39 Comments - PublicServant - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 3:50 pm: Spin from The GOP? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. - Tone - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 3:51 pm: Simple solution, make all school districts pay for their own pensions. Allow municipal bankruptcy too. - DGD - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 3:57 pm: **Spin from The GOP? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.** Pot meet kettle. Even without the $2000, Chicago still spends double what many downstate districts do. - A Modest Proposal - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 3:59 pm: $2000 a pupil equals how much per pensionable faculty member? - Whatever - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:00 pm: Why not? I’ve seen the same thing done with how much state employees (and their pensions in particular) are costing the state, where the entire pension contribution is attributed to state employees even though the vast majority of it is for downstate teachers, university employees, and catch-up for payments that should have been made when the liability arose. If you can’t see the source of the numbers, you have no idea if they’re close to being true. - Chicago Barb - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:01 pm: Not to mention how much money CPS schools pay toward security measures: metal detectors, 2 or 3 security officers. - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:04 pm: Suburban residents pay much higher property taxes which support most of the per student spending, compared to Chicago which receives a higher allotment from the state. Apples to oranges as well? - My button is broke... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:05 pm: I think that that $2,000 should be counted as spending on education or per student, BUT what the State spends on TRS on behalf of all other school districts should be included in those figures as well. I don’t understand how paying for a teacher’s salary is education spending but paying for their pension isn’t… I did a quick back of the envelope calculation and the State spends about $2,000 per downstate kid for the TRS contribution. Same as CPS. - Diogenes in DuPage - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:07 pm: ===Even without the $2000, Chicago still spends double what many downstate districts do.=== And they pay about double due to higher cost of living and the area labor market. - Jimmy CrackCorn - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:09 pm: Watching self-styled “Conservative” members try to put together a logical argument against the cost-shift is one of the more amusing things you will see. Pension sweetners, local control, leverage vs. labor… They are all there. But no, they aren’t going to let a thing like idealogy get in the way of a messed up deal as long as they are the beneficiary. - Jackie - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:13 pm: Read the whole bill, then you’ll see who’s spinning. - DGD - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:16 pm: ** And they pay about double due to higher cost of living and the area labor market. ** cost of living is higher, but nowhere near double. - winners and losers - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:28 pm: Is Speaker Madigan still pushing for ALL school districts to pay their full pension costs? - Chicago 20 - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:30 pm: Button - “I think that that $2,000 should be counted as spending on education or per student, BUT what the State spends on TRS on behalf of all other school districts should be included in those figures as well.” Is that for only the current obligations or current obligations with skipped previous FY obligations? - thunderspirit - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:31 pm: == Spin from The GOP? I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you. == It’s not as though either side has a monopoly on spin; and it’s disingenuous to suggest that one side does it more than the other. - Earnest - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:35 pm: If the argument is going to be that Chicago gets too much money to spend on schools, or that state front line employees make too much money, pretty much everyone has already lost the argument. If the discussion is about how we should fund all of our schools and at what level of state funding, or how we can have a stronger economy so there are more good-paying jobs, we might have a chance to get somewhere. - Tone - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:40 pm: winners and losers, was he really pushing that? That’s smart, it’s the only solution. - Anon III - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:54 pm: From the ISBE: “Operating Expense per Pupil: The gross operating cost of a school district (excepting summer school, adult education, bond principal retired, and capital expenditures) divided by the nine-month ADA for the regular school term.” This is a no brainer, salary and benefits are eighty percent of school operating expenses. Pension costs are benefits. If CPS spends the money on pensions, it goes into OEPP. - My button is broke... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 4:55 pm: The $2,000 is for normal cost and unfunded liability, so it would be lower if we were at a regular funding level. If I remember correctly, about a third of the State’s contribution to TRS goes to normal cost, and two thirds goes toward interest and the unfunded liability, so you can argue that only $667 should be counted as education spending opposed to the $2,000. I think there are good arguments on both sides, and I think ultimately it depends on what you are using the number for. I think if you want to compare downstate schools to Chicago, use the $2,000 since Chicago taxpayers are contributing tax dollars to the $2,000 amount. If you want to compare education spending to other states, using the $667 figure would probably be more accurate. - Touré's Latte - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:09 pm: Enough of the apples to oranges! http://www.neatorama.com/2013/05/15/Apples-and-Oranges-A-Comparison/ - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:12 pm: Why is there an assumption that the per pupil cost is attributable to teachers alone? Would one believe that social workers, counselors, speech therapists, physical therapists, nurses,etc. are a fewer or more populous group in the CPS? Because in the school I worked at teachers were the fewest number of professionals on the staff. The number of “specials” necessary for the student population, having nothing to do with instruction do add to the payroll and cost benefits as well. But it’s so much more fun to demonize the instructors. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:17 pm: ==makes it sound like Chicago is spending $2,000 more per year per student than it is== CPS spends $2,554 more per pupil than the state average. CPS also receives $2,255 per student from the Feds. Regardless, CPS spending per pupil is still more than the state average even if we deduct $2,000 per pupil for pension payments. That will not persuade the many voters living in districts currently spending less than the state average on their kids or in districts eventually losing funding under this plan. They would like more $ for their kids as well. - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:28 pm: ==Would one believe that social workers, counselors, speech therapists, physical therapists, nurses,etc. are a fewer or more populous group in the CPS? The number of “specials” necessary for the student population, having nothing to do with instruction do add to the payroll and cost benefits as well.== They are also protected and represented by CTU, their pay negotiated under the same contract. It all figures into per student funding except for special education needs, for which Chicago receives excess funding on top of per pupil amounts even though this money does not reflect the reduced population of Sped students over the years. - JS Mill - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:40 pm: =Is Speaker Madigan still pushing for ALL school districts to pay their full pension costs?= Yes he is still very interested in cost-shift. I agree with him, it is the only way the money goes where it should. =The $2,000 is for normal cost and unfunded liability= It is not for unfunded liability. The Democrats free lunch “study” did not count the PTELL subsidy that CPS gets among other things. They are/were also given a huge pension offset amount, RNUG and AA are well versed on this topic so I hope that they post here. Capacity is also an issue. While the rest of the state is tapping significant local capacity with much higher tax rates. Plus, when we head to Chicago hotels etc. we help subsidize the city and it’s school through very large taxes. - Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 5:43 pm: We might also focus on the amount being spent on actual instruction, to get a better idea of things. CPS spent $9,778 pupil on instructional spending in 2014. The state average was $7,419 student. There are no pension payments or capital expenses clouding those numbers. Other commenters may have $’s for 2015. - DuPage - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 6:23 pm: CPS has not paid into the pensions for quite a few years. - Huh? - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 6:28 pm: “Enough of the apples to oranges!” Nuts. Now I have to come up with a new rebuttal argument. Nice article. - Tone - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 6:28 pm: Under Rahm pension payments have been made. - anon - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 6:38 pm: It’s true that Chicago spends more per pupil than the state average, not counting pension payments. It’s also true that 90 percent of Chicago students are from low-income families, and those children need more resources to have a chance. Yet kids from affluent districts get double or moure than Chicago kids. - PublicServant - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 6:58 pm: anon+1 - Wensicia - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 7:17 pm: 90% of students in my district, many that moved here from Chicago, are low-income or below poverty levels yet don’t receive the extra funding CPS gets to cover their needed resources. And we’re not an “affluent” district. - anon - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 9:02 pm: Wensica Don’t low income students in your district qualify for federal funds? - Tone - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 9:08 pm: Pensions should be the responsibility of the districts that employ the workers. Municipal bankruptcy will sole it all much more cleanly. - Last Bull Moose - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 9:39 pm: Choices were made. Chicago school pensions were part of a deal the City of Chicago wanted. Chicago has 40-45 percent Latino students. This may require more effort to teach. But Chicago also chose to be a Sanctuary City and to encourage Latino immigration . Chicago has a high wage teacher corp serving an impoverished student body? Is this the most effective and cost-effective way to structure the school work force? wn the consequences of your choices. I used to think that Chicago and Illinois had the resources to fix their problems. I still think they have the cash. But both lack clever leadership. - Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 10:46 pm: You may recall that when Speaker Madigan pushed a “cost shift” to make the locals pick up teacher pension costs (like Chicago), the Senate Republicans threw a fit. Switch it around and have the state pick up Chicago like everyone else, same fit. Interesting trend. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:00 pm: More Raunerism’s. Just like its $3 billion, now trillion, quadrillion for a union’s raises over 3,000 years. - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:14 pm: This is a test post - Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, May 17, 16 @ 11:25 pm: I’m having some tech problems. It’s quite misleading to say the “suburban and downstate residents don’t put anything into the state teacher pension fund.” That $3.6 billion didn’t come from the Tooth Fairy. Clearly all state taxpayers are contributing to TRS. CTPF may not have the designated State approp any more, CPS receives hundreds of millions of dollars downstate schools do not. Further, the last time the State made direct contributions to CTPF, starting in FY96, about $1 Billion intended for pensions was diverted to fund retiree healthcare. FWIW, Rauner stopped the contributions. I don’t have enough data to say if the $2000 figure is fair-I do think some downstate costs may have been left out, but I would need to see the details before saying more. - Juvenal - Wednesday, May 18, 16 @ 8:39 am: === Chicago has 40-45 percent Latino students. This may require more effort to teach. But Chicago also chose to be a Sanctuary City and to encourage Latino immigration === I was wondering how long it would take the blatant racism to reveal itself. Turns out the answer is “34.” Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.