Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Quinn contradicts lt. governor on school consolidation

Posted in:

Illinois

* This study made for some big headlines over the weekend…

It would cost $3.7 billion over four years to merge all of Illinois’ high school-only and elementary-only school districts, according to an Illinois State Board of Education analysis.

The whopping cost to a state government already plagued by financial problems means forced consolidation is unlikely, said Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, who heads the Classrooms First Commission, which is studying the issue.

* But this is where the cost estimate is coming from…

The multibillion-dollar cost stems mainly from two factors. Merged school districts often have different pay scales, and when they merge, the state pays to make sure all teachers in the combined district are compensated based on the higher salary scale.

There are 100 high school-only districts in Illinois and 377 elementary-only districts. Combining them into 101 unit districts would affect nearly one out of every three children in the state. Funding the salary incentive alone over the required four-year period would cost $3.1 billion, according to the ISBE.

The state typically also pays districts $4,000 per certified staff member for up to three years. That would cost $611 million.

* “I don’t agree with that,” said Gov. Pat Quinn on Friday. Quinn proposed mass school consolidations in his budget address last year.

The governor reasons that the state doesn’t have to continue using the current law to force consolidations. Quinn said the new law could require some adjustments. “I don’t think the current law would envision the kind of fundamental restructuring that we hope to get,” he said.

Listen…

Click to download

* This makes sense to me. There’s no reason that the state has to continue paying all those costs in order to get consolidation. Your thoughts?

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:02 am

Comments

Agreed, but I think the shifting up of pay scales is going to be the bigger challenge.

Also there are places in cook where elementary districts feed more than one high school district if I recall correctly. How is that going to be addressed.

Yeah, I think you will need to re-work the current law on what the state pays to make that work

Comment by OneMan Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:22 am
I don’t think any (many?) on this site need to be reminded about what the local citizen reaction to forced school consolidation would be. A superintendent in western Illinois once told me that after one consolidation they had people coming to home basketball games in the old school colors for 15 years! Years ago I lost a school board re-election for saying that I favored exploring consolidation.

Having said that, the cost should not be discounted. In downstate rural districts transportation costs dramatically increase as do transportation times. Also, when you put 3 small K-12 districts together no existing building is designed/configured to hold that high school (for example). Mandating consolidation plus sticking local taxpayers with these increased costs would be ugly. Gov. Quinn may not be overly concerned, since he didn’t rely on a lot of downstate votes, but locally elected officials will care.

Comment by BCross Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:45 am
Belleville has 3-4 local elementary school districts. One district for both public HS’s. That is fine. The elementary schools are “neighborhood” schools where the small community is well connected. Parents will lose control with consolidation. This is a local governance issue.

In the mid-Atlantic states, school districts are county-wide. Very inefficient and impersonal. Lots of bad decisions on things from academic content not styled to a school, as well as calling snow days–which might have made sense in a rural community, but not in the larger suburb.

Each school still needs some sort of school board as well to interact with parents and ensure that larger district policies are implemented. I don’t see how administrative costs are lowered, especially if the higher salaries are granted.

Comment by Peggy R Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:50 am
Not paying those costs may not be enough of an incentive. I’m sure some would consider consolidation, but these school districts have taxing powers. The ones who don’t find a way to continue receiving state dollars will likely call a referendum and blame the big, bad, bankrupt state.

Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:04 am
If anybody is saying that consolidation should be cost neutral from the outset then you have no idea what you are talking about. Why in the world would any school districts consolidate if they aren’t going to get state support for the upfront costs involved. The Governor, and anybody who thinks like him, has once again gone on the loony train when it comes to this issue.

Also, if I were the Lt. Governor I would give the Governor a piece of my mind about dissing the report.

This Governor never ceases to amaze me. He just doesn’t get it.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:04 am
“Adjustment of the current Law” means suspending collective bargaining agreements. It’s the only way there would be savings.

This from a man who’s state was downgraded again for failure to manage his state govt. He’s going to take AA and AAA rated local governments and consolidate against the will of the local community. Of course he is also the Gov. that thinks not paying the transportation bill to local schools is Ok and won’t put children at risk.
I don’t agree with Recall, but every time he opens his month I start to wonder.

Comment by frustrated GOP Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:06 am
===Why in the world would any school districts consolidate if they aren’t going to get state support for the upfront costs involved. ===

Because the state required it.

Just sayin…

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:06 am
= Because the state required it. =

I’m guessing financially depriving the school districts targeted for consolidation is thought to be more politically acceptible than utilizing Artcle 7 Section 12?

Comment by Dirty Red Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:19 am
School consolidation is often floated as a way to “decrease administration and save money”. In reality, the math often doesn’t add up. In small districts principals are often also the superintendent. If you consolidate, each school still has to have a principal AND you have to have a superintendent for the district. So you may actually add administrative personnel. This is in addition to the cost issues indicated in previous comments.

One thing that has not been said and is a real issue is the impact on the community fabric. I have seen it time and again. The schools close in a town because of consolidation. The kids get bussed to somewhere else. The money that was spent on gas, after-school snacks, pizzas after ball-games, etc. goes with the school to another town. The local businesses suffer. They close. Young people don’t want to buy a house in the town because their kids would have to be bussed or transported by them to school. The housing market suffers. Population declines. More businesses close. This spiraling downward economic cycle began from “school consolidation to save money”. Unfortunately, the economic impact from the school is not factored in to the decision. Before any school consolidates, the community needs to look at the bigger picture.

Comment by Both Sides Now Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 11:33 am
I took Econ 101 in school but maybe I missed a lesson that someone can explain to me.

In the case at hand we have two school districts, one elementary and one high school. Each district pays its teachers what they are worth for simular but not identical work. If this was not true then the workers in one or the other or both districts would leave or strike until they got what they are worth and pay would become identical in the two districts.

Now we merge the two shcool districts. The problem, as outlined above, is that each district paid the teachers a different amount just before they merged and the teachers now want to be paid the same amount in the merged district. Illinois, as we well know, is broke so it is in no position to pay some or all of the pay difference between the two districts.

The part of Econ 101 I must have missed is this: Why should I pay the two different sets of workers the same amount after the merger when each was being paid the proper wage before the merger? Why do I not define, in the merged school district, two type of teachers (say ‘elementary’ and ‘high school’) and pay each type of teacher different amounts (an amount like that before the merger)? As I see it, each of the two groups of teachers are doing the same work after the merger as they did before the merger. Or is this not an economic question but one that is 100% political and 0% economic in nature?

Comment by Left Out Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:07 pm
LO, the question is not necessarily about teachers who do two different things, but teachers who do similar things.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:09 pm
I think it is a big mistake to consolidate high schools and elementary schools into one district. Consolidate high schools with high schools and elementary schools with elementary schools. High schools and elementary schools have different needs and their school boards cannot address both issues fairly. My experience has been that in unit districts, the majority of the board and administration time is dominated by high school issues–especially sports. We need full time effort in improving elementary education. The success or failure of a first grader affects that students whole academic career. Boards and administration should be free to concentrate their efforts on early education in the primary grades.

Comment by Concerned Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:16 pm
If we started Considlation of elementry schools
in an orderly manner it could be done. 1st it should be done considlating smaller disrticts, and then moving up to middle sized districts and
so on. When given a timeline people can digest it
mush more easily. We should reduce other govrnments the same way. We have to start sometime . Why not now?Are all or nothing approach
just won’t work.

Comment by mokenavince Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:39 pm
I dunno.

How’s the consolidated thing workin’ with CPS?

Comment by Kasich Walker, Jr. Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:41 pm
Someone’s going to have to pay the costs, either the state or local property tax payers.

You can’t have two different employees with identical qualifications and jobs earning two different levels of pay, and you can’t break the contract of the higher paid employee.

I suppose one could argue that the local taxpayers should pay for increased salaries out of savings from merging administrative functions, but there probably aren’t that many admin jobs to be eliminated, other than the superintendents.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 12:53 pm
Combined districts also get more in state aid than the elementary and high school districts get in total. They could change that statute too. But the real story for me is that the Quinn administration once again takes a position and then finds out they are wrong and have difficulty admitting it. He said his consolidation proposal would save $100M. Now it will cost $$. That figure was always a hoax.

Comment by Zeke Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 1:31 pm
Other states have saved money by consolidating a school districts. It might be worthwhile to check and see how their consolidation differed from what is proposed in Illinois or if conditions varied.

Comment by RMWStanford Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 2:01 pm
“Combined districts also get more in state aid than the elementary and high school districts get in total.”

A recent (last Dec.) piece about consolidating four Union County school districts in The Southern was titled “State aid varies under consolidation scenarios”. The article states that

“Any combination of Anna-Jonesboro 81, Lick Creek 16, and Jonesboro 43 results in a positive change in general state aid, ranging from an increase of 4.1 to 5.3 percent, depending on the scenario.
However, in the remaining four scenarios - including all four districts consolidated into one - general state aid dips anywhere from 2.2 to 3.1 percent.”

Consolidation may or may not result in more state aid. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.”

Comment by Left Out Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 4:22 pm
Each existing school district has a its own agreement with their own teachers’ union. Those wages and benefits represent agreements that have been built upon past negotiations. When a consolidation occurs you have to mesh those together. The teacher’s in the district with the higher salary scale and or better benefits will fight not to reduce their benefits and the teacher’s with the lesser salaries and/or lesser benefits will argue that they should not be paid less than the teacher’s in the other district because they are doing equivalent work.

Resolving this discrepancy costs money. If the State doesn’t provide then property taxes go up because someone has to pay.

I’ve been through 3 fail consolidation votes and the cost is always difficult and that is WITH the current incentives! If there are no incentives the votes will fail. If the State simply forces consolidation without a vote and forces the districts i.e. property taxpayers to pick up the full tab…well I wouldn’t want to be an elected official because that could push people over the edge.

Comment by Hoping for Rational Thought Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 5:18 pm
I read about the Union County consolidations. The state aid paid to those districts appears to be related more to the PTELL status of the districts. And those districts are considering a partial elementary consolidation. There’s only one of those in Illinois so that’s probably not the best example.

Local wealth from property taxes in the state aid formula is determined by multiplying a district’s property values by a rate listed in statute. Elementary districts use 2.30%, and high schools use a 1.05% rate. That’s a total of 3.35% applied against the elementary and high school EAV. Unit districts use a 3.00% rate, resulting in the appearance of less local wealth and more state aid.

You’re right there is no rule to apply to every consolidation. But for the majority of districts, combining elem and hs districts to form a unit will usually result in more state aid. You can change the statute to eliminate that, but under current law consolidating will cost more $$.

Comment by Zeke Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 5:35 pm
What would have made sense is for Quinn to have a plan/idea/framework on how to do this BEFORE he made it part of his presentation last year. Exactly when is planning on rolling out the procedures for doing what he envisions?

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 6:18 pm
You know, the state could get out of the business of funding K-12 education altogether. Communities can make their own choices whether to consolidate districts to meet their own budgets and priorities.

Comment by Peggy R Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 8:07 pm
Peggy R makes the case for turning us into Mississippi or Alabama. I’m sure the IPI and Moodys will endorse.

Can you imagine what downstate schools would be like without state support? Yikes.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 9:24 pm
Michelle Flaherty
“Can you imagine what downstate schools would be like without state support? Yikes. ”

Historically with Illinois’ school aid formula, the small rural downstate districts get a substantially smaller % of their total revenue from Illinois, than the more urban districts(especially Chicago). Sure than someone else has the stats on this.

Ironic, since small rural districts rely so much on farmland property taxes. They just don’t have any substantial industrial/commercial property located within their districts.

Also ironic is that when the smaller school districts consolidate(as the State of Illinois has strongly suggested at various times in the past), the State of Illinois has to be publicly shamed to fork over the promised dough, usually many months/years past the promised date.

And, people wonder why rural Illinois is skeptical of consolidation?!

Comment by JoePeoria Monday, Jan 9, 12 @ 10:50 pm
True, you do not have to follow current law, You woudl have to pass a new law. Shouldn’t Quinn know this? This is the problem with Quinn. He comes up with ideas and has no plan or follow through. There is no thought process as to how to carry it out. Everything is a knee jerk reaction.

Comment by DPJ Tuesday, Jan 10, 12 @ 8:47 am
It is confusing to me on how any child is to learn anything
If/when schools come to such a dramatic consolidation, statistics show currently that classrooms are well “over populated” with one POSSIBLY 2 teachers, with this “consol plan” it would more than double the clasrooms size with children, as they continue to “save money” is the plan going to have more teachers in the room with the children? I would not think so. There has already been an increase in home schooling and this plan might just pushs others to go that way just so the children can get an education and receive the one on one they need to really grab a old of what teachers are delivering to them and so the child does not have to be cramped like a sardineo
or made to suffer due to being such a small voice in such a LaRgE classroom size. I’m petty sure it is a case of “he” gets what “he” wants and it is sad the people voice is not going to be heard on thi’ “his”mind was made up on this topic when it was made public.

Comment by jachicgo Wednesday, Jan 11, 12 @ 6:10 am