Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Today’s number: $500 million

Posted in:

Illinois

* The only way to make Sen. Andy Manar’s school funding reform plan at all viable is to hold wealthier districts harmless. Manar has a rough projection of what that would cost…

State Sen. Andy Manar on Tuesday called for a $500 million increase in education funding as part of his plan to revamp Illinois’ school funding formula.

The Bunker Hill Democrat filed Senate Bill 1 in mid-January, which he plans to use to overhaul how the state funds its schools. He said at a Statehouse news conference he was echoing the State Board of Education’s recent request for $729 million more than in the current budget. […]

“I don’t think there’s too many people in the building – Democrat or Republican – that think the way we do things today is worth preserving,” he said. “So that brings about the question of how we’re going to change it and how we’re going to get there.” […]

Gov. Bruce Rauner is expected to propose massive cuts during his Feb. 18 budget address to battle a potential $9 billion deficit. Manar said he wouldn’t take any options off of the table on how to find the money – including cuts to other programs such as Medicaid – but where the money comes from would ultimately be part of the budget discussions.

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:34 am

Comments

Good for Manar.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:36 am
Good idea, terrible timing.

Potentially adding another $500M to that $9B deficit is not going to help his case right now.

It just substitutes one set of new problems for another set of old ones in the first version of the bill.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:38 am
Cutting education only increases crime, unemployment, and welfare expenses. You don’t save money from education, you choose to use it on the same people elsewhere in life.

Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:43 am
At least Andy is trying to address a process that a lot of people see as unfair. Win or lose, at least he is doing something.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:44 am
Agree with FKA. When you do something might be as important as what you do. A lot of good legislation depends on timing.

Comment by A guy Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:51 am
==Win or lose, at least he is doing something==

Agree. The state would benefit if more followed his lead and his diligence.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:52 am
“Doing something” - need to look at overall ed spending - it has increased significantly in real terms over last couple decades. There’s a higher ed bubble - there’s also an elementary and secondary ed bubble and both will eventually burst. I’d like to see something that looks at how we deliver education rather than shuffling the funding deck chairs.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:52 am
Still want to see the plan for balancing a $9 billion budget deficit.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:56 am
Manar’s plan is an attempt, I’ll give him that. I have discussed my concerns with him and I think he is genuine. His plan lacks evidence to support the formula. National Louis University conducted significant research into the cost of instruction beginning with a set of desired outcomes. It is worth a look.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 10:57 am
I give Manar credit for trying to change how schools are funded. Medicaid and Education account for half of state spending. Given the deficit the state is facing it only makes sense that the state will have to find intelligent ways to overhaul these two programs. I think Manar is on the right track but perhaps with a little tweaking of his plan it might be workable.

Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 11:10 am
===His plan lacks evidence to support the formula.===

The plan to spend $500 million more also lacks evidence that the additional funding will improve educational outcomes. I can see that from a political point of view the additional funding is needed go get the votes to pass any change to the funding change. However, with billions in unfunded pension debt, much of which is for education, where will the $500 million come from?

Might it not be a better idea to pay off some of the current debt rather than increase spending?

Comment by Hit or Miss Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 11:16 am
==When you do something might be as important as what you do.==

Very well said, @A guy. That gets right to the bones of one of the biggest problems facing this plan.

A few years ago when we were flush, something like this could have zipped through to the Gov’s desk. Now? Things are very different.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 11:28 am
@ Hit or Miss- In other words, punish today’s students for the mistakes of our political leadership? I cannot agree with that.

Leadership could establish a separate revenue stream to specifically deal with the pension debt issue but the lack the collective will or discipline to do so and then maintain that revenue for the purpose intended.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 11:28 am
Trying? Doing something?

Manar’s bill is as complex as current school funding is, and almost no one is considering all the policy changes in his bill.

Education is NOT just about money.

Comment by Bad ideas Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 11:32 am
Let’s try to clear up something here, I started yesterday to read the bill, and it is even more complex than the last bill in part because of the Geographic cost differences aspect of the bill. I am also unclear about the SJR article, on the one hand to just hold harmless higher wealth districts it is estimated that a $500 million dollar increase in the k-12 education budget would be required. On the other hand the article states Manar “said at a Statehouse news conference he was echoing the State Board of Education’s recent request for $729 million more than in the current budget.”

But that $729 million which was proposed by the out going ISBE and Superintendent Koch as far as I can tell did not include $500 million to keep wealthier districts whole. So are we actually talking here about $1.2 billion?

Comment by Rod Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:07 pm
Interestingly, Texas has a more progressively funded school system than Illinois. They did this by implementing “Robin Hood” policies to redistribute property tax income from rich to poor school districts. Do you know what happened to standardized test scores after this policy was enacted? Both rich and poor school districts had scores increase, with poorer districts narrowing the gap. In other words, it worked.

Comment by Scamp640 Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:20 pm
What I want to know is how a guy from such a small town got elected?? In rural area usually the guy from the largest town wins.

Comment by Pat C Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:21 pm
Terrible idea. Wealthy districts do not need another state welfare handout.

Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:36 pm
Rauner needs to cut the budget of the ISP. They make 3 times the salary of surrounding states. Get their union out of Illinois politics…

Comment by ISProblem Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:39 pm
@scamp460
=Interestingly, Texas has a more progressively funded school system than Illinois.=

Yep, scamp. Texas spends about $3K less per student than Illinois and NAEP tests show they’re as effective, or better, than higher priced Illinois public schools, despite having higher poverty rates and ESL challenges. Don’t overlook the value of Texas’ statutes prohibiting teacher strikes, as is the case in about 41 states. If a teacher abandons their responsibility to the community by walking out on the kids to feed their greed, they lose their state certification to teach. There’s a lot Illinois can learn from Texas in MANY areas….

Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:40 pm
Thank you Arizona Bob for your broken record commentary about other states.

JS Mill - what is your solution for the poorer districts? I ask in all seriousness since you work in the system.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 12:59 pm
Would a hold-harmless funding floor based on FY15 levels work? Essentially, any growth in revenue beyond FY15 would go to the needy districts while wealthy districts would see flat revenue from the state until the needy districts catch up.

Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 1:03 pm
===”The only way to make Sen. Andy Manar’s school funding reform plan at all viable is to hold wealthier districts harmless.”===

The only way to any Rauner proposal at all viable is to hold all the wealthiest individuals and businesses harmless.

What a shame.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 1:06 pm
@Dem

=Thank you Arizona Bob for your broken record commentary about other states.=

Since Illinois is generally FAR worse managed than just about any other state (NY, NJ, and Cali give Illinois a run for it’s money, though) only a fool wouldn’t look to other states to find better ways of doing things.

@Dem, it seems like you’re one of those “reinvent the wheel” types who keeps on coming up with square wheels. Let me guess….you work for Illinois government, right?

University of Chicago’s MBA program tends to emphasize the “case study” approach to doing things better, and it works pretty well.

Try it sometime, Dem. It works far better than the “ostrich” (but this is ILLINOIS!) approach to solving problems..

Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 2:50 pm
@Demoralized- I like the idea of providing evidence of need. I think that is something that Rauner supports and it is a component, although toothless, of SB 1. The current formula can be made to work as intended with a couple of tweaks. That would cancel out the so-called poorer districts that are running large annual budget surpluses. Count Federal funds as a local revenue in the formula and deal with “poverty” seperately. Fully fund an appropriate foundation level (EFAB says $8,899) and letthe formula work. If you run the numbers it does. Additional funds to support the needs of poverty. There has to be a limit to those dollars though, and that is a problem with the way poverty is currently funded. It pushes out every thing else.

Flat Grant should be eliminated these districts do not need the funding as it is $218 per pupil. They would still get full funding of mandated categoricals (transportation and Special Ed mainly).

Eliminate PTELL adjustment. This is funding that flows to districts under PTELL, Chicago gets a huge chunk. They are under PTELL bacause local voters wanted that. Those funds could also go to poverty and categoricals.

Flat Grant savings is not tremendous but could go to poverty. Ptell is several hundred million so that is big money.

Allow cost shift through a 5 - 10 year ramp and give districts the option to levy for 1/2. That becomes local control. IMRF and SSI are already allowed to be part of the levy.

Just a start but a good place to start.

Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks. Always curious to get the thoughts of people in positions like yours when it comes to this topic. Most people have no clue how the actual school funding formulas, and education funding overall, work.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 4:42 pm
@AZBOOB
Generally speaking you are correct, Illinois spends about more ($1600) per student than Texas. But from another glance it should be noted that some of the wealthy districts in Outer Chicago spend more on single band uniform than districts in southern Illinois spend per student.

Comment by Say What? Wednesday, Feb 4, 15 @ 9:46 pm