A
C
A
L
L
F
O
R
Illinois Ranks 2nd-to-Last in Fair Distribution of Education Funds, National Study Finds Dr. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University Graduate School of Education; David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center (ELC); and Dr. Danielle Farrie, ELC research UT NJ OH MN ME SD IN CT MT DE WY TN CA KY NE GA NM AR OK OR WV KS VT RI SC LA IA MD AZ WIdirector MS WA CO TX MI ID FL VA PA ME AL NY MO ND NC NH IL NV
F
U
N
D
I
N
G
Illinois Ranks Second-to-Last in Fair Distribution of Education Funds, National Study Finds
“Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card,” a national study conducted by Rutgers University researchers and the Education Law Center in Newark, N.J., ranks states on how fairly they fund public schools based on four interrelated “fairness indicators”—funding level, funding distribution, state fiscal effort and public school coverage.
Committed to Greatness
//
5
PolicyReport
The report card gave Illinois an “F” in an evaluation of the fairness of its funding distribution between low- and high-poverty school districts. The report ranks Illinois second-to-last in funding distribution fairness. Illinois also scored low marks on the study’s other measures: THE FAIRNESS MEASURES All 50 states are evaluated on the basis of four separate, but interrelated, fairness measures: Funding Level: Using figures adjusted to account for a variety of interstate differences, this measure allows for a comparison of the average state and local revenue per pupil across states. States are ranked from highest to lowest per pupil funding.
Is School Funding Fair? — A Report Card for Illinois —
Funding Distribution Grade
Funding Distribution: This measure shows whether a state provides more or less funding to schools based on their poverty concentration. States are evaluated as “regressive,” “progressive” or “flat” and are given letter grades that correspond to their relative position compared to other states. Effort: This measures differences in state spending relative to the state’s fiscal capacity. States are graded according to the ratio of state spending on education to per-capita gross domestic product.
Effort Grade
F
D
Funding Level Rank Coverage Rank
29
33
Coverage: This measures the proportion of school-age children attending the state’s public schools and also addresses the income disparity between families using private schools and those sending their children to public schools. States are ranked according to both the proportion of children in public schools and the income ratio of private and public school families.
Demographics
Illinois
Chicago
Number of students
2,023,087
409,055
Number of schools
4,058
672
% Low-income
43%
83%
% English Language learners
5%
14%
The study, updated in 2012 from the original 2010 report, shows these findings for Illinois: Illinois received a grade “F” in funding distribution, one of only 5 states to receive this failing grade. Illinois now has the second highest disparity of funding between high-poverty and low-poverty schools nationally. A state is considered “regressive” if a 30-percent-poverty district receives at least 5 percent less funding than a zero-percent-poverty district. In Illinois—one of only five states with a statistically significant “regressive” funding structure—districts with 30-percent poverty can expect to receive 21 percent less than a district with zero percent poverty. Illinois scored a “D” in “effort”—a measure based on the ratio of state spending on education to per-capita gross domestic product. 6
//
FocalPoint | Winter–Spring 2013
In response to the National Report Card’s assessment of Illinois, Hoy McConnell, executive director of Business and Professional People for the Public Interest (BPI) said “Illinois’ shameful ranking on this national survey is not a surprise, but it does serve to demonstrate unequivocally that our flawed system for funding public schools is deeply inequitable compared to the rest of the country. Illinois’ system is unfair to everyone in the state—taxpayers, school districts, businesses and—most importantly—Illinois schoolchildren and their families, who are not getting a fair break under the present system.”
BPI, a Chicago-based public interest law and policy center, filed a lawsuit in 2010 on behalf of two Illinois taxpayer plaintiffs. The suit was filed on behalf of property tax payers and claims that someone in a poor district with a $300,000 house must pay more property taxes than someone in a rich school district with a $300,000 house, and that the disparity in unconstitutional.
The case was dismissed and so BPI appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the case so the parties filed briefs and it was argued before the court in September 2012. A decision is pending as of press time. “Essentially, if we can get the Supreme Court to declare the system is illegal as it currently exists, that should give strong impetus to the legislature and to the courts to expeditiously change this current system,” says McConnell.
According to a BPI press release, The goal of the National Report Card is to provide a deeper understanding of the condition of state finance systems across the county. The results of this evaluation can be used by stakeholders, community leaders, elected officials, and concerned citizens working to reform state school funding.
As education reform initiatives capture the public’s attention, the National Report Card presents the critical element for successful public schools. The ability to improve states’ educational outcomes, whether closing achievement gaps, increasing college and career readiness, or supporting teacher quality, depends on the foundation of a fair school funding system. The National Report Card contributes valuable information that can help determine the direction of public education policy at the federal, state, and local level.
To read the full report, visit www.schoolfundingfairness.org
ONE PROPOSED SOLUTION: EVIDENCE-BASED FINANCE ADEQUACY IN ILLINOIS: A CASE FOR “ADEQUACY FUNDING” By Michelle Turner Mangan and Ted Purington Excerpt: The evidence-based school finance adequacy model is an alternative method to determining per-pupil expenditures by looking at how much “best practices” cost, rather than what taxpayers are necessarily willing to afford. In some states, it has been used as policy for indicating the base state funding level. In others, pieces of the model have been pulled out for targeted implementation. To think about school funding with an adequacy framework is to consider the adequate (or sufficient) fiscal resources that would enable all students to perform at high levels. An adequacy framework first necessitates that current money within the system is used in different ways.
A feature of the evidence-based model that is most important for a diverse state like Illinois is that additional resources are added to the state foundation level. So, in other words, the funding formula does not assume that all students need exactly the same resources. Evidence demonstrates that English Language Learners and impoverished students require additional instructional resources, such as tutors. The model incorporates those costs.
“The greatest danger for most of us is not that we aim too high and miss, but we aim too low and reach it.”
This statewide comparison of an evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy to current revenues (2008) in Illinois is replicated after the Wisconsin school finance – Michelangelo adequacy study methodology (Odden et al), which charges that, “Given the curriculum stanUnder an equity framework, the dollar amount that dards the state has decided all students should be is used as the foundation or baseline is often arbitrarily taught, the knowledge needs of the emerging global determined: The money in the system is a result of political economy and the performance levels to which all students compromise. However, under an adequacy framework, the founda- need to achieve to participate effectively in the economy, however, tion of the baseline dollar amount is strategic. So, any money above it is time to focus on school finance adequacy—to identify what it and beyond what the system currently has should be determined would take programmatically to teach students to those performance —and hopefully used—in ways that are consistent with research and levels and to fully fund those programs.” // best practice.
What does adequate funding look like? According to this study: $12,532 per-pupil To read specifics of the model, read the full report here: www.isbe.net/EFAB/pdf/Appendix_IV_fy11.pdf Research Resources: Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card — Second Edition: June 2012. By Dr. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University Graduate School of Education; David Sciarra, executive director of the Education Law Center (ELC); and Dr. Danielle Farrie, ELC research director.
Evidence-Based Finance Adequacy in Illinois: A Case for “Adequacy Funding” A Subcommittee Report of the Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) Advisory Board Committee By Michelle Turner Mangan and Ted Purington, November 18, 2010
Moving from good to great in Wisconsin: Funding schools adequately and doubling student performance. By Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Aportela, A. (2007).
Committed to Greatness
//
7