Question of the day
Tuesday, Aug 19, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Democratic press release…
State Senator Mary Edly-Allen worked with multiple statewide education stakeholders to pass a law that will address unnecessary and burdensome Illinois School Code mandates.
“Public school teachers play a critical role in shaping our young minds and preparing them for the future,” said Edly-Allen (D-Libertyville). “The School Code Mandate Reduction Council will begin evaluating the 699 mandates introduced since 1982 – an essential step toward improving our laws to fit with the evolving education landscape.”
Senate Bill 1740 initiates the reduction of unnecessary school code mandates agreed upon by statewide educational stakeholders. The law creates the School Code Mandate Reduction Council, comprised of eight members of the General Assembly and one member from each of the 12 statewide educational organizations, to identify and recommend the removal of mandates that align with the state’s goal of providing high-quality education tailored to each student.
The bill was signed into law last week.
* Republican press release…
Senator Seth Lewis Appointed to Key Education Reform Council Focused on Protecting Taxpayers by Reducing School Unfunded Mandates
Carol Stream, Illinois — In a major step toward easing the burden on local taxpayers and schools, State Senator Seth Lewis (R-Bartlett) has been appointed to the newly formed School Mandate Reduction Council, a bipartisan group tasked with streamlining and reducing state mandates placed on Illinois schools.
Senator Lewis, a longtime advocate for fiscal responsibility and efficient governance, says the council’s work is essential to ensuring schools can focus on educating students.
“I’ve always believed that well-intended doesn’t always mean well-executed,” said Lewis. “When the state issues mandates without providing funding, it places an unfair strain on local districts and taxpayers. I’m committed to reviewing every requirement with a simple test: Does it improve the quality of education or keep our students safe? If not, it’s time to rethink it.”
The School Mandate Reduction Council brings together lawmakers and education professionals from across the state. It includes:
* 8 legislators appointed by leaders of the General Assembly
* 21 additional education stakeholders appointed by the State Superintendent, representing teachers, administrators, principals, school boards, special education, and school districts from diverse regions of the state
The council’s charge is to identify outdated, redundant, or overly burdensome mandates, and recommend which should be eliminated, modified, or consolidated without compromising the quality of education or student safety.
Council members will serve without pay and meet at least four times between October 1, 2025, and September 1, 2026. A comprehensive report must be submitted to the General Assembly by October 1, 2026.
“This is about smart reform,” Lewis added. “We can support teachers, protect students, and respect taxpayers all at the same time. I’m honored to be part of a council that’s working toward a more efficient and effective education system for Illinois and property tax relief for taxpayers.”
* The Question: On a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the most likely and 1 being the least likely, how would you rate the chances of this legislation being a success in eliminating a substantial number of school mandates? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
- Casper the Ghost Bus - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:28 pm:
Any eliminated mandates become someone’s legislative agenda within 24 months.
- Penny - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:36 pm:
First thing to get rid of are mandatory mental health screenings and other intrusive personal surveys of Illinois schoolchildren.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:39 pm:
Least Likely. If eliminating mandates was a serious goal, the bill would have eliminated some. Committees and commissions tend to be show and no go. That is, it’s a nice talking point for the sponsor’s campaign brochure.
- SJOH - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:39 pm:
Agree with Casper. All the mandates are someone’s legislative priority.
- Oldtimer - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:41 pm:
2)The mandates that are most likely to be agreed upon for elimination may marginally reduce administrative requirements on districts but won’t have much of a positive financial impact. Items that could save funds are largely tied to personnel and are probably a non-starter.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:53 pm:
Least Likely.
This has been “attempted” before. Never goes anywhere. They also passed legislation years ago that prohibited unfunded mandates. And then made every unfunded mandate and exception to the law.
- Duck Duck Goose - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:54 pm:
If the State Mandates Act, an actual
statute prohibiting unfunded mandates to local governments, didn’t even slow down the flow of unfunded mandates to local governments, what chance does an advisory review committee have?
Mandates allow state legislators to give things away to their constituents without having to worry about paying for it. Why would they ever give that up?
- Irreverent - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
Like every other deregulation attempt, it’s going to run smack into “okay, this is actually here for a reason.”
We don’t have enough Republicans involved to pretend it’s a good idea that we can just get through by torturing kids, so my money says it all ends up deferring to reality.
- Benjamin - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 12:56 pm:
2. It appears to be a bipartisan effort, so coming up with something that the state legislature will pass isn’t impossible. But when they examine the mandates my guess is that they’ll find most of them are there for a reason.
I do need to disclaim any expertise in this issue. It’s possible that there are actually numerous mandates that can clearly be eliminated, which is why I’m hedging my bets with my vote.
- Candy Dogood - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 1:00 pm:
I don’t think it hurts to have a discussion, I just generally wonder what might be able to be achieved. The complaint has always been about “unfunded mandates” which is really just a complaint about the state telling administrators and local school boards what to do with the taxes they raise locally. Not enough funds to pay for what you need to do? Raise the property tax rate.
“The state wanted us to [Insert thing that schools really should be doing] and didn’t give us any money to do it!” has been a defense for why an elected school board has been required to raise taxes, it doesn’t mean that the mandate is something that shouldn’t be a mandate.
Schools have independent taxing authority. Telling a local government entity what to do with the funds they levy or their authority isn’t a bad thing.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 1:42 pm:
Many of the school mandates are requirements to teach this, that or the other thing. Someone always has their pet issue to “educate” kids about. They can always rope a publicity hungry legislator to introduce it. Legislators like to go along with friendly colleagues, so they’ll vote yes. Most likely they think the education folks will simply give it minimal effort. Sadly, it’s still a royal pain in the educators’ textbook (more blog friendly version of what I’m really thinking).
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
=Telling a local government entity what to do with the funds they levy or their authority isn’t a bad thing.=
Sometimes it is a bad thing.
- Lagartha's Shield - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 1:59 pm:
They seem to pass this legislation every few years, but it never seems to accomplish anything meaningful.
- City Zen - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 2:39 pm:
==one member from each of the 12 statewide educational organizations==
The press release is wrong. The bill identifies 17 of these positions, 6 of which are occupied by the two teachers unions.
https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/PublicActs/PrinterFriendly/104-0391
- It's Just a Pill - Tuesday, Aug 19, 25 @ 2:42 pm:
At best it’s another Blue Ribbon Special Commission whatever that we’ve seen spin in the mud for years. At worst it’s Diet DOGE. Nope.