Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: The governor’s AV caught Republicans by surprise
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Biss responds *** CPS announces layoffs, delays budget
Posted in:
* Man, is this ever misleading…
Roughly 67 percent of Illinois families could qualify to send their children to private schools using diverted taxpayer money under a proposal being considered by legislators attempting to break a stalemate that’s threatening school funding on the eve of a new academic year, WBEZ has learned.
Those families may “qualify,” but a $100 million program, even if fully enacted, won’t pay for nearly that many kids to go to private school.
* And check out how this automatic annual escalator is glossed over…
Under the draft proposal reviewed by WBEZ, individual taxpayers could choose to send up to $1 million annually to scholarship organizations rather than to the state Department of Revenue. Those diverted taxpayer dollars would fund scholarships to pay tuition cost at private or parochial schools, or to pay the cost for a public school education in a district outside a child’s community.
All told, the state could dole out $100 million annually in tax credits to finance this scholarship program. If the scholarship fund attracts at least $90 million in donations in any year, it would grow to $125 million. It could continue to grow by 25 percent annually, with no cap, as long as taxpayers send at least 90 percent of the maximum allowed to the fund. Donors could direct their money to a specific school, rather than a specific student, and some eligible students could be turned away.
Emphasis added because if this grows by 25 percent a year with no cap we’re eventually going to have a very real fiscal problem when all that cash is diverted from General Revenue coffers to private schools.
Also, too, there was zero mention in that piece about how nobody has figured out how to pay for this yet, or what sort of revenue stream could possibly support a 25 percent annual growth rate.
…Adding… Oops. I forgot to link to the plan’s outline. Click here.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:11 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: The governor’s AV caught Republicans by surprise
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Biss responds *** CPS announces layoffs, delays budget
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Destroying public education and the teacher’s union … one scholarship at a time.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:16 pm
“…what sort of revenue stream could possibly support a 25 percent annual growth rate.”
Getting rid of TIF districts??? (Said with snark)
Comment by Anon221 Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:16 pm
This is absolutely nuts. Nothing should be done without a revenue stream, and I would oppose this type of parochial school bailout even if a revenue stream were found.
Taxpayer moneys are to fund a public school system, not to fund any specific child’s education.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:17 pm
It doesn’t mention that the constitution forbids it as well.
Comment by 360 Degree Turnaround Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:20 pm
Rich - I understand the concern about paying for it, but wouldn’t it have to grow by some % in order to hand out new scholarships the next year?
Comment by Spiritualized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:21 pm
Would students receive a 4 year scholarship or 1 year at a time as long as money exists?
Comment by Casual observer Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:24 pm
===It could continue to grow by 25 percent annually, with no cap===
Not likely, but:
By year 12 - it could be over $1 Billion and by year 20, nearly $7 Billion.
Comment by Dublin Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:31 pm
This is very bad public policy.
Comment by Lt Guv Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:31 pm
As someone whose kids attended a private school, then a public school I think this is a Bad Idea.
Many private schools already have scholarship or reduced tuition programs available to help students in need. But I think diverting some of EVERYONE’S tax dollars to do that is a really bad public policy. Republicans can try to pitch this as an “opportunity” for low-income folks but its also a tax deduction/welfare for the well to do.
Comment by Biscuit Head Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:33 pm
Doesn’t the education expense credit cost the state around $80 million each year? And, isn’t it used primarily for private school tuition? Seems like a switcheroo could take place and possibly save the state $ if the program is capped below $80 million. Wondering if those that support this would rather have the education expense credit or this program.
Comment by Spiritualized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:33 pm
It diverts money from the general revenue fund without a means to replace it. This Governor keeps adding more debt to the state. It lends credence to the idea that the Governor wants to run up so much debt that eventually the Feds will allow Illinois to file for bankruptcy.
Comment by The Dude Abides Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:35 pm
We didn’t just get a much needed tax increase that most everyone hated, just to watch it get eaten up by wealthy people who can afford to give scholarships in return for tax credits.
Just exactly what are the legislators going to say when they have to go back and ask for an additional tax increase because these tax credits damage the general revenue fund?
Comment by thoughts matter Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:37 pm
Rich, while others on this blog are ideologues that spew forth ignorant and even bigot-fueled nonsense, you keep asking a valid practical question. Where’s the money? Well, this isn’t reinventing the wheel. 17 already have states have similar programs. Most are cost neutral or actually save tax dollars. The question really is what’s the plan that’s not in the details already released. If anyone really cares, let them look at the rules and policies that have been implemented in other states that have been successful.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:44 pm
Keep the tax payer money in public education. SB1 may not be a bailout, but this IS a bailout!
Comment by Paddy Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:50 pm
My son has quadriplegic Cerebral Palsy. Can he get a scholorship without being denied because of his condition? No? Then NO PUBLIC MONEY SHOULD EVER GO TO PRIVATE EDUCATION. Period. If they have to accept my son in order to take public money, then I’d be more inclined to support this program.
Comment by Try-4-Truth Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:54 pm
=== … while others on this blog are ideologues that spew forth ignorant … ===
You mean like the ignorant folks who can’t come up with a pseudonym.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:56 pm
In reading the doc you linked in, seems the 25% increase of the $100M cap only happens when most of the scholarship funds have been spent by eligible students and those scholarships can’t exceed the cost of the student’s assigned school. So over time, the only way for the cap to grow that large is if all eligible Illinios students start going to nonprofit private schools. That ain’t happening. The majority will stick with the the public school system.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:56 pm
Where are the people howling at the 3% AAI that retirees get?
Comment by Skeptic Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:57 pm
The voucher thing fits right in with the rest of the Koch plan, explained comprehensively in “Democracy in Chains:”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?430379-2/democracy-chains
This is lengthy, but you can skip the first 4 minutes and get the gist in about 15.
Comment by TinyDancer(FKASue) Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:59 pm
Backdoor public funding of private schools, with private interests doling out the taxpayer cash to students of their choice.
You want to set up a scholarship program, go ahead. Don’t expect taxpayers to finance your ego trip.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:07 pm
No, Norseman. I mean people that rail against the war on public education when nearly every study shows these programs improves the quality of the education in public schools. (Not using a pseudonym isn’t a sign of ignorance. For some it may be cowardice. But there are other legitimate reasons. And I won’t label any specific contributor to this blog as ignorant or a bigot. Not you or anyone else. Sorry.)
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:12 pm
=implemented in other states that have been successful.=
You are quite the hypocrite aren’t you Mr./Mrs. Anonymous? You are calling others “ideolougues” as a pejorative and cannot even see your own ideology coming through?
Who says these other voucher plans are successful? You? By what standard? Believe it or not there are many patriotic Americans that believe in the separation of church and state. it does not make them “ideologues, it simply means they can read the US Constitution.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:13 pm
==Most are cost neutral or actually save tax dollars.==
This is $100M tax credit. That’s a subtraction from your taxes, dollar for dollar. You want to show us your funny math as to how that doesn’t cost anything?
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:14 pm
Demoralized - to be fair to Anonymous, if the average scholarship is less than what the state would otherwise spend on the student’s education in public school, there is a savings. Florida’s tax credit scholarship program is capped at $586M, but still generates savings to the state. Not saying this would be the case in Illinois, though.
Comment by Spritualized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:16 pm
Spiritualized:
That assumes funding for public education is cut, which I don’t see happening.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:21 pm
=== nearly every study shows these programs improves the quality of the education in public schools ===
Provide cites not hot air.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:28 pm
This is all about private, charitable giving becoming part of the solution to Illinois’ massive financial problems — a GOOD thing. The recent tax increase is expected to raise $4.5 billion from individuals. As we all know, much more is needed. We are not going to get another big, progressive tax increase absent the work of a constitutional convention (heavy lifting if it every happens). Private, individual voluntary charitable giving is going to be essential. How do you catalyze that giving? By providing tax credits that also help shift the cost of services offered by government to the private sector. Students transitioning to educational environments who would benefit from this program are simply not being well served by the current models. Rather than those models being reserved for only those who can afford it, this plan would encourage private, individual philanthropy to enable those students to access quality education. Start with education and then apply the same formula to other services currently provided by the state. Transition services that are privately delivered but state funded to be privately funded through individual philanthropy. Establish a culture of giving by voluntary charitable contribution rather than involuntary taxation. It’s a business model shift that is attractive in part due to the dire financial straits of this state. Face it, the alternative approach is broken.
Comment by Sillies Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:28 pm
So, is this part of the AV or some side deal they’re working on?
Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:29 pm
This program pays for itself.
IF you eliminate the district hold harmless and base the hold harmless on enrollment.
Which, BTW, isn’t a “hold harmless”.
But I digress…
Every time a student drops out of Rockford School District and enrolls in Rockford Christian Schools, RSD sees its per pupil funding drop and that frees up revenue to pay for what essentially amounts to a voucher.
For those that are unaware, Rockford Christian Schools is one of the ten largest private schools in the state.
Not a bug, a necessary feature.
Comment by Free Set of Steak Knives Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:30 pm
Sillies, lay off the IPI/ Austrian school cool-aid.
My God, your voodoo economic theories nearly destroyed Kansas.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:34 pm
“Every time a student drops out of Rockford School District and enrolls in Rockford Christian Schools, RSD sees its per pupil funding drop and that frees up revenue to pay for what essentially amounts to a voucher.”
This assertion assumes that the cost of the voucher is equal to the amount of revenue lost by the public school district.
Comment by Montrose Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:38 pm
Honeybear, You are either stuck in something or hibernating. This has nothing to do with Kansas or Austria. It has everything to do with the need for REVENUE. Dollars are fungible. They can come from taxes or charitable sources. We need to get more of ‘em. Don’t turn off spigots. Turn them on.
Comment by Sillies Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:38 pm
Sillies, you forgot a few buzzwords. Could you please give us a second draft with more buzzwords added? Something about how the private sector always does everything better than the public sector. Then add an Ayn Rand quote, ok?
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:40 pm
A million dollar cap to a single taxpayer? That’s just an insanely high amount.
Comment by Lt Guv Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:43 pm
- TinyDancer(FKASue) - Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 1:59 pm:
Excellent! Thanks for posting the link.
Comment by Jimmy H Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:46 pm
What a crock. You dont get to throw this, um, babe ruth bar, into the punch bowl, NINE weeks after adjournment. No doubt it polls well, so let ‘er rip. Cynically gives a basis for ad buys.
Budget $2 bil out of whack? whats another $100 mil?
Comment by Langhorne Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:56 pm
Re: how it will be funded, which seems to be the main topic of this thread at the moment.
I checked, just as Anonymous proposed. Such programs, which are in essence vouchers, are funded by savings from students lost to the public system (or to their own district, as there is a provision for students to attend public schools outside their district).
Other features of the AV would suggest that this is the plan for Illinois as well. For example, removing the $200 million block grant to CPS would pay for the first two years; once per-student(as opposed to per-district) funding kicks in (2020, iirc), savings could also be achieved in this manner as well.
We really need a school financing quant–say, the ISBE Finance Officer–to run some numbers on the funding by looking at all 100 of the governor’s amendment proposals. They’re connected.
The “Invest in Kids Act” does not indicate how it will be funded - and yes, I read it.
There is a massive literature now available on voucher (scholarship tax credit) schools. Overall, results in states like Florida and Arizona, often considered the poster children for such programs, are not encouraging in terms of achieving better outcomes,or greater economic, or racial diversity (quite the opposite),and they vitiate already-struggling public school systems by depriving them of funding.
Comment by dbk Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 2:59 pm
@ Norseman - Why would not using a pseudonym suggest a character flaw or a lack of intelligence?
Comment by Robert J Hironimus-Wendt Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:06 pm
To clarify anonymous, there are not 17 states with a program like this. There are 14 States with programs that are primarily inly available for low income people with a disability on an IEP. and various kids with educational needs.
There is not a single state in the country with a program for the wealthy. the only exception is people who live in places without schools. otherwise all the remaining states limit these programs to low income or needy people.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:08 pm
For keyrock:
The financial condition of Illinois’ five state pension systems worsened during 2016 with unfunded liabilities growing to a record-setting $129.8 billion. The combined funded ratio of the five pension systems dropped from 41 percent in fiscal 2015, a level that put Illinois in a tie with Kentucky for the lowest-funded state pension system in the country.
That’s billion with a B, just like buzzword.
Go find that money, keyrock!
How bout this one: “A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.”
Comment by Sillies Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:26 pm
@Montrose:
There is no guesswork.
Tuition at Rockford Christian Schools is $6,500 per year for elementary schools.
Rockford currently gets about $4800 per pupil from the state.
The nonprofit set up by Rauner gives you a $4800 voucher, if parents cant afford to pay the remaining $1700 themselves…oh well…that frees up a voucher for a family that can afford to cover the gap.
Don’t you get it? By setting the “poverty” threshold at $117K per year for a family of four, they are setting up a tax shelter that won’t even benefit the neediest families, because no truly poor family is going to be able to afford to send their child to Loyola Academy in Wilmette with a $4800 voucher.
It is not a bug, it is a feature.
Comment by Free Set of Steak Knives Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:51 pm
Sillies. You know we can’t change The way we educate or fund our schools. It might affect high school football. You are silly.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:58 pm
Ah, Sillies. You’re right that we have big bills we have to pay. We also have to educate all our children, take care of the elderly and mentally ill, make sure people have minimally adequate health care, and fix the roads and bridges. These are all public goods.
Rauner (and Madigan) tried doing without the revenue to pay for these goods, and our state is now a worse place to live, with more debt. Giveaways of state revenue to private schools won’t solve the problem.
Now if you want to talk about a state takeover of CPS, a lot of people might agree with you. But giving less money to CPS, while lowering taxes for the wealthy, isn’t part of the solution.
Comment by Keyrock Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 3:59 pm
Sillies: Thanks for taking the time to make a real argument, not just call us bigoted idiots for having an opposing viewpoint. I think you gloss over many issues here, not the least of which is the performance of charter/parochial schools and access by poor, handicapped, or disruptive students, but let’s not get into that right yet.
Bigger problems are as follows:
1) A school of 100 kids that loses one child does not have reduced operating costs of 1%. These things are decidedly nonlinear.
2) Most schools are underfunded, so they can’t afford to lose a dollar. Losing any funding makes me even more underfunded.
3) I think it is fine to allow people to contribute for scholarships, thus “opening another spigot.” The question is who ultimately pays for it. At a 100% tax credit, it is simply diverting tax money from public schools. At something much less, perhaps making it deductible rather than a credit, you might get some traction with the idea if there are tremendous restrictions, such as income limitations, guaranteed acceptance of all students, no expelling troublesome students, (all rules just like the public schools) etc. My bet is that most parochial schools will not agree to that.
Comment by Jibba Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:02 pm
==these programs improves the quality of the education==
Is this evidence of the alleged improvements?
Comment by Flapdoodle Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:09 pm
“Or, to pay the cost of a public school education outside the child’s community.”
I missed this before. As wordslinger has previously observed, here is another real opportunity for hijinks with high school athletics. Any number of athletes living in Springfield might take a “scholarship” to Chatham or Rochester to play football. Dozens more examples around the state.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:20 pm
==It might affect high school football.==
Oh grow up. That high school sports arguments is one of the biggest red herrings out there when it comes to school funding.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:29 pm
An impressive and intelligent discussion of this very problematic tax credit proposal from the readers of this blog. Thanks for all of the thoughtful comments. I hope Speaker Madigan, President Cullerton, and Governor Rauner are reading them.
Comment by Rod Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:33 pm
Dem. Drink an energy drink. You Need to perk up a bit.
Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:44 pm
Anon 4:20 was me.
Demo, I’m well past 21, thanks. I’ll concede your point the day after the IHSA signs on in support of this program. Till then, maybe you could come up with a cogent counterpoint as opposed to a drive by “red herring” cheap shot.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:47 pm
AA:
The high school sports argument is ridiculous because those sports don’t have any significant impact on the finances of a school district. I was just having a discussion the other day with a member of my family who was talking about all of the fees he has to pay for his kids to participate in extracurricular activities. It’s what schools do now. You can say what you want but high school sports aren’t bringing down school districts financially.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 4:55 pm
And I think we’re having a different conversation AA. You’re talking about the problem of “athlete shopping.” I was talking about the current arguments people make about sports and their impact on public school funding. Two different conversations.
Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 5:03 pm
AA is 100% correct. A scheme like this will have some unintended consequences that are in no way related to finances. The IHSA good ol’ boys club will sit on its hands (and money) and stay under the radar on this one.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 5:25 pm
Thanks, JSM. I always appreciate your ” front line” observations on educational issues.
Dem, take a chill pill, man. I never said a word about school funding. My comments were intentionally limited to this proposal and its unintended consequences. Sorry you missed that.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 7:43 pm
JS
“Believe it or not there are many patriotic Americans that believe in the separation of church and state”
No such thing as separation of church and state - unless you are quoting Jefferson’s defense of religion in his Danbury Baptists letter. Now there is an anti-establishment clause in the US Constutution. But that is a far cry from a separation of church and state. Remember also that Arricle VI clear states that no religous test can be required for an office or public trust.
Comment by Texas Red Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 7:48 pm
– No such thing as separation of church and state - unless you are quoting Jefferson’s defense of religion in his Danbury Baptists letter.–
Yeah, that’s come up a few times in some Supreme Court rulings, hasn’t it?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 7:54 pm
=word
Unsurprisingly many have misunderstood the phrase separation of church and state, which as I have pointed out is not a legal term or claus. Rather it was used by Jefferson to defend the rights of the Danbury Baptists to exercise religious feeedom from any potential state sanctioned religion . So what is really a simple restatement of the establishment claus, has been morphed into the idea that there should be a feeedom from religion in all gov’t matters which is not the case.
Comment by Texas Red Monday, Aug 7, 17 @ 11:18 pm
Does the Teacher’s Union ever ask how their demands will be paid for? Ever?
Comment by Ed Equity Tuesday, Aug 8, 17 @ 8:23 am
Not their job, Ed
Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Aug 8, 17 @ 8:42 am