Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Looking at history

Posted in:

Illinois

“The last time the general state aid formula for school funding was changed was in ’03 when we had complete Democrat control of our General Assembly and governorship,” Rauner said [last week]. “There was complete Democrat control of our government for 12 years, and there was no change. Now all of a sudden, there’s this perception of crisis. This issue was created by Democrats.”

Not exactly. And you have to be careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from what Rauner is saying.

He’s correct that the last time the formula was changed was in 2003 when Democrats had complete control. Manar said he’s not sure what Rauner is talking about, but here’s his guess: “In 2003, there was a bill that was passed that dealt with how you count children who live in poverty. That’s not a formula change,” Manar said. “That bill in 2003 got 55 votes in the Senate.”

Or, as Manar put it, it wasn’t a bill that “Democrats crammed down Republicans’ throats.”

In fact, the essential part of the funding formula was put in place in 1997 when Republicans controlled the Senate and there was a Republican governor. Both made sure Republican interests were taken care of, so even wealthy school districts in GOP areas got their piece of the school-funding pie.

That’s all true.

But, as Finke clearly points out, Rauner is correct when he says the Democrats had control for a dozen years and did basically nothing and are now all of a sudden demanding reforms.

The problem is that more than two decades of consensus about how to fix the situation - a state income tax hike swapped for a local property tax cut - was tossed out the window by the Democrats when the state’s fiscal position became so imperiled that it needed every dime of a tax hike for itself. And then along came Speaker Madigan’s idea to make local school districts pick up their pension costs. Those two things completely upended the entire process and it took Sen. Andy Manar’s new ideas to finally get something going again.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:23 am

Comments

Wait. Do “new ideas” include Chicago receiving a special deal and collar counties subsidizing Chicago and downstate schools?

Comment by Ottawa Phil Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:30 am
Any bill that takes money away from some children’s education is going to meet stiff resistance, even if the pain is drawn out more slowly rather than sudden.
In addition, Chicago currently spends $2,000 more than the date average per pupil. Taking from some kids’ education funding to give to others is still going to be a very hard sell.

Comment by No Use For A Name Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:30 am
But the Manar plan is not going anywhere - it is dead on arrival. Manar compares us to other States, but those States put more than TWICE as much State money into their formulas.

Manar takes money largely from special education to increase what he calls primary state aid.

A one year hold harmless does not stop money being taken away from some school districts to give it to other school districts.

And a formula block grant for special education has all the problems that the CURRENT Chicago special ed block grant has.

Now State money is directly tied to hiring special ed teachers ($9,000 for each teacher) and other professionals working full-time with students with IEPs.

Under the Manar plan a school district could fire 1/2 of its special ed teachers and still receive exactly the same amount of State money under the special ed formula block grant.

Comment by winners and losers Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:36 am
===Do “new ideas” include Chicago receiving a special deal and collar counties subsidizing Chicago and downstate schools? ===

The collars have been subsidizing Downstate schools (and everything else in that region) forever. Chicago tends to get back about what its taxpayers put in.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:36 am
A tax swap bill did pass the Senate in 09, it just died in the House. So it’s not like there have been no efforts previously, there just has been no agreement previously.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:37 am
Sorry for the anonymous comment, not sure why the handle didn’t show up.

Comment by The Captain Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:38 am
“Chicago tends to get back about what its taxpayers put in.”

Or at least that was the case before the State had a nearly $4 billion TRS payment that Chicago barely sees a dime of. Just sayin’.

Comment by Juice Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:46 am
It’s weird to be even talking about K-12 funding formulas when you’re running a $6.2 billion FY16 deficit even after cutting billions by zeroing out higher ed and social services.

Kind of getting ahead of themselves.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:47 am
To argue that richer school districts (and whiter) should not subsidized poorer (and blacker/browner) is a position that should be pushed back against. It is a flawed maxim that hurts society.

Push back very directly, and very publicly.

I find it disturbing on many levels.

(My thoughts this morning, after reading several articles about our State, is that I hope there are groups of mentors that are identifying gifted kids in the poorest and roughest districts, mentors to help these bright kids navigate the economic and violent realities in their lives. These young people have to survive incomprehensible situations in order to become something other than a sad statistic.)

Comment by cdog Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 9:58 am
April surprise for the progressive income tax amendment?

I sure hope so.

I would gladly pay a higher income tax rate on income over $1,000,000 in order to see that local district removed from my property tax bill. /s

Comment by cdog Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:00 am
‘In 2000, CPS had 93,000 students in 86 high schools. Today they have 101,000 students in 140 high schools, excluding alternative schools. That’s a 63 percent increase in schools against an 8 percent increase in students.’
No amount of funding can fix poor management.

Comment by No Use For A Name Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:07 am
So local school districts pick up their pension costs which raises property tax or state income tax goes up to cover the costs. To the taxpayer what is the difference? Rural counties do not have the population to cover the property tax jump needed and the urban counties have an abundance simply due to the volume of people. The acceptable balance remains pretty elusive depending on where you live.

Comment by zatoichi Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:19 am
===The collars have been subsidizing Downstate schools (and everything else in that region) forever. Chicago tends to get back about what its taxpayers put in.===

This is true. Once the meager return is gone altogether for collars, where is the invisible bucket CPS will go to the next time?

Comment by A guy Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:35 am
==- No Use For A Name - Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:07 am:==

That is from Kate Grossman’s Atlantic piece
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/04/reviving-a-hollowed-out-high-school/477354/

Anyway, Governor Rauner wants to increase the number of schools by having more charters and more contract schools. It is his stated goal.

http://www.qconline.com/news/local/rauner-calls-for-more-charter-schools-less-union-control/article_87894992-b629-5768-bcec-eef6b008e348.html

Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:44 am
“The collars have been subsidizing Downstate schools”-

Some, not nearly all. We get about 24% of our funding from the state. We generate 70% locally with a tax rate over $5.4. We are doing our share locally as many downstate districts are doing. Especially central Illinois.

Our issue is actually a combination of issues- slowly rising EAV (which will likely stop soon with the changes in farm land assessment), slowly decreasing enrollment, and large geographic districts, high poverty (30-60%) but not high enough to leverage the full dollars provided by the poverty grant in the GSA formula.

The driving force behind Manar’s “formula” is supposedly providing more money for poor students. Given the various incarnations and the work he has done behind the scenes to block other legislation, sends a message that this is more personally politically motivated than anything else.

Manar’s plan is simply a redistribution of a diminished pool or limited pool of funds and not result driven. Result being an articulated set of student educational outcomes that is measurable and accountability for those outcomes.

The reality is that the current formula can provide good funding for student’s in high concentrations of poverty, but it is not designed to achieve any measurable student learning outcomes.

For many rural districts no matter how much we decrease our expenses or raise our tax rate, catching up to losses for some can be impossible. Enrollment is not decreasing fast enough for many to consider consolidation and geography makes that a challenge anyway. And we are still losing in our current formula and Manar’s.

The Evidence Based Model is our only real hope. To fully fund that model, with a measurable set of student learning outcomes and tailored to the needs of each district would take significant new state revenue.

As an interim step, fully funding the current formula would be a good stop gap.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:49 am
–Once the meager return is gone altogether for collars, where is the invisible bucket CPS will go to the next time?–

You must mean Downstate schools, as you just wrote “that’s true” to the statement:

===The collars have been subsidizing Downstate schools (and everything else in that region) forever. Chicago tends to get back about what its taxpayers put in.===

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:50 am
Rich’s last paragraph absolutely nails it.

Many were considering that balanced route. Not sure I’d call it a “consensus” though, because a lot of legislators were publicly pushing for both lower or flat property taxes and lower or flat income taxes, while of course insisting their own school districts get more funding. Still are today.

Depends on whether you’re interested in state-level solutions, or are all about my district all the time. Representative’s dilemma.

Comment by walker Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 10:57 am
Chicago and the Collars have also been subsidizing the Downstate Republican Patronage Program called Prisons. With their over paid Union workers who babysit pot smokers and shoplifters at a cost of $18 to 30,000.00 a year.

I’m tired of my tax dollars being wasted on this nonsense.

Bruce…your a so-called “successful” businessman…didnt you close Nursing Homes that were unprofitable?

I’d email you but you dont have an email address.

Comment by Jack Stephens Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:01 am
“The collars have been subsidizing Downstate schools (and everything else in that region) forever…”

Ehh….Although CPS is the primary beneficiary, there are many collar county schools that have benefited greatly from the PTELL subsidy - buried deep in the GSA line of the budget. Had this subsidy not been in place, the foundation level could have been increased significantly. Together, the PTELL subsidy and the poverty grant, have caused a reduction to GSA for down state districts for years.

Comment by veritas Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:01 am
–..a lot of legislators were publicly pushing for both lower or flat property taxes and lower or flat income taxes, while of course insisting their own school districts get more funding.–

Sounds like the governor’s plan.

I’m all for it, if the arithmetic works.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:02 am
=I’m all for it, if the arithmetic works.=

It can only work if there is money injected into the system.

Martire has long advocated for an expansion of the tax base. By his estimates, we only tax about 30% of our economy, which increases the burden on property taxes. Back in 2004-2005 he proposed a plan that would have put us in a very different place than we are now, with a 25% break on property taxes. Too bad nobody or not enough people listen to Ralph.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:07 am
= Together, the PTELL subsidy and the poverty grant, have caused a reduction to GSA for down state districts for years. =

So true. PTELL adjustment is the first thing that should be eliminated.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:19 am
=== rural counties do not have the population to cover the property tax needed to pay for pensions ==

Rural districts would have more resources if farmland were assessed at the higher levels it used to be.

=== Manar’s plan is simply a redistribution of a diminished pool or limited pool of funds… ===

Manar’s plan would reduce the nation’s widest spending disparities between have and have-not districts. Or we could continue the status quo, while paying lipservice to equal opportunity.

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 11:51 am
==Manar’s plan would reduce the nation’s widest spending disparities between have and have-not districts.==

Not that it matters a lot, but at least 2 other States are now worse than Illinois. But the solution in other States is vastly more State spending on PK-12, not shifting current dollars.

==Given the various incarnations and the work he has done behind the scenes to block other legislation, sends a message that this is more personally politically motivated than anything else.==

Unfortunately this is true. Except for Chicago, Manar rejects any proposal that does not benefit his school districts.

Did anyone notice that Special Education Private Tuition is excluded from the special ed formula block grant and 48.4 percent of it designated to go to Chicago? (page 207 of his amendment)

Comment by winners and losers Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 12:12 pm
Anon @11:51. Finally someone else talking about the ag abuse. How about a fair tax on buildings. How about a fair sales tax. We don’t have a democratic in Springfield that has the …… to talk about it. MJM and Cullerton would rather whine about the RAUN Man than actually do something about lack or revenue. The recent talk about a fair income tax, will in my opinion, be just that, talk. In the end they will take the road of least resistance, Tax the working poor and middle class

Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 1:01 pm
= (page 207 of his amendment) =

Now that is some deep reading!

=Manar’s plan would reduce the nation’s widest spending disparities between have and have-not districts. Or we could continue the status quo, while paying lipservice to equal opportunity. =

Not really. First of all, please define what exactly a “have” district is please. Because some designated as “haves” really are not.

The tweaner districts get hurt the most by Manar and that is why this is bad legislation. The true “haves” can laugh off a loss of $218 per pupil and still function at an annual surplus. All Manar is doing is moving deck chairs.

=Rural districts would have more resources if farmland were assessed at the higher levels it used to be.=

Cook county would be the recipient of a varitable funding landslide if property there were taxed at the same Equalized Value as every other county in the state.

Farm land has undergone a significant change in valuation for tax purposes in the last two years. It has not benefited farmer’s.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 1:18 pm
JS Mill, Cook County may see some difference, but not a landslide.

Properties are assessed differently, but then the Illinois Department of Revenue provides an equalization factor to account for that difference which is intended to bring all property up to 33 and 1/3. (Last year the factor was 2.7253. That is the value that is used for the GSA calculation.

Comment by Juice Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 2:21 pm
=Properties are assessed differently, but then the Illinois Department of Revenue provides an equalization factor to account for that difference which is intended to bring all property up to 33 and 1/3.=

Cook is not the only county to see a multiplier and it is not always county wide, it depends on local assessment. And Cooks multiplier most certainly does not come anywhere near the 33 1/3.

The change would be significant and reshape the funding landscape for schools in Cook County.

Comment by JS Mill Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 3:11 pm
JS Mill, by law, the Illinois Department of Revenue’s equalization factor for Cook County is supposed to bring it up to 33 1/3. If it’s not, then they’re not doing their job. And if you look at the county by county equalization factors, all of them are pretty close to 1.0000 except for Cook.

Comment by Juice Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 4:28 pm
=== But the solution in other States is vastly more State spending on PK-12, not shifting current dollars. ===

“Vastly more state spending’ would entail a substantial tax hike, much of which would likely fall upon people with modest incomes. How many GOP votes are there for such a tax hike?

Comment by anon Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 5:52 pm
Earlier I said page 207. It is actually page 270.

==“Vastly more state spending’ would entail a substantial tax hike, much of which would likely fall upon people with modest incomes. How many GOP votes are there for such a tax hike?==

Yes, that is the problem, that is why Manar proposes only to shift money, and that is why no Manar-like bill will pass the Illinois General Assembly and be signed by the Governor.

Comment by winners and losers Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 6:01 pm
Gollleeee Mr Wizard, Is raising taxes the only idea these geniouses can conjure up ? How about less revenue being demanded? Sure works for me and most all UNelected taxpayers!

Comment by A Citizen Monday, Apr 11, 16 @ 8:49 pm