*** UPDATE 1 *** For whatever reason, I didn’t notice the “interactive graphic” in the article. According to that document, Chicago Public Schools’ funding would drop by more than $74 million under the governor’s plan. Many thanks to a commenter for pointing that out.
*** UPDATE 2 *** From the governor’s office…
CPS would have lost almost $200m ($189m to be exact) under the Democratic proration method.
Rauner’s 100% funding plan saves CPS over $100 million.
*** UPDATE 3 *** More from the governor’s office…
CPS will receive $74 million less state aid because they have fewer students.
*** UPDATE 4 *** Press release…
State Senator Andy Manar (D-Bunker Hill) issued the following statement in response to the governor’s education funding plan.
“This information gives us the opportunity to thoroughly debate the merits of the governor’s plan. Each school district deserves to know how it would fare under it.”
“Unfortunately, what I’m seeing is that the additional money flowing into the formula would continue to be funneled away from schools with the greatest need.”
“Putting more money into education is a great idea, but our flawed funding formula means that districts that lack resources and have been hit hard by cuts, districts like Taylorville, East St. Louis, Harvey and Streator, will be hit once again. In these four districts alone, there’s over $1.3 million in combined cuts. It’s not fair to the students, teachers, parents or taxpayers. These numbers show why change is needed.”
“I’m looking forward to similar debates about the education funding reform plan currently before the Senate, and I’m very encouraged by the overwhelming majority of legislators and state leaders who agree that the current system is flawed and needs to be changed.”
*** UPDATE 5 *** Sun-Times…
“The funding formula he defends makes no sense. If you’re a wealthy district you gain, if you’re a poor district you lose,” Claypool said at a news conference Tuesday.
He likened Rauner’s plan to “more akin to what we would see in the education system in Mississippi in the 1960s” because it shortchanges districts full of children who are poor and black or brown.
Claypool would not say what effect the proposal could have on stalled contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union.
“It certainly makes our already grave fiscal crisis graver,” he said. “The threat to our schools in the coming school year is even more profound than yesterday.”
[ *** End Of Updates *** ]
* Riopell with the scoop…
Gov. Bruce Rauner is releasing numbers Tuesday showing how individual school districts would do under his education funding plan as he continues to push lawmakers to approve it despite the ongoing state budget battle.
Rauner has called for adding $55 million to the state’s general school payments, eliminating a series of cuts from previous years known as proration. That’s in addition to $75 million more that would be spent for early childhood programs. […]
Among the biggest winners in Rauner’s general aid numbers: $5.9 million more for Carpentersville-based Community Unit District 300, about $3.6 million more for Elgin Area District U-46 and $2.2 million more for Aurora East District 131 in the next fiscal year.
A few others each would see more than a million dollars more, including districts in Antioch, Grayslake, Huntley, Wauconda and Waukegan.
Among the districts that would lose money next year under Rauner’s proposal: Indian Prairie District 204 would get about $973,000 less. Addison District 4 and North Chicago District 187 would each see a drop of more than $600,000.
Notice anything missing? The impact on Chicago and Downstate districts with high poverty levels. The Democrats have predicted those schools would fare poorly yet again with the Rauner plan. Stay tuned for those numbers.
The governor is speaking to business groups at 11:45 and then to the bankers at 12:30. We’ll have live coverage.
- Juice - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:15 am:
So 20% of the increase is going to these three districts? But no districts are going to be losers, right Governor?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:20 am:
If any of the numbers do look bad, he’ll just claim that they aren’t the right numbers and whoever publishes them used to work for Madigan.
- TwoFeetThick - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:23 am:
According to the interactive graphic from the article, Chicago would lose $74.4 million.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:27 am:
Well, 1.4% does have to take care of the $10,000 a bottle wine club because the two buck Chuck drinkers just don’t understand how things are done.
- Juice - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:28 am:
East St. Louis is a loser as well? Wow.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:30 am:
To the Post,
The School Funding Formula, changed, revamped, overhauled, whatever either Rauner does, Cullerton suggests or Manar proposes, it’s really going to come down to what the districts can portray as what monies are needed to fulfill each districts’ individual mission in educating the students u see their charge.
What do I mean? Well, a district that can still pay for laptops for all their High School students, and be in a structurally sound financial position is still going to beef just as loud as the district sharing textbooks by classroom and teachers still paying for supplies for students.
But…
School boards that can raise revenues to ensure their schools can fulfill their mission and beyond, have.
The trick is convincing the “losers” in these plans are still “winning”, and Rauner’s plan to lowering prevailing wage and limiting collective bargaining is the “well, look what you could save with structural reform” … that, obviously, will go in the classroom…
… even though both prongs are unmeasurable monetary gains.
It’s a sticky wicket this school funding, otherwise it would’ve been fixed years ago.
- Math - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:31 am:
Fewer kids = less money
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:36 am:
To the Update…
Yikes, Chicago loses $74 million?
Hope they are adding seats at Rauner Prep, but then again, even Rauner himself couldn’t find it from within to send his own daughter to Rauner Prep…
… so…
Ugh.
- Skeptic - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:40 am:
Yup, two of the poor rural districts near us take 10% hits. And these are schools that can barely keep a roof in one piece as it is.
- Bogey Golfer - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:50 am:
Some of the other ‘winners’ include:
Rockford - + $4.8M
Joliet - + $2.16M
Springfield - + $1.95M
Bremen (Tinley Park, Markham, Country Club Hills) -+ $1.36M
The above districts all have a sizeable low income population. So why are these winners and others losers? Are well-managed districts being rewarded, while others not?
- No Use For A Name - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 9:51 am:
Math,
That is what you would expect. But somehow basic math does not apply in some areas. Consider yesterday’s news that ‘In 2000, CPS had 93,000 students in 86 high schools. Today they have 101,000 students in 140 high schools, excluding alternative schools. That’s a 63 percent increase in schools against an 8 percent increase in students.’
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:02 am:
===CPS would have lost almost $200m ($189m to be exact) under the Democratic proration method.===
True?
- CD Sorensen - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:03 am:
I grew up in Evanston.
I love D65 and D202 (should be one district, fight for another day).
However, to get another $250k seems a little, well, dumb. It isn’t enough money to make a huge dent, and its already a very active and vocal education-oriented community, I think that most would agree that $250k would be more effective somewhere else in the state.
I’m not going to even get into the rest of the north shore.
- Johnny Pyle Driver - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:13 am:
I thought the Dem plan was a bailout for Chicago schools? Now it’s a huge cut? I either missed something or this formula business is even more confusing than I thought
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:14 am:
–If any of the numbers do look bad, he’ll just claim that they aren’t the right numbers and whoever publishes them used to work for Madigan.–
Worked last time.
Still waiting on those “revised” numbers.
You know, the ones that supposedly justify this whole meshugganah business over the last year.
Give them time. Illinois media, continue to be polite. Don’t ask uncomfortable questions. Just wait for the press release that will never come.
- Jack Stephens - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:19 am:
@word:
“meshugganah”….to funny.
- Under Influenced - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:22 am:
….I thought the Gov wouldn’t support a plan with winners and losers??
- Bobby Hill - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:22 am:
@ Skeptic
The why’s and how’s of public education continues to boggle my mind.
I don’t know about all the schools, but a few in my area: actively talk about consolidation, have natural partners, are small and shrinking, co-op sports already…and are scheduled to get more money.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:23 am:
- Wordslinger - has been On It and I had a discussion a few days ago that put into perspective…
“… if the 1.4% return at $500 million wasn’t the Turnaround Agenda’s final savings, it’s way better, why hasn’t the Rauner Crew released the better real numbers yet?”
We both had a nice giggle.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:25 am:
It was touched on earlier by a commenter, but the Rauner rhetoric is getting really contorted. First, the Dems were bailing out CPS. Now they’re causing it to lose $189 m. So Rauner saves the day by cutting only $74 m. Considering CPS is looking for around $200 m in help, the battles continue.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:27 am:
Am I wrong to think that the Rauner controlled State Board of Education may be playing keep away on the information requested by the Dems.
- @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:39 am:
“CPS would have lost almost $200m ($189m to be exact) under the Democratic proration method. Rauner’s 100% funding plan saves CPS over $100 million.”
Citation needed.
– MrJM
- Former Hoosier - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 10:55 am:
My elementary and high school districts, each spend approximately $20,000/yr. educating our children. Approx. 95% of the funding comes from the local tax base. According to the article, the Gov’s. plan would increase the state funding to each of those districts (elementary +$22,000, high school +$50,000). How is giving more state aid to wealthy districts helping those that are poorly funded?
- Onlooker - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:06 am:
“My elementary and high school districts, each spend approximately $20,000/yr. educating our children. Approx. 95% of the funding comes from the local tax base. According to the article, the Gov’s. plan would increase the state funding to each of those districts (elementary +$22,000, high school +$50,000). How is giving more state aid to wealthy districts helping those that are poorly funded?”
According to the article aid is based on local property values, enrollment and the number of children in poverty. It is not based on how much a district currently spends per pupil. This seems to make sense. Two districts may have equal EAV, income, etc., but one may spend more because they were willing to raise property taxes to fund education, while the other wasn’t. The first should not get less State money than the second.
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:16 am:
If you have fewer students this year than last year, you get less money. If you have more students, you get more money.
Same is true (in reverse) for your tax rate, your tax base (EAV), etc.
It is all in the formulas.
Before anyone can say the Manar plan is better, they have to understand both the Manar plan and the current formulas.
Cullerton and Manar are just wrong when they say the current formulas are unpredictable.
If you put more money into the current formulas, EVERYONE receives more money (or at least the same
amount of money) than they would with no new money.
- winners and losers - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:20 am:
Comparing apples to apples. In other words, everything else being equal.
- Rod - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:20 am:
I know education funding is one of the great mysteries of humankind, but how is it possible in the Governor’s proposed education funding plan that Lake Forest School District 67 gains $20,980 or a 5.5% increase over FY 16 state funding, Lake Forest HS District 115 gains $32,602 or a 9.3% increase over FY 16 state funding, but East St Louis District 189 loses $880,705 or a 1.9% reduction from its FY 16 state funding? I sure there is a logical reason for this like a decline in the number of students in District 189, relative to the Lake Forest Districts. But on a simple level it seems disturbing.
- anon - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:25 am:
=== Two districts may have equal EAV, income, etc., but one may spend more because they were willing to raise property taxes to fund education, while the other wasn’t. ===
More common is that districts with a strong property tax base can raise big bucks without a high tax rate, while districts with a poor property tax base can’t raise much even with high rates.
Under the Rauner plan, two of the State’s high school districts with teachers averaging $100,000 salaries, District 214 and 211 in Northwest suburban Cook, will enjoy increases of more than $300,000 thanks to Bruce Algmighty.
- Chicago Taxpayer - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 11:26 am:
Rauner says he won’t support the Manar-Cullerton plan because there will be losers, then promotes an education budget that creates losers. And most of those losers are low-income communities. Is this Rauner’s version of trickle down economics?
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:27 pm:
–“meshugganah”….to funny.–
Jack, there are times when only Yiddish will do.
Roll it around in the back of your throat til it’s ready, then let it rip.
Very satisfying.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 12:43 pm:
=“Unfortunately, what I’m seeing is that the additional money flowing into the formula would continue to be funneled away from schools with the greatest need.”=
Umm, Sen. Manar are you telling me that Cicero 99 and J.S. Morton are not needy? Thank you, cuz they are getting almost $2 million in additional funds (after years of not spending millions that they receive).
Thank you for clearing that up Senator.
- No Use For A Name - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 1:21 pm:
‘If you’re a wealthy district you gain, if you’re a poor district you lose,” Claypool said at a news conference Tuesday.’
Seeing as Chicago has one of the state’s most lucrative tax bases, enjoys home rule, and spends nearly $2,000 more per pupil than the state average, CPS is inherently a ‘wealthy district’. They have been driven into debt by ‘poor management’ and “corruption” by executives like Barbara Byrd, not by their lack of inherent wealth or ability to raise revenue.
- G'Kar - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 5:48 pm:
I tried to post this earlier from another computer, but for some reason it never showed up.
My sister and my brother-in-law teach at a small rural school in western Illinois. While not an extremely poor region, the poverty rate and the childhood poverty rate are both above the state average. My sister comments all the time on the challenges some of her students have to deal with. They received a little over a million dollars from the state. Under Rauner’s funding formula, they will lose over $330,000, or about a third of their state funding.
- Under Influenced - Tuesday, Apr 12, 16 @ 6:14 pm:
I’m with the Gov…why can’t we talk and chew gum at the same time??? some reformin’ along with more $$$….ohhh wait, you mean actual reform??…silly me, I just want to whack away at AFSCAMMY (did I get the spelling correct?). /s