Illinois School Funding Reform August 2014
Agenda What’s wrong with education funding in Illinois? How does IL School Funding Reform Act of 2014 help? Understanding the law’s impact Funding coalition 1
Illinois has cut $1.4 billion from the education budget since 2009 Appropriation (2014 $M) 9,000 Funding is down $8,194 17% 17% 8,000 from 2009 $7,330 $6,805 7,000 6,000 5,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Note: Appropriations adjusted for inflation Source: Illinois State Board of Education, Enacted Budgets 2006-2015 2
Illinois generally spends less on low-income students than their peers (in fact, it is the second worse in the US) Top 10 average 128 (most progressive) US Average 102 -40% Bottom 10 average 83 (most regressive) 77 IL 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Equity ratio (percent) Top states invest 25% more in the education of their neediest students, while IL invests 25% less. Equity ratio is the ratio of cost adjusted (predicted) state plus local funding per pupil for the highest quintile poverty districts to the lowest quintile poverty districts (where poverty is measured by the Census). the local equity ratio includes only local revenues. Note: IL ranks 5th overall for local equity Source: Center for American Progress, "The Stealth Inequities of School Funding", APA report to EFAC 3
Illinois’s education foundation level falls short of the state’s own recommendation of adequacy… Foundation Level of Funding Per Student 9000 8672 8000 Gap -2,553 7000 6119 6000 5000 4000 3000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Foundation level of funding recommended by EFAB Foundation level of funding set by Illinois Legislature Source: Education Funding Advisory Board, Illinois State Board of Education; Advance Illinois analysis of FY2013 General State Aid entitlement calculations, February 2013 4
…and is further reduced when the state prorates Foundation Level of Funding Per Student 9000 8672 8000 7000 6119 6000 Proration 5700* 5000 4000 3000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Foundation level of funding recommended by EFAB Foundation level of funding set by Illinois Legislature Foundation level allocated by Illinois Legislature, thus triggering proration *Estimate of foundation level based on current funding levels Source: Education Funding Advisory Board, Illinois State Board of Education; Advance Illinois analysis of FY2013 General State Aid entitlement calculations, February 2013 5
Proration disproportionately hurts the state’s most disadvantaged students Districts with the lowest property wealth lose 5.5% vs. 0.5% for those with the highest property wealth Districts with the most low-income students lose 4.8% vs. 0.8% of those with the least low income students Least low- Most low- income income Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 CPS¹ 0 FY13 GSA funding loss (M) Each quintile represents ≈ -50 20% of the $100 per Illinois student -100 students 1 $519 per student -150 $394 per -200 student Illinois education funding does not meet the State’s current definition of adequacy and is getting worse 1 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is its own category as it represents 22 percent of the state’s enrollment; CPS is not included within th e other quintiles. 6
SB16 would direct state dollars where they are most needed Operating Expenditure Per Pupil ($K) 16 Current System SB16 14 12 10 13.8 13.7 12.9 12.4 12.4 11.9 11.6 11.5 11.2 11.0 10.6 10.2 8 0 6 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 CPS 11% 23% 39% 56% 80% 93% Average DHS% Least low-income Most low-income SB16 ensures that state funds will be distributed based on student need, making a more equitable system Note: funding excludes capital spending 1 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is its own category as it represents 22 percent of the state’s enrollment; CPS is not included w ithin the other quintiles. Source: ISBE FY13 state disbursements & ILearn FY13 7
Total district funding is not directed towards IL’s neediest students, despite increased needs for adequate funding Total funding per pupil ($K) 16 Each quintile represents ≈ 20% of the 14 Illinois students 1 13.4 12 12.1 11.6 11.6 11.0 10.9 10 8 6 0 0 4 CPS 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 1 2 3 4 5 CPS Average DHS% 11% 23% 39% 56% 80% 93% Least low-income Most low-income Taking into consideration local ability to pay would direct state dollars where they are needed most Note: funding excludes capital spending 1 Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is its own category as it represents 22 percent of the state’s enrollment; CPS is not included w ithin the other quintiles. Source: ISBE FY13 state disbursements & ILearn FY13 8
How the Illinois School Funding Reform Act of 2014 works 2 1 The minimum level of funding for each The state will contribute the difference district will be determined by its students' between what is needed and what the 2 needs district is able to pay 2 State Funding Additional Base Amount Student Need* District Funding *Resources are based on local *Need includes poverty, Current base amount is set by property values special education, English current foundation levels language learners, etc. 9
Despite low-spending from the state, less than half of State education dollars consider a district’s ability to support its schools Funding % low income District property component % of state funding (DHS) wealth (EAV) Formula 45% grants Supplemental 23% grants All other 20% categoricals Chicago 8% block grants * Early childhood 4% Included in formula Variable across category Not included in formula *The Chicago Block grant does have student need factors, but relies on data from 1985 in its formula. Note: Categoricals include some competitive grants. Additional competitive grants represent very small portion of total spend. 10
An integrated formula can simplify how state dollars are distributed… To create an integrated formula, Illinois would combine all GSA and most categoricals 1 and allocate according to a single, transparent, integrated formula Percent of state funding 100 Categorical Chicago block Categorical 80 Categorical 60 Supplemental Integrated grant formula 40 GSA formula 20 0 Integrated formula Current system An integrated formula would ensure distributions are consistent across funding streams 1.See backup page for additional detail on categoricals included in formula Source: ISBE 2014 Budget Book, ISBE FY13 State Disbursements 11
The legislation recommends additional weights for poverty, Special Education, English language learning and other student needs Student Need Additional Weight (above base amount) 25 percent to 75 percent per student based Poverty upon concentration of poverty (See next slide for further explanation) Special Education 100 percent (Students who need exceptional levels of service will be funded separately) English Language Learning 20 percent K-8 Gifted and Talented 1 percent High School Outcomes: 2 percent AP, Dual-credit courses High School Outcomes: 3 percent Career Pathways Completers 6 – 12 percent Transportation (range is based upon density/square mile and type of transportation) Source: Illinois School Funding Reform Act 12
The poverty weight would be determined based upon a district’s concentration of student poverty • A district with a poverty concentration that is less than 30 percent, will receive an additional weight of 25 percent above the base amount for every low-income student. • A district with a poverty concentration above 30 percent will receive an additional weight between 25 and 75 percent above the base amount for every low- income student, based on the district’s concentration of poverty State funding per pupil ($) 4,000 SB16 Current System 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Poverty concentration (percent of low-income students) SB 16 proposes a poverty concentration amount that would be the highest nationwide NOTE: Senate Bill 16 makes clear that poverty counts are based upon students who receive a free or reduced-price meal rather than the percent of students who receive services from the Department of Health and Human Services. 13
Local Impact Based on SB16 14
The road to the Illinois School Funding Reform Act of 2014 The Illinois Senate unanimously voted to create an Education Funding Advisory Jul. 2013 Committee, recognizing that Illinois public education funding was ripe for review 7 public hearings were held between July, 2013 and February, 2014 The bipartisan Committee released its recommendations for a new state Feb. 2014 education funding system The Illinois School Funding Reform Act of 2014 (SB 16) was filed, building upon Apr. 2014 this groundwork The Illinois Senate passed the Illinois School Funding Reform Act of 2014 with 32 May 2014 Yeas, 19 Nays and 6 present votes Build a coalition of organizations that will support the passage of the Illinois Summer & Fall 2014 School Funding Reform Act into law Winter SB16 may come under consideration in the Illinois House 2015 15
Map of Coalition Members 16
Recommend
More recommend
