Lost in much of the hoopla over the process of passing school funding reform through the Illinois General Assembly is the fact that this is a pretty darned good and far-reaching bill.
While this legislation is far from perfect and doesn’t provide an immediate fix, it finally puts the state on a path to equitable school funding based on the concept of actual local need. It’s a complicated process and may have to be adjusted and it will require lots more money from the state, but it sure beats the heck out of dumping money year after year into a dysfunctional formula that benefited the rich and trapped the poor.
And in times of state fiscal strife, the new formula protects state funding for the neediest districts at the expense of wealthier districts. It’s tough to argue with that concept.
The local mandate relief is minor, but still somewhat significant. Most local school district mandate waivers are approved by the General Assembly, but that often takes time. This legislation would give the four legislative leaders extraordinary power to expedite those waivers. If at least three of the four leaders aren’t thrilled with a request, it will go through the usual legislative process. Otherwise, the waivers will be automatically granted.
Physical education requirements would be rolled back from five days per week to three, and more students who play sports can be exempted from PE. Drivers’ education can be outsourced to private companies, which is the norm in many other states.
One of the realities exposed by this debate is the number of school districts that have built up gigantic cash reserves. The new law will allow local voters to reduce their districts’ educational property tax levy by up to 10 percent, but only if the levy isn’t lowered below what’s considered to be 110 percent of “adequacy.” The political bar is also pretty high. Ten percent of all registered voters in a school district would have to sign a petition to get the measure on the ballot.
The new income tax credit for donations to private school scholarship programs is expected to be a boon for some schools. But it could also eventually turn out to be a bane. Whenever you take government money, you have to follow the government’s rules. If this tax credit program is renewed in five years when it’s due to sunset, you can probably bet that eligibility requirements will be tightened to protect kids who aren’t being properly served by the private and parochial school systems right now.
Also, when ultraconservative legislators like Rep. Jeanne Ives (R-Wheaton) and far-left groups like the Chicago Teachers Union are vocally opposing a bill, you know you may be on the right track.
Rep. Ives has been allied with the far-right Illinois Policy Institute against the education funding reform bill from the start. Opponents of the evidenced-based model have privately railed against it as “redistributionist.” And they’re right because it is specifically designed to do just that while holding all schools harmless unless the state can’t meet its funding goals.
Despite the new law’s income tax credit for private school tuition programs, the Institute and its allies were the biggest losers. The Policy Institute’s takeover of the governor’s office resulted in a massively unpopular amendatory veto that Gov. Rauner had to eventually abandon or risk being overridden again.
Like the Institute, the Chicago Teachers Union has been harping about the evils of Tax Increment Financing Districts for years. But all those TIF opponents got in the end was a legislative study commission. Maybe something will come of it, but those commissions tend to produce studies that wind up collecting dust on somebody’s forgotten book shelf. Only this time, it’ll probably be online dust, if that’s possible.
The CTU may have tipped its hand about its true intentions during its briefing of House Democrats a day before that chamber voted, by the way.
While public schools have been hurt by all the new charter schools, CTU President Karen Lewis told legislators that Catholic schools have been “decimated” by the charters. The city’s Catholic school system once rivaled the size of the public system, Lewis explained, but they’ve been forced to close a ton of schools and this scholarship program would help revive its moribund system.
So, by attempting to kill the education funding reform bill, which pumped hundreds of millions of new dollars into the Chicago Public Schools, the city’s only teachers union might have hoped to finally kill off its main private, nonunion competitor.
All’s well that ends well.
- It's Demmer Time - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 9:25 am:
Not making sense to me how the IPI gets pinned with the “loser” label here when school choice just landed in IL. Hard to imagine that tax credit comes without the severity of the AV.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 9:32 am:
When you take government money you have to play by government rules.
So does this mean that private schools will need to take and provide for special ed. students? Comply with state laws about facility modification?
Always found it interesting that private schools could skim the cream of the crop and then boast about their great results. Let’s see all schools held to the same standards.
Also, don’t know why schools need to provide driver education at all. Let parents pay for private instruction. Or is that just another responsibility parents expect from schools?
- wordslinger - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 9:53 am:
IT’D, “school choice just landed in IL?”
Where do parents sign up for their state vouchers? And there’s enough cash so that there’s “school choice” for all students, right?
And there was no “bailout” for CPS, correct?
Spin yourself silly. The miniscule tax credit was a face-saving out for Rauner after the massive FUBAR of the AV.
The BTIA couldn’t even get the number of votes needed right. I don’t think they can claim that it was the plan all along,
- Rod - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 9:57 am:
Rich what leads you to believe that the revenue will exist to fund the evidence based model over the next ten years with prorating the funding?
- Rod - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 10:02 am:
Should be -without-
- winners and losers - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 10:20 am:
In other States this system has NOT resulted in private schools being required to follow either State or Federal law.
As these are stated NOT to be public funds, the privates are not subject to general public school law.
In fact Betsy DeVos has so stated.
I have twice quoted experts who supported this new law but nevertheless told the truth: the OLD formula would have largely corrected the problem IF PROPERLY FUNDED.
Has anyone yet found a source for $8 Billion in NEW money?
Let us wait a couple years and see if all the grandiose promises made come even close to being fulfilled.
- City Zen - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 10:22 am:
==So does this mean that private schools will need to take and provide for special ed. students?==
Were SpEd students denied admittance before?
==Comply with state laws about facility modification?==
Yes, if they’re building a new facility. Even my local public schools are grandfathered in.
- winners and losers - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 10:34 am:
==Were SpEd students denied admittance before?==
There is no law requiring private schools to admit all students.
It is the essence of a private school to be private: not subject to public school law.
- City Zen - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 10:56 am:
==There is no law requiring private schools to admit all students.==
Right, but were any denied entry? If a private school is not properly equipped to support a special needs student, why would a parent send them there? What if the private school is equipped just for special needs kids, like an Elim Christian?
I attended a Catholic school and there was a special needs student in my class through graduation. I don’t recall anyone being denied. Of course, that meant they had the $.
- winners and losers - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 11:04 am:
==dysfunctional formula that benefited the rich and trapped the poor==
Too many people drank the Kool-Aid.
The level of funding for the poorest school districts under the OLD system had not been raised by the Illinois General Assembly for 8 years (since 2009).
Fail to raise the funding level for the poorest districts, and then blame the formula?
It is one of the oldest political tricks: something is so bad, so rotten that it must be thrown out completely.
Then propose something that has NEVER worked in any State, but claim it is wonderful.
- Jocko - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 11:20 am:
City Zen @ 10:56 am
I doubt any school (public or private) would blatantly deny someone admission and not expect consequences.
To WAL’s point, private schools are happy to take the money, but are under no obligation to follow the IEP or provide additional services for a student.
- NoGifts - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 11:46 am:
=”don’t know why schools need to provide driver education at all”= many entry level jobs require a valid drivers’ license. One purpose of our education system is to prepare children for entering the workforce.
- Carhartt Representative - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 12:18 pm:
This brings a lot of new money (About $100 million) to charter schools that CPS probably can’t afford in that new legislation.
- OneMan - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 12:41 pm:
Annon at 9:32
Some private schools do take a level of special education students, but generally, the services are provided by employees of public school entities or paid for my insurance in some specific cases.
As for your “cream” argument, you help pay for a school that only takes the cream and gets all sort of credit for their students, the school is called IMSA and ironically national entities that rank cities give Aurora credit for the school and it makes our schools in general look better. So thanks for that.
Back in the day drivers ed was offered in public schools at a significant discount to what public schools charged (don’t know if it is true now, but when I was a youth) the public school district had to let you take drivers ed as long as you were under 21, so if you were a 19-year-old who had moved into the district they had to let you take the class even if you had graduated HS. My south suburban (majority African American when I graduated) HS had a heck of a good drivers ed program, you would have been a fool to do it privately.
Today however in my school district the cost between private and public is virtually zero. With the behind the wheel time and hours requirements for after you get your permit in order for you to get your license, it makes private drivers ed a requirement if you want your kid to get his DL at 16 (and drive himself to rugby practice).
- blue dog dem - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 12:59 pm:
TIF. Legislative study commission. How many studies do we need on this topic to debunk the myth?
- Driving Away - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 1:20 pm:
Third party instruction at the high school level is a bad idea. No way to control the type of people outside sources bring into the schools.
- Exit 59 - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 1:38 pm:
Private Driver’s Ed…scares me. Do you think that someone could write a big enough check and get a license without the proper training? /s
It also gives some a reason to come to school and pass classes for a year or so of high school in order to get into Dr.Ed. We have students that can’t pay the fees and lunch bills. Sure .. they MAY find the money for private Dr. Ed … but if they don’t, in Southern Illinois, how are they going to get a job? Bad idea.
- Blue dog dem - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 1:51 pm:
Exit59. How come this concept works in most states,Europe and the Far East?
- South Illinios - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 3:49 pm:
Anyone who doesn’t think we need school sponsored driver’s ED has never been around a Missouri driver. I don’t know if this is still the case, but at one time, in Mo. kids got their permit at 15 and without a school sponsored driver’s ED class. If they could pass the test at 16 they got their license. There are generations of Mo. drivers that have two speeds, 30 MPH & 90 MPH and have no clue what a no passing zone is.
- Anonymous - Monday, Sep 11, 17 @ 5:30 pm:
Private schools will select students for whom they get the most bang for their buck. Easy students to educate, no extra costs.