Rauner’s SB1 AV defended
Wednesday, Aug 9, 2017 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Senate Republicans have produced a retort to the claims that Gov. Rauner’s amendatory veto of SB1 undercuts the evidence-based model…
Rauner’s AV did not impact the 27 research-based “Essential Elements” that have been present in every single proposal seen this far. In fact, Rauner’s AV left in place a poverty concentration in the classroom metric that was not in the original version and that advocates of the EBM said was not necessary because the model takes into account poverty with a Low Income element and other elements that support Low Income students.
If you look at the AV, you will see that the elements have not been changed. These are applied to individual districts based on demographics. For example, the model looks at the demographics of a school district and calculates how much it would cost to provide:
· Teachers for Full Day Kindergarten
· Smaller class sizes
· Specialist Teachers
· Instructional Facilitators
· Intervention Teachers
· Substitute Teachers
· Guidance Counselors and Nurses
· Librarians
· Principal/Assistant Principal
· School Site Staff/Supervisory Aids
Additional Funding for Diverse Learners (Low Income/EL/Special Ed):
· Intervention Teachers
· Additional Pupil Support Teachers
· Extended Day Teachers
· Summer School
· English Learner students
· Special Education Teachers, Psychologists, Aides
Funding for:
· Gifted and Talented
· Professional Development
· Instructional Materials
· Assessments
· Computer Technology and Equipment
· Maintenance & Operations
· Central Office Operations
· Employee Benefits
The AV takes into account that every school district will have its own unique Adequacy Target. Which is identical to SB 1 and every single proposal seen thus far.
In fact, I would argue that Rauner’s AV goes even farther by removing the money that has been baked into the Base Funding Minimum for ONE school district and distributes it to ALL school district’s in an EVIDENCE-BASED WAY. Run it through the Tiers of your new and improved model so that all school districts can benefit. Don’t bake dollars into the Base for one school district and reinforce, forever, the metrics of your old, tired formula. And as a result, prevent all other school districts from seeing any benefit from that money even if they are less adequately funded than that one District you are subsidizing.
- Union Dues - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:39 pm:
Are they afraid to say the word “Chicago” ? Why ?
- Annonin' - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:39 pm:
And he jams up schools with the cliff on per pupil hold harmless, TIFs, pension shifts and claims every thing is okeedoekee.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:40 pm:
Does this mean you support shifting teacher pension costs to local school districts Senator Brady?
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:43 pm:
So, the pension shift on districts is fine, we all now need to go after prevailing wage and collective bargaining by freezing property taxes… then possibly raise property taxes to cover the new pension shift “wrinkle”?
Yeah, um, ok…
- Juice - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:43 pm:
Capping the regionalization factor and eliminating the inflationary increases for the costs has a fundamental impact to every single one of the 27 elements.
- illini97 - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:44 pm:
Hey, let us poindexters see the numbers please.
Ehen do we get the ISBE by-district numbers reflecting PTELL and TIF changes?
Will those ISBE numbers also factor in the pension shift at each district?
- Perrid - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:44 pm:
They didn’t mention most of the problems. TIF, PTELL, Pension costs not counting in adequacy target. They really, REALLY want this to only about Chicago.
- Ghost - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:45 pm:
I think they should get all the GOP to vote yes, then just enough dems to pass it; and tell the people they have given them the GOP Rauner funding formula. Questions gice them all the GOP phone numbers.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:45 pm:
Those are many words.
So, let’s see the district scores, already.
Will they include projected future costs on the pension shift?
- Internettin' - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:45 pm:
Transportation?
- Honeybear - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
Do you think JB would be interested in funding a think tank?
I have so much research material to start the
Honeybear Institute for the Study of Perfidy
- no name - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
once again hiding behind the 27 elements. those build the cost, not how the $ is distributed. the AV mostly impacts distribution…
- Arsenal - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
Cool, way to go, defending the AV a week after it was issued after everyone has had a go at tearing it apart.
- Norseman - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:49 pm:
BTIA ™ calls Sen minions. “Give us some cover, we need to counter the facts being distributed out there.”
- Will Caskey - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:51 pm:
That’s a whole lot of uses of the word “evidence” and no dollar figures.
- Austin Blvd - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:51 pm:
Yes, thank you Senate Republicans for putting some lipstick on the governor’s oinker.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:51 pm:
word, I don’t see how they can project the future costs of the pension shift without some actuarial projections, which no one seems to have requested.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 12:55 pm:
AA, for a school funding bill, there is a curious lack of interest to producing numbers on this AV.
- Passive Agressive - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:03 pm:
Perhaps I’ve missed, but would love to hear Leaders Durkin and Brady explain how the Gov’s AV of SB1 is good for Illinois school districts.
- Dis - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
Tony Smith is telling us right now that ISBE will not have final calculations for an evidence-based model for several months, once something is in place.
- Robert Montgomery - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:14 pm:
==distributes it to ALL school district’s in an EVIDENCE-BASED WAY.==
GOP continues to be bitten by the grammar bug.
- Winnin' - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:18 pm:
If there was ever a demonstration by the Republican Careerfellas leadership acting out of fear, the AV of SB1 is it.
How GOP members can look their superintendents in the eye and say they are with the governor instead of their local school districts is nothing short of astounding. In most communities, the local school district is the economic engine and Rauner/IPI are out to destroy that engine.
- Flynn's mom - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:22 pm:
If Dis @1:09pm is correct, where does this leave school districts? How can there be a vote in the house or senate without a clear understanding of what they are agreeing to or overriding?
- Grand Avenue - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:26 pm:
Here’s my defense of the AV.
It shows the world how whacked out the Governor is (in case there was any doubt) - which will motivate HDems & a few HGOPs to work together to pass & override SB1 as originally passed by the Senate so they can get the schools open and worry about the other details once we have more rational actors in Springfield come 2019.
- Grand Avenue - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:26 pm:
Basically, the AV moved the “Overton Window” so SB1 as originally passed looks pretty good now.
- Grand Avenue - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:27 pm:
That is, SB1 as originally passed by the Senate.
- RNUG - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
== Tony Smith is telling us right now that ISBE will not have final calculations for an evidence-based model for several months, once something is in place. ==
So now we have to pass it to see what is in it?
- Moist von Lipwig - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:35 pm:
It’s so cute to watch them try to defend this…
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
RNUG, that’s one heck of a mid-course correction by ISBE. They were ready to release something right before Revenue’s oopsie was discovered, then releasing numbers seems to have disappeared into the fog of confusion. Now, “several months?”
- Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:41 pm:
47th Ward - The Dems already did just that; for future hires normal pension cost will be shifted to the local school districts. Also for SURS. SB 42. The BIMP. Madigan’s addition.
- Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:46 pm:
===Tony Smith is telling us right now===
Telling who?
- Liberty - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 1:50 pm:
and the governor didn’t negotiate this months ago because…
- Disgusted Downstate - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
Sorry, Rich. Dis@1:09 was me. Tony was telling superintendents on a Back-to-School webinar that it will take them months to finalize GSA numbers once an evidence-based model is passed. Not one word about SB1AV top secret numbers was mentioned. So in other words, they are putting together numbers for the governor, and then once something is passed, even if what is passed is the AV, then they will get to work on figuring out the real allocations based on updated information. While they figure out the actual allocations, they will send schools estimated payments. However, not one thin dime of GSA will flow until some sort of evidence-based model is passed into law.
- Skeptic - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
“and the governor didn’t negotiate this months ago because… ” … it would have been outrageous to do so!
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:13 pm:
The “appreciative setting” for any rep, esp GOP, wanting to win reelection could not be simpler: the voters don’t give a damn about metrics or models. Only one thing matters. When the bone gap gazette asks local supes more money? Less money? That’s the election.
- Anon221 - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
Is Tony assuming the ILGOP’s presumption that SB1 won’t be law until 2018, and therefore he can’t run the numbers until it becomes law? That was what Ives and especially Breen were spouting today at the hearing.
Ives was very condescending to the superintendents today, but had to run for a train when it came to the hard numbers panel of Matire et. al.. Courage at her best ./s
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:27 pm:
Anon, regarding the cost shift in the BIMP, I’ll concede the point that Madigan added that for new hires.
Rauner’s a/v would not include those added pension costs as per of the adequacy target. Seems to me that would exacerbate the cost shift in a major way.
- Arock - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:28 pm:
Too bad it took 20 years to write this bill to fix school funding(President Cullerton’s words) or the Democrats could have fixed this when they were fully in charge for 12 years. Just like they fixed the pension problem, the retiree healthcare problem, the minimum wage problem, the income tax problem and all the rest of the problems they fixed. Oh they didn’t fix any of those problem?
- School Finance - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:34 pm:
The SGOP retort - “we recognize and fund the same set of evidence as SB1″ - is correct as far as it goes. However, to be honest, they should go on to explain that by removing inflation in the cost of the evidence from the model, they will under fund each of these pieces of evidence in year two and each year thereafter.” It is already likely to take many years for the state to fund close to adequacy as its currently defined. Removing inflation admits they don’t really want to fund adequacy. It just becomes a goal similar to EFAB and every other funding target ever put out there.
- Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:39 pm:
The ALL CAPS nonsense at the end gives the game away.
- Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:42 pm:
47th Ward - Yes but the 5 year asset smoothing and the gradual shift of pension dollars would give school districts years to plan for their pension costs before it becomes a major part of the school district budget.
But, you are correct that all this money is coming out of local dollars going forward and will be a burden on property owners that grows every year. And, eventually, will probably be the most regular reason to go to tax payers and ask to increase property taxes.
- Eagle Eye - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:51 pm:
Even they, the SGOP, off the record of course admitted that the AV was a non-starter and were shocked at the content. The AV is a disinvestment model for school funding.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 2:58 pm:
Yes Anon, and then every district can be just like Chicago.
- Langhorne - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 3:05 pm:
Please, PLEASE, put Brady out front to answer live questions. Patty is earning her money.
- Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 3:26 pm:
Anon 2:42 and 47-I would tend to agree with Anon 2:42 that since the cost shift applies only to new hires, the impact will be gradual. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that turnover is one of the most difficult actuarial assumptions to predict. Even with an actuarial study, districts would be uncertain about the impact of this provision on their funding. The 5 year smoothing will have a minor impact in my opinion, because it is primarily going to even out the impact of major changes to assumptions (like investment returns) and actual experience. This is serious Poindextering on my part, but I can’t find an easier way to lay it out.
- FactsAreTricky - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 4:08 pm:
=”Tony Smith is telling us right now that ISBE will not have final calculations for an evidence-based model for several months, once something is in place.”=
This means the numbers are not soup yet. They are hiding the numbers because they are not good, & they don’t want the schools to know how bad their numbers are.
- Rabid - Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 4:31 pm:
Gobbleygook