
From?
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:26 pm:
Regarding her last line: why choose? do both.
- Plutocrat03 - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:30 pm:
Is it at all possible that the State education money is being doled out according to 16 year old data?
There is a need for simplification of the formulas used to dole out state money to the school districts.
Too many carve outs for special favors for special people while the kids are getting substandard educations.
Another band aid won’t cut it. Clear the slate and start from scratch.
- Freeman - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:46 pm:
=== The state’s funding formula for Chicago Public Schools — money for special education, bus transportation, free and reduced lunch and breakfast programs, summer school and educational service centers — is based on fiscal year 1996 student population totals that have not been updated. ===
Anyone know why this is?
- Palos Park Bob - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:49 pm:
If we do have cost shifting, it should only be for the excesses in suburban public education, especially in high schools.
A school board wants to pay teachers and administrators more than 20% above state average? Great. The school district should pick up the full pension cost above that amount.
Want to give those “end of career spiking raises”? Fine. That’s on your dime, Mr school board president.
How about early retirements? Put the full burden on the local schools for the additional pension, COLA, and health insurance cost.
If the local districts don’t want to pay for this, fine. Don’t give the raises and early retirements! Many downstate schools don’t becasue they simply can’t afford it and also educate the kids.
How does the school board avoid extortion by the teacher unions to prevent paying fair and unsustainable salaries and retirement packages?
Prohibit teacher strikes whenever the district is already spending over 65% of it’s operating expenditures on salaries and benefits, or if the district average salary and benefit payouts are above state average.
This certainly would create an environment where overpaid staff would have restrictions on compensation growth and the truly financially strapped districts would be protected from this undeserved and unfair burden on them.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 12:54 pm:
I have no problem revisiting the school aid formula in conjunction with a pension shift.
I also suspect that there hasn’t been moaning about the current school aid formula from suburban school districts up to now because of the point M O’Malley raised.
Can’t say that I’ve heard suburban and downstate legislators banding together and pushing the issue, either.
Suburban superintendents and administrative staff will be looking at big haircuts and no farewell bumps in the future if local property taxpayers are picking up more of their pension costs.
- Ahoy! - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 1:42 pm:
If we’re going to discuss who pays for the pensions, maybe we should just discuss school funding from the state as a whole. I know the Chicago Democrats (and the Illinois Policy Institute) want to just discuss the pension payment issue, but maybe it’s time to look at school funding as a whole. Let’s see just how equal or unequal the school funding is throughout the State.
That being said, I still think a good compromise solution is that the State and employers each pay half. The State dictates the benefits and the employer dictates the end salary, both need skin in the game. If the State can control the benefits without having to foot the bill, we have police and fire pensions all over again.
- Bocephus - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 1:59 pm:
If you want to discuss the problems with school funding, look no further than local school boards. With 867 school districts, you have over 6,000 elected school board members with many having a relative that works in the school system. So when teacher unions come to the table to bargain new contracts, they typically already have a few votes in their pocket. Nothing like voting “yes” for your wife’s new contract. Disgraceful.
- Crime Fighter - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 2:03 pm:
=from?= @ Rich.
Policymakers could stop forgoing the following revenue streams and use the $ for paying debts such as pensions and vendors:
- Service Tax: The state has achieved its goal of a strong service sector by exempting it from tax. Tax it like a product.
- Stop paying high-level ethically challenged agency directors and their deputies to make mischief against their own agencies. It’s not just their salaries, the costs/damage they cause is costly.
- Stop turning away federal grant and program money due to belligerence and incompetence (see point above).
- Stop major tax breaks to the wealthy and their corporations. Times are tough, but not for them.
* no new programs please!
I’m not expecting any of the above to happen soon, but let’s stop pretending that we have no viable and sustainable solutions available.
- reformer - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 2:19 pm:
I don’t see the justification distributing state aid using enrollment data from 1996. Anybody? Bueller?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 2:45 pm:
Teacher Details
Simply Outrageous. She muddies the water with school funding arguments while she expects Chicago residents to pay her pension? Ridiculous.
Name: Longo, Margaret
Salary: $237,064
Position: District Superintendent
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Administration
Years Teaching: 34
Degree: Doctorate
School Name: Forest Ridge SD 142
District Name: Forest Ridge SD 142
- Anyone Remember? - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 3:36 pm:
Has ANYONE figured out why non-Chicago schools get their pension costs picked up? Was that feature part of a deal that gave money to Chicago for some other purpose? If so, then whatever Chicago got as part of that deal should also be cut.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 3:41 pm:
===part of a deal===
Nope.
- Jerry 101 - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 4:52 pm:
It seems to me that she is also (disingenuously) conflating state and federal funds, as well as formula and non-formula grants. For instance, both the state and the Feds (thru ISBE, but in accordance with federally determined formulae) provide special ed funds. I don’t know much about the rules around the state funds, but the US Dept of Ed sets the standards for the formulae used to allocate fed funds.
I know there are Fed ESL funds, but I don’t know if there are state funds. That said, there are more challenges in Chicago with ESL education than in most other Illinois communities that go beyond simple head count. In most places, ESL is just an issue of Spanish speakers. In Chicago, you have Spanish, polish, Chinese, etc. All other things being equal, I would expect more money going to where there is a greater range of languages.
Then there’s the race to the top thing. As far as I recall, that was a competitive grant to encourage certain experimental policies in public schools, not a formula grant. So what if Chicago gotost of the money? It’s by far the biggest district in the state, thus the biggest lab. I would expect that Rockford, east st Louis, and other large-ish districts with a lot of low income students got most of the balance, but all those districts are puny compared to CPS. It’s also just bs to discuss formula grants, then throw in a non-formula grant to support your position, intentionally deceiving readers into thinking that RTTT funds are formula based.
Finally, where did this $164 come from? What’s the total amount suburban taxPayers would be dinged for? What about downstaters?
I’m guessing it’s several hundred million total. Does she really think that CPS gets that much more ‘unfairly’ awarded grant dollars? CPS’ total budget is somewhere around $5 billion. Fed grants are a bit under $1 billion total. Not sure what state grants are, but rejiggering state grants to be more fair while making districts pick up their own pensions is likely to hurt everyone but the state. CPS looses funds while burbs have the burden for their own pension costs. Those extra grant funds, for most burbs, won’t pffset their pension costs.
- wishbone - Tuesday, Jul 10, 12 @ 11:16 pm:
This discussion seems to strengthen the case for school vouchers that go directly to the student. Equal dollars per student.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Jul 11, 12 @ 2:19 am:
–This discussion seems to strengthen the case for school vouchers that go directly to the student. Equal dollars per student.–
Democratic Sen. Meeks voucher pilot program for Chicago passed the Democrat-majority Senate.
A coalition of black, white, and Hispanic Dems, including Madigan, put 25 votes on to pass. Forty-one Dems voted no.
The GOP, led by Reps. Eddy and Sacia, put up 25 “no” votes. Twenty-three GOPers voted “yes.”
It was truly a majority, bipartisan rebuke to vouchers, Madigan and parents and children looking for another option in the here-and-now.
Some way, some how, you don’t hear the Brady Bunch bragging about the GOP “no” votes on a bedrock Republican issue of the last 40 years.
When the rubber meets the road, they must be captives of the teachers’ unions. Or maybe it’s the school administrators.
Twenty-five Democrats, led by some Chicago Democrats, black, white, and hispanic, including Madigan, voted for it (they have some Catholic school constituents). Forty-one Democrats did not.
- Mark - Wednesday, Jul 11, 12 @ 2:31 am:
Anyone at 3:36PM “Has ANYONE figured out why non-Chicago schools get their pension costs picked up?”
IEA
- Mark - Wednesday, Jul 11, 12 @ 2:38 am:
Often times when State funding for education is discussed, the States pension payment to TRS “on behalf” of the local school district is omitted. General State Aid vs Pension Payment.