Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The check is not in the mail
Next Post: No easy way out
Posted in:
* Tina Sfondeles…
A school funding bill that revamps the funding formula — and one dubbed a Chicago Public Schools “bailout” by several Republicans — narrowly passed the Illinois Senate on Tuesday.
State Sen. Andy Manar’s bill passed 31-21, and now heads to the Illinois House, where members are working on their own plan. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan has formed a House task force to do its own review of school funding.
Madigan spokesman Steve Brown said Tuesday that the task force will “take the best elements of the Manar plan and try to incorporate them.”
On the Illinois Senate floor, Manar, a Democrat from Bunker Hill, called his bill “the most profound anti-poverty measure” lawmakers could take and a “down payment to getting this right.”
Let’s hope the House is serious about coming up with an alternative plan and doesn’t just punt.
* Finke…
Figures provided by the Senate Democrats show the Chicago school system would get an extra $175 million from the formula changes. Barickman and other Republicans maintain that the figure is much higher because of other, separate grants to Chicago schools contained in the bill.
At the same time, many districts in Republican areas of the Chicago suburbs stand to lose state assistance.
“This is a huge redistribution of wealth primarily from suburbanites and many downstaters to Chicago,” said Sen. Matt Murphy, R-Palatine.
Manar said the reason Chicago gets more money is the same as why Taylorville in his Senate district gets more.
“It is underfunded plain and simple, just like other downstate districts, just like suburban districts like Elgin,” Manar said.
* Monique Garcia and Celeste Bott…
“What we do know today is that the system the governor has proposed is $55 million that earns a whole bunch of school districts less money,” Manar said. “That’s what we have to measure this bill against, a system that spends more with outcomes that aren’t as good.”
Rauner has accused Democrats of embracing the school funding formula issue as a way to prevent schools from opening on time amid the continuing budget stalemate that’s left Illinois without a complete budget for the last 11 months. Rauner vetoed most of the spending plan Democrats sent him, save for the portion that ensured schools opened in the fall — even though Republican lawmakers voted against the measure at his direction.
That has frustrated Democrats, who see Rauner taking credit for funding schools even though it was Democrats who sent him the bill. On Tuesday, Manar balked at the suggestion that he would hold up dollars for schools in exchange for his proposal, saying, “I don’t presume I have the authority to.”
“I don’t think anybody wants to see that,” Manar said. “That would inject more uncertainty into the system. That would amplify the challenges that the poorest districts face today.”
* Senate President John Cullerton…
“Today marks a significant step forward in creating a new classroom funding formula that recognizes the real needs of students across Illinois.
For too many children in too many communities, their paths to excellence are blocked by the existing school finance system that shortchanges their schools and fails to provide needed resources. It’s an injustice we’ve tolerated too long. Our students, parents, teachers and taxpayers are tired of the bickering, tired of the impasse. They’re looking for leaders with the courage to step beyond the status quo and do what’s right.
Today, the Illinois Senate did just that. The classroom funding plan the Senate approved begins to recognize the local needs of schools and students. It addresses the economic and social hurdles they face by investing resources in those schools and those children.
I would recommend the House get behind this proposal, and Governor Rauner should show leadership and make this legislation a priority if he is truly interested in turning Illinois around.”
* The Sun-Times editorial board is upset with the governor over his opposition to the bill…
Yes, Manar’s bill picks winners and losers, which the governor, his fellow Republicans and some Democrats dislike. But the state’s current school funding formula also picks winners and losers — the current losers being our state’s poorest kids. Why double down on that?
Moreover, under Manar’s plan there need be no losers. His bill calls for making this shift in funding over a number of years, ideally to give the governor and Legislature time to increase overall funding so that no district has to take a hit.
Our fear is that this bill is going nowhere, doomed by the legislative calendar — the current session is scheduled to adjourn May 31 — and raw politics.
Rauner prefers a simple standalone bill that would fully fund the existing school aid formula, giving all districts at least a bit more money, safely upsetting no political allies. Once the governor has made sure, then, that the schools will open on time in the fall, he will feel freer to play hardball on the rest of the state budget.
* But if you really want to hear some anger, click here and listen to Sen. Manar’s Q&A with reporters yesterday after the vote. Whew.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 9:15 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The check is not in the mail
Next Post: No easy way out
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
On regular occasions throughout out State’s history the Chicago suburbs have provided additional financial support to the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) under the argument that what is good for the city is good for the suburbs as well. That happened in 1970, 1983, and 2008. Each time the suburbs were given slightly more political oversight over the CTA through the (limited) powers of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA).
Any bill that provides more financial support to the Chicago Public Schools at a time when they clearly are unable to manage even their most basic responsibilities themselves will most likely include some sort of additional state oversight. I’m not sure how to do that, but smarter people than me can surely find some way that will appease all parties.
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 9:26 am
You’d think he’d have thicker skin. This ain’t beanbag Andy.
Comment by Jackie Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 9:31 am
Listened to the entire Manar press gaggle comments. That is an actual leader speaking. That is what a State Senator should sound like. That is what a State Senator should be doing. Sad that my party, the republican’s, cannot rise above the Raunerite agenda, and think for themselves.
Comment by Saluki Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 9:51 am
Last night I was at a “Friends of” meeting for the 501(c)(3) parent group that supports a well-known CPS high school. It is not a selective enrollment high school but is top rated state-wide and by national polls. More than 50% of the children qualify for free and reduced lunch. These children come from the neighborhood and also from all over the city (90 different elementary schools feed in to it) for the magnet/IB/AP programs. They also excel in these programs–we have over 200 different AP and IB tests being administered this month. These programs are not available in many of their local neighborhood high schools.
We are bracing ourselves for the budget we will get later in the month which will contain large cuts dues to lack of fair funding. The CPS website on “20 for 20″ (www.cps.edu/equality) contains more information.
Comment by 32nd Ward Roscoe Village Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 9:59 am
It is obvious that Manar’s plan is a step in the right direction, despite what the the ILGOP word salad du jour would try to promote. (I would be angry too knowing what dastardly numerical manipulations have been presented at the eleventh hour.)
I would like to hear more forecasting that this is a step to addressing one of the other number one problems in Illinois, property taxes.
There have been states that have been able to pivot away from a property tax based education system. It would be good to educate the public that a funding swap for education has been accomplished in other states and this is a goal for Illinois.
So maybe the budgeteers are incorporating some kind of swap. It would be good for Illinois and a good public save for Rauner’s fake agenda as he could declare a property tax win.
Comment by cdog Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 10:09 am
It’s also possible that the Manar bill is a classic case of asking for more than what you want to negotiate down to what you need. (That trick is taught in Lobbying 101.)
Comment by Just Me Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 10:18 am
==actual leader speaking==
Manar stating “flat out false numbers” when SB 231 gives 48 percent of private special ed funding to Chicago (page 270)?
Manar saying “system so rotten” (and previously that any funding of current formulas is “a waste of money”) when SB 231 is based on completely arbitrary weighting factors, when SB 231 cuts almost 1/3 of special ed funding, etc.
Manar first stating “Governor tells them to vote no” on SB 231, then when pressed says he has NO evidence of that.
Why raise questions about SB 231?
It is an extremely complex bill on which the vote took place based ONLY on money, and NOT on all the educational changes in SB 231.
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 10:36 am
Senator Manar was angry because his bill clearly has little chance of passing the House and if it did the Governor’s veto could not be overridden. When you look at the ISBE spread sheet on SB 231 as repeatedly amended (not inclusive of amendment 3) you can see some north suburban districts that will lose close to all of their state education funding. Let’s be clear people in these districts pay income taxes too and their special education programs merit subsidies too.
For Manar to argue that the hold harmless provision which protects districts from cuts will lead to additional revenue to make them permanent as he did on the tape is based on exactly what? Even the additional $400 million needed for SB 231 to hold harmless has yet to be appropriated.
Manar admits on the tape that he kept throwing more and more stuff into the bill to try and bring Republicans to support the bill. In fact he added the early childhood block grant back to bring support from the Ounce of Prevention fund and through that door to maybe get Rauner to go neutral on the bill.
CPS needs a bail out bill that stands separately from funding reform and includes a financial oversight body, as was done in 1979. But to do all of these things additional revenue is needed and it’s not there. So here we sit.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 10:42 am
===CPS needs a bail out bill that stands separately from funding reform and includes a financial oversight body, as was done in 1979. But to do all of these things additional revenue is needed and it’s not there. So here we sit.===
Amen Rod.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 10:44 am
Manar is dedicated to reform the nation’s most inequitable school funding system. The GOP (except McCann) prefers the status quo that afflicts the afflicted and comforts the comfortable. Rauner’s proposal would aggravate the inequity, not reduce it the way Manar’s would.
Comment by anon Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 11:17 am
To all of those jumping on the Manar band wagon, I encourage you to do some research and understand what his formula really is and does.
Manar offers no research to support his formula, and it drives no specific outcomes aside from taking money from some districts and giving it to others. If his “factors” are so easily “tweaked” for admittedly political purposes then there can be no true basis in what is best for all kids learning.
It is a divide and conquer plan. It hurts many middle income districts and some districts that have cut to the bone to try to balance their budgets only to be eviscerated. At the same time, some “poor” districts would have massive revenue pumped into them while they sit on equally massive piles of money. That is fundamentally wrong and Manar has absolutely no interest in addressing these inequities and he said so in my presence.
Manar has not produced his numbers as he said he woudl but attacks the only set of numbers available.
Manar lies when he says that Barrickman’s evidence based bill is in his word for word. Purely false.
When he states that he does not understand why a downstate legislator would vote for the bill because itis good for downstate he is not being truthful or he is completely ignorant to the impact of the bill. In Barickman’s district 21 of 31 school districts loose a combined $15 million dollars per year. Again, Manar is not forthright in his statements.
Manar is not doing this for altruistic reasons. It is purely political. There is a better way and it is the evidence based model.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 11:43 am
The reality is, the state funds it’s schools by property taxes. That’s the game. The reason people that drive older cars to live in the worst house in the best school districts. People made choices based on these rules. To arbitrarily make up numbers and scream it’s for the “kids” is not an answer. Taking from one group and give to the others is rewarding bad behavior. There are too many school districts. Look at consolidation from a new angle for an answer. Instead of the old tired way, propose a bill for consolidation of districts in the black. Not take on a district in debt. Could money be saved by district 211 and 214 as unit districts? Not only is that a yes, do the research in the leadership deficit for ALL of these districts. If you took a moment to see all of the “retired” administrators in leadership positions working the 100 day cap you would see a whole other issue. Madigan wants the cost shift. He wants schools to pay more of the TRS obligation, that may be more palatable after real consolidation.Or like Manar, we can make up numbers and scream about the kids…
Comment by Funding Issues Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 12:00 pm
To JS Mill: The evidence-based funding model discussed in the Vision 20/20 plan will cost a great deal I suspect, where is the revenue going to come from? Here is a simple version of what the evidence based model is: “The Illinois School Finance Adequacy Study Evidenced-Based Model incorporates the following research-based elements in their calculations: specialist teachers (20 percent of number of core teachers for elementary and middle, 33 percent for high school), instructional facilitators (1 per 200 students), summer school and extended day class size (15:1 for half the number of low income students), regular school day class size (15:1 for K-3, 25:1 for 4-12, and 7:1 for alternative and small schools), tutors (minimum of 1 or 1 for every 100 low income students), English Language Learner (ELL) teachers (1 per 100 ELL students), special education teachers (1 per 150 students), special education aides (0.5 per 150 students), one principal, one assistant principal, one secretary, clerical staff (1 per elementary and middle, 3 per high school), non-instructional aides (2 per elementary and middle, 3 per high school), guidance counselors (1 per 250 students in middle and high school), pupil support staff (1 per 100 low income students), one library and media tech (1 per 600 students above 1,000). In addition, money is set aside for supplies, technology, student activities, gifted and talented education, professional development, assessments, and central office costs on a per student basis.”
This model was brought up in the House Task Force on education funding. The questioned asked - how much more will cost the state? No Superintendent or Board president would even put out a ball park number. I was at the hearing that happened at. But you are right SB231 does not include this model it makes a reference to it as I recall. The truth is Illinois simply can’t implement these ratios because there is not sufficient revenues.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 12:47 pm
–js mill–
re: the evidenced based model. any idea of the cost? i have a feeling barickman will run and hide from the ebfm when they finally tell us how much it costs. thus far…they’ve been mum.
what will happen is 231 will die. people will scream for “real change” and want a formula that doesn’t create winners and losers. but we all know without B(yes, that’s a B)illions more, that is a fools argument. under the governor’s plan winnetka gets more money than they did last year, and districts like taylorville lose. girls lacross would be at stake for new trier and those kids in taylorsville wouldn’t even know how to play lacrosse — so that money would be wasted on the plebs anyway. then we will “study” it again until the next time the state has to prorate school districts and then people will be up in arms because we need a model that doesn’t punish poor kids that live in low EAV districts.
i’m excited about the evidenced based funding model coming out of the shadows. i’ve never seen a unicorn up close.
Comment by opiate of the masses Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 12:57 pm
@Rod and OotM-
We can play “wack a mole” all day if yo want. there is a reason there were no numbers for the EBM, it isn’t being run by one of the two political parties or the ISBE.
But, you are both right- to fully implement it will cost more.
The difference? It is based on real research and has actual learning outcomes as the goal, not just a way to spread around money that does the most political good/least political damage. That is the key difference. It is not run by a bunch of vote seeking grand-standers.
=The questioned asked - how much more will cost the state? No Superintendent or Board president would even put out a ball park number.=
You clearly have done some reading and I applaud that. You then should realize how challenging this is to “formulatize” and put to numbers independently and without the resources the politicians can call upon. They were not being cagey or evasive. It is a work in progress, but it is nearing the end of the process.
= i’ve never seen a unicorn up close.=
It is the ones that you don’t see that usually do the most damage.
There is a way to transition from the current model to a new model, an interim step.
1- Fully fund GSA and MCAT’s without the poverty grant.
2- Fund poverty (much the same way as it is now based on number and density) but do so outside of the GSA formula, which is actually very straight forward, it is the individual MCAT’s that are complex. Politicians love to talk about how complex it is, but the biggest portion is not tough to understand they just do not take the time and they are not education professionals.
3- Revenue will be needed through an increase in income tax (progressive would be best) and a services/sales tax (expanding the base).
4- Property tax relief- Only after the bills are paid and revenue flows. No hard cap (the state cannot be trusted) but a minimum percentage target (see Martire)
5- re amortize pension debt with a goal of 80%-90% funding.
6- Work on the development of a new funding system for schools - ( I recommend the evidence based model which would allow for major reductions in property taxes. determine the level at which the state is willing to fund the EBM and expect the corresponding impact on outcomes and property tax relief.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 1:29 pm
I see Clark and Jacoby finally pulled the curtain back this morning…5-6B in new money over 10 years. I look forward to Senator Barickman advocating for that appropriation.
Comment by Barickman's Unicorn Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 2:21 pm
@Barickman’s Unicorn- I wouldn’t count on that happening, but what he may advocate for is a proportion of the new money. At least you know then, what outcomes you should expect like how much, if any, property tax relief you can expect.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 2:47 pm
-JS Mill-
In your number 5 @ 1:29pm, I assume what you mean is come up with a new version of Edgar’s pension ramp that is realistic and not back-end loaded. Will that be a TRS only plan?
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 3:43 pm
I would advocate to keep Special Ed, etc. funding separate from General State Aide.
Comment by Mama Wednesday, May 11, 16 @ 4:01 pm