Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Another Pritzker response *** More to Pritzker’s Blagojevich wiretap conversations than first believed
Next Post: Sheldon out at DCFS, general counsel appointed interim director
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** SB1 as amended passed the House with 60 votes, including one Republican, McAuliffe.
* I’m told this info is being shared by the governor’s office with legislators on the new House Democratic amendment to SB 1, the education funding reform bill. The Democrats are saying 250 school districts come out better than Chicago, based on per pupil money. The Rauner administration disagrees…
The “runs” being shared by House Democrats do not accurately reflect the real cost of this bill over and above FY17. Overall, this bill would require AT LEAST $650 million more than FY17 funding levels in order for schools to see increases. Here is what is missing from the “runs”:
An additional $313 million must be added to the base funding minimum. The runs being shared are based on the FY2016 budget. It does not include the stop loss grant.
· An additional $216 million to $250 million to fully fund the mandated categoricals. Although CPS will get its appropriate share of “claims,” it will also get its block grant in its base funding minimum. That means those funds are not available for other legitimate claims. To rectify that, the GA will either have to continue to prorate mandated categoricals or increase the education budget by an additional $250 million
· The runs do not include $50 million increase for early childhood education
With so many unknowns and without allowing time for real runs to be evaluated, members are forced to vote on this proposal without knowing the answer to at least four vital questions:
1. Which school districts would suffer the most if the General Assembly fails to appropriate the extra $650 million required to hide this CPS bailout?
2. Under this proposal, exactly how much money is being diverted from every school district to Chicago instead of being equitably distributed across all school districts?
3. If this level of additional funding was provided to other proposals in the General Assembly, what would the runs look like? How would school districts statewide fare if $650 million in new money was put through the model in Sen. Barickman’s latest proposal?
4. Similarly, how would school districts fare if $650 million were added to the current funding formula?
The Rauner folks are also issuing behind the scenes warnings that the Illinois State Board of Education’s eventual analysis will not show the same sort of winners that the Democratic analysis does because of the assumptions the Democrats are using. So, a lot of Democratic targets, they warn, could be voting for something that might not help their own schools.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:29 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Another Pritzker response *** More to Pritzker’s Blagojevich wiretap conversations than first believed
Next Post: Sheldon out at DCFS, general counsel appointed interim director
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
When has Governor Rauner ever been shy about spending more money on education? Isn’t that his signature accomplishment to date? Why stop now?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:32 pm
Purvis may be the most competent person within this administration. If these are her numbers they are most likely correct
Comment by Sue Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:33 pm
Oh, *willl* it?
Comment by Cantankerous Cal Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:45 pm
===Which school districts would suffer the most if the General Assembly fails to appropriate the extra $650 million required to hide this CPS bailout?===
Interesting framing on that question. I suppose one could also ask what might happen if the Governor used his line item veto to reduce that funding. Hmm.
Number 2 is equally disingenuous. The whole point of Manar’s bill is to target funding for low-income students to districts serving low-income students. I wouldn’t call that “diverting,” but then, I’m no Superstar.
3/4 is a valid question. Let’s run the numbers on the current formula, Manar’s bill and Barickman and see what they tell us. We’ve got a little time before school starts. And if no budget is passed soon, we’ll have extra time before school starts.
Yes, it really does read like Beth Purvis wrote this. It is transparent deflection from the substance of the debate, and undermines Governor Rauner’s top achievement so far.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:46 pm
==Similarly, how would school districts fare if $650 million were added to the current funding formula?==
A very valid question. With the wealthy districts frozen at $218 per student in General State Aid under the CURRENT formula, and the poorer districts greatly increased over the CURRENT $4,000 plus per student with an additional $650 million, the State Board of Education should do an evaluation of how each school district would be affected.
Senate Bill 1 will prove to be (1) Grandiose Promises, (2) a cost of $8 Billion in NEW money over 10 years (will NEVER happen), and (3) extreme local control that the Illinois General Assembly will spend years passing new laws to correct local school abuses, waste of money, etc.
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:52 pm
So Rauner is now against funding K-12 education? Mr. Education Governor wants to give schools less money?
Purvis is throwing numbers at the wall and hoping they stick, not sure where they’re coming from and can’t follow them (and why are they throwing ISBE under the bus here?). They don’t want to have the Governor veto this bill, because after all, he’s Mr. Education Governor. And it’d look kind of bad if Mr. Education Governor vetoed a education funding bill.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 3:58 pm
ISBE did the analysis. It’s right here: https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Education-Funding-Proposals.aspx
Comment by Ummmm Hello? Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:04 pm
Ummmm Hello? That analysis was before yesterday’s gut and replace amendment I linked to in my post above.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:07 pm
I honestly don’t know if Robert Pritchard the leading Republican on education issues in the House is still supporting the bill after yesterday’s amendment. That will be interesting.
Comment by Rod Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:15 pm
Ummmm Hello? - That is Amendment 1 (NOT Amendment 2) to SB 1.
Even so, click on Assumptions: EBM “is quite different from any funding proposal that has been prepared to date. As such data required for this proposal have not necessarily been available.”
READ the Assumptions listed, particularly the last one.
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:15 pm
Winners and losers: SA 2 is the same as 1 with technical changes.
Shows $70 mil for CPS.
Comment by Ummmm Hello? Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:35 pm
Every change in language affects which school districts gain and which lose (and Amendment 2 - it is NOT SA2 - has numerous changes).
Plus Amendment 2 (HFA 2) changes treatment of Chicago (CPS) retirement costs.
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:45 pm
winners and losers. Sorry meant HA #2. pensions is technical change. think you have bad info.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:52 pm
anonymous was me. Sorry, I don’t usually comment on here, but felt like there are a lot of false information getting thrown around.
Comment by Ummmm Hello? Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 4:56 pm
Unfortunately, on Senate Bill 1, there is a lot of accurate information being thrown around here (and in too few other places).
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 5:13 pm
@Winners- just curious- where did your $4,000 for poor districts come from? Can you show the math for that calculation?
High poverty districts get almost that much from the poverty grant alone.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 6:24 pm
JSMill - You fail the reading test, which is not a good thing for a school administrator to do.
I stated ==$4,000 plus==
Comment by winners and losers Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 6:34 pm
=With the wealthy districts frozen at $218 per student in General State Aid under the CURRENT formula, and the poorer districts greatly increased over the CURRENT $4,000 plus per student with an additional $650 million, the State Board of Education should do an evaluation of how each school district would be affected.
You fail the reading test, which is not a good thing for a school administrator to do.
I stated ==$4,000 plus==
Your barely coherent pearl-clutching rant is a challenge for anyone.
For a special ed teacher, you may need some remedial services yourself.
Any chance you would answer the question?
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, May 31, 17 @ 6:59 pm
JSMill - Will the Governor veto SB 1?
Will the Illinois General Assembly fund SB 1?
Where will the extra money for Chicago (CPS) put into the Base Funding Minimum come from?
Will you ever make a correct characterization about me?
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 1, 17 @ 1:40 am
@- winners and losers- will you ever learn math?
I still don’t see an answer to my question (as usual). You stated $4,000 plus which is usually a range in the $4,000’s not $4,000 to $10,000 plus.
Additionally, anyone that has ever worked with or viewed, or understands the formula calculation knows that “poor” schools (as determined by DHS number of 70% poverty or more)all get far more than $4,000 from state aide. That isn’t even the starting point.
= Will the Governor veto SB 1?
Will the Illinois General Assembly fund SB 1?
Where will the extra money for Chicago (CPS) put into the Base Funding Minimum come from?=
I don’t know.
They will fund it, as it already has funds. The real question is how much additional funding will go into the distribution model. It won’t be 100% or $4-$6 billion.
Maybe you should be honest as to your “interest”. I can only guess based on how little you know about funding and Rti.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 1, 17 @ 7:57 am
==They will fund it, as it already has funds.==
No, SB 1 does not.
Comment by winners and losers Thursday, Jun 1, 17 @ 9:02 am
= No, SB 1 does not.=
Who is having problems reading? Oh yeah, the same person that still hasn’t answered the first question and hasn’t stated what their interest is (special ed teacher)
So, even though you are an intellectual coward, and constantly post incorrect information and/or things you do not understand….
There IS already funding. The Base Funding Minimum or BFM which is tied to FY 17 funding levels ie money already in the state aid formula.
You see, you may not know this, but there is funding going to schools right now and that is a component of SB 1- new money from the state to school will be distributed through a model that prioritizes schools furthest away from funding targets (what ever they end up being once the politicians get done manipulating a model). Schools are divided into “Tiers” numbering 1 through 4. Tier 1 being furthest away from targets.
How much “new” money will they actually put in? Anyone’s guess.
Will the governor sign? Anyone’s guess.
Will you actually explain from what orifice you pulled the $4,000 number from? Doubtful.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Jun 1, 17 @ 9:22 am