Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Schneider may be back in ‘16
Next Post: Sen. Kirk jumps into treasurer’s race controversy
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Illinois school districts ended up nearly $1 billion in the hole in 2013, dipping into reserves or borrowing to pay the bills, according to the latest finance data, painting a grim picture of the state’s public school system.
While statewide school deficits aren’t unusual — some have been much higher over the years — the red ink comes just two years after districts as a whole were in the black and at a time when a fight over state education dollars has become more fervent and widespread. […]
Overall, more than 500 of the state’s roughly 860 districts spent more than they took in during the 2012-13 school year, struggling to cover losses in state and federal dollars and leaning more on local taxpayers. Even taking into account surpluses in other districts, the public school system’s red ink totaled $931 million, state data show. Districts that continue to operate in the red risk state intervention and other consequences.
Despite the deficits, spending per student continued to climb to an average of $12,045 statewide, with some districts in the Chicago region spending more than $20,000 per child, a Tribune analysis found
* Meanwhile…
Elgin School District U46 is looking to fill buses headed to Springfield on Tuesday to rally for the funding reforms that would benefit the district.
For those who cannot attend, school administrators throughout the Fox Valley are urging residents to voice their opinions on the proposed school funding reform package by providing testimony that will be included as part of the record.
The efforts are part of a call-to-action from school districts throughout Illinois who are taking sides in a debate over Senate Bill 16, a plan that shifts how the state funds education. The issue is hitting the forefront because of a joint hearing between the Illinois House’s Appropriations-Elementary and Secondary Education Committee and the Elementary and Secondary Education Committee.
The committees are scheduled to take up Senate Bill 16, also known as the School Funding Reform Act of 2014, at 3 p.m. Tuesday in Room 114 of the Capitol.
* More on the bill…
A resolution sponsored by Republican Rep. Ron Sandack and co-sponsored by 20 of the 47 members of the House GOP caucus decries what it called Manar’s “piecemeal reallocation” of school funding that will lead hundreds of districts to “deep budget reductions and financial uncertainty.”
Rauner, who invested millions in education reform before running for office, indicated during an October debate that he doesn’t support Manar’s bill, even though he thinks Illinois’ school funding formula should be overhauled. His spokesman, Mike Schrimpf, said Rauner would not elaborate at this time beyond what he’d said during the debate. […]
[Rep. Will Davis] said he hopes the proposal could come up for a vote as early as the General Assembly’s last session in early January before the inauguration of Rauner, who would likely veto it. […]
“There remains a good amount of concern about the bill in its current form,” said Steve Brown, Madigan’s spokesman. “(But) there’s no doubt some changes need to be made in how we fund schools.”
* And…
The Senate architect of the plan says he doesn’t know if lawmakers will push something to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn before Republican Bruce Rauner is sworn into office in January.
“This is going to take the House some time,” said state Sen. Andy Manar, a Bunker Hill Democrat. “That’s the process the House is starting.”
* But Finke reports that all the excitement today will be for naught, at least for now. The bill’s sponsor is saying it won’t be called for a while…
However, the House won’t take action on changing the state funding formula until next spring at the earliest.
“Sen. Manar has done a great job over there, and he knows that we’re going to be doing a lot more work on it,” Chapa LaVia said. “He knows that the bill won’t be called in this General Assembly.”
Chapa LaVia noted that there has been pushback from more affluent school districts that fear they will lose money under a revised funding formula. She said she hopes the hearings will focus attention on the need not only to revise the distribution formula but also to put more money into education overall.
“I need as many people at the table, pro and anti on this, so we can all come to an agreement that we have short-sheeted the kids of the state of Illinois for way too long,” she said.
Manar has a good idea, but I still think the bill can’t move forward without some hold harmless provisions, and that’ll require a lot of money that the state simply doesn’t currently have. We’ll see.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 9:27 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Schneider may be back in ‘16
Next Post: Sen. Kirk jumps into treasurer’s race controversy
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Those who are blessed with strong property tax bases to fund their schools want to keep their advantage. The majority of the state’s students aren’t so fortunate.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 9:42 am
Meanwhile, at the College of Dupage, the president and the board spend money on themselves like there is no limit to it! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-andrzejewski/the-fat-cats-at-college-o_b_6171962.html
Comment by G'Kar Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 9:43 am
Watch for Vision 20/20, an education proposal from the School Management Alliance spearheaded by IASA, to be presented this week. A blueprint for education in the 21st Century that goes beyond just school funding, this initiative has input from a variety of educational experts and other constituencies from one end of the state to the other. This research based proposal is designed to get Illinois back on track as leaders in public education. It will be released this week.
Comment by Nobody Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 9:46 am
Rep. Chapa LaVia hits the nail on the head:
== Chapa LaVia noted that there has been pushback from more affluent school districts that fear they will lose money under a revised funding formula. She said she hopes the hearings will focus attention on the need not only to revise the distribution formula but also to put more money into education overall. ==
“Just say No!” will not be a viable strategy for the more affluent school districts.
= = =
I also recall reading an amusing comment about the IL school funding formula - but I forgot where I read it. Here goes:
“Only six people understand the Illinois school funding formula and they aren’t allowed to fly on the same airplane.”
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:02 am
Do we ever reach a point where districts realize they don’t need to pay superintendents 300K a year? A place to look at every dollar not spent on teacher salary and justify how it’s more important. It’s time for districts to look at sharing some services.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:06 am
Manor’s bill is pure Robin Hood. Despite the losses in funding that suburban districts would incur, if is difficult, though, for downstate districts to feel feel much sympathy when they are hemorrhaging staff due to declining budgets, while some suburban districts are adding lacrosse teams. One has to applaud IASA for touting its Vision 20/20 this Friday. Leadership is needed. IASA hopes to fill the void.
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:10 am
“Do we ever reach a point where districts realize they don’t need to pay superintendents 300K a year?” — Very Fed Up
Nice populist thought, but people who believe this can’t do math. With 860 districts, and statewide average superintendent pay around $125,000, versus the billions spent on K-12 education in Illinois, such savings are a “spit in the ocean.”
If don’t believe your local district is sharing other services, you haven’t looked at their budget.
Comment by Diogenes in DuPage Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:17 am
Affluent suburban districts have artificial turf on their playing fields. They issue tablets to their students. They pay their average teacher nearly 100 grand a year. Those are advantages most of the districts can only dream of.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:18 am
The number of administrative positions has skyrocketed faster than the growth in students over the decades.
A place to start would be to cap superintendent pay at the level of the governor. If a local district wants to go above this they need to vote via local referendum and those taxpayers will pick up 100% of the difference as well as lifetime pension/health benefits.
Another no brainier would be to outlaw administration from collecting another public paycheck from another position.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:33 am
(1) What’s wrong with Lacrosse teams? (2) Compare the price of textbooks to the cost of tablets and I betcha the tablets are a lot cheaper over 4 years (as well as dropping 40 pounds from the backpack).
Comment by SAP Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:46 am
= With 860 districts, and statewide average superintendent pay around $125,000, versus the billions spent on K-12 education in Illinois, such savings are a “spit in the ocean.” =
That’s still $107.5 million, which could be applied to a hold-harmless like Rich mentioned…
Comment by cover Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:49 am
The wish for more money for education is just that with taxes going down the end of December. Hold harmless provisions allow rich schools to maintain their ability to increas the funding gapmwhile leaving little left over for poorer schools. Minimum guarantees for rich schools should be reduced yearly.
Comment by Tom Joad Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 10:54 am
In our recent history, “the more affluent” in any group gain more political power every year. That is at the expense of the system overall. Leaders and legislators have to take the larger view for the state.
Comment by walker Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:04 am
Ummm, “Cover” at 10:49AM. Your $$107.5 million in savings assumes we pay School District Superintendents nothing - not just cap it at something less than $300,000.
Its a drop in the bucket if you assume you cap it at something like $177,000 (the governor salary).
Comment by archimedes Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:11 am
Cover - There is part of the problem as well. Does anyone realistically think this state needs 860 separate districts with 860 separate administrations? The goal of education is to provide the best service possible for kids to learn not to create the maximum possible amount of jobs for adults.
It is long past time for districts especially in suburban areas to look at mergers rather than asking tax payers for more and more every year.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:11 am
@Very Fed Up
Check out this link
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html
Illinois is in the middle of the pack (25th) with respect to K-12 state/local employees per capita. The national average is 213 and Illinois has 219.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:21 am
Very Fed Up, are you saying that the 79 kids in Paw Paw high school should be going somewhere else to high school? That’s crazy!
Comment by Bobby Hill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:22 am
Poorer folks who have sacrificed a great deal to be in a wealthier school district shouldn’t be driven out of their homes by property tax increases. Adjusting the funding formula to reduce funding in places like Naperville will penalize everyone who lives there, not just the wealthy.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:23 am
Bobby - Of course not. Many districts there is obviously no opportunity to cut overhead and need to stand alone due to geographic location.
I am more talking about Chicago and suburban schools. With regards to superintendent pay being a “drop in the bucket” keep in mind lifetime pension cost.
If a district insists that no one on earth would be qualified to be superintendent for pay of governor (175K?) and would crumble to ground unless they pay out 300K+ then let them absorb 100% of the additional cost. When you factor in the lifetime pension costs this difference can add up to the Millions. Yes this won’t solve every problem but it’s a no brainier and a place to start.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:33 am
I live in a district that is set to lose somewhere in the 4 million range. Our area is by no means “affluent”, in fact I think the last report I read said our schools have 60% on free and reduced lunch. Teachers pay/ admin pay is below other area schools, who will see an increase in funding.
It’s impossible to come up with a perfect formula. There will be winners and losers. As AC mentioned, even in the “rich” communities, there will be double losers. However there will be areas, like mine, who played by the rules, kept good finances and now will have money issues if the formula changes.
Comment by Person 8 Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:35 am
@ Very Fed Up. Really?!? because they are within 20 minutes of three other schools that they could blend right into and they all fit on 1 bus.
Comment by Bobby Hill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:44 am
Very Fed Up - Do you have any idea what a superintendent does?Just throwing out salary numbers for a general category of employment is a very shallow way of doing an analysis of the school funding problem. Most businesses would kill to have administration costs as low as school districts, which in many communities are the largest employers. Also, the vast majority of the money spent by school districts go right back into the local economy. Oh yeah, they educate children regardless of their background.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:45 am
Our governor-elect Bruce Rauner is eventually going to take a position on something, right?
Sure, give him a bit of time still to sort out his ducks and talk to people, he’s not governor for a bit. But I hope at some time in the near future he will stop announcing only what he opposes.
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 11:57 am
The easiest hold harmless would be to set a baseline minimum at the current funding levels and give all new growth to the underfunded schools until you reach the desired levels. Let inflation take care of the redistribution.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 12:06 pm
The reality is there needs to be an honest discussion and plan. This is a discussin. This plan is awful for everyone. If like me, bought a reasonable home and pay high taxes for a good school, do we need to pay state tax under tis plan? Or reduce the amount by roughly 70% that goes toward our school sent to springfield then back? I doubt it. The reality is, they can do a cost shift for pensions. Consolidate schools that are in the “black” and be far ahead. But that’s telling New Trier and Stevenson they have to give up the one school one district model. Elmhurst, Naperville, St. Charles etc have great Unit Districts…
Comment by Walter Mitty Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:21 pm
The elephant in the room is the disparity in Illinois school funding to Chicago vs. other districts. The result is property tax rates for Chicago are about half those in adjacent communities. Senate Bill 16 doesn’t fix this.
Comment by Scott Herr Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:32 pm
SB1 reminds me of Edgar’s pension ramp. Everyone wants good schools (and funded pensions) but nobody wants to pay for it.
The only way SB1 works is if you ADD money into education and apply the new formula. That means letting nonviolent offenders out of jail and/or legalizing marijuana, both of which are non-starters downstate.
Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:57 pm
Mr. Herr, Describing this as an “elephant in the room” implies that no one is talking about it. Yet, people, including you, are. Now it’s time to actually address it. But it may have to wait until Chuy comes in second.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 1:58 pm
Manar’s bill was mentioned during the debate and Rauner wasn’t familiar with the details. It’s time for him to start working on an opinion, because like many Illinois issues changes to school funding has winners, losers and no clear or obvious solutions.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 2:03 pm
Interesting comments. U-46,which currently operates in the black annually will gain $25 million based on the most recent SB 16 analysis conducted by the ISBE. I am not sure how that seems reasonable since they were already operating in the black.
Consolidating to k-12 districts in the suburbs, particularly Cook county where there are only a couple may not provide the desired results. Creating a district of 15,000 brings it’s own issues and inefficiencies. I am not suggesting there is no upside but too few really understand the massive body of regulations that schools must follow.
Per Ralph Martire the business world views administrative/management costs of 15% or less as efficient (I do not know the basis for this but I have yet to hear a factual dispute of Ralph Martire’s numbers). Schools average about 5%. While some salaries may be high in some people opinion I have yet to hear a fact based discussion of those salaries. Many supts. have a doctorate and all must have a degree beyond a master’s to qualify for the position. In our country education level typically impacts pay. The market place also has an impact. This year almost 90 districts began with an interim superintendent. Qualified individuals are not as plentiful as one would assume. Some good people do not want the headaches, like being attacked for everything that happens in a district or compensation level, that are associated with the position.
Illinois school funding is a disaster and the ILGA and governors office have been playing political games for some time. The pension that so many decry would be a manageable cost had citizens been vocal in insisting that the state meet their constitutionally required obligations. Our budget would have $6 billion additional dollars available. $6,000,000,000.
SB 16 assumes that eav and wealth are the same things and they are not always so. Chapa LaVia used the term affluent. Many districts that have gone through major cost reductions and declining revenues will lose more funding, these are not affluent districts by any stretch of the imagination. Flat grant suburban districts could absorb the nominal loss of $218 per student.
The SB 16 “formula” is not research based and the developers have, to date, been unable to explain how each of the “factors” were developed.
Any legislation this divisive is bad, as far as I am concerned. It will not change the mindset of those that want to cut,cut, cut because you can never cut enough for those folks. It will not benefit all kids, that is inexcusable.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 2:09 pm
SB 16 “reform” is not a simplification, but a further complication of already complex school financing.
The initial purpose of GSA was to remedy the mismatch between student populations in the many separate Illinois school districts on one hand and the value of local real estate available to support those districts on the other. GSA is a back-end attempt to fix the economic differences inherent in splitting Illinois into a ridiculous number of separate school districts.
The solution is not to tinker with the GSA formula in the name of “reform.” The solution is to consolidate school districts to a smaller number of districts, less than 100 local districts, to expand property-tax bases and simplify school funding.
Comment by Anon III Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 2:09 pm
@anon III- With respect, give that a try with a map and see what you come up with. How many hours do you want a rural 1st grader on the bus? I think you will be a little surprised. Just sayin…
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 2:18 pm
@ JSMill:
Consolidating School Districts does not necessarily mean consolidating Schools.
If each Illinois school district was equal in enrollment to, or larger in enrollment than, Plainfield School District 202 – ADA 26,208 – the fourth largest district in the State, then Illinois could operate with sixty or fewer school districts. Each with all the local control that Painfield 202, or Indian Prairie 204, or Rockford 205 has.
Comment by Anon III Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 2:53 pm
“Consolidating School Districts does not necessarily mean consolidating Schools.”
If that is the case you will get little to no savings. Your cost in schools is 80% salaries and benefits. You will reap no savings through more efficient staffing. In some instances your district could span 3,4, or 5 counties to get that number of students. You administration reduction may be a superintendent but, you are going to need additional admin personnel for the central office which basically offsets your reductions. How will your superintendent effectively manage their building admin when the district covers literally thousands of square miles. Combining labor contracts is another interesting little conundrum that can wildly increase costs.
Large districts can be monolithic and change and improvement can be incredibly challenging as well. Labor relations will be more difficult- size often increases distance, reduces trust, strains relations. Schools are not factories, it is a “kid” business and size does not enhance that.
Smart consolidations are warranted. Local control has it’s own checks and balances (elections). Apathy is difficult to cure as well. Attend a school board meeting and you will understand that. I still come across people that do not know that it is a public meeting! Schools are not as inefficient as people have been led to believe by political talking points. The issues are complex and often only solved locally rather than broad, generalized “reform” efforts.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 3:10 pm
@ JSMILL:
I have attended more than my share of School Board meetings. I know that education is complicated. I am suggesting simplification in education funding.
You are saying that savings cannot be realized in school district consolidations. I suggested that consolidation was a remedy for the complexity of school funding.
Thousands of children go to school in large districts. They learn and thrive.
Comment by Anon III Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 3:55 pm
Perhaps if they weren’t paying a six figure salary to a “Director of Social Justice”, they might not be so strapped, but hey, who wants to be fiscally responsible when they can be ideologically obedient.
Comment by U46 should stay home Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 4:21 pm
@ U46- that is the problem, they are not strapped. They have often not spent all of the revenue received or been at balance. There state aid has risen by $30 million in two years yet enrollment has been flat or slightly down. SB 16 send $25 million more dollars their way. That is wrong.
I think taking pot shots at personnel and salaries is weak sauce. People on this Board challenge literally everyone’s compensation including those making minimum wage. The real question is, are they doing what is expected or even more?
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 4:34 pm
So if a district has labored to stay in the black, then it merits no more funding, even though it spends far less per student than its neighbors to the east?
Comment by anon Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 4:59 pm
SB16: School funding needs a bigger pie, not just how a small pie is sliced.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 7:17 pm
There is a reason why superintendents make the salaries they do. At the very least, total resonsibility for the health and safety for everyone in the building is no frivolous assignment. But in addition, before commenting on the monetary value of a superintendent, please learn about the job. Higher paid CEOs have quite a cushion of staff around them to insulate them from such high responsibility. I’ll never really understand why so many think that if the work involves children it’s just a bunch of nursery rhyme stuff and play time. Educate yourselves.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 18, 14 @ 7:18 pm
=So if a district has labored to stay in the black, then it merits no more funding, even though it spends far less per student than its neighbors to the east? =
This is about more than just two districts. We reduced our budget by 20%, including 15% of our staff, over two years and continue to “lose”. While U-46 revenues from state aide have substantially grown substantially in terms of percentage and in actual dollars, other like our district have lost finding. In both cases enrollment has been relatively steady. The formula needs to change, the pool of funding needs to grow. We have made the necessary adjustments to “live within our means” but it is a moving target. At the end of the day we can only cut so much before our kids are faced with only the absolute minimum. There is no hope for consolidation, It would reduce at best 1 administrator since districts like ours do not have multiple layers. It would increase our geographic size (with smallest neighbor) to just shy of 500 square miles.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Nov 19, 14 @ 9:05 am
JS Mill - “before our kids are faced with only the absolute minimum.”
Isn’t that what government programs should provide. I mean, we need to provide money for the elderly, the poor, the unemployed, incarceration, public safety. We need money for roads, bridges and administration of the government, pensions, etc. There is only so much money. To me, ultimately it’s up to the parents and kids to make more of their education.
Public education has turned into a hammock.
Comment by Bobby Hill Thursday, Nov 20, 14 @ 9:18 am