Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Event list
Posted in:
* The Senate President has responded to Gov. Rauner’s press release from earlier today demanding a “clean” K-12 approp bill…
Statement from the Office of Illinois Senate President John J. Cullerton regarding the governor’s remarks on education funding:
“Governor Rauner said in his budget speech that no schools should lose funding, and yet more than one-third of the school districts in Illinois lose money under his plan.
He would force schools across Illinois to slash services and staff. Some might not be able to open or stay open next year.
Chicago schools alone lose $74 million. Governor Rauner’s plan cuts funding for schools in East St. Louis and Naperville as well.
That’s not acceptable. Our students deserve better.
I am encouraged that the governor and Republicans recognize the current system’s failings. They said they want a system that recognizes the needs of rural and low-income communities. Lucky for them, that plan is pending in the Illinois Senate and they will soon get the chance to vote for it.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:34 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Today’s quotable
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Event list
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Cullerton: Pass an extremely flawed school funding formula bill (which almost NO ONE understands, that may not be better than the current formulas and that will reduce special education funding by almost 1/3) OR will we NOT fund schools.
Rauner: Put a little more money into the current formulas, and since some schools now have fewer students or their property values have gone up, some schools will get less money next year.
Comment by winners and losers Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:47 pm
I have a very bad feeling that this is going to turn out like the “Memorial Day massacre” of a few years ago. Hundreds of pages of a new bill, no one reads it before voting on it, no one ‘vets’ it, it passes, and school districts get stuck with something that no one can live with - - and no time to financially prepare for the upcoming 2016-17 school year.
Comment by East Central Illinois Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Welp, GOP GA, “Red” or “Green”…
Will Rauner have you out to dry, or own his Veto?
Ugh.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:55 pm
“hang”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:56 pm
Cullerton, what matters is per pupil funding, not per district funding. If CPS has lost students and if some schools have more local funds from higher property values, then the state should provide them with less $, and give that $ to districts that need it. I hope Cullerton’s staffers feel guilt for blatantly lying to the people of IL.
Comment by John Rawls Monday, May 9, 16 @ 2:58 pm
Adm. Cullerton: “Run out the long nines. Fire on the uproll and give that cur what for! Helm! Hard to port. Cut his wake and starboard gun crew prepare to rake him through!
Comment by Honeybear Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:01 pm
==That’s not acceptable. Our students deserve better.==
This is like punching somebody in the face and saying “This is unacceptable, you shouldn’t have a bloody nose.”
Comment by Dale Cooper Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:02 pm
Chicago is not the most sympathetic example, Sen Cullerton. CPS spent $2,295.94 more per student than the state average last year.
There is the issue of CPS’ management and imbalanced budgets. In 2000, CPS had 93,000 students in 86 high schools. Today CPS has 101,000 students in 140 high schools, excluding alternative schools. That’s a 63 percent increase in schools against an 8 percent increase in students.
Meanwhile, Chicago continues paying significantly lower property tax rates than most surrounding areas and enjoys home rule authority to raise other taxes as they see fit.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:02 pm
“if some schools have more local funds from higher property values, then the state should provide them with less $, and give that $ to districts that need it.”
I am paying 9% property tax rate b/c of the school funding on my property taxes and I am paying the same income tax as the entire state. But my school district should lose money to pay towards districts that chose to tax at a lower rate? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-suburbs-tax-comparison-met-20151112-story.html
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:06 pm
Does BigBrain think GA will omit colleges, universities and MAP? Seems unlikely
One would think BigBrain would have planned ahead
Comment by Annonin' Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:07 pm
Cullerton should feel the shame of a hypocrite based on his statements. I am told he is a strong supporter of Manar’s SB231. That bill savages many suburban and downstate districts to the benefit of CPS.
Not that Rauner’s bill really does all that much for schools. The reason that he can claim to fully fund is because the GSA claim, statewide, has dropped $120 million due to declining enrollments. Better than nothing, better than SB231 but still an FY2009 funding level.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:09 pm
When do all of these folks accept reality- pensions are robbing Illinois citizens of their future. When nearly 30 percent of current revenue is directed to pensions followed by other mandatory spending ( Medicaid) there is not much left in the pot. Get used to all other spending getting shafted whether we go to 5 percent tax rates or not. Absent some mechanism to bust the pension obligations we will continue circling the drain unless of course we raise taxes way above 5 but not even madigan will support that
Comment by Sue Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:12 pm
“When do all of these folks accept reality- pensions are robbing Illinois citizens of their future.”
+1
Comment by Anon Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:18 pm
===Does BigBrain think GA will omit colleges, universities and MAP? Seems unlikely
One would think BigBrain would have planned ahead===
Members are “Red”, Rauner signs… Ugh.
Members are “Green”, Rauner removes Higher Ed and MAP. Rauner owns those choices, Members - Ugh.
Members are “Red”, Rauner vetoes everything. Rauner owns the mess, all Education falls on Raunerites and Rauner. Ugh.
Instead of the “Scooby-Doo” ending, the Road Rauner will have to find one more trick to “Meep-Meep!” his way out of this.
“Fun!”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:19 pm
===“When do all of these folks accept reality- pensions are robbing Illinois citizens of their future.”===
Pesky Constitution…
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:19 pm
CPS spent $2,295.94 more per student than the state average last year.
CPS also has management problems. In 2000, CPS had 93,000 students in 86 high schools. Today CPS has 101,000 students in 140 high schools, excluding alternative schools. That is a 63 percent increase in schools but only an 8 percent increase in students.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:20 pm
Sue == When do all of these folks accept reality- the failure to keep current on the pensions is robbing Illinois citizens of their future.==
Fixed it for you.
Comment by Whatever Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:21 pm
With the pensions, we have wasted 3 or 4 years (remember when every day was a “$17 million additional” crisis?) of opportunity to re-amortize the debt that isn’t going away, while flailing away at the “bust pension obligations” windmill.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:26 pm
Whatever said “When do all of these folks accept reality- the failure to keep current on the pensions is robbing Illinois citizens of their future.”
And why do you think we haven’t been able to “keep current on the pensions”? Because they have been over-promised and the state can’t afford them!
Comment by Anon Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:31 pm
It is NOT the fault of the pensions, it IS the fault of the legislators to not have fully funded the pensions all along during the years.
Comment by East Central Illinois Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:33 pm
===And why do you think we haven’t been able to “keep current on the pensions”? Because they have been over-promised and the state can’t afford them!===
Geez…
- Anon -
Do yourself a solid. Read McKinney on the “Pension Crisis”, in Crain’s. Get back to us. Seriously.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:40 pm
As Warren Buffet aptly recently said - the politicians who promised these public pension plans never cared whether the payments could be made since the liabilities were far into the future and the then elected officials would be long gone. At least here in Illinois because madigan has been in office so long we could hold him accountable- instead the Dems and their union supporters would rather blame Rauner who had nothing to do with creating the problem. For all of you who say the legislators failed to fund their promises- my response is they never intended to and we are so deep into the unfunded zone-there is really no answer other then cutting everything else and raising revenue at the margins. For all of you bemoaning the cuts in other programs- get over it
Comment by Sue Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:43 pm
== “When do all of these folks accept reality- pensions are robbing Illinois citizens of their future.” ==
More accurately, past failure to fund the pensions properly for 40+ years (20+ in Chicago) is robbing Illinois citizens of their future.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:44 pm
== Because they have been over-promised and the state can’t afford them! ==
The state did NOT over-promise; it UNDER-FUNDED for 40+ years.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:46 pm
After all of the court rulings the issue of the state having to pay the pension debt is pretty much set in stone. Continually bringing it up is pointless. Move forward with solutions that can actually be implemented.
Comment by Union Dues Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:46 pm
===The state did NOT over-promise; it UNDER-FUNDED===
It over-promised by under-funding. This is a semantics argument.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:51 pm
Union Dues- completely agree- the solution is to cut expenses wherever savings can be found. Unfortunately- your Union bros are fighting the Governors efforts on that front. As we already have the highest property and sales taxes in the country- your answer might be to drive up the income tax rates/ of course your solutions never focus on spending cuts- accepting Rsuners offer on the AFMSCE contract would be one solution
Comment by Sue Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:54 pm
Cullerton’s threat to hold up K-12 funding is on the record; clear & convincing. It is he & Madigan who continue to hold Illinois’ school children hostage.
So legislate & appropriate away Johnny & Mike, or don’t. But you’ll own the anger if school doesn’t start on time.
Comment by Ottawa Phil Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:54 pm
Just some math….
Q: What happens when you take the debt payment out of the budget equation, but still pay the annual pension cost?
A: You get a balanced budget.
Further evidence that the PENSION is not the problem.
Facts are just facts.
Sue and other trolls, why didn’t you do your job as a voter and make sure that the ILGA funded the pension properly instead of using the money for corporate welfare and other pet projects, thus creating a mountain of debt?
Inquiring minds want to know why you were not interested in supporting the rule of law?
Comment by JS Mill Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:55 pm
“CPS spent $2,295.94 more per student than the state average last year.”
Why is that? Because CPS has to cover their teachers pension cost, which are nearly $2,000 per student. Something no other district in the state has to do. So that $2,000 is not going in the classroom.
Do you remember when legislators originally promised Chicago an amount equal to 20 to 30 percent of the contributions made to the state retirement system? Well, today Chicago receives less than a third of one percent in teacher pension funding.
Comment by Battle of Witsss Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:56 pm
- Sue -
1.4%, $500 million, and decimate Unions.
Please, keep up with the Turnaround Agenda math
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 3:57 pm
Hey Mr Witsss or is it witless- back in 95- the CPS pension fund was 100 percent funded. The City pension problem is solely the fault of Rich Daley failing to make any payments for more then 10 years. Stop blaming the State/ it was entirely Chicago’ fault. So where was CTU while this pension holiday went on and on and on. They were perfectly happy keeping quiet as CPS raised teacher sslaries
Comment by Sue Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:02 pm
===So legislate & appropriate away Johnny & Mike, or don’t. But you’ll own the anger if school doesn’t start on time.===
The governor is going to have to sign or veto. That’s how things work. Something will reach his desk.
Keep up with the class.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:05 pm
Sue - more than willing to look at cuts. Dont have to agree with the ones the Governor chose. Thanks.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:11 pm
Anon- lol- other then what Rauner has proposed- what cuts are you willing to look at. My recollection is that Madigans proposed budget was 4 B out of whack.
Comment by Sue Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:13 pm
Right, OW. Very good! That is indeed how it works! The Legislature passes something for the Governor to sign or veto. But … the Legislature hasn’t done so for FY2017, have they? So, and try and keep up here and do stop and re-read if necessary, until they do (if they do) it is entirely on Cullerton and Madigan, who currently hold IL’s children hostage for specifically threatening not to fund K-12 education.
Now go back and re-read the above and think on it before further comment. Thanks.
Comment by Ottawa Phil Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:14 pm
- Sue -
Rauner’s own budget outline was billions out of whack.
Please stop ignoring truths.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:19 pm
I reviewed the ISBE numbers for the Rauner plan that were put out a couple of weeks ago. Every school district in my county receives a cut with the exception of one. You can keep your plan Governor.
Comment by Tough Guy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:20 pm
It’s seems like we’re moving one step forward, two steps back these past few days. After such a promising start…
Comment by Wensicia Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:23 pm
Have to agree with Sue here, what cuts have the Dems recommended ? Oh, and increasing taxes by closing “loopholes” isn’t a cut.
Comment by DGD Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:27 pm
=== the Legislature hasn’t done so for FY2017====
They did for K-12 for FY2016 and after burning every GOP GA member, by requiring then to be “Red”, Rauner signed it.
Why? LOL
===Cullerton and Madigan, who currently hold IL’s children hostage for specifically threatening not to fund K-12 education.===
Cullerton made it clear, members can vote on school funding.
Are you not paying attention? lol
Rauner isn’t a passive passenger. Rauner, like all Governors will own the outcome.
It’s like you ignored FY2016 and how embarrassing that was for the GOP GA and K-12 Funding…
… a replay IS coming.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:27 pm
Rauner can make cuts with his pen.
Rauner stated he felt that’s “not his job”, the same day Rauner talked about “big, long-term, gain”
I’m guessing “blissfully unaware”, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:29 pm
Schools across Illinois SHOULD cut services and staff. Like higher ed , this is a must.people across the state expect this. I expect zero fat in school budgets. Only then will old blue willingly accept tax increases. Amen.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:31 pm
“enjoys home rule authority to raise other taxes as they see fit”
CPS does not have home rule authority. Since this is about the Schools, the above statement–while true for the City–is irrelevant.
Comment by Chris Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:32 pm
““CPS spent $2,295.94 more per student than the state average last year.”
Two things:
1. Does the “state average” include TRS funding amounts? If not, that’s comparing apples and oranges.
2. Is the contention that the state average is the right amount? So, should every district that spent more than the state average get zeroed out on state funding? Or something else?
Comment by Chris Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:38 pm
So old Blue, when you cut services and staff what happens to the community? Does the community get better? Who benefits? Certainly not the majority of residents (and please tax payers is such a privileged elitist term. Why don’t you just be classical about it and say landowners or something.) No what you fail to understand is when staff and services are cut the community suffers, people, real people suffer. And this happens purely because you and people like you are selfish and obviously don’t care about others or your community.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:39 pm
“In 2000, CPS had 93,000 students in 86 high schools. Today CPS has 101,000 students in 140 high schools” Um, aren’t smaller class sizes supposed to be a good thing for the kids?
Comment by Skeptic Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:39 pm
==CPS does not have home rule authority.==
Respectfully, ==local revenues== make up $2.99Bill of CPS current budget.
The City of Chicago’s authority and ability to increase taxes are very relevant to the funding of Chicago Public Schools.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:55 pm
Skeptic, that is true but not what’s happening in Chicago (and I suspect you know that). Significantly excess physical plant. CPS can achieve that lower ratio while closing probably 50 more schools. If CPS and CTU could agree on that, there would be a lot more support for their position. But CTU is trying to avoid killing anymore jobs. I get that, but help won’t be coming anytime soon until CTU moves on an issue like this which provides CPS some real financial relief.
Comment by Original Rambler Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:56 pm
Honey, I have a small business to operate. 18 middle income, blue collar, union jobs. Property taxes( I won’t talk about TPP or NAFTA) kick me in the rear. My employees say the same. So us selfish individuals should just sit back and take one for the team? And you have no clue about anyone and what they do for their communities.but that’s the line when free spenders can’t debate intelligently. I bet you still buy Oreos!!!!
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, May 9, 16 @ 4:57 pm
@original
Not only that. The fewer schools you have with smaller enrollments the higher the admin and other fixed costs per student. You have one main principal per school whether you have 300 or 3,000 students. You may have more assistants and deans, but those “overhead” workers like librarians, department heads, and “chief engineers” overburden the system in small schools.
I’ve found that lower class sizes don’t really help student outcomes much except for special ed and the early grades. After that, having 25 kids in a class as opposed to 18 just cuts down on the effort by teachers in grading rather than affect the students’ achievement.
Comment by Zonker Monday, May 9, 16 @ 5:07 pm
=== After that, having 25 kids in a class as opposed to 18 just cuts down on the effort by teachers in grading rather than affect the students’ achievement.===
Opinion, not fact.
===You may have more assistants and deans, but those “overhead” workers…===
The lack of value of teachers, administrators… “overhead”…
Speaks volumes, no bobbing… or weaving.
Like Arizona has a dry heat and you shouldn’t feel it.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, May 9, 16 @ 5:14 pm
== My recollection is that Madigans proposed budget was 4 B out of whack. ==
Rauner’s proposed budget was scored about $3.5B out of balance and is now proving to actually have been $7B - $8B out of balance. So what is your point?
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 9, 16 @ 5:52 pm
RNUG, you have been sounding a tad bit angry lately. You OK?
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, May 9, 16 @ 5:58 pm
Blue dog are you a small manufacturer?
Comment by Honeybear Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:06 pm
- blue dog dem - ,
Probably a combination of fighting a cold, weeks waiting on the wife as she recovers from surgery and not enough play time with cars because of the rain.
Either that or I’m reaching the age where I no longer suffer fools wisely.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:11 pm
RNUG, godspeed on wifes recovery. Will try to be sensitive.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:22 pm
- blue dog dem -
I don’t take any of it personally except the well wishes (thank you). I like almost everyone here, even most of the trolls. I even slip in a obscure reference now and then for some of the people I know will get them. I’m sure Honeybear will catch the scripture reference in the last post.
Comment by RNUG Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:31 pm
I just love these threads where everyone stays focused on facts, and avoids personalities and name-calling. /s
Comment by WIUoblivion Monday, May 9, 16 @ 6:40 pm
===The state did NOT over-promise; it UNDER-FUNDED===
It over-promised by under-funding. This is a semantics argument.
The biggest problem here is the people kept believing the state would pay and they never did. The reaction to the under-funding was the worse case - keep electing and promoting the the same people who under-funded the plan. You sow what reap.
Comment by cannon649 Monday, May 9, 16 @ 7:05 pm
Don’t hang the students in Special Education out to dry. They deserve a good education too.
Comment by Mama Monday, May 9, 16 @ 7:45 pm
@zonker- your “opinions” fly in the face of vetted research on class size and cut points for effectiveness. My “hypothesis” is you know not of that which you speak. In other words, I am calling BS on your opinions. I doubt you have five minutes in a school and no minutes of leadership experience.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, May 9, 16 @ 8:13 pm
==It over-promised by under-funding. This is a semantics argument.==
Without doubt, the under-funding created much of the current debt. But pension-spiking also played a part - and a huge part of the problem is that future benefits are still being calculated using (very good) past rates of return - no one will sell you an annuity today using a 7% discount rate - the annuity brokers are calculating future average rates of return at closer to 3-4%. That difference is what makes the current debt load unsustainable. Finally, you have the problem of our high borrowing costs - if the state and local governments could re-amortize the entire debt at current T-bond rates, we’d be sitting in high cotton.
Comment by Tom K. Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 6:57 am
It is time for this, we do not need as many schools as we have, it is time for class sizes to return or go to 40-60 students or more and parents to get involved with their children’s education again. If your child is not learning it is not because of the class size it is because they are not paying attention in class and you are not paying attention to their learning plan and homework.
Comment by joejoe5 Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 8:23 am
= 40-60 students or more and parents to get involved with their children’s education again. If your child is not learning it is not because of the class size it is because they are not paying attention in class and you are not paying attention to their learning plan and homework.=
When were class sizes 40-60? In the good old days?
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 8:30 am
===we do not need as many schools as we have, it is time for class sizes to return or go to 40-60 students or more and parents to get involved with their children’s education again.===
Please cite a school district or town that uses, purposely, 40-60 per classroom as a positive way to educate children, and further, please cite where having more students means better learning at the K-12 level.
===If your child is not learning it is not because of the class size it is because they are not paying attention in class and you are not paying attention to their learning plan and homework.===
Hey. Mr. Wilson. Dennis the Menace isn’t on your lawn. Your lack of empathy for students who might be intimidated by larger learning (40-60) classes and that growth they will be missing… is on them.
I can’t think of a parent that had a child in K-12 that said to me…
“They need more students in my child’s class, if the kids blow it, it’s on them, 40, 50, 60 kids or not”
Pitiful.
Heck, at major universities, what do THEY tout? Professor to student ratios.
By the way, educating kids is critical for society as a whole. Your “plan” advocates a losing formula for kids AND society.
I’m embarrassed for you.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 8:36 am
You’re full of it, JSMILL. I’m a former teacher and done quite a bit of study on this. There was a particularly good one from North Carolina a few years ago that showed until class sizes dip under about 12 students per class at the upper middle and high school level, class sizes less than about 25 make little difference in student outcomes. It also showed some interesting results from studying advanced degrees on student outcomes. It seems that while advanced specialized degrees in special education have value, advanced degrees in “education” have virtually no effect on outcomes. The study did find, however, that when STEM teachers above the middle school level get degrees in subject, NOT EDUCATION, there is benefit to the students.
If you don’t know this, you’re obviously ill informed and have no place in a position of responsibility in a public school system.
Put up or shut up Mills. Give me your references showing otherwise, or admit your dishonesty.
Comment by Zonker Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:09 am
===I’m a former teacher and done quite a bit of study on this. There was a particularly good one from North Carolina a few years ago that showed until class sizes dip under about 12 students per class at the upper middle and high school level, class sizes less than about 25 make little difference in student outcomes.===
If you think 40-60 students in a class is good ” - Zonker - “, you are spending way too much time in the Desert Sun.
BTW, citing the NC study, where is it? You must of left those studies in Arizona ” - Zonker - “, LOL.
===Give me your references showing otherwise, or admit your dishonesty.===
Instead of Bobbing and weaving ” - Zonker - “, follow your own advice and put up your cites.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, May 10, 16 @ 9:15 am