As expected, we did not see a whole lot of spending increases in Gov. JB Pritzker’s state budget proposal last week.
Last year, Pritzker said his budget limited discretionary spending to less than a 1 percent increase. The plan unveiled last week limits discretionary spending to less than a half a point increase.
An education funding lobby day was held the day before the budget address in Springfield. The teachers unions decried the state for not living up to its evidence-based funding law, which was supposed to bring all schools up to 90% “adequate” funding levels by next year.
Instead, the annual evidence-based funding ramp is way behind, and the unions say the state won’t reach its target until 2034. So, they claim, the state “owes” K-12 schools $5 billion and “owes” higher education another $1 billion. And, as they’ve been demanding for a while, they want it all now.
Pritzker’s budget proposal does increase spending on “mandated categoricals” for K-12 schools (things like special education, transportation and school lunches) by $51 million which, the governor’s office says, “benefit all districts.”
But the governor’s plan will raise the annual evidence-based funding plan ramp payment increase by just $5 million, to $305 million. Higher education spending will be limited to a 1 percent increase, similar to last year, and way behind inflation.
The day before the governor delivered his proposed budget to lawmakers, rumors circulated among legislators that K-12 education would receive an additional $200 million. Some people assumed that money would be used to boost the state’s evidence-based funding law.
The governor’s budget proposal did indeed project $200 million in revenues from imposing a new “social media platform fee,” and the money was earmarked for education. But, as I noted above, evidence-based funding was given only an additional $5 million on top of its (mostly) usual $300 million annual increase.
According to a PowerPoint presentation from the governor’s budget office, that $200 million, if approved and if the fee survives a legal challenge, would be “dedicated to supporting education.”
My associate Isabel Miller asked Pritzker during his post-address news conference where that $200 million would go.
“Well, guess what? The Legislature has a lot to say about how the money would be spent, but I think the important thing is that our education system, our K-12 system across the state, needs that kind of support,” Pritzker said. Then he moved on before she could follow up.
But wait, this is Pritzker’s own budget proposal. And all the revenue from that new fee are included in his spending plan. The governor’s budget wouldn’t balance without it.
So, I followed up with the governor’s office to ask where, specifically, that money was going.
“The proposal is to deposit it into the Common School Fund — the same place the Lottery is deposited — to support the cost of K-12 education. The Common School Fund is one of the General Funds, so the deposit is reflected in the General Funds budget proposal.”
OK, but according to the governor’s budget book, the Common School Fund is expected to grow by $103 million in the coming fiscal year — roughly half of the $200 million it’s receiving. And the Lottery’s contribution to the fund is projected to grow by $17 million (to $832 million out of a $6.96 billion fund budget).
Ironically, this sort of thing used to happen with the Lottery all the time. The gambling cash didn’t really add new money to school funding, but it did help the state shift an equal amount away to the rest of the budget every year.
In this case, $200 million is being added to the school fund, but, in the process, $114 million appears to have been shifted out of the fund to the rest of the budget.
Pritzker held a news conference Friday to tout his new proposal to ban cellphones in classrooms.
Afterward, the Illinois Federation of Teachers had seen enough and issued a sharply critical statement.
“What educators will tell you is that creating more unfunded mandates while failing to fund the ones already on the books — special education, nutritional supports for hungry children and school transportation — is out of order,” said the federation’s Executive Vice President Cyndi Oberle-Dahm via news release.
“The state of Illinois owes its students $6 billion for pre-K to Ph.D., and that is where the governor should start.”
- JS Mill - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 10:08 am:
The $51 million toward MCATS is not much but better than a reduction. That increase keeps the funding mostly flat and the percentage actually decreases. Still, in a small (enrollment) district of more than 150 square miles level funding is better than a decrease in tough budgetary times. And the $305 million in EBF funding is good as well. The IFT would complain no matter what. They just don’t get it and are the poster children for entitlement.
MCATS have been underfunded since at least the Quinn admin and were devastated during the Rauner years. For our district, money put into MCATS would be much more beneficial than EBF money since we (for reasons I struggle to understand) are a Tier 2 district. I commend Pritzker on his budgetary actions as it relates to education.
- City Zen - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 10:19 am:
If the state is in such a bind then it should consider sunsetting the Property Tax Relief Grant program. That would open up another $50 million for K-12 funding. Only a few dozen districts qualify any given year so guessing most folks don’t even know it exists.
- Steve M - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 10:42 am:
City Zen, the Property Tax Relief grant was not funded for 2025-26 and I don’t believe it’s included in the Governor’s budget proposal for next year either
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 10:50 am:
Steve M is correct.
I wrote a bit about that last week, but cut it out of the column for space considerations.
- Mason County - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 10:56 am:
No easy answers. Illinois has a relative slowly declining economic base. And it appears that will be the future. More taxes? Only accelerates the decline in the long run.
I don’t like this reality but it is reality.
- Anudder3Putt - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 11:20 am:
Why would this not be considered a discriminatory tax on electronic commerce and thus prohibited under federal law under the Internet Tax Freedom Act?
Why would this not violate the Commerce Clause as many of these social media companies host their data servers outside of Illinois and thus cross state lines to conduct operations?
Why would you include the revenue in your budget if your bill doesn’t pass either one of these tests?
- B - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 11:53 am:
@Mason County
How long are we going to push this lie? The same was said from 2010 to 2019 and then the census showed the state grew after all, then, they admitted they further under counted the state by 252,000 people pushing the state total to over 13 million for the first time ever.
The state lost some people during covid, but for 3 strait years has gained total.population again. Not to mention the census doesnt put that 252k undercount back in their population estimates because “reasons”.
Is Illinois growing at a pace of some of the biggest growing states? No. But it is not losing population. It is gaining population, factually so. Not to mention the midwest region as a whole for the first time in decades gained total population in 2025, and more people will continue moving to the great lakes region for weather reasons, water reasons, and political reasons.
You can keep repeating a lie, but it doesnt make it true.
Chicago’s home price growth is quadruple the nations and has been for multiple years. The states income tax receipts growth continues to grow and outpace expectations.
Sorry, but facts are facta.
- JS Mill - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 12:18 pm:
=Illinois has a relative slowly declining economic base.=
and
=How long are we going to push this lie?=
@B is correct. A more accurate statement would have been that Illinois has a slowly declining tax base and has for years. Declining because taxation does not reflect the evolution from manufacturing to services and now tech.Ralph Martire has only been talking about it for like 25 years.
- City Zen - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:15 pm:
==Illinois has a slowly declining tax base==
With an aging population and retirement income exempt from taxation, expect this trend to continue. Just go to the IDOR website and see how many more tax returns claiming 65+ exemptions there are today than 10 years ago while the total number of tax returns filed remains relatively flat.
For Illinois, population stagnation is just as detrimental to state finances as population decline. A narrow tax base and no one with the guts to address it.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:18 pm:
=== Just go to the IDOR website and see how many more tax returns claiming 65+ exemptions there are today than 10 years ago===
You’re not claiming that this is unique to Illinois, are you?
- Mason County - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:28 pm:
@City ZEN
=Illinois has a slowly declining tax base==
Did NOT say that. You purposely misquoted me.
I said “=Illinois has a relative slowly declining economic base.’ And compared to many other states it does. And compared to governmental demands it does. Something that Pritzker understands and obviously you don’t.
- Mason County - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
@ B Monday
At no time did I say that the population of Illinois has decreased. Please read and pay attention before you spout off.
- Mason County - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:34 pm:
LONG-TERM OUTLOOK: NEGATIVE FACTORS
Weak demographic trends and deep-rooted fiscal problems, such as
mounting pension obligations and a shrinking tax base, represent the biggest
hurdles to the longer-term outlook. The forecast anticipates that the state will
grow a step behind the Midwest average and a few steps behind the nation
over the extended forecast horizon. Chart 3 compares the forecast for annual
nonfarm employment growth in Illinois and the u.S. Over the next five years,
employment in Illinois is forecast to increase 0.1%, below the 0.9% gain for
the Midwest and the 2% rise nationally.
https://cgfa.ilga.gov/Upload/2025StateofILEconomicForecast.pdf#:~:text=NEAR%2DT
RM%20OUTLOOK%20Illinois’%20economy%20will%20underperform%20the,(0.6%25)%20and%20weaker%20than%20the%20nation’s%20(0.8%25).
Report chaired by Senator Koehler
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:36 pm:
===Report chaired by Senator Koehler ===
lol
No. If you’re gonna spew pointy wires talking points here, at least try to get your cite right.
Also, people need to get back to the topic at hand. Y’all have gotten way off subject.
- City Zen - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 1:53 pm:
==You’re not claiming that this is unique to Illinois, are you?==
For states that have an income tax, not taxing retirement income at all is quite unique. Only two other states do that. One is Mississippi.
==You purposely misquoted me.==
I quoted JS Mill, not you.
- @Mason County - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 2:15 pm:
Im going off facts, not projections and guesses which have been underselling Illinois for the last 16 years.
We just once again outdid the estimations with revenue again this year after doing so the year before as well.
The Illinois economy is now a 1.2 trillion dollar economy. I guess if these “guesses” keep guessing that things will turn bad, eventually it has to happen atleast once right? Seems to be what you are banking on. Good luck
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 2:25 pm:
==The IFT would complain no matter what. They just don’t get it and are the poster children for entitlement.==
Disagree. The state passed an evidence-based funding formula for K-12 designed to let the GA know how much funding is adequete to meet the minimum requirements of providing a quality education. Not providing that level of funding is, by the state’s definition, out of order and not meeting promised levels.
For higher ed, there has long been recognition that the funding being provided by the state is much lower than it should be. Last year, following research and negotiation, a bill creating a formula for adequete funding of the universities was introduced. That formula clearly lays out the gap between what is currently provided and what level is adequete to meet the minimum requirements of providing a quality education based on each university’s mission and student population. The funding formula did not pass because, according to the Speaker and the Senate President, there was not enough money to fund it. (To be clear, the formula was not criticized; the lack of money to cover adequacy was the problem.)
This is not about whiny, entitled babies who “don’t get it.” This is about recognizing inadequacies in funding and demanding some accountability. Constituency groups have not only the right but the responsibility to go the Springfield, point out the inadequacy highlighted by the state’s own formulas, and demand that the state’s elected leadership figure out how to fund education at the level deemed “adequete.”
In this case, people who “don’t get it” sit at home and hope for the best (or just ignore the problem).
Full disclosure: I am an IFT member and a former school board president who built many budgets for a small, rural, downstate school district. I am very much aware of how the process works (both in government and the Union) and the impacts of inadequate funding on education at all levels.
- Demoralized - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 2:45 pm:
==I am an IFT member and a former school board president who built many budgets ==
Then you should be smart enough to understand that demanding $6 billion is ludicrous and shows that they are unserious in being part of any intelligent conversation.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 2:58 pm:
==Then you should be smart enough to understand that demanding $6 billion is ludicrous and shows that they are unserious in being part of any intelligent conversation.==
Highlighting how large the gap is is the first step to adequacy. I don’t know anyone who thinks $6 billion will magically show up in the budget. Putting that big number into the conversation is necessary to help the public understand the scope of the problem and begin to develop a pathway to the final goal. Asking for a little when a lot is needed hides the problem and paves the way to getting even less.
- Demoralized - Monday, Feb 23, 26 @ 3:16 pm:
==Putting that big number into the conversation is necessary==
They aren’t putting the number out there. The President of the IFT is demanding the money. It’s an absurd demand.
==hides the problem==
Nothing is hidden. The formula is out there and people know what it says.
If you want to make sure you end up with less money then continue to say you are “owed” money. You aren’t winning any arguments with that.