Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: DGA poll: Rauner and Trump have same Illinois job disapproval rating
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* I shared Sen. Andy Manar’s press release with you yesterday, as well as responses from the GOP leaders and the governor. Manar made several specific points at his press conference yesterday that weren’t covered in the release, so I asked for those bullet points. From the Senate Democrats, with a couple of minor typos corrected…
The seven items Manar mentioned that are in the governor’s AV that bend education spending downward over time and constrain investment in public schools:
· Regionalization factor. The governor changes the regional cost differential in SB1. He drives it down.
· PTELL. For school districts that can’t access property wealth because of the tax cap law, the governor says we shouldn’t recognize that they can’t do that, so they appear wealthier than they actually are.
· Enrollment changes. Gov. Rauner calls for punishing school districts that lose enrollment.
· Minimum funding requirement. The governor changes it. This is the guarantee that future general assemblies and governors of both parties will continue to uphold the commitment to adequately and equitably fund schools in years to come.
· TIF districts. The governor changes how TIF districts are accounted for in the formula. He pits job-creation efforts against school funding.
· Pension cost shift. He removes language protecting an accounting for a potential pension cost shift. Framers put that in SB 1 because they thought it was a good piece of public policy, and they wanted to make sure that if it ever changed in the future that the state would account for it in an adequacy target. The governor removed it out entirely.
· Adequacy calculation. This one completely guts the whole purpose of Senate Bill 1. The governor changes the adequacy calculation so that it will not reflect actual costs in coming years. That’s the most profound difference between Senate Bill 1 and the status quo today. We recognize that costs go up and down in school districts based on many factors. The governor constrains that to divest from public education in future years.
* Related…
* Manar: Rauner waging assault on public education
* Sen. Manar Calls Gov. Rauner’s SB 1 Veto An Assault on Public Education
* School funding talks continue, and so does the blame game
* Is Gov. Rauner Pitting Chicago Schools Against Others in Illinois?
* Rauner urges public support of amended SB1
* Rauner pushes case for veto, pushes back against opposition - Governor says Chicago Public Schools were triple-dipping
* Editorial: McCombie, Anderson should back schools over Rauner
* Schools Scramble for Answers as Funding Impasse Drags On
* Leaflet-to-leaflet combat?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:09 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: DGA poll: Rauner and Trump have same Illinois job disapproval rating
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“More importantly, he lost sight of the real political goal here, which was to pass legislation which costs the state only a small amount of money, does little to help education, but can be used in re-election campaigns by politicians to demonstrate just how much they love our school children.”
“Without a massive infusion of state dollars, the inequities inherent in school funding cannot be addressed long term and property taxes will continue to increase, causing a public backlash.”
“Poor children in Illinois get gimmicks, word games and double-talk from legislators, not a quality education.”
http://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/kadner-rauner-uses-school-children-as-political-pawns/
Comment by winners and losers Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:18 pm
Again, the dichotomy of this situation is striking. Andy Manar is going around the state, and answering questions (I would use exclamation point, not sure if that is allowed yet). Answering questions, helping people understand. the governor on the other hand, doesn’t understand the subject matter, and has surrounded himself with people that don’t know either. Won’t answer questions with details.
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:25 pm
Manar and other Dem’s should be meeting with editorial boards discussing these issues
Comment by Pyrman Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:31 pm
Pyrman, they are. And more. Town halls, editorial boards, Andy walked in a parade last night. Don Harmon and Camille Lilly held a town hall last night. Rauner is getting his tail whipped. Couldn’t Barickman be doing the same?
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:33 pm
Pyrman,
Manar and the local contingent were at the Joliet paper and broadcast via Facebook Live this morning
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:40 pm
Maybe Manar might accomplish something if he spent more time “negotiating” and less time yapping
Comment by Sue Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:44 pm
Kadner has a good point, W&L, except that:
1. The formula has to be fixed before adding new dollars, and
2. Coming up with an additional $3.5 - $6B is not feasible until the backlog of unpaid bills is addressed and there is a governor with a different mindset.
Comment by Free Set of Steak Knives Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:45 pm
“Maybe Manar might accomplish something if he spent more time “negotiating” and less time yapping”
It would be outrageous for him to do that before the vote to override takes place.
Comment by Pelonski Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:46 pm
Sue-the same could be said of the governor. At least Manar knows what he’s yapping about
Comment by Ihatepolitics Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:47 pm
Rich, has James Meeks made any public statements now that the Governor has acted?
Comment by slow down Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:50 pm
Sen. Manar has spent a considerable amount of time negotiating and explaining the issue of school funding. Something that he understands and one that the Governor has not even attempted to understand.
Comment by Just Curious Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:52 pm
== Won’t answer questions with details. ==
Is that like: ‘Won’t answer questions with ANSWERS?’
Had that for going on 3 years now. ss/dd.
Comment by sal-says Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 12:55 pm
=Maybe Manar might accomplish something if he spent more time “negotiating” and less time yapping=
Negotiating on a bill that you are in agreement with 90% of is “outrageous”.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 1:04 pm
==Maybe Manar might accomplish something if he spent more time “negotiating” and less time yapping==
He did that already. Just because the Governor and the Republicans didn’t get everything they wanted doesn’t mean there weren’t negotiations. There were.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 1:23 pm
==Maybe Manar might accomplish something if he spent more time “negotiating” and less time yapping==
And you know, Sue, the same could be said of the Governor. The man spends all of his time yapping and zero time governing.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 1:23 pm
“that can’t access property wealth because of the tax cap law”
Limiting the government(s) to only taking inflation increases, as opposed outrageous increases, isn’t denying them access to “property wealth”. This is especially true since government(s) can put ballot questions to get additional increases that, if approved, get around such things.
Just in the Sauk Valley we’ve had multiple counties pass county-wide school sales taxes, a county-wide public safety tax (for a new jail), and multiple municipalities increased their infrastructure sale tax percentage.
All of those passed, which means that those local governments had a better idea of what and where to tax approvals for rather than chasing “property wealth”…they intentionally turned away from that path. It also means that Springfield is succeeding in their strategy to allow (force?) local tax increases to help offset their financial mismanagement.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 1:55 pm
“punishing school districts that lose enrollment”
I commented on this yesterday, but it’s worth revisiting. It’s just good management to expect school districts to have some cost reductions when their student population drops. In government land, where we spend other people’s money, it’s harder to get support for, but it’s a very basic concept. When demand drops, wise management would have operational and financial reactions.
That’s not “punishing” them, that’s expecting them to live in the real world. If the argument is over whether Rauner has hit the right balance, that’s a fine discussion. If the argument is over how to compensate for poorer districts being hit harder, that’s fine.
That’s not the arguments being made, though. SB1 supporters aren’t even acknowledging the common-sense position that, in a world of finite resources, we have to react to loss of student population. The system is there to educate kids, not perpetuate spending.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:03 pm
===When demand drops, wise management would have operational and financial reactions===
That’s great for the private sector. A line of products isn’t selling, dump the line. Makes sense.
Schools can’t stop teaching 3rd Grade. Or math. Or whatever.
Government is different from business. If 5 percent of prisoners are suddenly paroled, can you get rid of five percent of the guards? No.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:07 pm
“That’s great for the private sector.”
And the private sector supports the government sector, Rich. If the government sector spending continues to outpace private sector growth, reality will inevitably force it’s way in.
That’s exactly what’s happening in Illinois. Obviously pension costs lead the way, and there is plenty of blame to go around on that debacle. The core point remains: resources of finite, and will continue to be no matter how “fair” that seems to you or anyone else.
As such, steps have to be taken. No one is saying to stop teaching 3rd Grade, or to stop teaching math, and it’s ridiculous to suggest those are the type of responses on the table. Frankly, even suggesting it makes this whole discussion hyperbole and drama.
One additional point: allowing school districts (or anything else) to pretend there aren’t real world impacts to student population drops just delays and/or displaces the pain. Somewhere, somewhere, is absorbing the problem. It may be future students (since delaying financial adjustments can compound the district’s long-term problems), or it may be other parts of the budget. It may be taxpayers that are already facing increases at multiple levels of governments.
But to say, as a matter of policy, that the school should absorb NONE of that is foolish and short-sighted. Indeed, they are the tip of the spear when it comes to school spending–there is no entity better positioned to control school costs. Any policy that removes from them the expectation to do so creates a culture of mismanagement.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:17 pm
” Coming up with an additional $3.5 - $6B is not feasible until the backlog of unpaid bills is addressed. . .” I agree, but unfortunately one solution that both Democrats and Republicans may on agree on is delaying some of those payments in favor of funding SB 1 staffing ratios. Those most likely not to get paid back any too fast will be Medicaid providers.
I honestly am not sure k-12 educations have a higher priority than some of the health care providers who keep low income patients alive. But I feel there are some in the legislature who believe that the children are the future and they are the priority.
Comment by Rod Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:19 pm
Liandro - So under your analogy an increase in home foreclosures would translate to fewer cops, firefighters, and public works employees?
Part of the problem is that we have these so-called “common senses” solutions that don’t recognize the very different roles that private enterprise and government play.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:36 pm
“When demand drops, wise management would have operational and financial reactions” Does your mortgage drop when the kids move out? How about your (personal) health insurance premiums? Or your commuting costs? Your property taxes? Do you save less for retirement? Didn’t think so.
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:46 pm
@Skeptic, let’s take these in order:
“Does your mortgage drop when the kids move out?”
Yes, people refinance or move out into a smaller house. Both of things happen all the time. Ask your local banker or realtor about it–they make a living off it.
“How about your (personal) health insurance premiums?”
People change plans, take on second jobs or spouses go back to work, and people even go bankrupt (which is why health care is such a major discussion in our nation). So of course there are reactions.
“Or your commuting costs?”
People start sharing commutes, or any number of solutions. My brother rented a tiny room in Dekalb for awhile to reduce commute costs and maximize his school study time. People adjust for commuting costs all the time, and even pick their next home based on their commute. Moving for a job isn’t exactly unheard of, is it?
“Your property taxes?”
I don’t need to even address this–see my answers above.
“Do you save less for retirement?”
Um…people adjust their investment strategies all the time after fluctuations in personal income. Seriously, all the time.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 2:56 pm
“after fluctuations in personal income” I didn’t ask you about fluctuations of income. I asked you about fluctuations in the number of people in your household.
“Yes, people refinance or move out into a smaller house” Ok, so you sell a bigger school (to whom?) and move into a smaller one (which is…sitting vacant at the moment?)
“Moving for a job isn’t exactly unheard of, is it?” And you’re going to move a school to get closer to the children?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 3:04 pm
“I asked you about fluctuations in the number of people in your household.”
And we’re discussing the financial impacts of same, so all my responses were valid.
“Ok, so you sell a bigger school (to whom?) and move into a smaller one (which is…sitting vacant at the moment?)”
Lincoln School in Dixon is now a daycare. One of our old high schools is the Northwest Territory Heritage Center–come visit is sometime, it’s excellent. Another old school is now residential apartments. These decisions are easy, and hopefully aren’t often, but they do get made.
Also, facilities planning is part of a school district’s duties. Some do it well, some do it poorly, and some don’t bother with it all. “Hold harmless” provisions, especially when done lavishly, just encourage school districts to ignore or downplay these types of costs.
“And you’re going to move a school to get closer to the children?”
I honestly don’t understand this question. Yes, people move schools when population centers shift…but that’s a rather extreme and rare (I think?) solution. There are others, including just adjusting your class schedule during annual reviews…which happens anyway.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 3:17 pm
aren’t easy*
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 3:19 pm
@Liandro
Ok, let’s say there’s a K-8 school with 200 students. 16 K and 23 in 1-8. One teacher per grade. They lose 10% of their students. Down to 12 K and 21 in 1-8. How many less teachers do you need? Do you move to a smaller building when the number could go up next year? Overhead isn’t going to change with the loss of those students.
But it doesn’t seem that it will matter according to Rauner. Less kids means less money. Period.
Comment by HangingOn Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 3:39 pm
Liandro: My point is that simply saying “Scale down when population decreases” sounds simple, but as our discussion has proven it’s far from that. Hooray that old schools were put to good use, I agree that happens, even in districts that are growing. It also happens that the old buildings sit vacant or are sold for pennies on the dollar. And they had to build a new building, didn’t they? Where did that money come from? Certainly not from the sale of the old building. So you’re going to reduce funding *and* force the school district to build new facilities?
“we’re discussing the financial impacts of same, so all my responses were valid.” Yes, but you’re talking about variable costs, I’m talking about fixed costs, so your answers to my questions are not valid.
“And you’re going to move a school …” Your point was that people move to get closer to jobs all the time. My point is that people can move with relative ease. Moving a school? Not so much. And yes, that’s an extreme example, which is part of my point, how out-of-touch your analogy was. And again, you’re going to reduce funding *and* require a new facility?
“There are others, including just adjusting your class schedule during annual reviews…which happens anyway.” So…you’re saying this problem is already being dealt with even before SB1? So why are we having this debate?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 3:41 pm
Liandro: So let’s play with some numbers. Let’s say you have a high school with 200 students (pretty typical for rural areas.) 20 of them (10%) leave. How much have costs cropped? Well, that’s 5 kids per grade, so you’re not likely to lose more than one or maybe two per classroom, so you can’t eliminate any rooms. You can’t eliminate any classes, so you can’t eliminate any teachers, so you can’t really eliminate any administrative staff. You can’t cut salaries, and you can’t cut pension contributions. You can’t eliminate any bus routes because it’s unlikely all 20 are on the same route with no other kids. I suppose you’d save a little on food, and paper/pencils/etc, but so far what have you saved? Nothing.
I agree there is a threshold where a school system should downsize, but I would argue that decision is best left up to the community, don’t you think? Or are Republicans so adamantly opposed to local control that it’s not even an option?
Comment by Skeptic Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 4:23 pm
I certainly agree that any population shift dramatic enough to affect facilities planning is a hard case. School districts generally have (or should have?) rotating bonds that are part of facilities planning. Any given decade there should be bond(s) rolling on and off the payment schedule. Is that enough to adjust expansion/renovation/build around an abrupt population shift? Almost certainly not.
However, most shifts are far less abrupt than all that…they take place over years and decades. By a large margin, most annual adjustments are resolved with solutions far below a facilities change. Thus, I argue that there needs to some basic district-level reaction to enrollment numbers. Ignoring it completely just encourages mismanagement from the very entity best positioned to control costs: the district itself.
I’ll certainly agree the issue is complex, and I argue that the bill doesn’t reflect that complexity. Instead, it “solves” the problem by ignoring it and delaying/shifting the costs.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Aug 4, 17 @ 4:27 pm
HangingOn and Skeptic are correct. Per pupil budget formulas clearly do not work in most rural settings with relatively low population school districts. Approximately 80% of all school districts in the state have fewer that 2500 students. Education costs are largely fixed for any plausible change (+/- 10%) from the baseline school population in such districts. In addition, it is almost never efficient to build a new facility that is correctly sized to accommodate shrinking enrollment in these small districts. Whatever is saved in utilities and maintenance is more than offset by the cost of construction for the new building. This is why a fixed payment to the district instead of a per pupil payment is a much better option.
Comment by Econ101 Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 10:20 am