Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

The “reverse Robin Hood” AV?

Posted in:

Illinois

The governor also made some technical changes to the bill, including creating a per-pupil “hold harmless” provision in 2021 and beyond – rather than a district-level “hold harmless” provision, which was included in the original bill

A “technical” change? Um, no.

* Chicago Tribune…

Rauner would keep that so-called “hold harmless” provision in place until the 2020-21 school year, then switch the way funding is calculated from a per-district basis to a per-pupil basis. The upshot is that CPS and some Downstate districts that have seen declining enrollments stand to lose money.

“Some”? It’s more than “some.”

* Sun-Times…

For example, changing a provision in 2020 from holding each district harmless overall to holding it harmless on a per-pupil rate would affect the hundreds of Illinois districts losing students, and that’s problematic, Ostro said, because the state’s funding already is too low.

“Under the SB 1 model no district loses money year over year — it’s about how new dollars are distributed,” she said. “That’s important when districts are already inadequately funded.”

But how many is it?

* The House Democrats have a spreadsheet which claims 222 school districts lost enrollment between F& 2015 and FY 2016, or just shy of a quarter of all districts. Click here for the list. Some of those lost just a few pupils, but if that continues and the governor has his way, those districts are still going to be hurt.

Of those 222 districts which lost population, 156 were in House Republican districts, mostly Downstate. Click here for that info. Rep. Avery Bourne, a Republican school funding negotiator, has six school districts which lost population, according to the HDem spreadsheet.

Needless to say, the districts which are gaining lots of students are generally in areas that are economically thriving. So a per pupil-based hold harmless would benefit those well-off districts at the expense of those which are struggling.

* What’s needed is a compromise. Allow many of the growing districts to receive more money to help with their expanding needs, but allow districts with declining student populations to hold onto their money.

Just because a district loses students doesn’t mean its fixed costs decrease by the same percentage, after all.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 9:54 am

Comments

This should cause the required number of republican legislators vote to override the governor’s AV and make SB1 law. That’s my prediction.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 9:57 am
It’s an overreach and portions of it are ideological in nature. IPI wants a lb of flesh from their age old nemesis: the teacher’s salary, among other things like TIFs and big bad Chicago.

Comment by Sonny Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 9:59 am
Thank you for that point Rich. Spot on. The lights cost the same, the heat costs the same, the salaries cost the same whether there are 10 or 25 students in the room

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:01 am
This is a case where giving some schools losing students financial help in consolidating would be a great idea. It won’t fix all the problems but will help a situation that needs to happen in many places.

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:01 am
===Rep. Avery Bourne, a Republican school funding negotiator, has six school districts which lost population, according to the HDem spreadsheet===

Ms. Bourne was also “confused” as to the 3/5th and simple majority thingy.

Ms. Bourne will say what Rauner wants said, no matter how numbers and spreadsheets look.

Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:02 am
Hold harmless forever?

A school district could lose 50% of its students, but receive the same amount from the State?

Where is the incentive for schools to encourage attendance?

In fact a school would be rewarded for having fewer students.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:02 am
==the salaries cost the same whether there are 10 or 25 students in the room==

Raises don’t have to cost the same, people retire, etc. The salary cost is not necessarily fixed, unless of course the pupil population is growing.

Comment by OldIllini Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:06 am
“* What’s needed is a compromise. Allow many of the growing districts to receive more money to help with their expanding needs, but allow districts with declining student populations to hold onto their money.” As previous commenter mentioned, at what point do we recognize the need to cut when enrollment has declined? Yes, some fixed costs are not scalable, but Rahm has closed a number of schools in Chicago and there are plenty more with low enrollment that could be consolidated.

Comment by Put the fun in unfunded Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:07 am
I finished listening to Andy Manar and Jason Barickman this morning on WBEZ. Manar kept using the word “compromise”, trying to find common ground. Barickman kept using the work “Madigan”. I’m kind of speechless on Barickman. He must have been given a set of talking points and told not to deviate.

Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:10 am
As I said yesterday the lifting of hold harmless is part of a cost containment strategy in the Governor’s AV of SB 1. He knows, as do the Democrats who are not discussing it, the costs of SB 1 to fund the evidence based model are between 3 and 6 billion more a year on a state wide basis. As Rep Crespo pointed out in public committee those estimates are not inflation adjusted.

The Governor is totally opposed to going back to the income tax well for more money, the Democrats just don’t want to talk about it. The Republicans in the legislature are all for the evidence based model and equity in theory and would cut human services to pay for it before increasing income taxes. There is a lot of duplicity involved here from both Democrats and Republicans, so what else is new?

Comment by Rod Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:11 am
Rich- Honest question… How can compromise be done now that Rauner has issued the AV? Can he withdraw it (I don’t see that happening considering his intractability to date)? I’m just not seeing where changes other than those Rauner put in his AV can be done now. Wouldn’t it be a better course to tweak these sorts of things after SB 1 is overridden- if the votes are there. Saw on a tweet that Bill Mitchell is planning an announcement on Thursday. Maybe there will be enough lame duck R’s in the House to do an override. Flowchart on SB 1’s possible outcomes: https://twitter.com/StateRepAmmons/status/892753054860288001/photo/1

Comment by Anon221 Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:12 am
The Sheriff of Nottingham. Faithfully protecting a system that ensures money is funneled to the haves and is kept from the have nots

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:15 am
==Where is the incentive for schools to encourage attendance?==

Gift cards? They worked for DCFS./s

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:15 am
==Just because a district loses students doesn’t mean its fixed costs decrease by the same percentage, after all.==
Yes. And often in these districts, the needs of the remaining average pupil are greater….more living in poverty, more from single parent households, more with special education needs. So the per pupil costs increase.

Comment by Robert the Bruce Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:16 am
Shire reeve Rauner hath taken aim at yonder Castle of Chicago and hit many of the shire downstate’s peasants.

Shire reeve’s knights laughingly cackle in humor.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:21 am
==Ms. Bourne was also “confused” as to the 3/5th and simple majority thingy.==

They must not teach that at Wash U

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:22 am
==Hold harmless forever?==

There is no special “forever” in legislation of this sort. It is the law until changed.

Comment by walker Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:22 am
The way that the Governor has structured the hold harmless provision, in the case where a district’s enrollment remains flat but their local resources go up, they would not face a reduction from the State.

However, if a district’s local resources go down, but their enrollment takes an even larger drop, they’ll get cut from the state. I think Robin Hood is probably a fair description.

And not sure why compromise is needed on this point. As enrollment goes up, the formula is designed to get more funds to those districts. As enrollment goes down, less of the new funds would go to that district. The Governor’s proposal wants to essentially punish districts twice for declining enrollment.

Comment by Juice Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:25 am
==He knows, as do the Democrats who are not discussing it, the costs of SB 1 to fund the evidence based model are between 3 and 6 billion more a year on a state wide basis.==

Then why has he gone on and on and on and on since 2014 about his plan to give the schools more money?

Comment by JohnnyPyleDriver Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:25 am
This charade is what Bruce Rauner and the IPI call “transparency”.

Comment by Winnin' Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:26 am
==Where is the incentive for schools to encourage attendance?
In fact a school would be rewarded for having fewer students==

That’s consumer mentality, not citizen mentality. A public education is a constitutional right. Every citizen is to be educated beyond their poverty, social, racial and physical/mental status.

Families that can move, do. Those left behind often can’t. This leave a remaining student population with greater needs. A special education teacher has fewer students, but greater needs than general education teachers with more students.

We cannot walk away from our citizens who need more from us in order to catch up with us. We aren’t Darwinists telling struggling citizens to accept their fates. We aren’t allowed to do that, morally or legally.

All citizens get government help and many get more help than they could ever pay back. This means that all of us who can pay, pay a bit more to cover these citizens. Taxes aren’t a value using consumer mentality, but are a value using a citizen mentality.

When it comes to government costs, you have to have been educated in a civics class to fully understand why we do things in government differently, than we do in a marketplace. All of us aren’t just customers, we are also citizens.

Your thinking is wrong.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:29 am
Thank you for your observations Vanilla - pithy and on the mark.

Comment by Galena Guy Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:37 am
Thats what happens when one side (finally) drafts their changes, but does so in private, with input from like minded folks. Typical rauner–this is what i want, shut up and just do it.

Comment by Langhorne Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:37 am
==That’s consumer mentality, not citizen mentality==

But public education is under attack.

Charter schools and vouchers are said to be the alternatives.

And Charters find ways to remove any student they do not want to serve.

And, of course, private schools receiving vouchers (or money coming from tax credits) are NOT subject to almost all Federal and State laws.

SB 1 as now written is extreme local control, funded by State money that will remain constant even if local schools find ways to remove students just as charters and vouchers do.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:39 am
@winnersandlosers

Schools lose attendance for lots of factors out of their control like factory shutdowns or corporate relocations.

Yet schools are vital parts of communities, particularly rural ones, and keeping them open matters a lot for property values and economic/general welfare of a place.

Hold harmless is essential for rural schools that have fixed costs like long bus routes no matter how enrollment goes down.

Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:39 am
Sure would like to see a Student/Teacher/Administrator Ratio spreadsheet on all these School Districts, if we are going to talk about fixed costs.

Comment by WhoKnew Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:46 am
At some point, if enrollment drops substantially, districts receive funding for students that do not exist….the three year district hold harmless with then a three year rolling average is a good compromise- allows time to plan and eventually mirrors reality. The hold harmless that was in the last formula was removed when it became very real that school received the SAME funding even if they had substantially more local revenue or substantial drops in enrollment. Hold harmless should not be forever….

Comment by Elliott Ness Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:46 am
VanillaMan 2018

Comment by Archiesmom Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:48 am
@Vanilla. its been proven time and time again there are many individuals who treat the school system like a business designed to enrich the adults working in it. Love the sentiment but we need controls

Comment by Mike Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:57 am
Rich observes, “Just because a district loses students doesn’t mean its fixed costs decrease by the same percentage, after all.”

Funny how educational institutions use increased enrollment to argue for more money, but are unwilling to accept that fewer students might cost less money.

And, following Rich’s logic, districts with empty seats would get money that otherwise would be going to districts that are growing.

This hold harmless approach is politically good, but has little to do with putting the money where the kids are.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:00 am
- OldIllini - Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 10:06 am:

==the salaries cost the same whether there are 10 or 25 students in the room==

The salary of the individual teacher would cost the same, but there would probably be fewer teachers salaries to pay.

Example; 250 students x 10 students per teacher would be 25 teachers.

250 students x 25 students per teacher would be only 10 teachers.

Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:00 am
==SB 1 as now written is extreme local control, funded by State money that will remain constant even if local schools find ways to remove students just as charters and vouchers do.==

That’s a valid concern, but an awfully big if. I’m unaware how a local public school can dump unwanted students out of a district’s responsibilities. Within a district, but not out of a district. Rare and severe situations perhaps.

-There is no proof that there are many individuals who treat school systems like a business to enrich themselves. There are tens of thousands committed to teaching and children whom are certainly not being financially enriched. Your proof is questionable as opposed to the overwhelming proof of the exact opposite. Teachers do not enrich themselves. Don’t believe what political millionaires tell you otherwise.-

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:09 am
== Example; 250 students x 10 students per teacher would be 25 teachers.
250 students x 25 students per teacher would be only 10 teachers.
==

That doesn’t consider class size per grade level. Split grade classes don’t always work well, so it is only partially true.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:09 am
Does this explain why the BTIA hid their numbers behind a password yesterday?

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:15 am
Is Ms. Bournes’ high school graduating class also losing enrollment?

Comment by blue dog dem Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:20 am
==I’m unaware how a local public school can dump unwanted students out of a district’s responsibilities==

(1) Suspend them until they drop out of school.
(2) Do nothing about students who are truant.
(3) Instead of identifying students for special education, place them in Response to Intervention (RTI) or in Multi Tiered System of Support (MTSS).

We have an extremely detailed Federal special education law (IDEA) because local schools were not providing special education for many students.

IDEA (then called EHA) did NOT become law until 1975.

SB 1 eliminates direct and dedicated funding for special education teachers and for special education summer school.

Believe it or not, SB 1 funds special education based on 141 GENERAL education students (exactly the same for every school district no matter how different the percentage of kids in special ed).

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:21 am
Computers, digital connections, and software are enabling education to be centered on individual students. The one room schoolhouse may return in a different form.

Schools need to move into the future. Rural schools in particular cannot just keep consolidating and bussing kids long distances.

Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:27 am
SB 1 rewards bad behavior.

(1) Hold harmless so schools lose nothing if students are reduced for ANY reason (almost every superintendent can identify at least a few students - and sometimes many students - that they would like to get rid of so they can better serve all other students).

(2) Under SB 1, schools can reduce special ed, reduce the number of special ed teachers, etc. and LOSE NO STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDS.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:30 am
Word, I don’t believe the spread sheet looked out far enough beyond when the AV would end the hold harmless provision to see impact. I also don’t understand if the model incorporated the changes impacting all school districts in DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, Cook and Will counties that are subject to what is called Property Tax Extension Limitation Law that limits property tax increases for school districts unless approved by voters. It also impacts all school districts that have any designated tax incentive financing areas within them which goes way beyond Chicago.

As I tried to tell our friend Willy yesterday this is a complex veto.

Comment by Rod Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:31 am
== I’m unaware how a local public school can dump unwanted students out of a district’s responsibilities ==

Just keep testing and testing on the front end, delaying the admission into the special education programs.

We had to fight with the local district to get the needed help for one kid. Thought we had that agreed to, but then another evaluator showed up.for more tests. My wife asked why the tests instead of the program we expected. My wife then handed the evaluator a 3 inch thick file of previous testing, letters back and forth, etc. The evaluator looked it over and asked my wife why we had all this. Her response: because we are going to sue the school district. The kid needing help was in the proper program that afternoon. Our tale is not unique; in fact, it was fairly common at one time.

And that is how school districts can minimize Special Ed.

Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:37 am
VM well said.

Mike also a good point. Not to open a hornets nest but the biggest issue i have is tenure. Every problem we have with teachers seems connected to a guaranteed job and no accountability at all levels. teachers, principals etc.

I am for funding but we need to fix the bad teachers. there ar are great teachers but keeping the bad ones because of a few good ones just seems like bad math

Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:40 am
RNUG: Absolutely true, and it will be worse if SB 1 should become law.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:41 am
==(1) Suspend them until they drop out of school.
(2) Do nothing about students who are truant.
(3) Instead of identifying students for special education, place them in Response to Intervention (RTI) or in Multi Tiered System of Support (MTSS)==.

All those moves are extreme and unpermitted through state law. Parents are empowered to challenge any of them. State advocats can stop any school district from doing this.

There are extreme cases where difficult children are shunted to other schools, but these are rare caeses. Future felons are sent to in-home Programs that cost a lot, far more than finding a in-school solution.

Your concern is valid, however the extent you see this happening would not be permitted once exposed. Superintendents and principals would be terminated.

We need SB1 now. The concerns you’ve detailed can be prevented and monitored to avoid this kind of abuse.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:44 am
So, in essence, southern Republican districts like Avery Bourne that have six districts losing population will receive less $, which will in return trigger higher property taxes in rural areas. While giving more populated growing districts more $. Not sure how that will sit with southern Republican base.

Comment by So tired of political hacks Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:47 am
==The concerns you’ve detailed can be prevented and monitored to avoid this kind of abuse==

Monitored by whom?

ISBE and the Feds are de-regulating.

Sure, wealthy and well-informed parents can take action, but not everyone else.

SB 1 will make this situation worse, not for all school districts and for all parents, but for too many.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 11:53 am
=All those moves are extreme and unpermitted through state law==

What utopian world do you live in? ISBE and the Feds have been ENCOURAGING RTI/MTSS on the absurd theory that they “prevent disability”.

==Parents are empowered to challenge any of them==

Look at what RNUG just stated (obviously a well informed parent) and what he went through.

Most parents have little chance of challenging these actions.

==State advocats can stop any school district from doing this==

In wealthy areas of the State, perhaps mostly yes (and even then there is a severe shortage of advocates).

In Chicago and most of the State, absolutely no.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:01 pm
Schools must balance many concerns regarding Special Ed. Many children present well, but are challenged, some children are told to act out so parents can receive extra state support, children grow out of, and into differing conditions.

Yet, I know of no district systemically shutting out students. They are required by law to serve every citizen within their school boundaries.

There are no fiscal rewards for doing this. SB1 shouldn’t change that. Shutting troubled students out of schools doesn’t save money. SB1 won’t change that.

Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:03 pm
==SB1 shouldn’t change that==

But it does.

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:14 pm
Hold harmless was put in place because we have the worst funded schools in the nation. So even if a district lost half its students and no money, then we would be funding students at the level of some of are neighbors.

Comment by So tired of political hacks Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:23 pm
==I know of no district systemically shutting out students==

BGA: CPS SPECIAL ED POLICY IS ‘DELAY AND DENY’

Parents, teachers and disability rights advocates say new oversight protocols keep kids from getting services they need, while BGA analysis raises questions about Chicago Public Schools’ claims that minority students are over-identified for special ed.
http://www.bettergov.org/news/critics-cps-special-ed-policy-is-%E2%80%98delay-and-deny%E2%80%99

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:26 pm
Looking at Rich’s list, I wouldn’t want to be fielding calls for those 40 legislators (especially Brady & Durkin) for the next month.

Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:44 pm
“Lawmakers should keep the existing formula until an agreement can be reached. Don’t use kids as pawns.”

A rational thought from IPI?

Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 12:46 pm
== Not to open a hornets nest but the biggest issue i have is tenure. Every problem we have with teachers seems connected to a guaranteed job and no accountability at all levels. teachers, principals etc.==
Ghost, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of tenure, especially as it applies to public school teachers.

Comment by Deputy Registrar Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 1:17 pm
Grew up in southern Illinois, in a county that has been losing population since 1900. The school district I grew up in is a poor performer on standardized testing and has a declining population since 1900.

We have over 850 school districts. Some are as small as 60 students. 2500 of these districts have only one school.

As unpopular as it may be, we need more districts consolidating. If parents are voting with their feet (and their children’s school enrollment), why are taxpayers responsible for propping up the declining districts?

I’d vote for a 5 year rolling average, but I’d also whack those places where you have a k-8 laid over a high school.

At a certain point, the jig is up…

Comment by Lynn S. Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 2:18 pm
*250, not 2500. Sorry about that; I’m going to blame my phone keyboard.

Comment by Lynn S. Wednesday, Aug 2, 17 @ 2:20 pm