Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Secondary Illinois bond market in “meltdown”
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* WTTW has a very good story about the ins and outs of SB 1, the education funding reform bill. The whole thing is worth a read, so go check it out. Here’s the end…
Rauner has said he’ll veto the bill as it stands, criticizing the amendment to Chicago Tonight last week, saying it “included hundreds of millions of dollars of extra special treatment to bail out Chicago Public Schools from their years of mismanagement.”
That means for the bill to pass, both the Senate and House would need to override Rauner’s veto. Martire believes SB1 has enough support for that to occur in the Senate.
But in the House, the bill would need 71 votes. And when it was approved last month, it received only 60 votes. Martire said four other Democratic representatives have expressed support SB1, but left Springfield before that vote.
Even with them in tow, it will take bipartisan support to reach that threshold and pass the bill.
“The goal is to get seven legislators, which requires some Republican support, on board for this bill,” he said. “And I think that’s a do-able thing, especially when you get to the heart of how the bill works.”
* Meanwhile, Advance Illinois, one of the education groups that is pushing for the bill’s passage, shared this in its weekly news roundup…
State Representative John Cavaletto recently expressed dissatisfaction with changes to SB1, saying he felt the recent alterations to the bill bail out Chicago schools and short changes schools in the local district. However, several local school administrators are in favor of and have even championed the new school funding formula. What is the root of the opposing views?
That article is here. His local superintendents are really unhappy with Cavaletto. Local school types don’t usually directly criticize their own legislators like they did.
* Related stuff sent along today by Advance Illinois…
* Letter: Illinois (almost) has a school funding formula that will help all students: In response to the editorial “Don’t dare applaud Illinois lawmakers,” the Tribune should applaud the General Assembly’s passage of school funding reform last week.
* Manar: It’s no ‘bailout.’ Rather, this school funding bill is good for every district in Illinois
* Poverty . . . An Equal Opportunity ‘Disrupter’ of Student Success: A University of Illinois at Chicago study released Tuesday analyzed shifts in achievement and other factors throughout Illinois during the No Child Left Behind era. The report shows that achievement gains in Chicago and achievement declines in much of central and southern Illinois now puts achievement in Chicago on par with most downstate districts.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 2:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Secondary Illinois bond market in “meltdown”
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is what it means to be a Raunerite…voting against the interests of your own district so the governor can settle the score with the mayor of Chicago.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 2:28 pm
I have to wonder if members like Cavaletto realize at some point their sugar daddy Rauner will either get beat or get tired of being Gov and ride off leaving them to defend their votes against their districts? And they will do so without Rauner’s money.
Just keep voting against your schools, your service providers and universities and the voters in your district. Sooner or later, the voters will discover what you are doing and when they do, you won’t like it without Rauner’s money to defend you or your record.
Comment by Give Me A Break Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 2:54 pm
So for the districts that get more money than Chicago, since half of them do and mostly are located downstate….is it a bailout for them? As I understand it, CPS actually falls in the middle in the pack. That’s why there are so many Superintendents in favor.
Comment by sideline watcher Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:03 pm
Senate Bill 1 “would cost the state $6.2 billion”
in NEW money. (Illinois Times, June 8, 2017)
$6.2 billion today spread over 10 years would be near $8 billion.
Does anyone think we will increase PK-12 funding by $800 million EACH YEAR for the next 10 years?
Once Senate Bill 1 is examined by people who are NOT active supporters, it will be revealed as giving billions of dollars to 852 school districts WITHOUT any of the restrictions now in law on how the money is spent.
What else could be expected by a bill written by school administrators?
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:05 pm
Matt Masterson’s WBEZ piece was very good and it demonstrates clearly that without additional revenue SB 1 will not achieve its stated goial, because there will be insufficient revenue to create equity amongst districts in Illinois. The one interesting aspect of the report by Masterson is the fact the overall cost estimates for achieving equity for all districts by 2027 which SB 1 claims it sets out to do as requiring an “additional $3.5 billion to $6 billion” in k-12 funding. The Masterson story admits that would mean “Illinois will need to raise taxes.” That means beyond the tax increase in the grand bargain bills.
I have never seen any of the major proponents of the bill admit to that reality. Nor admit to the possibility that such an increase in taxation may in fact not be possible in Illinois right now and SB 1 will end up being yet another unfunded mandate. As always Ralph Martire gets the happy role of calling for additional taxation, because no politician wants to carry that baggage.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:11 pm
If you go to his website he actually is going back at the Supts. He says they would have gotten more under “his” plan and that money is being taken away from his school districts and given to Chicago! This is crazy. Cavaletto has typically been a good man and a strong legislator for education. But when the supts of Centralia, Sandoval, Odin, Salem, and St. Rose come after you, you’re in real trouble with your base. He could see himself in a primary against Jennifer Garrison or Chuck Lane and have a fight on his hands! Many of these supts are like their communities very right leaning conservatives. But Cavaletto will answer to only one man…with the checking account.
Comment by Hit Em With the Hein Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:12 pm
60 yeas
52 nays
No this will not be overridden.
Comment by Tothaq Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:17 pm
The TRIB Letter (above) states “taking into consideration local factors like the number of … students with disabilities”.
No, SB 1 does not do that. It bases special ed funding on the number of GENERAL education students, NOT on the number of students with disabilities.
It states on pages 351 to 352 that funding will be based on ONE special ed position for each 141 students in K-12.
One special ed position for 141 GENERAL ed students in Chicago, one for 141 GENERAL ed students in Cairo, one for 141 in Taylorville, etc.
On page 254, SB 1 ELIMINATES direct and dedicated funding for special education teachers.
On page 281, SB 1 ELIMINATES direct and dedicated funding for Summer School for special ed students.
And it says those funds must be used for “special education SERVICES authorized under this code”. (which given the vague language defining special education under 14-1.08 can be for almost anything)
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:23 pm
hit em === But when the supts of Centralia, Sandoval, Odin, Salem, and St. Rose come after you, you’re in real trouble with your base. ===
Way wrong. All the people you named have come out publicly and forcefully in favor of a massive Chicago bailout. If any of these people run, that message will be burned in with untold millions. Also, why would any of these people want to take a massive pay cut? They think they have headaches now….
Comment by hot chocolate Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:27 pm
winners and losers- Chris Koch a former special educator, tried to expand the special education limits a few years back. Under the guise of “local control” any superintendent or business manger that is for that type of language is simply getting what some really want. Save on a large portion of their budgets. It’s not about the kids… Don’t even start on that. This bill is not sustainable with our current conditions. I would say nice try, but it’s not.
Comment by Walter MItty Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 3:32 pm
Walter MItty: Yes, when Chris Koch was State Superintendent of Education he actively supported school administrators who tried to eliminate special education class size limits, drafted a Regulation to do that, and (after a battle that lasted over a year) was stopped ONLY by the Members of the State Board of Education (appointed by the Governor) who refused to vote to approve the elimination.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 4:02 pm
The special ed situation you mention is not characterized correctly. It was not about the number of special ed students in a class. The effort was to get rid of the limit on the percentage of students with IEPs that could be in a mainstream class if they wanted to be. The Illinois limit was more constrictive than the federal limit and the end result was that some students with IEPs were not able to take mainstream classes because it would exceed the percentage and the district could not afford to add another class section. In other words, the rule in some cases ends up having the opposite of its intended effect to help special ed students.
And the ISBE Board was going to vote to change the rule, so it was never called for a vote. That’s how it was stopped.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 4:46 pm
I don’t know how to respond to those remarks as, correct. That is how it went down. If passed, it would have been ripe to set special education back 30 years. Just like this would. When given the choice in tough times, they will chose finances. Not the right thing for kids. Don’t be so naive.
Comment by Walter Mitty Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 5:13 pm
@Winners and Losers- rather than going point by point I will simply state that your posts with regard to SB 1 and Chris Koch range from serious misrepresentations to total lies.
You have definitely failed to look at and/or understand the model.
the 1-141 ratio is a lie.
Special ed will benefit.
Federal law still prevails.
Chris Koch wanted us to go back to the federal standards (BTW- that is what most states follow) but the shriekiing SPED teachers went nuts.
You are a liar and need to stop.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 5:34 pm
Anonymous - You are just wrong. First, it is nonsense to say “more constrictive than the federal limit” as there is NO Federal limit.
Second, as Chris Koch stated below, the proposal was to REPEAL all special ed class size limits
(226.730 is the limit on students in general ed classrooms AND class size limits in special ed classrooms).
“Last week the Board voted 5-1 in favor of putting out for public comment the REPEAL of the rules that define special education AND general education class size limits (Sections 226.730 and 226.731). The rulemaking is posted on the agency’s website at http://www.isbe.net/rules/proposed/default.htm and the proposed amendments will be published in the Illinois Register on Friday, March 8, 2013, (http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/index/register/home.html), which will begin the official 45-day public comment period. The public comment period will end at close of business on April 22, 2013. The rules will go to the State Board for adoption in late spring.”
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 5:38 pm
JSMill - It is one thing not to understand SB 1, to not have read SB 1, but it is quite another thing to accuse those who HAVE READ SB 1 (the actual bill, not some summary of it) of lies.
I invite anyone to actually read Pages 351 and 352 of SB 1, Amendment 2, that passed both the House and the Senate.
It clearly states 1 special education position for 141 K-12 students.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 5:44 pm
In addition, in an even more ridiculous provision on pages 351 and 352, for Pre-Kindergarten ONLY, SB 1 provides for ONE teacher for 141 students with disabilities.
So SB 1 provides for ONE special education teacher for 141 GENERAL education students AND
ONE special education teachers for Pre-Kindergarten ONLY for 141 students with disabilities.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 5:55 pm
JSMill - I await your apology.
(X) Special education investments. Each Organizational Unit shall receive funding based on the average teacher salary for grades K through 12 to cover special education as follows:
SB0001ham002
(i) one FTE teacher position for every 141 combined ASE of pre-kindergarten children with disabilities and all kindergarten through grade 12 students;
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 8, 17 @ 6:08 pm
SB1 will be hard to override without some changes. Is CPS willing to support any changes that reduce their funding from what they would of received with the version of SB1 that passed will be a key question?
Comment by Debbie Friday, Jun 9, 17 @ 6:23 am