32 Comments - Gruntled University Employee - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:25 am: I’m optimistically doubtful. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:28 am: They made one major cut, reducing their own number for 30 to 25. That’s progress. - Mama - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:38 am: What are their goals? What does Rauner want his education team to accomplish? - Ahoy! - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:38 am: The only thing you can possibility accomplish at a first meeting like this is to set a positive tone and if you’re lucky (and if someone has done some planning) agree upon an outline to move forward. If those two things happen at a first meeting with this kind of group, it’s a giant success. - Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:40 am: It’s progress that the Governor recognized the formula is broken and is looking to reach consensus on a better one. Convening is half the battle. - DuPage - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:40 am: If they were all appointed by Rauner, I think their recommendations will be lockstep with Rauner’s Turnaround Agenda. End prevailing wages on school construction, privatize everything, and most of all, bust the teachers unions. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:40 am: High property wealth districts will be fine, they may even get mandate relief. Low wealth/high poverty rate districts will get even more money. Middle wealth/poverty districts will get squeezed even more. So, not much change is my prediction. - Quizzical - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:45 am: The commission will be successful in that it will provide cover for incumbents in this election cycle. ‘Reforming how we fund schools is a priority for me, so I fully support the commission seeking a bipartisan solution’. After the election, whatever ideas the commission proposes will fade to oblivion. The basic political problem will remain –ttoo many districts would have to receive substantially less in order for districts that need more money to receive substantially more - downstate commissioner - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:48 am: Thru JS Mill @9:40: All good comments and sum up what I think now- Mama’s questions are good- the answer to the 2nd one is probably: “you don’t want to know.” - Joe M - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:55 am: The committee has a tough task. Without more state dollars into K-12, property taxes will remain high and continue to raise. And without more state revenue, every new dollar put into K-12 education is a dollar taken away from such things as social programs and higher education. Add complications such as the GOP and Rauner’s attitude towards CPS and CPS pension payments - and Rauner’s turnaround agenda items against teachers’ collective bargaining, — I’m not optimistic. - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:56 am: No. The budget stalemate freezes this discussion. However, they could develop the fact base for discussion. I do not believe that there is an agreement on the current sources of funding for each school district. They could also sort out the cost level for each district by comparing teacher wages and fully loaded costs. This analysis requires staff. Do they have assigned staff? If they are arguing from different facts, there is little hope for good solutions. - GA Watcher - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:09 am: Last Bull Moose: They have staff. It’s called the Illinois Policy Institute. - Huh? - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:16 am: “Think they’ll get anything accomplished?” 1. Who buys the donuts and bagels for next meeting. 2. Thank 1.4% for appointments to the commission. 3. Write press release blaming Madigan for funding problems. 4. Ask where to pick up per diem and milage check. - Mama - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:21 am: - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 9:56 am: - “No.” “The budget stalemate freezes this discussion.” LBM, you are right about the budget problem freezing the state from getting anything done. May I add the following: Rauner’s Turnaround demands also freezes the state from getting anything done. - Illinois Bob - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:32 am: They’ll first conclude that Illinois schools are “underfunded” even though Illinois spends 18% per pupil above the national average. They’ll establish that farming communities don’t want the wealthy farm businesses to fund their local schools, so the income tax should be raised so that they get money from the suburbs instead. There won’t be a single suggestion that will improve declining K-12 teacher productivity, make more economical use of online learning (especially over summers) or limit strike privileges that have escalated educational costs at about double the rate of inflation. - Sue - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:57 am: In a no growth environment someone’s gain is also another persons loss. This is going nowhere - Last Bull Moose - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:02 am: Illinois Bob, True farming communities are losing population and consolidating their schools. Property taxes on farmland have been rising. Not sure that the Commission is tasked to look at the operational effectiveness of the schools. It does need to be done,but not by this group. I agree that when the government creates a monopoly, those workers should not have the right to strike. However, in Illinois they do and I don’t see the votes to change that. - Ghost - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:32 am: no thing will be accomplished. Its more a witch hunt based on sterotypes of CPS. they need to go back to the existing funding formula bills and do some meaningful work - Federalist - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:45 am: @ Illinois Bob, “They’ll establish that farming communities don’t want the wealthy farm businesses to fund their local schools” Exactly who are you talking about and how do you specifically define this group of ‘wealthy farm businesses’? And after you have done that please state why this group should be specifically targeted, how they should be targeted (for more tax money), and why they more than others. Give yourself some time and give me a thoughtful answer. - Illinois Bob - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:45 am: @Last Bull Moose Of course you’re right. What I’d like to see is the commission come up with recommendations for pooling resources even districts don’t consolidate. For example, business services, curriculum development, maintenance and sometimes transportation, as well as general administration like superintendents, could be part of a school “co-op” to reduce costs. JSMILLS, is much of that happening in your neck of the woods? - JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:51 am: =JSMILLS, is much of that happening in your neck of the woods?= Has been for years. We don’t need a commission of mostly non-educators and often people who helped create much of the mess to tell us to do something that we are already doing. And it is happening all across the state. Norths, South, East, West. - Illinois bob - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 11:57 am: @JSMILL What services does your district share? Other than special ed, it’s almost unheard of in the suburbs. To many “empires” out there and six figure administrators needing to justify their employment. Are you personally aware of any Chicago area suburban schools doing this? - anon2 - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 12:05 pm: Let’s face it. The Republicans who constitute the majority of the commission will not come out in favor of a tax hike to increase overall school funding, the way Gov. Edgar did in 1997. Without new revenue, the nation’s highest spending disparity between rich and poor districts can’t be narrowed without cutting funds to wealthy districts, which the GOP won’t countennce. In short, there is no solution addressing the regressive funding system that Republicans will accept. - Sue - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 12:36 pm: Anon2- this is not an R vs D issue. There are plenty of D suburban legislators opposed to bailing out Chicago if it means taking money from their school districts. But go right ahead and blame the Rs - City Zen - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 12:47 pm: ==Without new revenue, the nation’s highest spending disparity between rich and poor districts can’t be narrowed without cutting funds to wealthy districts== But the #1 difference for that disparity is teacher salaries. There are “poor” districts neighboring my “rich” district that has the same student/teacher ratios but their salary schedule is 30-40% lower than mine. Even the facilities are similarly equipped (although I’d venture my district has some advantage there). So as we attempt to shorten that gap, where does the money go? Does the poor district get enough money to double the teaching staff? Would they even have the physical capacity to do so? Do they get a new computer lab? OK, but does that warrant such large amounts of additional funding each and every year? That gap will always be large when taxpayers in rich districts pay $X in overall taxes and their teachers consume that extra money before it can be redistributed to poor districts. It’s not so much new revenue that’s needed as much as how the current revenue from all sources is distributed. - Illinois Bob - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 1:04 pm: @Federalist One of the most important ways is the way property is assessed based upon income instead of farm value. Typically, if you had a rental property that derived the same income as a farm, you’d be assessed far higher and pay far more taxes to support the schools. There are all sorts of games you can play to lower assessments that way. While Ag business is generally very profitable in Illinois (when of the right scale and management), that doesn’t necessarily translate into paying a “fair share” for the schools. I’ve been looking for a study that quantifies the “cost” to local schools due to this issue, but so far I’ve been unsuccessful. I also believe that farm businesses get tax breaks that other businesses do not in Illinois. I can’t blame farming communities for wanting suburbanites to fund their schools, but we need a fairer way to determine what the real ability of a community to support its schools before “redistribution” from other (suburban) communities. - Federalist - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 1:55 pm: @Illinoisbob, “Typically, if you had a rental property that derived the same income as a farm, you’d be assessed far higher and pay far more taxes to support the schools. There are all sorts of games you can play to lower assessments that way.” First, thanks for responding. However I believe you need some additional information and insight. And you still did not answer my question as to who constitutes those farm businesses you talk about. So I will give you my own comments. I have a farm. I generally net about $35,000 a year after expenses. And on that $35K I pay $5200 in local property taxes (and this does not include federal and state taxes.) So the $5200 (basically a surtax of another 15%) is an additional tax on my investment that those who have stocks do not have. From my perspective there should then be an additional ‘property tax” on non farm investments as well. Don’t just stick it to those who have farmland. In additional, farmers are taxed on nursing homes, library districts, Jr. Colleges, fire districts etc etc. And they are taxed on the farmland and not just the house that they live in on that farm. - illini - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 4:09 pm: This discussion of farm land is interesting. My brother has his own business and is still farming a few hundred acres that have been in our family for 100 years. Very, very small farmer in comparison to many in this area, some of whom have ground in 8 or 9 counties. Farm land is assessed different from other real estate, and to some it may appear to be under assessed. Yet, and unless this has changed in the last 20 years, I do not believe that taxes are charged for the $250,000 tractors, the $400,000 combines or the grain trucks and other equipment needed to operate a farm. Even some of the smaller dealerships have several Million in inventory that taxes are never paid on. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 4:18 pm: =Yet, and unless this has changed in the last 20 years, I do not believe that taxes are charged for the $250,000 tractors, the $400,000 combines or the grain trucks and other equipment needed to operate a farm. Even some of the smaller dealerships have several Million in inventory that taxes are never paid on.= That has not changed. In fairness, corporations do not pay taz on equipment value either. What has changed in the last two years is the way farmland is assessed for taxation. I cannot cite chapter and verse but essentially the valuation cycle has flattened and this should create stability inthe taxes with fewer jumps. - Federalist - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 5:05 pm: “Yet, and unless this has changed in the last 20 years, I do not believe that taxes are charged for the $250,000 tractors, the $400,000 combines or the grain trucks and other equipment needed to operate a farm. Even some of the smaller dealerships have several Million in inventory that taxes are never paid on.” That is true. However, thee are some $9.0 billion in “lost taxes” and this is small compared to many other items (yes even pensions). - Federalist - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 5:09 pm: @ JS Mill “What has changed in the last two years is the way farmland is assessed for taxation. I cannot cite chapter and verse but essentially the valuation cycle has flattened and this should create stability inthe taxes with fewer jumps.” How do I get in on that deal? My farm taxes have increased 10% a year for the past four years as grain prices have plummeted. Yea, it actually helps to know what one is talking about and unless you can farmland taxes I am not certain that includes you. But go ahead and prove your point, if you can. - JS Mill - Wednesday, Aug 3, 16 @ 10:18 pm: =But go ahead and prove your point, if you can.= You might look it up yourself, you probably have a computer bought with subsidy money. Which makes your moniker a bit ironic. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.