Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another poll shows tightening US Senate contest
Next Post: Have we hit bottom yet?
Posted in:
* Republicans weren’t invited to these meetings, but Sen. Andy Manar’s education funding formula overhaul legislation was the object of several summertime discussions in the House…
A number of top Democratic House lawmakers have been quietly meeting to discuss a proposed overhaul of Illinois’ dated school funding formula, which, if approved, would direct more state money to poorer rural districts at the expense of wealthier suburban districts.
Members of the group told The Associated Press the meetings came at the behest of House Speaker Michael Madigan, whose chamber declined to take up the issue last spring despite its passage by the Senate and widespread calls for the first revamp of the formula in nearly two decades.
“With the specter of additional dollars going away, and that’s a very, very real specter, there has to be a way to allocate money to the districts most in need,” said Rep. Frank Mautino, Madigan’s point person on budget issues. “We have to have something in place to make sure the districts with the highest poverty and least available wealth don’t fold.” […]
Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesman, said the speaker has not been directly involved but planned to “rely on their work product as it comes along going forward.”
Mautino, whose office is in the same suite as the speaker’s at the capitol, noted that a number of financial issues will play into the school funding formula debate, including whether lawmakers vote to extend the temporary tax hike and the fate of a judicial challenge to the state’s pension crisis solution.
“Nothing exists in a vacuum,” he said.
The reform’s concept is quite good. Base funding on poverty levels. But the practical political problems with this reform are obvious. Some districts are gonna lose state money, so it has to be a very, very gradual transition because there’s no extra money lying around to ween the “losers” off and boost funding for poorer districts.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:18 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another poll shows tightening US Senate contest
Next Post: Have we hit bottom yet?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Is there a potential fracture between rural GOPers and suburban GOPers whose districts stand to lose under this plan? We know they would coalesce around anything anti-Chicago.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:28 pm
Basing funding on poverty levels has been the approach for some time. Hence the shift in the funding balance from the GSA foundation to the poverty grant. The problem this has created is to create significant funding disparities. Some poor districts end up with major funding windfalls that even they cannot find a way to spend. U-46, Cicero 99 are but a few that fall into this category. CPS is a BIG winner in this as well. SB 16 is what they are talking about and it has potential. You can go here http://www.isbe.net/EFAC/default.htm and see the impact on your local district. To really understand the impact you have to understand your districts current financial situation as well. The answer to funding is more than shifting money to EAV poor districts because some of them are not in need of more money.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:29 pm
PC - there is a similar fracture for City of Chicago Democrats and Suburban Democrats.
Comment by Jimmy Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:38 pm
JS - Some poor districts end up with major funding windfalls that even they cannot find a way to spend.
I find this hard to believe. Chicago needs about 10 more Walter Payton type High Schools.
Comment by Jimmy Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:40 pm
The fracture is Chicago (CPS) and almost everyone else.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:40 pm
===Republicans weren’t invited to these meetings, but ===
A secret Democrat post election plan to reallocate state educational funding? Why am I not seeing this on their campaign literature?
Comment by Louis G Atsaves Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:44 pm
@Jimmy- It may be hard to believe but it is true. Go online and look at some of the districts with low EAV and high poverty. I shared the most startling case in my initial email. Cicero 99 is by all accounts a high poverty district. It also has a large population that requires ESL services. At the same time they are running annual budget surpluses in excess of $15 million and have built an overall fund surplus of nearly $150 million. The derive the majority of their income (better than 70%) from state funds. IN addition they receive significant federal dollars. They are not the only district but their numbers are the biggest. Meanwhile, schools downstate are losing funding with regularity. That is happening for a variety of reasons. SB 16 fixes too few of those problems.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:46 pm
@Louis- SB 16 is no secret. The meetings might be. It might be news to the general public but not to school districts.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:48 pm
The meeting is closed to Republicans because Democrats don’t want to give anything for the Republicans to run with.
In other words, Chicago Democrats are fighting with downstate Democrats/suburban Democrats and both sides have to sell their souls a little bit to make this happen. They don’t want Republicans to know what is going on.
Comment by Steven Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 1:51 pm
It’s closed to republicans because Dem leadership needs to be able to sell it to their own caucus first. Those legislative smoke districts out of Chicago and into the suburbs, as well as the suburbs themselves, are working against the cause right now. The bill will get changed in the House.
Comment by Phenomynous Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 2:06 pm
Smoke = spoke
Comment by Phenomynous Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 2:08 pm
I hope that the surpluses built up by numerous school districts are required to be spent down to a reasonable limit before being allocated more funding from the state. They should also cut the bonus pay for senior staff in schools, and require the schools to pick up all costs of bonuses.
Comment by Tom Joad Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 3:34 pm
Also hold harmless funding for should be abolished.
Comment by Tom Joad Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 3:37 pm
@Tom Joad- Hold harmless has been gone for some time now, 3-5 years. You are a little behind the times on that one. As to your comments on fund balances what is your idea of a “reasonable limit” and how have you determined that? One would have to possess some knowledge on an individual districts needs, goals, financial outlook to judge that intelligently. There in lies the problem. Too many offer simplistic solutions to a highly complex problem.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 3:53 pm
In addition to spending surpluses, no senior staff bonuses, and requiring schools to pick up costs of bonuses, there should be weekly floggings for all staff!
Sheesh, Joad.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 4:19 pm
I find it doubtful that Dems from affluent school districts in north and northwest Cook, Lake, and DuPage will be supporting this new formula to reducee state dollars to their districts.
Comment by Anon Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 4:19 pm
===doubtful that Dems from affluent school districts ===
Take a look at the Senate’s roll call.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Sep 5, 14 @ 4:24 pm
It is good that they are continuing the discussions. There are some “red flags” in the formula that need to be looked at closer. For example, Arthur D305 near Decatur currently has an operating budget of $6,500 per student and they are losing funding with the formula as proposed.
Arthur 305 has consolidated twice in the past few yeas and is now 250 square miles. This School District can’t give any more.
Comment by Debbie Chafee Tuesday, Sep 9, 14 @ 10:02 am