* The Illinois State Board of Education has run Amendments 1 and 2 of Sen. Andy Manar’s education funding reform plan through its modeling program and has issued a report. Click here. Manar has introduced a third amendment which wasn’t looked at, however. He claims the new amendment would significantly alter the bottom lines.
*** UPDATE *** Senate President John Cullerton…
“On May 3rd, the State Board of Education released a simulation of SB 231 (Manar), which would substantially change the current method of funding Illinois’ schools. The State Board’s simulation uses FY 15 data and compares the current school funding formula to the new formula proposed under SB 231. This morning, Floor Amendment #3 was filed to SB 231. As a result, ISBE’s model is no longer current.”
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* From GOP Sen. Jason Barickman…
“I appreciate Senator Manar’s continued work on school funding reform, but the numbers make it clear that his proposal has taken a major step backward in the process. The data shows what many of us have feared—that his legislation has become a vehicle for a major bailout of the bankrupt Chicago school system, while wildly shifting funding around suburban communities, and creating a detrimental impact on downstate schools,” said Sen. Barickman. “To create a real solution to our broken funding mechanism, we must work with all parties at the table, including the education community, parents, lawmakers from both parties, and the Governor’s administration. In the meantime, we must immediately do what we can to provide certainty for our schools so they can open on time in the fall. We can increase the help the state is providing, by fully funding the existing formula for the first time in seven years. There is no reason that our students should be held hostage while we negotiate real reforms to the system.”
Chicago would receive an additional $352 million, according to an easier to read Senate GOP document.
* But some superintendents and others spoke on behalf of Manar’s SB231 in the House today…
Advocates who support fixing Illinois’ broken education funding system today urged a House task force on public education funding to take action on the state’s inequitable and unfair system, which has penalized students from cash-strapped districts for decades, hurting those who need help the most.
School superintendents and education advocates from throughout Illinois traveled to Springfield to testify at the House Education Task Force meeting. Participants are all members of the Funding Illinois’ Future (FIF) coalition and included: David Lett, Superintendent from Pana School District 8; Kristin Humphries, Superintendent of East Moline School District 37; Mike Gauch, Superintendent of Harrisburg School District 3; Jim Greenwald, Superintendent of Granite City School District 9; Mary Havis, Superintendent of Berwyn South School District 100; and Ginger Ostro, Executive Director of Advance Illinois.
All spoke at today’s House Education Funding Task Force in support of Better Funding for Better Schools (SB231), legislation that offers a fix to the state’s broken public education funding system. This system is a web of complicated formulas that result in less than half of all state education dollars going to school districts based on a local district’s ability to pay for local schools. More than half of state education dollars go to districts regardless of their wealth, shortchanging poor districts with students who have greater needs.
“We need action now,” said David Lett, Superintendent of Pana School District 8. “A statewide solution to our broken funding formula is what is needed. We cannot settle for anything less. Our students have waited for too long.”
Illinois has the most unfair school funding system of any state in the entire nation. Research shows that students living in poverty need additional resources in order to succeed. But, instead of giving them those resources, the state shortchanges students with the most need. This has created a system where wealthy districts in Illinois can spend as much as $30,000 per student, while the poorest barely spends $6,000. These inequities are holding generations of children back from realizing their full potential.
“There is unity and support across the state for Better Funding for Better Schools,” said Kristin Humphries, Superintendent of East Moline School District 37. “Let’s get this done for our districts, schools, and students. The time for action is now.”
- Demoralized - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:12 pm:
So is the argument always going to be that any change that gives Chicago more money is a bailout? That seems to me what some are arguing. It would seem to me that these people would oppose any plan if Chicago gets even a dime more in funding.
- Federalist - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:18 pm:
It would be interesting to see a plan that brought up ALL poorer districts (assessed valuation per student).
However, it would not surprise me if some poorer districts were favored more than others. Specifically, the Chicago schools would be the winner over rural downstate schools.
Could I be wrong with that were not the end result? Perhaps. Would love to see the data of who gets what in any proposal.
- DuPage - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:19 pm:
They fail to note that Chicago and Cook County taxes are assessed at a lower rate then the rest of the state. Also, many suburban districts pass referendums and vote to raise their own taxes for their local schools. Chicago needs to do the same.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:27 pm:
DuPage. If that’s so, why don’t more people live in Cook?
- Chicago Taxpayer - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:45 pm:
DuPage: Chicagoans will raise their property taxes when Springfield ends the double taxation of Chicagoans. Chicago is the only city that pays twice for school pensions–for downstate and suburban schools through their income taxes and for local teachers through their property taxes. The State gives billions in pension subsidies to downstate and suburban schools and none to Chicago, but Chicago getting a few hundred million more under a reformed formula is a “bailout”? Please.
- Decaf Coffee Party - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:55 pm:
So, according to the sponsor and the Senate President, the numbers that were released two hours ago are “no longer current”?
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 2:10 pm:
@chicago taxpayer- Chicagoans have long been the beneficiaries of disproportionate school funding support that more than offset the pension employer pick up. That is simply math. They also requested/demanded special legislation giving the city control of the school. Subsequently, over a 20 year period, Chicago under funded the CPS pensions while collecting funds for those pensions.
- From the 'Dale to HP - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 2:11 pm:
JS Mill, please show your work.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 2:14 pm:
Cullerton loves him some Andy Manar.
Manar’s bill de estates struggling downstate schools, the majority of which, are taxing at the max rate and making significant reductions. Further funding reductions will reduce education for those students to a level seen only in our poorest areas like Mississippi. It will only intensify economic upheaval and social erosion in those areas.
There are no heroe’s of education in Springfield. There is only one way Illinois extracts itself from this mess. There has to be revenue to pay the bills. Plain and simple. All other issues are secondary to paying bills.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
@ From the dale to the HP- use the Google and do your own work. All you have to do is look at the ISBE for the last twenty years.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 2:19 pm:
JSM, don’t forget the billion with a B in State money that flowed to CTPF starting in FY 1996 to be used for pension funding that was instead diverted to subsidize retiree healthcare.
- steve schnorf - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 3:22 pm:
I don’t find this to be a brilliant comment, but all should keep it in mind. Zero sum reforms in about anything creates winners and losers, so the questions is rarely “if”, much more likely “who”.
- winners and losers - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 3:43 pm:
What does Amendment 3 do to special education?
It changes - statewide average percentage of students with disabilities - to
- statewide weighted-average percentage of students with disabilities.
Does anyone know what that means?
- Zonker - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 4:05 pm:
One wonders how many downstate “property poor” districts would spend the money is they had as much as the largely overpriced, often underachieving suburban districts. Since the late 1990s, spending per pupil has increased at about double the rate of inflation. How was it spent? I suspect that most was spent increasing the compensation of teachers and administrators who were producing mediocre student outcomes at $40,000 per 177 days to teachers with mediocre student outcomes paid $65,000 per year. Nothing was gained for the students based upon NAEP scores. ONCE I’d like to see the administrators demanding more tax dollars for themselves describe how they’d spend the money and make a promise to resign if reasonable student outcomes commensurate with increased spending don’t materialize. Care to chime in, JS MILLS?
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 4:16 pm:
==- From the ‘Dale to HP - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 1:27 pm:==
Cook is the largest county in the state buddy.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 4:17 pm:
- Zonker -
You and - Arizona Bob - should sit and talk someday.
Same arguments…
===How was it spent? I suspect that most was spent increasing the compensation of teachers and administrators who were producing mediocre student outcomes at $40,000 per 177 days to teachers with mediocre student outcomes paid $65,000 per year.===
Uncanny.
The market for educators and administrators are set by the “New Triers” Districts, or “Naperville” schools.
Your newly entered, constant complaining, today, about teachers really speaks to your under appreciating to vocation, and misunderstanding the challenges, as your calculating cost, but seeing zero value.
That’s a shame.
The inter workings of trying to find a reasonable model is in sharp contrast to your “concern” as to “driving school instructor” costs.
Wow.
You miss the whole point why this battle is worth having, while your discussion is about making yourself feel good with your bashing.
That’s really the shame of your argument.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 4:56 pm:
=Does anyone know what that means?=
In Manar’s bill 48% of Special ed money is taken off of the top and sent to CPS. BTW- 37% of early childhood money.
After that, CPS goes through the same formula as everyone else where the formula applies weightings in various categories, special ed being one, and then creates a total weighted number. Basically, CPS gets paid for special ed twice. Nice if you can get it.
For ECE, everyone else applies for a competitive grant to fund programs already in place or proposed programs.
There are other special considerations for CPS ($261,000,000 off of the top for their attendance centers).
- Zonker - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 5:40 pm:
@Oswego willy
I formerly was a teacher, so I suspect I have as good a picture of what goes on in education as do you.
Regarding “market value” for labor, I suspect that you’ve long been on a public payroll since you don’t understand the term. “Market Value” ISN’T what a union was able to extort for its senior faculty at the most overfunded districts or what the highest level pays, it’s what you’d be paid if you left your job tomorrow in education and sought other employment at the same level. Extremely few schools hire six figure staff of any experience or education level unless they’ve got some “connection” that gives them an in.
For decades I’ve studied where “investment” in education brings the best returns, and I rarely see the money being put there. That’s why I asked the question, one you are apparently not equipped to answer.
Expanding contact hours (especially for low income kids) providing extensive summer “catch up” and enrichment opportunities, developing technology as a self pacing tool and to increase teacher productivity (more students better educated with less staff) all make sense.
But that’s not where you want the money spent, is it?
Enjoy your fat public pension, Oswego.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, May 4, 16 @ 5:55 pm:
This is going to be fun…
===Enjoy your fat public pension, Oswego.===
I don’t have one, thanks.
===I formerly was a teacher, so I suspect I have as good a picture of what goes on in education as do you.===
So was - Arizona Bob -, but… I digress…
===Regarding “market value” for labor, I suspect that you’ve long been on a public payroll since you don’t understand the term.===
Nope. Nice try. It’s not about me either.
===Market Value” ISN’T what a union was able to extort for its senior faculty at the most overfunded districts or what the highest level pays, it’s what you’d be paid if you left your job tomorrow in education and sought other employment at the same level.===
Agreed contracts with management and labor at “X”, could dictate what management and labor could agree to at “Y”
What else ya got?
===Extremely few schools hire six figure staff of any experience or education level unless they’ve got some “connection” that gives them an in.===
Weren’t you just raing about teachers making so much, now you’re saying few change and districts are retaining these teachers? Seems like the school boards are finding a value to keep them, LOL
===For decades I’ve studied where “investment” in education brings the best returns, and I rarely see the money being put there. That’s why I asked the question, one you are apparently not equipped to answer.===
Nah, I can read, thanks, you think “drivers education” should be farmed out as you see the “cost” not the benefits of teachers wearing many hats.
I can’t help you don’t value teachers.
===Expanding contact hours (especially for low income kids) providing extensive summer “catch up” and enrichment opportunities, developing technology as a self pacing tool and to increase teacher productivity (more students better educated with less staff) all make sense.===
And you wsvt to pay the teachers “minimum wage” for this?
Did ya ever think that school districts that pay better MAY get more out of the teachers? You want all this, yet compensate at a lower rate than now?
Pathetic.
===But that’s not where you want the money spent, is it?===
If you studied it for… decades… you would’ve given me the ROI on your plan.
You didn’t.
“Teachers and Administrators make too much money”.
That’s… all ya got, which is nothing.
Nice try, and your misses about me are just as Sad.