Illinois School Funding Reform Commission

Transcription

1 Illinis Schl Funding Refrm Cmmissin Meeting 10 December 14, 2016

2 Agenda I. Welcme, Setting the Stage II. Pints f Cnsensus: Discussin III. Schedule f future meetings with tpics and suggested presenters IV. Adjurnment 2

3 Meeting 1 Key Pints: Funding Overview As f FY14, IL is 16th in verall public schl revenue per student (including pensins) IL has the largest equity spending gap in the cuntry Gap is due in large part t verreliance n lcal prperty taxes Lcal prperty taxes make it easier fr wealthier districts t raise mre mney fr their students Reliance n lcal prperty taxes makes schl funding mre f a lcal decisin; sme schl districts chse t spend abve $30,000 per pupil Only 26% f schl funding cmes frm state revenue (68% f which is GSA bth the equalizatin grant and the supplemental lw-incme grant) GSA equalizatin grant is the nly state revenue taking lcal wealth int accunt High-quality funding systems are adequate, equitable, flexible, & adaptable In the current system, lw-incme districts receive mre state mney than high-incme districts, but the verall spending is belw adequacy Years f prratin have disprprtinately hurt pr districts Currently, IL pays nrmal pensin csts fr all districts ther than CPS Chicag Blck Grant was implemented as an attempt t ensure equitable funding fr Chicag, and results in CPS receiving additinal special educatin, lw-incme, and ther funding 3

4 Meetings 2 & 3 Key Pints: Adequacy & Equity Adequacy Adequacy targets will be different fr every child, depending upn their individual characteristics where they live Variability in perfrmance (n matter what the spending) means additinal spending des nt guarantee imprved utcmes Evidence-Based Mdel attempts t define adequacy thrugh a researchbased frmula fcusing n teacher and student supprts and peratinal needs The state des nt have the resurces t immediately meet adequacy, s any attempt must be gradual Equity Student wh are pr, live in areas f cncentrated pverty, have disabilities, are gifted, are hmeless and/r are English Learners need mre financial supprt t reach their ptential than their peers Operatinal csts may vary by regin The current frmula addresses equity but nt enugh t ensure that all students in the state have a access t a high-quality educatin 4

5 Meeting 4 Key Pints: Hld Harmless & Distributin Mdels Hld Harmless (HH) HH may ccur by district, by student r by effect n educatin quality HH frmula definitin must address: Fr whm Fr hw lng With hw much mney Distributin Mdels Determines hw t priritize ad distribute existing vs. new mney Must take int accunt lcal effrt Will be affected by hw much additinal $$ is added each year HH will be affected by definitin f adequacy target and gals f any new frmula Will be affected by HH 5

6 EAV varies by regin: Meeting 5 Key Pints: Prperty Taxes 45% Ck Cunty 30% cllar cunties 25% rest f state Relatively unifrm assessment prcess in Illinis Schl districts have the ability t raise rates when they believe that they have additinal needs. That ability varies by district. Abslute freeze n prperty taxes withut new revenue wuld affect districts differently, depending upn their reliance n lcal revenue and their spending as related t adequacy target Current frmula uses assumed tax rates that are significantly lwer than actual tax rates Value f TIFs is nt included in current frmula New mney put int the current frmula funds the PTELL adjustment and pverty grant befre the equalized GSA r MCATs 6

7 Meeting 6 Key Pints: Prperty Taxes If current system used actual instead f assumed tax rates, districts may drp their rates. If we stayed with the current frmula, the fundatin level wuld rise significantly t make up the difference, especially in middle and lw incme districts. PTELL adjustment designed t save districts under PTELL frm the duble whammy that therwise means they are capped in what revenue they can raise but nt in what the frmula sees as available lcal resurces 90% f PTELL adjustment benefits CPS Cst f PTELL adjustment changes in relatin t the amunt f EAV available fr PTELL PTELL adjustment financed thrugh GSA prratin Difficult t use current state funding frmula t prmte equity when nly 26% f schl district resurces cmes frm state revenue Cmplex interplay between tax rates, lcal prperty wealth, and incme that may lead t unintended cnsequences 7

8 Meeting 7 Key Pints: Special Educatin & Early Childhd Special Educatin The cst f educating a child with a disability is based upn the individualized educatin prgram (IEP) Illinis schl cde includes dzens f unfunded mandates ver and abve the requirements f IDEA. These significantly increase the csts f educating children with disabilities. Reimbursement amunt has nt changed in 10 years Expensive but limited, audited private settings may serve children with lwincidence CPS funded thrugh blck grant abve claim amunt 90% f districts belng t c-ps Early Childhd Funded thrugh Early Childhd Blck Grant Distributed nt via a designated per-pupil but rather thrugh selectin f prpsals CPS funded thrugh blck grant at same reimbursement rate as rest f state 8

9 Meeting 8 Key Pints: English Learners Illinis is serving an increasing prprtin f English Learners, especially in the early grades ELs have the challenge f learning a secnd language while mastering cntent knwledge in rder t stay n grade level Currently, there is n funding fr native language assessment. PARCC has prmised t be available in additinal languages in the cming years. 2 primary instructinal mdels funded thrugh a bilingual line item (with sme supplemental $$ thrugh GSA and federal funds) Schl districts have t apply fr reimbursement Reimbursement amunt has nt changed since 1998 Line item is prrated separately frm GSA prratin and was nt fully reinstated in the FY17 stp-gap budget CPS funded same as everyne else (n blck grant) Distinctin between supprts fr ELs and pprtunities fr all students t becme bilingual and biliterate 9

10 Meeting 9 Key Pints: Evidence-Based Mdel (EBM) Multiple bills in the GA include EBM, which has 27 input elements. These elements include bth peratinal items and prgrams cnsidered t be best practice. Current estimates indicate that the state wuld require an additinal $5 billin in funding t meet adequacy Thery behind EBM is t set up a pathway t adequacy and guide districts t best practices After discussin, we are waiting fr additinal infrmatin, including: Whether there is a way t decrease the cst f individual elements The effects n each district Any frmula shuld be flexible and adaptable, but there are cncerns that inclusin f these elements in statute may interfere with lcal cntrl and the ability t schl bards t determine which elements t implement 10

11 Agenda I. Welcme, Setting the Stage II. Pints f Cnsensus: Discussin III. Schedule f future meetings with tpics and suggested presenters IV. Adjurnment 11