Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Share of state tax receipts continues to rise in Chicago, suburbs
Next Post: Senate Dems finally confirm Sunday session
Posted in:
* This Peoria Journal Star editorial has one of the better critiques of Gov. Rauner’s “hold harmless” plan for school funding…
Second, in having the “hold harmless” provision sunset in two years and then applying it on a per-student rather than per-district basis, the governor would have most Illinois school districts — about 60 percent, more than 500 total — losing under the new formula starting in 2020 because their enrollments are dropping. For Peoria schools, about $4,000 in general state aid is attached to every student. Peoria has 700 fewer students than it did five years ago. Do the math; were that provision in place, Peoria would be looking at $2.8 million less coming its way.
On the one hand, it stands to reason that state support should be tied to the number of students. On the other, this would defeat the very purpose of the reform, arguably making the rich richer, exacerbating the problem, not correcting it. And pragmatically, how can any measure that makes losers of a majority get the votes of a supermajority of legislators?
Yep. Making the rich richer.
* This defense is not so good…
Rauner said in his radio interview that leaving the permanent funding guarantee is place is “unfair.”
“Let’s say, a small district in a rural community, their families move out to find jobs in other states, which has been happening forever. Should the state continue to send the same amount of money to a school district where maybe two-thirds of the students are gone?” he asked. “Is that fair? Should that always be true, off into the future for another 10 or 20 years? Is that fair to taxpayers? And is that fair to the parents who live in areas that have more needs and have more students to educate?”
OK, how many school districts have actually lost two-thirds of their students? Even if there are some, that’s a dorm room debate.
It also completely ignores the “adequacy” aspect of school funding reform. As was explained here yesterday, if a district loses enough kids that it no longer needs as much money as before, funding will be reduced.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:06 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Share of state tax receipts continues to rise in Chicago, suburbs
Next Post: Senate Dems finally confirm Sunday session
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Rauner has screwed this up badly. I do not see a path to victory for him on this issue.
Comment by Element Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:12 am
I view this as a way to force more districts to consolidate
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:14 am
Here’s the other part that has been overlooked.
Very broadly speaking, there are two main components that drive how much a district receives, enrollment and local wealth.
With the Governor’s per-pupil hold harmless, if a district gains a ton of local wealth, they will still be held harmless if enrollment is flat.
Yet if a poorer district loses enrollment, but let’s say their poverty concentration shoots up because of those demographic changes, that district could lose money depending on how the numbers shake out.
This entire proposal is a silly half-baked idea being touted as “fair” simply because the Governor has a personal animus towards CPS which blinds him from understanding the broader impact of the proposals that he is making.
Comment by Juice Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:16 am
===I view this as a way to force more districts to consolidate===
If you want consolidation, or TIF reform or whatever, that’s fine. Go for it. Just don’t take school kids hostage to do it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:17 am
== Rauner has screwed this up badly. I do not see a path to victory for him on this issue. ==
Victory? Heck, I don’t even see a path to any school funding at the moment unless the GOP rebels against Rauner.
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:24 am
From Rauner’s 2016 budget address:
“To achieve formula changes, we must increase state support for education so that no community has state funding taken away as part of reform. I pledge to work with you on this issue to find a bipartisan way forward.”
Comment by jade me not Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:27 am
“Just don’t take school kids hostage to do it.”
This is the M.O. of our governor.
Without a majority in the legislature, the votes might not be there to do it any other way. I hope it ends the same way his hostage-taking worked with the budget.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:28 am
He seems like a man lacking political skill and compensating for that with his endless supply of money and ruthless willingness to take the vulnerable hostage.
Comment by Ole' Nelson Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:31 am
==If you want consolidation, or TIF reform or whatever, that’s fine. Go for it. Just don’t take school kids hostage to do it.==
Agreed
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:33 am
===From Rauner’s 2016 budget address:===
That speech is no longer operative. Anything said or promised by the Governor prior to his merger with IPI is subject to revision.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:36 am
== … ruthless willingness to take the vulnerable hostage. ==
Isn’t that partially how he got rich; gutting vunerable companies for his personal profit?
Comment by RNUG Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:37 am
I wonder if they could add compromise language where if a certain percentage decrease in enrollment occurs, then a review of funding levels for that district/school will be triggered.
Too complicated? No snark.
Comment by Chicago_Downstater Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:41 am
Element - normally I would agree but with the 3/5 requirement I am not so sure the Senate Dems will override the Governor’s amendatory veto.
1. Will every Senate Dem be there? They need all 37 present to ensure mayhem does not ensue.
2. How would someone like Steve Stadelman vote - especially if he is the deciding vote? I know he voted for the original SB 1 and its concurrences but after 2.5 months of media scrutiny and Senator Syverson’s claims that SB 1124 and HB 4069 are better for Rockford’s schools how would he lean? The concurrence vote was a late in the night, end of session maneuver. This is not.
Comment by Curl of the Burl Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:41 am
Rauner may not expect to be in office in 10 or 20 years, but that doesn’t mean that thoughtful lawmakers won’t be able to adjust the formulas. Those adjustments happen all the time.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:50 am
Not enough money to hold everyone harmless forever. Can we agree to slightly injure?
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:52 am
You got it. Make the rich richer to say the least. People-people, the bottom line here is that Rauner, the Raunerites, IPI, and the right wing agenda is to cause as much disruption and blame the Democratics and especially the Speaker for just about everything. What a pointless plan. Fund schools through SB1 that you, the governor, want to totally kill off. This GA finally gets it right, but then Rauner and IPI step in to destroy the education system. Just because of their right wing agenda, the plan to nowhere.
Comment by Hey Now Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:53 am
In the past several months you have seen more news services that previously have been supportive of the Governor calling him out. It’s taken a while but more folks are finally realizing that this administration is ineffective in improving our state.
Comment by The Dude Abides Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 10:59 am
C-D - that would make the most sense. Someone typed yesterday (here or on another social media site) that it would be silly to cut for only one student. I agree. But if you tier it based on larger losses - such as a percentage - then it makes more sense because losing a large chunk of kids would truly impact what a school needs in terms of personnel and supplies.
Comment by Curl of the Burl Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:05 am
==Make the rich richer to say the least==
Is “rich” defined before or after property tax deductions?
Comment by City Zen Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 11:08 am
With State Fair fever, I’m late to this party but many federal grants are in 3 year increments, so population movement (therefore funding) can be resassed. Not a new idea, and from what I’ve seen, rather equitable.
Comment by realkewlio Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 5:41 pm
=I view this as a way to force more districts to consolidate=
You need your “vision” cchecked then.
Two governors (Quinn and Rauner) have reviewed this issue and both have come to the same conclusion- note that consolidations in mass are not happening.
You can draw your own conclusion I hope.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Aug 9, 17 @ 6:24 pm