Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The congressional beat
Next Post: A sure-fire cure for the grumpies
Posted in:
* Rep. Chris Welch (D-Hillside) became the first Democrat to sign on to a resolution which demands an immediate halt to any progress on Democratic Sen. Andy Manar’s education funding plan. The language of this press release is pretty harsh and one wonders if it’ll find it’s way into the Senate Republicans’ campaign plan…
Freshmen Democratic State Representative Emanuel “Chris” Welch has joined the chorus of Illinois House members denouncing Senate Bill 16, a massive education funding reform bill proposed by downstate freshmen Senator Andy Manar of Decatur. On Tuesday, Welch signed on as a co-sponsor of House Resolution HR1276 urging the members of the 98th General Assembly to cease efforts to pass SB16. Welch’s sponsorship of HR1276 gives the bill bi-partisan support. To view the complete text of House Resolution 1276, please visit www.ilga.gov.
According to HR1276, the purpose of SB16 was to propose education funding that provides adequate, equitable, transparent, and accountable distribution of funds to school districts that will prepare students for achievement and success after high school. However, if passed, several schools in the 7th Representative District stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars including Proviso Township High School District 209 and Westchester School District 92.
Prior to becoming State Representative in January 2013, Rep. Welch served on the Proviso School Board from November 2001 to May 2013. He served as Board Chair for a decade, and he lead the district in the creation of the Proviso Math and Science Academy (PMSA). Newsweek Magazine recently named PMSA one of the best high schools in the nation.
“SB16 is a disaster. If this bill passes in its current form, SB16 would devastate schools all across the 7th District and the State of Illinois,” Welch said Tuesday. “Schools in my district need more funding, not less.”
Rep. Welch, a long term school board member, a school attorney, and a member of the Illinois Council of School Attorneys, is scheduled to speak on Thursday in Washington D.C. on how to stop the schools to prison pipeline. A key component of Welch’s presentation is equitable funding for schools.
“I’m not against what Sen. Manar is trying to do in principle. I just think there is a more equitable and reasonable approach to education funding reform,” Welch said Tuesday.
Rep. Chris Welch serves all or most of the following west suburban communities: Bellwood, Berkeley, Broadview, Forest Park, Hillside, LaGrange Park, Maywood, Melrose Park, Northlake, River Forest, Westchester, and Western Springs.
Background info from Manar’s perspective is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:11 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The congressional beat
Next Post: A sure-fire cure for the grumpies
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Manar is smart.
He had to have expected some strong divisions, and then some, before he even finished drafting this.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:18 pm
How does redistribution of funds “devastate school districts… all across the State of Illinois.”
Aren’t there automatically winners and losers with any redistribution? Or is Welch really complaining about cuts in overall education funding?
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:33 pm
The calm before the storm = the straw legislation before the shift. MJM has moved the middle closer to himself. The dominos will start falling faster now.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:34 pm
This is the conversation that needs to happen:
“I’m not against what Sen. Manar is trying to do in principle. I just think there is a more equitable and reasonable approach to education funding reform.”
An equitable and reasonable approach would be to increase education funding so underfunded districts can receive more state aid without making devastating cuts to schools in the Proviso district and Westchester district.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:34 pm
The draft I’ve heard about would cost DuPage school districts $140 million a year. Plus, the State would assume the CPS teacher pension payment, and then begin a shift of regular teacher pension payments (TRS & CPS) to the local districts. Robin Hood and moving the onus to the locals — great governing.
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:35 pm
So it begins… The cost shift coming to a town near you….
Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:35 pm
Is this more of a Downstate/Suburbia fight rather than a Dem/GOP thing?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:37 pm
Is this more of a Downstate/Suburbia fight rather than a Dem/GOP thing?
IMHO, Yes
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:38 pm
There is lots of information here:
http://www.isbe.net/EFAC/default.htm
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:39 pm
Andy is from Decatur now, huh?
Comment by Mr. Jim Lahey Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:40 pm
It is very much a downstate/suburbia fight. Welch is, of course, a very very biased figure in this fight. He campaigned on his experience with his little rich school, and seeing some of the pie go elsewhere is kryptonite.
Manar’s reelection is pretty solid, and no amount of suburbian whining will penetrate this far south to change that.
Comment by Irked Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:40 pm
– Is this more of a Downstate/Suburbia fight rather than a Dem/GOP thing? –
Word, is there a difference? However SB16 (Manar’s bill) would shift funds to Chicago too, so it is Dem-Chicago-Downstate vs. GOP-Suburbia. SB 16 levels down funding, providing equity but not adequacy. (Robin Hood)
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:42 pm
Word… Yes… The conversation needs to happen….but we certainly will make 2 states from Manar’s proposal. I suspect wealthy areas like the suburbs that pay 8-$20,000 in property taxes for their schools won’t be happy to add on more..Can’t blame them… The teacher unions best stay mum this election cycle…
Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:42 pm
In Illinois, education funding is like a twin sheet which needs to be stretched across a king bed.
Either we let DuPage County and downstate fight it out to see who gets covered, or we buy a larger sheet.
I support buying a larger sheet.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:43 pm
Bill..It’s all of the burbs…
Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:49 pm
– Is this more of a Downstate/Suburbia fight rather than a Dem/GOP thing? –
Word, is there a difference?–
Often there is.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:50 pm
In reforming the education funding formula you need to add a hold harmless provision so no one loses funding. Just begin giving any nes money to undefunded districts. if you are going to shift pensions to local districts then you need to give them enough funding to pay for it.
Comment by independant Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:50 pm
Interesting that when the Illinois prorated General State Aid at 89%, which has a disproportionate negative impact on poor kids and poor districts, no alarm was raised although districts were losing 5 to 10 % of their funding for the students with the most needs. But when wealthy districts, who already spend far more per pupil than the poor districts and, in many cases, have a much smaller tax rate due to their high EAV stand to lose what amounts to a small fraction of their overall funding, you would think that the world was about to end. IN the words of Billie Holiday….
Them that’s got shall have
Them that’s not shall lose
So the Bible says and it still is news
Mama may have, Papa may have
But God bless the child that’s got his own, that’s got his own
Comment by nobody Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:51 pm
–if you are going to shift pensions to local districts then you need to give them enough funding to pay for it.–
Kind of defeats the purpose of shifting pensions, doesn’t it?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:52 pm
You know your education funding is bad when elected officials say “freshmen” instead of the more appropriate “freshman” and “lead” versus “led” in a press release denouncing education funding reform.
Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:58 pm
Equitable = whatever gives me more money.
School funding is never partisan. It’s a great example of the regional disputes between areas of the state. Chicago vs. the Suburbs vs. Downstate.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:59 pm
One of the biggest concerns that is also acknowledged is that the most negatively impacted School Districts are Middle Class communities that also have a high number of “at-risk” students. The reality is that the truly affluent districts do not receive a lot of State aid anyways so they are not impacted much at all.
By reclassifying so many districts as “flat grant ($1 per student/per day) you just reshape the problem and create a “spending bowl” in Illinois. The bottom of the “bowl” is actually not even in the suburbs, but is in Decatur. Arthur D305 (unit) currently spends $6,500 per student and has a tax rate above the minimum, but is losing State funding with the SB16 formula.
Worth, Il that has a household income level of 53k and has 18% ELL and 66% low income is being reclassified as “flat grant” by the formula and would lose more than 10% of their operating budget. They would receive $1 per day/ per student.
Those are some of the major concerns with the Bill as currently written.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:00 pm
I know turf football fields are popular but maybe if we didn’t fund athletic events out of education funding then we’d have a little more cash for academic endeavors. And for the life of me, I can’t figure out why a school district needs a PR director.
In some fashion, percent or manner all forms of funding are not “equitable and reasonable” to those who are paying to fund someone else.
Comment by Bobby Hill Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:07 pm
====Irked - Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 2:40 pm:
It is very much a downstate/suburbia fight. Welch is, of course, a very very biased figure in this fight. He campaigned on his experience with his little rich school, and seeing some of the pie go elsewhere is kryptonite.====
Irked, your knowledge of the little rich school he had experience in is rather telling. Proviso School Districts are on the opposite end of the spectrum as little rich schools.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:08 pm
Bill White:
I too can’t wait to hear this more equitable and reasonable solution.
As for the hold harmless:
Sorry. Illinois is broke. Your school district is not.
If you want to propose a new revenue stream to fund the hold harmless and put up votes, great.
But I don’t negotiate with people who are going to be No votes anyway.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:09 pm
It’s not downstate v suburbs. The school district my kids attend, LeRoy, and most of the school districts around us in McLean County will lose some state funding.
Comment by Rayne of Terror Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:14 pm
Arthur District 305 has a tax rate of $3.33 for a unit district according to their school report card. That is significantly lower than the tax rates for many of the poor dual district areas in central Illinois where the combined Elementary and High School District tax rates are between $5.00 and $6.00.
http://www.arthur.k12.il.us/District_Report_Card/District%20Report%20Card%202011.pdf
Comment by nobody Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:17 pm
== and seeing some of the pie go elsewhere is kryptonite ==
Any time you suggest taking from “my child” and giving it to “someone else’s child”, people will take issue with it. Even some of the most generous ones.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:21 pm
This is from an email sent by the district my child attends:
== SB 16 is modeled after an effort in Massachusetts. Their General Assembly provided $1 billion in new money. There is no new money in SB16. This legislation is a redistribution of current resources.
We believe the solution is not to take from some to give to others, but rather for the State of Illinois to fully fund education, rather than ranking 50th in the nation in education funding.
==
How to moderate the redistribution formula while also adding new money is the conversation we need to have.
And yes, there are “downstate” districts that also lose big while Aurora does very well.
This link will point to Excel spreadsheets that itemize who wins and who loses.
http://www.isbe.net/EFAC/default.htm
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:23 pm
There are only 35 School Districts in the entire State that have tax rates above 5%.
Those districts have an average operating budget currently of $11,600 and will be increasing their average operating budget under SB16 to $12,200.
Those 35 school districts are projected to gain 62million dollars in education funding under SB16. The total state education funding for those 35 districts will be 435million dollars under SB16.
A lot of those School Districts are “safe harbor” districts and they need good funding, but we need to discuss the impact on the other districts in the State.
Ford Heights is one of them and they currently spend 25k per student (even though only 28% of that goes towards instruction).
http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2013&code=070161690_e.pdf
That results in a “spending bowl” in Illinois.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:31 pm
The Massachusetts funding formula also looks at both property value and household income equally to determine a community’s ability to pay.
That is one of the reasons that Middle Class communities are getting hit hard by this proposed change.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:33 pm
I agree that the conversation should be to fund education at an appropriate level, which this state does not do. Pretty sad for the 5 richest state in the union. My original comment was meant as a commentary on the lack of public outrage over the slash in General State Aid by the proration over the last 4 years that have cost my poor little district over $2,000,000. In the proration, the biggest losers were the districts that already had the least ability to raise funds locally. I am not a proponent of SB 16 in its present form, but am also not happy about losing11% of what the General State Aid formula says my district is supposed to get.
Comment by nobody Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:35 pm
There are many interesting thoughts being expressed here but many do not have an in depth understanding of the State Funding Formulas.
First, flat grant schools do not receive $1 per day students.
Second- The “poverty grant” has been the driving force in the funding formula. As the poverty level in a district increases the dollars per students can increase dramatically. Our district receives an additional $635 per student in poverty while other,with higher poverty counts, receive over $1000 per student. This creates situations like Cicero 99 where they are experiencing ANNUAL budget surpluses in excess of $15 million dollars and have amassed a fund balance of $150 million. This has occurred during the funding reduction. All you have to do is go to the districts web page and read through their annual audits (AFR). This should not happen, while their students should receive a good education they should not be allowed to amass so much money. Under SB 16 they will almost double their annual fund surpluses. Cicero 99 is not alone. I am not talking about 100’s of districts but enough that I cannot support SB 16. U 46 is another BIG winner.
Some of the so called “property rich” districts are not as well off as one might suspect based on a rudimentary look at the numbers. The formula is complex and we live in a diverse state. There is no one size fits all solution and simply throwing money at poverty does not necessarily mean a better education for those kids, especially when they are not using the funds they are receiving.
I applaud Manar for his leadership but this bill only increases the hardship that many districts are experiencing, suburban and downstate.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:42 pm
I have no sympathy for school districts who complain about the decline in school funding when legislation arises and sit silently by while guys like Tom Cross and his political cronies are re-elected that killed education funding reform in 1997.
Change the formula.
If you increase the appropriation later, wealthier schools will get more money, right?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:43 pm
jS mill:
Your point about Cisero amassing surpluses is well taken.
A rainy day fund is prudent, but should be limited. What do you think? Three months operating? More?
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:47 pm
We agree that funding needs to change and that is why people are working to come up with a fair solution (amendments to SB16) for ALL school districts.
The hits on some School Districts is just too high as currently written and the most negatively impacted ones are definitely not affluent districts.
The concern is that it might get fast tracked through resulting in a lot of “casualties” along the way.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:47 pm
Been watching this for a while. Manar is the ONLY legislator that has the guts to actually put a plan on the table and build a coalition to pass a plan even during a tough re-election fight. Sandack, Welch, Ives, etc all represent ultra-safe districts and are crying foul and haven’t shown the willingness to do anything other than complain. Welch is yet another legislator who runs on education funding reform and then opposes it after elected.
Comment by Dist 186 Parent Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:47 pm
With SB16 the State would be providing a minimum of $180 per student (3.5% of the FL) for flat grant districts.
That equals to $1 per day/per student for flat grant districts under SB16.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:52 pm
Manar has done a great job bringing the discussion to the forefront.
The Bill itself needs more work before it will provide fair funding for all and not just shift the kids that don’t get a quality education in Illinois. This is not a game of Tag your it. The State needs to get this right.
Comment by EDGE Illinois Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:55 pm
Agreed EDGE Illinois. I’d love to see anyone in the General Assembly get in a back and forth with Manar on this issue. The State does need to get this right and press releases like those from Welch, Sandack, Ives etc. aren’t going to get the job done.
Comment by Dist 186 Parent Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 4:03 pm
- EDGE Illinois - Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 3:33 pm:
=== The Massachusetts funding formula also looks at both property value and household income equally to determine a community’s ability to pay. ===
Does the Manar version of SB16 take household income into account, or only property taxes?
=== That is one of the reasons that Middle Class communities are getting hit hard by this proposed change. ===
I’ve been reviewing the Excel files and lower middle class districts are getting hit far harder than upper middle class districts.
For example, Butler 53 (Oak Brook & Hinsdale) will lose $419 per student while Woodridge 68 (Woodridge) will lose $1,000 per student.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 4:14 pm
This will be a long post so skip it if you don’t want to read a lot. But SB16 is a very complex piece of legislation. According to the analysis done by the Illinois State Board of Education available on its website SB 16 inclusive of amendments 3-5 will cause 118 school districts in the State to lose one million or more total dollars in state aid a year. In comparison there will be 107 districts that will gain one million or more total dollars in state aid a year. There were another 355 school districts that are projected to lose between about $975,000 to $266 per year. Another 357 school districts are projected to receive increased state funding ranging from $751 to about $989,000 per year. The projections for SB 16 as currently amended cause a total of 473 school districts to receive less state aid and 464 school districts to get more state aid. Because of a hold harmless provision there is a three year phase in of both the funding reductions and increases to schools districts in the State.
Overall the biggest loser in total dollar amounts is the Chicago Public Schools in SB 16 which after the phase in process would receive $38.5 million less in state aid under SB 16 than it did in the 2011-12 school year, the biggest winner would be SD U-46 which is a school district covering 90 square miles the district serves portions of eleven communities in the northwest suburbs of Chicago in Cook, DuPage and Kane Counties would eventually get about $24.5 million additional state dollars than it did in the 2011-12 school year.
For a massive school district like CPS the cut in overall state aid represents in terms of the overall budget about 1.1% cut. The gain for SD U-46 which is the second largest district in Illinois represents about an 8.5% increase in its overall budget.
If we just use the data from the ISBE’s report cards for CPS and U-46 we can make some general comparisons. In 2013 SD U-46 was composed of 60.9% low income students, 11.9% students with disabilities, 24.6% English language learners, 1.4% of its students were officially homeless, and enrolled 40,173 students. The average teacher salary in U-46 was $72,404 in 2012 (the last year ISBE had data for). CPS by comparison in 2013 was composed of 84.9% low income students, 13.3% students with disabilities, 17% English language learners, 4.1% of CPS students were officially homeless, and enrolled 395,071 students. The average teacher salary in CPS was $74,990 in 2012 (the last year ISBE had data for).
While these factors are what many people think of when they think of funding for schools but there are other factors too. SB 16 replaces the distribution formula with one that collapses most of the current budget items into one larger funding pool and ties most all funding to a school districts relative property wealth. The intent is to send state funds to those school districts that are in the most need. Pupils are given a series of weights that would increase the per-pupil funding, depending on the student’s status.
U-46’s total revenue in 2013 was composed in major part of 65.1% property taxes and 24.1% state funding. Whereas CPS’s revenue mix is 44.8% property taxes and 34.6% state funding. Also it should be noted the SB 16 contains what is called a PTELL adjustment for the property tax cap CPS is faced with and Calculation of Available Local Resources for CPS excludes any amounts actually paid by the Chicago Board of Education into the Chicago Teachers Pension Fund for normal pension costs. SB 16 does not transfer the responsibility for the Chicago Pension fund to the state as was claimed on this blog.
There are a lot of problems with SB 16 including in relation to funding special education services and there are as Rep. Chris Welch said losers and winners with this bill. The primary reason for that is because the bill is designed to be revenue neutral, so the losers including CPS in particular can’t be held harmless.
It’s not surprising a suburban democrat would come out against this bill, there were Democrats in the Senate that opposed the bill and Republicans who conceptually supported the bill but abstained on the vote. Even the Senate Education committee chairperson abstained on the bill because of losses to schools in her district. Overall SB 16 is opening a discussion in the Assembly on educational equity, whether the bill can pass in the veto session is another question. But these complex issues need to be discussed and legislators need to learn the ABCs of education funding in order for any of these issues ever to be addressed in our state whether Rauner or Quinn is governor.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 4:41 pm
If this is primarily suburban vs. downstate, it will cause some real consternation in the Republican caucuses. I’d hate to see any rational approach to this redistribution fall victim to district-by-district horse trading.
Rod: Thanks so much for the summary.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:20 pm
It’s somewhat amusing to have Welch complain about a bill removing hundreds of thousands from Proviso District 209.
When Welch was president of the board of education, he tried to spend $400K of Proviso District 209 money to cover his personal legal bills, http://www.forestparkreview.com/News/Articles/11-29-2011/District-209-plan-to-fund-board-president-Welch’s-legal-woes-rejected/
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:26 pm
Chris Welch talking about equitable funding of schools is a joke.
Look at the spending levels at Proviso District 209 from when Welch was president of the school board. Proviso spending was way, way above the state average, http://illinoisreportcard.com/District.aspx?source=Environment&source2=PerStudentSpending&Districtid=06016209017
In fact per student spending at District 209 was among the elite districts in Cook County. It was about fifth or sixth for much of that time.
And test scores were atrocious. They were among the worst in the state.
If there was an award for the worst run school district (high spending, low test scores) Proviso would have been in the running to get the award most of the years Welch was at the helm.
In fact, the district was put under a state financial oversight panel.
It’s weird that Welch would be held up as an expert at anything about schools other than moving money from the district to lawyers, contractors and other political supporters.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:41 pm
Proviso Township does have the odd feature that people who live in the township are more affluent than those who use the high school.
So, it’s a big deal whether a formula considers the low-income background of the students or the affluence of the tax base.
Due to racism and mismanagement, families with means have opted-out of Proviso District 209.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:44 pm
Manar is the adult in the room. Put Chris Welch in the line of legislators that underestimate Manar’s ability to cut through the b.s.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:48 pm
Welch wants more state funding, and so do I. But it appears more likely that state funding will drop precipitously due to the expiration of the temporary income tax. Consequently, there should be a plan in place to protect those districts that can least afford it.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:50 pm
SB16 is revenue neutral. As long as SB 16 remains revenue neutral what Rep. Welch seeks is impossible.
=== “I’m not against what Sen. Manar is trying to do in principle. I just think there is a more equitable and reasonable approach to education funding reform,” ===
SB16 needs to become revenue positive. And that brings us to the Republican refusal to extend the 5% income tax.
Allocating education funding in Illinois is like trying to cover a king bed with a twin sheet.
SB16 is the price certain legislators will have to pay for refusing to buy a larger sheet.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 5:56 pm
This isn’t “taking” money to give to others. It’s not “giving” as much to some in order to give more to others.
Comment by Watch the Clown Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 6:02 pm
–This isn’t “taking” money to give to others. It’s not “giving” as much to some in order to give more to others.–
LOL, yeah, I’m sure that’ll work with those who won’t be “given” as much.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 6:04 pm
== throwing money at the poor schools ==
Notice how no one uses that phrase when it comes to increased funding in affluent areas? Kind of like taxation where we “soak the rich” but never the poor, despite our highly regressive tax sytem.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 6:04 pm
= This isn’t “taking” money to give to others. It’s not “giving” as much to some in order to give more to others. =
It looks like less affluent middle class districts are getting hit far harder than upper middle class districts. For example, Butler 53 (Oak Brook & Hinsdale) will lose $419 per student while Woodridge 68 (Woodridge) will lose $1,000 per student.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 6:09 pm
Carl: Thanks for the reminder about Welch’s notorious tenure at the Provisio school board.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 6:12 pm
I live in Champaign County, where one school district enrolling almost 9500 students (Champaign Unit 4) loses about $750,000 with SB16, even though almost 1/2 of their students are free and reduced lunch, and they have a fair number of ELL kids (not sure of the exact percentage). Their neighbor, Urbana 116, is a huge winner under SB16 (almost $4 million dollars), even though Urbana has almost 3000 fewer students.
Think that’s bad? There’s a district up in northern Champaign County– Ludlow– that has one k-5 school with roughly 110 kids. Ludlow gains almost $3,000 PER STUDENT under SB16. (and Ludlow doesn’t even have a full-time superintendent!)
I have no doubts Manar meant well when he made his proposal, but I also notice that the Bunker Hill school district is a winner with this bill.
What we really need is to consolidate down from 862 districts to about 400 districts. Places like Ludlow, Robine (by Peoria) and McClellan (down by Mt. Vernon) should not exist; they should become unit districts with the high schools they send their kids to.
And then we can have a discussion about school funding in this state.
But to continue to have situations like Rantoul City Schools (K-8, with a full compliment of staffers!) and Rantoul Township High School (which, in addition to getting the kids from Rantoul City Schools, also gets kids from Ludlow, Thomasboro (another elementary district with only one school), Gifford (same as T-boro and Ludlow), and Prairieview-Ogden (where the PTA was doing fundraising a few years ago to prevent cuts), and duplicates everyone of the administrative positions present at RCS) is absolute insanity. We have too many small schools, with a large amount of administrative overhead, that lack the ability to offer all the programs kids need. A fantastic situation if you are an ambitious person who desires to be a superintendent with a fat retirement pension that will make you one of the wealthiest people in these small towns; a disaster for our kids and their taxpaying parents.
But ISBE continues to be publicly wishy-washy about mandatory consolidations. This must have been what it was like, watching Nero fiddle while Rome burned.
Comment by Lynn S. Tuesday, Sep 23, 14 @ 7:46 pm