28 Comments - Echo The Bunnyman - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:17 am: We need more information. Chicago get’s the block grant right off the top already… There needs to be some independent revue for the taxpayers. - Deft Wing - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:17 am: Has he anything else to do? - Jocko - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:28 am: Someone should tell Tony Smith at ISBE, who’s number one focus is “Establish an adequate and equitable education finance system” …or does he report to Beth? - Telly - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:36 am: Couldn’t agree more, Rich. Rauner is now saying he can support Manar’s original bill with some minor tweaks. How about he actually shows us what those tweaks are? - winners and losers - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:37 am: ==We really need a trustworthy third party to analyze SB 1, the education funding reform bill== Absolutely true, but not easy. The Rauner Commission could not even get an outside evaluation of the validity of the 27 elements of the Evidence Based Model in SB 1. (Two supposed experts at a University in Chicago finally said they did not have the time or staff to do it.) There is an extreme dispute over just the special education parts of SB 1 (pages 254, 281, and 351-352 plus the meaning of special ed “services” as defined in 14-1.08 per SB 1). - Highland Il - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:39 am: +1 one the trustworthy third party to analyze SB1. Tired of everyone in my area dismissing outright because of the “Chicago bailout” line. Which leads right to the Chicago should be it own State argument, we are makers not takers, we-good-Chicago-bad, etc….. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:42 am: You’d think the state’s Education Secretary would be tasked with digging in and providing facts rather than running around the state campaigning against Chicago kids. - Ned Kelly - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:53 am: Ask the BGA for an analysis? They’ll just write what their favored lobbyists/PR people tell them to say. - Echo The Bunnyman - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 10:53 am: Here’s a great opportunity for the only downstate candidate with an education background Bob Daiber to propose something grand..Maybe like Brady a few years ago campaigned eliminating ISBE? Send the money to local schools… If they are looking to blow up the system, why not use all the ammo? - Responsa - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:02 am: ==We really need a trustworthy third party to analyze SB 1,== Such a key statement. And relevant to so much more than SB 1. But I doubt it is possible. The “power sides” are so blatantly partisan and slimy at every possible level and opportunity –and individual candidates/officeholders/lawmakers/lobbyists/commentators are so transparently partisan at every spin, that it is near impossible for the average citizen to trust that anybody is actually considering this city and state’s well-being and future. - Echo The Bunnyman - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:03 am: Responsa.. You win. - 47th Ward - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:05 am: Anybody seen James Meeks lately? Is he still on the payroll? Wasn’t he in charge of ISBE? I’d look it up on-line, but the new web site is horrible. - NoGifts - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:10 am: It’s a shame that we don’t trust any of our representatives to be knowledgeable enough and truthful enough to tell what it means. That says a lot about where we are today. - Duh - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:14 am: Rauner can reasonably veto the bill simply because no one can explain what it does. - NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:28 am: Folks, you all need to realize that at it’s heart, this is a bail out for CPS. But that would never fly on it’s own so they are wrapping it up in this larger bill. There will never be a fully equitable funding formula because everyone always thinks they deserve more. The district I serve as a school board member would end up with more money. Is that fair? I have a high free and reduced lunch population and low EAV. So the conventional thinking would be I need more money. But that’s not our greatest concern. What we really need is greater flexibility in how our school funds are segregated by funding areas. All too often we run a surplus in one area that can’t be used in another area. We need fewer mandates from Springfield. Finally, you can’t legislate good governance. The single most important reason CPS is in financial distress is a lack of good governance over the last 20 years. School board members and administrators and the CTU paid more attention to their own political and salary wants than the needs of the children. - Markus - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:37 am: I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to why the $250 million in SB1 is a “bailout”. The Dems claim it is an offset in the formula to account for the fact that Chicago funds its own pension. On its face that seems reasonable and mathematically accurate. The Republican argument just seems to be that it is not an offset but rather a gift to Chicago. The Dems have offered mathematics in support of their argument whereas the Republicans have offered “bailout” talking point as their basis. I choose math. To the extent that some other funding source not part of SB1 creates some unfair advantage for Chicago, that may be worth discussing. But unless/until all districts are treated the same with respect to pension funding, there needs to be an adjustment in the formula to account for the pension discrepancy. - Bob Dolgan - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:49 am: ISBE’s official analysis of SB1 is the first item posted here: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Education-Funding-Proposals.aspx. Go to column 50 to see how much school districts stand to gain under the new formula in SB1. -Bob Dolgan, Advance Illinois - 47th Ward - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 11:50 am: I get an error notification when I click your link Bob. - Anonymous - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 12:00 pm: Here is the link again: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Education-Funding-Proposals.aspx - Carhartt Union Negotiating Team - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 12:11 pm: The GOP, due to their bizarre mindset that being in the legislative minority requires them to oppose any and all issues that could be a bipartisan success, cast a very bad partisan vote. They voted NO. They’re also terribly fearful that Rauner will sign the thing at the end of the day (like he’s done before), so they are trying to get him to reinforce his opposition and demands to protect a pretty indefensible anti-education vote…siding with more of the same. The same that rewards their lily white suburban mocha-latte-half-n-soy-spritzer-sprinkle-diet coffee drinking colleagues…at their downstate and Chicago expense. Another analysis is fine. But lets be clear why it’s needed…purposely crafted misinformation and confusion (aka LIES). It’s necessary because Rauner again shook his hobby change jar in front of Republicans to force them to oppose smart, well-crafted, desperately needed, thoughtful school funding reform. Now they’ve taken another bad vote that actually embraces equity and equality AND lays out some standards to measure and follow how those reforms will make improvements (or stagnation) for schools. It’s not that darned complicated. The bill doesn’t remove any dollars away from schools. It recalibrates how dollars are spent so that poorer districts (many of which sit in GOP lawmakers’ areas) are able to receive more dollars from the state while wealthier districts will not see drops in dollars. The “Chicago Bailout” is far from it. Included in the measure is an injection into to CPS to put $200 million into their pension system to create some fairness - as compared to the over $4 billion that all other districts get from the state. But alas, the GOP has fancy charts and figures - no one really knows where they come from, but they’re delivered by Purvis and pushed by the Rauner Propaganda Department, so people think SB1 is a devilish giveaway to Chicago. Purvis should be embarrassed, if not ashamed. Why should we think or believe they are lying? Because it’s what they do so well. Somewhere Dan Proft began shipping out his Der Angriff-style flyers with totally misleading information… Adjusted things to say it was based on an “old analysis,” and then proceeded to continue print and distribute the crap all over. These are not the oversights or mistakes of a “sloppy” propagandist. They are lying. The act of stirring confusion is, in my book, purposeful lie from this group. I wish Rauner would adopt the “You’re Gonna Get Tired of Winning” slogan for a while. Again…pathetic. - HH is forever - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 12:45 pm: It’s gotta be hard for journalists to decipher something so complicated, especially when people who know better are deliberately being misleading. The things in question aren’t that difficult to understand though: 1. CPS currently gets a block grant that gives them a cut of categorical money off the top. The model ends that going forward. But some say the block grant extras should come out of the Base Funding Minimum/Hold Harmless. Ditto last year’s Equity Grant. Well, I say that the richest flat grant districts that get poverty grant funds under the current formula shouldn’t get that either. And that Special Ed Personnel funds that go across-the-board to districts instead of being targeted are unfair to poorer districts. They passed a PTELL alternative adjustment for a few suburban districts a few years back. Should those come out of the Base Funding Minimum too? No. Because that’s the whole point of the Base Funding Minimum. Everyone gets what they in state funds last year; new money goes through a new formula. 2. Under [some other never-before-modeled plan], District X would have gotten more money. And Chicago would have gotten less. District X loses to Chicago! Maybe under my plan, we take all of Chicago’s money and redistribute it… look how much better that is for other districts that get that money! Those are fictitious proposals that would never get a vote. Legislators had one vote to take - get more money for their district and a formula fix, or stick with status quo. 3. Teacher pensions. TRS gets $4.6 billion; CTPF gets nothing. SB1 adds CTPF normal cost ($215 million) to the Base Funding Minimum. Even though that money got vetoed last year, the bill still let’s them keep in in their hold harmless. I can think of better ways to achieve pension parity, like adding a continuing approp for CTPF like we do for TRS. The bill also gives CPS credit for $500 million in pension debt. Is that fair? I think it is, but I get it if someone think it isn’t. But - CPS gets $70 million of the $350 million that goes through the tiers even with that credit built in. That’s 20%. CPS has 20% of the kids and 1/3 of the poor kids. 4. When the amendment to HB2808 was filed, CPS would have gotten a little less than it would have through the status quo if $350 million were invested. The Gov’s office still called that amendment a bailout, making me wonder whether anything would ever escape that “bailout” tag that has been such an effective distraction. - winners and losers - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 12:55 pm: Why is it so hard to get ACCURATE FIGURES on SB 1, let alone any evaluation of whether its 27 elements are REALLY EVIDENCE BASED? What is wrong with the ISBE evaluation of SB 1 (link in a previous post)? (1) It is for HA 1, not for HA 2 to SB 1 (which is what passed the House and Senate). (2) It is for Fiscal Year 17, NOT for FY 18. (3) It ASSUMES $350 Million in NEW money. (4) Under the first tab (Assumptions) it states - “The Evidence Based Model is quite different from any funding proposal that has been prepared to date. “As such data required for this proposal have not necessarily been available.” Please read ALL of the Assumptions listed - “assumptions that have had to been made” - Echo The Bunnyman - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 12:59 pm: Carthart…”it’s not that darned complicated. The bill doesn’t remove any dollars away from schools. It recalibrates how dollars are spent so that poorer districts (many of which sit in GOP lawmakers’ areas) are able to receive more dollars from the state while wealthier districts will not see drops in dollars. The “Chicago Bailout” is far from it. Included in the measure is an injection into to CPS to put $200 million into their pension system to create some fairness - as compared to the over $4 billion that all other districts get from the state.” You mean the Pension fund the City wanted out of the State system that needs the payment? Do you have any idea of how much from the Education budget is taken off the top for Chicago? If it was so simple as you say, “re-calibrate” why not send a portion of your check to someone in another town? - Anon414 - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 1:12 pm: == you mean the pension fund the City wanted out of == Echo, you sure about that? The Chicago teachers fund was established before TRS. And the Chicago fund is actually in better (or let’s say less bad) shape than TRS. - Echo The Bunnyman - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 1:20 pm: The city wanted control of their system… All that goes along with it. It was a great deal for the city, until it wasn’t. - Eyeball - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 1:37 pm: SB1 credits CPS for the “employer normal cost” of its pension. ISBE model assumed $215m estimated normal pension cost. Per CPS’ budget forecast http://cps.edu/fy16budget/pages/pensions.aspx, CPS pension costs is $700m with a billion plus in the forecast. Please explain the difference in the assumed estimated normal cost of $215m and CPS’ total pension cost of $700m. And what happens to ISBE’s model when a billion is assumed? - Anon414 - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 2:19 pm: Echo, my understanding of history is that many school districts around the state used to have there own pension systems. just like Chicago. But some of those funds failed, and some other school districts were just too small to get a pension fund off the ground. So the General Assembly created a unified teacher pension system for every district throughout the state — one for which the state would assume the costs. Frankly, I’m not sure if Chicago actively fought to stay our of the statewide system or if they were simply left out by the legislature because the Chicago system was doing fine on its own. I do know that for the longest time, the state did cover a significant portion of the employer costs for the Chicago fund, but the Chicago pension plan was primarily funded by a separate tax levy on each Chicagoan’s property tax bill. That began to change in 1995 with the Chicago School Reform Amendatory Act. That law (pushed by a Republican governor and General Assembly) removed the special pension property tax levy in Chicago and began a to ramp down of the amount the state paid into the Chicago fund, lowering it from about a third of normal costs to less than one percent today. By the way, the Chicago teachers pension was funded at over 100 percent at the time. That 1995 act created the Chicago Teacher Pension Fund crisis we have today, because it allowed the Chicago Board of Education to short and skip pension payments the same way the state was blowing off payments to TRS and it eliminated the state pension subsidy for Chicago. - Oswego resident - Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 4:34 pm: The Civic Federation is about as close to an impartial third party as Donald Trump is a competent President. Not even close. ISBE does have the capacity to project GSA if given a fixed target. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.