Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker campaign takes advantage of new Facebook tech
Next Post: The House’s back and forth over the new GOP plan
Posted in:
* Sun-Times editorial…
If you can get 90 percent in politics, you take it and do a victory dance. Unless, perhaps, you are Gov. Bruce Rauner.
On Friday, Rauner’s secretary of education, Beth Purvis, said the governor supports “90 percent” of a bill passed by Democrats in the state Legislature to make school funding fairer in Illinois. But, she said, he wants more.
We can only wonder, as we have before, about the governor’s notions when it comes to compromise.
Sign the bill when it reaches your desk, governor. Grab a win. […]
Politics is the art of the imperfect, where 90 percent can make for an excellent deal.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. That SJ-R headline was the worst in Bruce Rauner’s 2+ years as governor.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker campaign takes advantage of new Facebook tech
Next Post: The House’s back and forth over the new GOP plan
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Superstars don’t box in Governors by freely admitting that 90% “just isn’t good enough”
The fact Dr. Purvis felt comfortable saying that indicates that Superstars know… Rauner isn’t doing anything until Rauner gets everything… and they’re all cool with that as the message internally, that letting big slip, meh, it’s nothing of concern.
That’s why the advice from Geo. Ryan and Jim Edgar will never resonate with Rauner and the disciples of Raunerism… like Dr. Purvis.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:47 am
Why should Rauner sign SB 1? It is being held by the Senate, negotiation is still active (HB 4069 filed 6/14/17 by Rep. Bob Pritchard), and Rauner would have to eat his words (SB 1 is bailout for CPS).
Plus SB 1 will need $8 Billion in NEW money over 10 years (PLUS Billions more for new schools and classrooms to implement the smaller class sizes in SB 1).
SB 1 eliminates direct and dedicated funding for Summer School for special ed, and direct and dedicated funding for special ed teachers.
SB 1 is a very expensive, unfunded attempt by school administrators to get almost total control of State funds for schools. (The local control part Rauner supports)
We can do better. THE problem remains funding schools, NOT the formulas.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:47 am
Exactly right. Does Rauner lack governing talent or is he doing this willfully? Or some of both?
Either way, it tells me that we have to be careful of so-called outsiders who claim to not be politicians. These people thrive in an environment of citizens who hate government to the point that they want outsiders to come in and smash it.
As the old saying goes, the grass ain’t always greener on the other side. Quinn’s and Madigan’s “duct tape” has been objectively much better than what Rauner has offered. That is not praising the Democrats so much as criticizing the governor.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:51 am
winners:
You missed the point. Stating that you’ve gotten 90% of what you wanted but then stating you’d still veto something is an insane position to take.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:51 am
===We can do better. THE problem remains funding schools, NOT the formulas.===
Ummmm….No.
Right now we can’t do better.
But you had a majority of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate finally agree that this is better than the status quo.
Take what you can get now. Continue to work on further improvements later. That’s how government and politics and compromise works. (If you want to Govern)
Comment by Biscuit Head Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:52 am
“I always win.”
So 90 percent is losing?
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:54 am
It was also the most honest headline from the governors folks we’ve seen. He’s just not someone who will take 90% on anything.
Comment by AC Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 9:56 am
The Governor should take “yes” for an answer.
Comment by Michael Westen Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:03 am
The reason the headline hurt Rauner was because it revealed the Governor’s failure as a governor, by one of his own top staffer.
It was, in one small message, what citizens needed to know about how Rauner had deliberately made things worse for all of us.
Rauner saw a government he didn’t like, led by people he didn’t like, helping citizens he considered parasitic, in a state he owns a home, and decided to shake it into pieces so that it would die, permitting him to destroy the people and things he didn’t like.
It has been if Ebenezer Scrooge bought all the poor houses, so that he could shut them down and then force the homeless dependents into what Scrooge saw as honest work. Destroy them in order to save the survivors.
Rauner wanted to make Illinois a global business state by roping off and euthanizing citizens who had no place in his vision of a global state.
Rauner didn’t want a democracy with a 90% compromise success rate, Rauner wanted a Potmkin Labor Plantation, able to compete with third-world wages and regulations.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:03 am
Pat Quinn would have taken 50% any day of the week.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:07 am
We’re not going to accept 90%. Madigan needs to compromise so we can get to 100%. /s
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:07 am
“In truth, our CURRENT funding formula would likely be meeting most needs if it was properly funded.”
“It does attempt to funnel more funding to those districts with less property wealth, but it is still using the foundation level of spending per pupil from 2008.”
“NO FORMULA will work properly with that track record of underfunding.” (so says the lobbyist for the Illinois Association of School Boards)
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:07 am
Damaging because it swept away all the dishonest rhetoric and revealed the true intention, which is to continue squeezing the beast.
Rauner is not incompetent, stupid or insane. He’s achieving what he can in killing off as much as he can of “collectivist” institutions.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:10 am
Couldn’t you turn that around and say if Manar can get 90 percent of what he wants from Rauner, wouldn’t he be equally well advised to accept it?
Why is Chicago entitled to an extra benefit, even if it falls short of the alleged bailout?
Comment by jim Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:13 am
Proper funding requires increased taxes. Period. Full stop.
Increased revenue is mandatory. Not optional. Not a negotiating point. Not something to be traded off for a want. It is a REQUIREMENT of Rauner and the GOP’s proposed school reform and proposed budget. That is a revenue requirement times 2.
Until the Governor actually proposes and actively pushes for new taxes instead of “accepting the Democrat proposal”, nothing will get done.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:17 am
===Couldn’t you turn that around and say if Manar can get 90 percent===
You could, but you also have to pass a bill.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:25 am
=Plus SB 1 will need $8 Billion in NEW money over 10 years (PLUS Billions more for new schools and classrooms to implement the smaller class sizes in SB 1).=
That is factually incorrect. SB 1 will distribute NEW money based on the identified Tiers with an emphasis on moving Tier 1 (schools furthest away from funding targets) into Tier 2 and so on. Tier 1 schools will get the bulk of the new money. When working on the formula, much discussion occurred regarding “how much money is needed.” The reality is that it will NOT take $8 billion in new money to fully fund the formula and if it did, the state cannot do it anyway. So, here is the model, put what you can into it and the developed a way to distribute the funds based on moving those furthest away from targets first. That seems to make sense.
=SB 1 eliminates direct and dedicated funding for Summer School for special ed, and direct and dedicated funding for special ed teachers.=
Money does not have to be “dedicated” if the outcomes are actually the target and not propping up the emotional needs of teachers by having a “dedicated” funding line, although it actually does based on desired outcomes and staffing needed to reach those outcomes. There is going to be more funding for special ed and not less. But some people refuse to understand.
=SB 1 is a very expensive, unfunded attempt by school administrators to get almost total control of State funds for schools. (The local control part Rauner supports)=
You argue like a child. As if school admin are not dedicated people who care deeply about
children and do not have children of their own. These same admin were once teachers and now have huge responsibility. We have advocated for a funding system based on outcomes and not just for more. The IEA/IFT have never articulated a funding formula, just add more to the current one. No outcomes or measures needed. This formula sets the table for the Balanced Accountability Model, where by outcomes matter.
=We can do better. THE problem remains funding schools, NOT the formulas.=
SB1 is not the Evidence Based Model in it’s purest form. That is unfortunate and maybe that can happen over time. So yes, we can do better. But it is a huge improvement over the current model based on nothing but a dart board.
=n truth, our CURRENT funding formula would likely be meeting most needs if it was properly funded.=
Possibly, but the money thrown in is never based on anything related to outcomes or student learning.
=It does attempt to funnel more funding to those districts with less property wealth, but it is still using the foundation level of spending per pupil from 2008.=
Incorrect. It uses actual FY 16 or FY 17 funding as the Base Funding Minimum. No Red Numbers.
=NO FORMULA will work properly with that track record of underfunding.” (so says the lobbyist for the Illinois Association of School Boards)=
True.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:25 am
“Take what you can get now. Continue to work on further improvements later. That’s how government and politics and compromise works. (If you want to Govern)”
I agree. If we did this, how much better off we would likely be today. We’d have passed our third budget and would have info available from previous reforms to try to amend them. But we’re stuck on not being able to pass one full budget in three years–or any reforms, ironically.
Let this be a lesson to all, from any part of the political spectrum. Like the old saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. When millions of lives are impacted, that really drives home the point, to me.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:33 am
JSMill - It is silly to disagree with IASB (and everyone else) that the foundation level has not increased since 2008.
School superintendents are good and bad like any other profession - certainly not all have been teachers, and their “huge responsibility” means they want control, as do most people.
At least you have stopped making completely false claims about special ed in SB 1 (and stopped calling me a liar for quoting parts of SB 1), and now make only misleading claims.
Accountability in SB 1, or in ESSA, or “sets the table for the Balanced Accountability Model”?
They have about the same accountability as No Child Left Behind had - good intentions, now completely discarded.
After claims were made for months that SB 1 would cost $3.5 billion over 10 years, now you completely avoid the subject.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 10:42 am
In what classroom is 90% less than an A- or a B+? Come on! Get it done.
Comment by W Flag Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 11:26 am
So apparently to Rauner, 99% of what he want’s would be a compromise he could live with? Or will he only compromise when he gets 100% because he figures 101% would just be greedy?
Comment by How Ironic Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 1:39 pm
This media may turn out to be win-win for him. If he doesn’t get an inch more, he can say that he’s decided to sign it anyway given popular and editorial opinion. I’m not sure that’s such a rough place to be.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Jun 15, 17 @ 3:37 pm