Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Kj on the hot seat again
Next Post: More on Madigan’s desire to move the primary for Obama
Posted in:
One way to avoid public calls for more money for public schools (and, therefore, higher taxes) is to silence public bodies designed to calculate the financial need.
A government board charged with recommending state school funding missed a Jan. 1 deadline to report to lawmakers because Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s administration has not reconvened the panel. […]
Still, it is the second time Blagojevich has been slow to marshal EFAB, which consists solely of his appointees. By law, the five-person panel every two years must recommend a per-pupil “foundation” level - the minimum amount of money deemed necessary to give most Illinois children an adequate education.
Under the threat of a lawsuit two years ago, the governor’s office filled vacancies on the board, and the panel - three months late - recommended a foundation level of $6,405 per student. The budget lawmakers and Blagojevich approved later that year fell short of the mark, providing for a foundation of only about $5,200.
Meanwhile, Senate President Emil Jones made it pretty clear yesterday that he wants a tax increase for education.
Jones outlined an ultimate goal of having state government provide more than half of all school funding. He called for increasing the amount of money the poorest schools in the state receive as well as a funding plan for new school construction.
Jones said all options are on the table now, except for raising the state sales tax because it is too regressive. He has long supported increasing the income tax and expanding gambling as well as various ways to exchange a higher income tax for lower property taxes.
And…
“The state has a revenue problem, not a spending problem,” Jones said. “It’s our job to come up with a solution to solve the problem.” [..]
“Governor, I want to thank you for the job you’ve done the past four years to increase (education) funding,” Jones said. “You are on the right track, but we must go further.”
And…
He said the top 20 districts spend $14,000 to $28,000 per year on each student, while more than 600 districts spend the minimum of $5,334 per student. He compared that to the $21,000-per-year average to house an inmate, and noted that 62 percent of prisoners are high school dropouts.
And House Speaker Michael Madigan all but said he would push for higher taxes.
I’m prepared to engage in unpopular choices,†said Madigan, who warned that the state is facing a huge backlog of unpaid bills. […]
For Madigan, the focal point of the upcoming session will be the state’s shaky finances. He said he’s made tough choices in the past and is ready to make them again.
“I’m not going to be feint of heart,†said Madigan.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 8:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Kj on the hot seat again
Next Post: More on Madigan’s desire to move the primary for Obama
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
EFAB is merely a doormat. In an effort to difuse any responsibility away from the Governor and away from ISBE, this secondary agency’s sole dity is to hire Augenblick and Myers to run regressional analyses and to come up with a new foundation level which will solve all problems. Strangely enough, A&M always recommends more money and ignores such variables as teacher qualifications.
A&M send the report to EFAB, who laterals it to ISBE, who sends it on to the governor to sends it to the legislature.
How much does A&M get paid for this exercise in regressiona analyses? How much does ESAB get paid? What qualifications to its members and staff have to review the A&M work?
Comment by Truthful James Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 9:56 am
A revenue problem, not a spending problem? What perspective. My problem is not the BMW that I bought, but the fact that my employers don’t pay me enough money to keep up the payments.
Money is not the end all be all answer. It won’t matter how mch money you throw away at schools if families don’t get invovled.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 10:04 am
Emil and Mike want an income tax increase? What a suprirse.
But what makes us think the money will go to the schools? Emil and Mike no doubt have hundreds of political pals waiting in line for state jobs and overpriced state contracts. And we don’t have a “state school income tax” that requires the additional monies to go to the schools.
Money is fungible, as Mike and Emil well know.
And taxpayers are gullible.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 10:35 am
Only two comments for education/real problems and endless twitter over moving the primary. For $21,000 per student, lets outsource public education to India. Our students would get a world class education with great test scores and be closer to the job market. Being too cheap to buy his book and find out, has Obama marticulated from any public schools?
Comment by Ali Bin Haddin Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 10:37 am
“The state has a revenue problem, not a spending problem,†Jones said. “It’s our job to come up with a solution to solve the problem.â€
We are SO SCREWED.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 11:22 am
Wumpus,
I agree with your sentiment about families but Truthful considers that an elitist view. I really don’t think teacher qualifications are an issue with regular public schools which are regulated by ISBE on this issue to the point of absurdity. It could be an issue for many charter schools which are exempt from regulations regarding certification of qualified teachers.
The people elected the current legislators because they wanted action on school funding reform. The quality of education should not be based upon the value of the real estate where the students live. To alleviate these inequities,the state must increase the amount of resources that it provides for public education and so that we all don’t get taxed out of our homes we need to decrease the over-reliance on property taxes to fund education and other gov’t services.
We certainly are not screwed and if the legislature and governor show some intestinal fortitude we might even be SAVED!
Comment by Bill Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 11:58 am
I’m not going to be feint of heart,†said Madigan.
But maybe he’ll do some misdirection and pull a faint to distract people when the tax increase passes.
Comment by Pat Collins Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 12:03 pm
It seems like Blagojevich is more often an obstacle to state Democrats than an ally. State Democrats would do better to support a Green, like Rich Whitney, who are actually in favor of important changes like education funding reform.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 12:36 pm
I would just like to thank Truthful for giving perhaps the most accurate description of EFAB’s role ever.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 12:43 pm
Hold onto your pocketbooks!! The Spend & tax Crowd is in Control!!
Comment by BIG R.PH. Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 4:50 pm
With a governor committed to vetoing any tax hike, Jones and Madigan would surely need some GOP votes to override. The Dem leaders would have to explain to Republicans why they should take some of the heat to raise more revenues that the minority party has no voice in deciding how to spend.
Comment by respectful Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 5:03 pm
If there’s something in it for the burbs, the GOP votes would be there. Trouble is, there’s no apparent compromise that wouldn’t leave many inequities in place.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 7:26 pm
This country’s Founders believed that a civic education was a requirement of the citizenry if it were to be self-governing and create a prosperous nation. The funding of said education has been up for discussion for 230 years. Today, the state of Illinois has the capacity to move beyond the status quo.
The debate over more funding for education for the State of Illinois hinges on overcoming four hurdles: academic accountability, fiscal responsibility, funding formula modifications or the elimination of them, and bringing money back to local districts. The funding of education has hit its apex - it’s as far as some communities will go - due to the over dependence upon local property taxes.
The only way funding for education can be modified is via a drastic change in policy or a constitutional amendment. Local school boards are keenly aware of the need for academic accountability and fiscal responsibility. At the state level, fiscal responsibility, funding formula modifications and preservation of local dollars, without tax increases, stand as road blocks.
The question of whether having more money will enable school district to deliver better academic results, becomes the focal point of any reform bill for education. When the most current national data on achievement as it relates to spending per student is examined, the top ten states in achievement are also among the top twenty in spending per student. The analysis does lead one to believe higher levels of funding directly relates to better results.
The never ending clash of fiscal responsibility vs. adequate funding vs. academic accountability pit local communities against local boards, and send perplexing messages to state legislators. New York is an excellent example of the battle of politics vs. education vs economically challeged children.
Currently, the mark of academic success is driven by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. That challenge to maintain AYP in schools needing extra attention lays squarely in the laps of school boards to examine where new money must be spent to remedy the youngsters that are failing before they move into society. This challenge is for all schools, not just those in economically challenged areas, to examine the data and identify areas where students fail to meet standards. Testing a year’s growth in a years time (Value Added Testing) should become the norm for evaluating each student and measuring academic accountability.
In another arena, where there is much hoopla is over the way in which money is returned to a community, as well as, the convoluted way in which the amount awarded to a district is determined. The current approach has created a “region against region†conundrum. If this was a simple fix it would be done.
The citizenry asks only for simplicity, adequacy, transparency and equity in state funding of education, and local property tax relief. Illinois can learn a great deal from other states on modifying its funding formulas, assessing student success and investing in education finance reform.
The current effort to address education finance reform through property tax abatement or reimbursement, property owners would see relief. Property tax abatement needs to be on solid ground. The garnering of new taxes will help to relieve the property tax burden while maintaining the level of revenue delivered to the school districts.
The underlying issues of academic accountability, fiscal responsibility, foundation formula change, and appropriate allocation of new tax dollars to school districts will continue to challenge legislators and local school boards as they look at new dollars to help students become 21st century leaders. These are the times to historical change. The challenge is finding the political will.
Comment by Mary Fioretti Thursday, Jan 11, 07 @ 9:23 pm
Mary Fioretti:
You seem to have a clear understanding of the problem, but it really comes down to some very simple issues.
Since about 80% of public education spending is for salaries and benefits, you need salary and benefit “equity” in districts if you’re going to have equity of resources.
There’s the rub.
People like Meeks, Martire, and all those IFT and IEA bosses want to raise taxes so that evry public school staff employee can make the highest amount without increasing provided service, touching tenure, prohibiting strikes, or allowing a “one size fits all” salary schedule for Illinois faculty and staff similar to Civil service scales for state workers.
Creating “equity” is simple; set a state salary schedule for all public school teachers and administators, and distribute state aid to those who can’t afford such a scale before giving a single dollar to those who are overpaying.
That’ll bever happen as long as teacehr unions are the major source of campaign contributions in Illinois.
The legislators want to have a huge tax increase to keep the “pork” flow going, and throw the rest of the new money on the table for unions to devour like throwing a slab of meat before ravenous wolves.
The tax increase won’t improve education for our children, reduce real estate taxes in the long term, or do anything to slow the steep rise in the “structural deficit” created by runaway spending and lack of checks and balances in our school negotiating system.
Comment by PalosParkBob Friday, Jan 12, 07 @ 1:26 pm
Palos Park Bob,
The reason for the long explanation is that in many of the blogs people skate freely over the complexities and believe that there is an easy solution. This just is not the case.
To address issues that have to do with National Labor Law have to be addressed at the National Level and to keep bringing them up consistantly where School Boards are bound by the law both Federally and thru the State is only muddying the water when we are looking for a state solution to a difficult situation.
Actually Senator Meeks does not want to raise the salaries. He has seen the inequity and to continue to subjagate youngsters to inadequate academic riggor is immoral. They want to provide services such as restoring chemistry labs to advanced technology so that when a youngster, if they make it to college, will be on a level academic field with their counterpart. I challenge you to have a discussion between a Naperville, New Trier, Thornton, Batavia, Belevediere, Rockford, Galena, Alton, North Park, and Canton High School students and listen to their academic careers and then know each student is not recieving the education he or she needs to compete in college. The operative is compete. Not only compete but have the capacity to earn scholarships to high academic universities.
If you want to help address challenges take on the publishing companies on the outrageous costs of textbooks that need to be updated consistantly in order for students to stay possibly current. Or simalarly to you the 20% increase in electricity - can you even imagine what that will cost Chicago Public Schools? And where will the money come from to pay that 20% increase. Let’s say it costs $20 million for all their buildings and multiply that by 20% = $4 milion. Those dollars just are not there - that’s similar to medical incrases. BTW, I have no idea what it costs for them but for all the buildings they have it has to be in that ballpark or higher. City hall in all villages accross the state. THis is huge. We as the taxpayer pay that increase many times over for public entities.
Comment by Mary Fioretti Monday, Jan 15, 07 @ 7:58 am