Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Nursing bill passes, but with not enough votes to override expected veto
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Andy Shaw at the BGA takes a look at a recent study by the Metropolitan Planning Council…
MPC recently took a deep dive into the wonky world of administrative districts that oversee individual schools, and their findings—based on 2014 data, the most recent available—confirms our worst fears about the insidious impact of bureaucratic bloat:
* Illinois’ 850 school districts—only two states have more—collectively spend more than $1 billion a year, most in the country by far.
* That’s $518 per student—two-and-a-half times the national average of $210.
* By comparison, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin spend less than $400 per pupil, California and Florida less than $100. […]
The Illinois School Funding Reform Commission recently estimated the state would have to spend $3.5 billion over the next decade to achieve fair per-pupil funding for schools in every district.
Incredibly, Illinois could easily meet the commission’s goal without scrounging for another penny if district administrative spending was even close to the national average because that would free up at least $400 million a year for classrooms instead of offices. […]
* 220 of the state’s 850 districts, or 26 percent, have just one school, and those districts cost 67 percent more to operate than multiple-school districts.
* Also, districts comprised of only elementary or high schools spend about a third more on administration than unit districts that include both.
* The state’s largest unit district, Chicago, is barely afloat but full of bloat, according to the MPC study, spending $350 per student on general administration in 2014.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Nursing bill passes, but with not enough votes to override expected veto
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
And we wonder why Illinois’ property taxes are so high.
Oh, sorry, I forgot: This is actually a “low tax” state, right? My bad.
Comment by JB13 Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:22 pm
Where are those districts located and how many geographic miles do they encompass? I wouldn’t be surprised if quite a few are rural districts, and probably some of those have been through a consolidation in that past. Transportation can eat up a lot of a school’s budget. And, these schools may not have the finances to do capital upgrades to become more energy efficient or to replace buildings that are probably in need of significant upgrades/repairs.
Comment by Anon221 Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:23 pm
Problem is that all of that wasted money is salaries of fat cats and staff and taking it away is never easy.
Comment by Sue Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:25 pm
Not so fast about fat cat salaries. Have you been inside a school (not on parent or curriculum night, or chaperoning a dance)? Have you noticed the programs that are mandated? No such thing as classroom instruction for a group of students. It’s a 3 ring circus, with pullout programs to individualize numerous students’ needs. Go volunteer for a week or more. The poor classroom teacher is far outnumbered by all kinds of specialists (with high credentials and paychecks)
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:30 pm
So Chicago spends $168 per student less on administrative costs than the state average? Some economy of scale savings there for sure, but that certainly blows up a lot of statehouse talking points.
Comment by Roman Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:35 pm
Below is a link to the MPC report.
Government consolidation has supposedly been a bipartisan agreed-priority my adult life — until it gets down to actually attempting it.
My impression is that locals get awfully emotional about losing their school districts, especially if it seems the idea is being imposed by Springfield.
That’s why it’s always been the third-rail in Downstate politics. If you want to force school-district consolidation, seems like the school-funding formula would be the carrot and the stick to do so.
https://www.metroplanning.org/news/7412/More-efficiency-could-help-solve-school-funding-woes-in-Illinois
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:35 pm
And don’t forget, the state has to pay for the pension costs of all those administrators (excluding CPS.)
Comment by Telly Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:36 pm
You only have to look at Union School District near Joliet. I believe they have 10 teachers,110 students K to 6th. They have a Principal and a Superintendent. They just did a 75% rebate to homeowners because they have several warehouses that pay the freight. Why would they want to go with another District and pay more. Did I say the Superintendent didn’t have any job experience in education. He got his certification by way of a waiver from the Regional Office. He gets $120,000, also gets $129,000 on a disability pension since age 44 from Chicago Ridge as their former Police Chief, also gets $40,000 as a Mayor. It has to be a forced consolidation.
Comment by ISPRETIRED Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:39 pm
County governments would also seem to be an obvious area for savings through consolidation.
The link below has all the counties by population.
Half of the state’s counties, , fifty-one, have a population under 25,000 — that’s half the population of my village.
Of those 51, 15 have a population under 10,000.
What’s the sentiment in those small counties for consolidating?
http://www.illinois-demographics.com/counties_by_population
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:43 pm
The easiest thing to do is consolidate elementary school districts into their high school district, if they are co-terminus.
Phase it in over several years to make it more politically do-able. I lived in Evergreen Park years ago. We had a k-8 district and a separate high school district that were both 100 percent contained within the village boundaries. Double the administrative staff. Made no sense.
Comment by TR Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:46 pm
I hate it when Andy Shaw is right.
Comment by Phil T. Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:48 pm
When you track back through the links, almost everything opinion without the actual studies that document the numbers.
In comparison, here is an actual study:
http://www.lhs210.net/about/consolidation.aspx
Comment by Hamlet's Ghost Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:49 pm
It’s not just rural areas that have small districts. Skokie, with a population of 65,000, has 5 elementary districts that send their grads to a 6th high school district. River Grove has 10,668 residents and 2 elementary districts.
The reality is that districts won’t voluntarily consolidate. It is up to the State to require districts that meet certain criteria to consolidate.
Comment by anon2 Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:53 pm
The biggest hindrance to consolidation is that voters are all in favor of government consolidation and eliminating redundancies. Just, you know, not THEIR government redundancies. While some township stuff has been merged, the number of stakeholders in township government is smaller than the number of voters in favor of the consolidations/eliminations. Try merging OPRF and Proviso and watch what happens.
If we aren’t going to hold voters responsible for their role in the 6,900+ governments then we’ll never actually be able to fix these problems.
Comment by Nuke the Whales Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 1:59 pm
I agree with word and somewhat with IS. Classroom teachers should be paid more (especially outside of Chicago and the suburbs), since they are at ground zero of society’s woes. Administrators should also be paid well, as they have to coordinate these massive mandates and the teachers that implement them. However, there is has to be consolidation to curb costs; to eliminate administrative overlap. Pension costs will be adjusted accordingly.
Comment by Mr. B.A. Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:00 pm
Anon- before you comment-try reading. I am saying the admin overlap is all the admin sups and their staff. Dozens of aillinois districts are single school. That makes no sense and should be easy targets. I am not calling classroom personnel fat cats
Comment by Sue Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:09 pm
Actually the BGA presented the cost conclusions of the Illinois School Funding Reform Commission incorrectly. The $3.5 billion over the next decade to achieve fair per-pupil funding for schools in every district was the minimum estimate for the evidence based model. In one committee meeting held on March 14 that I attended Rep Fred Crespo asked a panel of experts if that minimum number took into consideration any type of inflation factor over the ten year period of time. The answer from the experts on the evidence based model was no that number was static and that a reasonable indexed minimum number would be higher than that, but the panel declined to offer up such a number.
Comment by Rod Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:11 pm
Grotesque, consolidate now. Force it on these tiny districts.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:22 pm
Additionally, in our 170 square mile district I deal with 9 “township road commissioners”. All elected and all with a township truck which is usually a 3/4 diesel pickup at $60,000 each and a tidy salary on top of their regular job.
At most we need two. At most.
Back to schools- If we eliminated school boards, the cost of education would drop in a big way. They are the ones most resistant to consolidation and change. If left to the professionals we would be in a much better place.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:22 pm
Maybe change the statute to make it easier for areas to de-annex from school districts to join higher performing adjacent districts. Kind of a market oriented concept. Right now, badly performing districts have no incentive to improve.
Comment by phocion Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:22 pm
==Try merging OPRF and Proviso and watch what happens.==
Technically, OPRF is already merged, hence the OP and the RF. But Oak Park and River Forest have separate elementary school districts. That might be low hanging fruit.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:25 pm
Typically, with similar consolidation efforts around the country, the district with the lower salaries adopts the salary schedule of the one with higher salaries. So unless you eliminate a lot of redundancy or average out the salaries, you might not see any cost savings.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:28 pm
I’d be interested in hearing what former Rep. Roger Eddy has to say as a former superintendent in a rural school district.
Comment by anon2 Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:37 pm
How does CA spend less than $100/student but IL spends $518?
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:37 pm
@ Ron
California schools receive a great proportion of State-level funding than Illinois schools. In a majority of cases, schools in California receive most of their funding by state income tax, not property tax.
Comment by BK Bro Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:50 pm
BK, that doesn’t answer how CA spends 20% of what we spend. That just tells me where the money comes from.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:58 pm
And who says educational bureaucracies serve students or families better. I am superintendent of two small districts that survive largely on local money. Consolidating them with our neighboring large town district would cost the state an extra $795,500 just in general state aid for our 370 students. The property tax rate for my two small districts would increase 54%. Explain where we save money?
Comment by Frustrated Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:59 pm
This is insane:
The state’s largest unit district, Chicago, is barely afloat but full of bloat, according to the MPC study, spending $350 per student on general administration in 2014.
That’s below the statewide average but almost 70 percent above the national norm and nearly four times more than New York City and Los Angeles, where administrative spending is less than $100 per pupil.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:03 pm
Curious, are most of these administrative workers union?
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:04 pm
Do the administrative workers get taxpayer guaranteed pensions?
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm
==California schools receive a great proportion of State-level funding than Illinois schools. In a majority of cases, schools in California receive most of their funding by state income tax, not property tax.==
Overall, per the BLS, California spends $3,000 LESS per pupil on education than Illinois. So it goes beyond the admin costs.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm
=Do the administrative workers get taxpayer guaranteed pensions?=
We are not union. If we are licensed as an educator (similar to a teacher) we are in TRS, the rest are in IMRF. If, that is, you work the qualifying number of hours.
That is how it goes with public employees.
Comment by JS Mill Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:11 pm
These administrators are living the high life off us poor private sector workers. Cut em.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:11 pm
Nah, just raise property taxes.
Comment by Robert the 1st Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:16 pm
Buy yet Rauner insisits we need more K-12 spending. Duh?
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:34 pm
- City Zen - Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 2:25 pm:
==Try merging OPRF and Proviso and watch what happens.==
Technically, OPRF is already merged, hence the OP and the RF. But Oak Park and River Forest have separate elementary school districts. That might be low hanging fruit.
District 200 has always been comprised of students from OP and RF. As for consolidating OP and RF elementary schools, no thanks. OP overtaxes its residents. Merging D90 with D97 would raise my taxes not lower them.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:52 pm
Based upon my anecdotal examination of superintendent salaries in a couple of other states, Illinois superintendentstate make a lot more, accounting for number of students, poverty, etc.
So it may not be just more districts. It may also be higher salaries for administrative staff.
Comment by Sir Reel Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 3:58 pm
Ron once upon a time when CPS needed massive numbers of clerks the majority of administrators were unionized. Now the majority are non-unionized although the Chicago principal’s association is part of the AFL-CIO it has no contract and its members would be considered “exempt” from the FLSA overtime rules and under the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act are management. I hope that answers your question.
Comment by Rod Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:03 pm
Based upon my anecdotal examination of superintendent salaries in a couple of other states, Illinois superintendentstate make a lot more, accounting for number of students, poverty, etc.”
That’s horrible. Illinois cost of living is barely over the national average.
Comment by Ron Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:05 pm
Not to mention many districts would be consolidating with districts with 1) less funding 2) lower test scores. What does that do for district performance?
Comment by NoGifts Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:21 pm
…..and while we are at, let’s consolidate the regional superintendents office to….zero.
Comment by blue dog dem Friday, Apr 7, 17 @ 4:22 pm