Committed to Greatness // 5

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 director

A C A L L F O R

F U N D I N G

“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.

Illinois Ranks Second-to-Last in Fair Distribution of Education Funds, National Study Finds

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 WI MS WA CO TX MI ID FL VA PA ME AL NY MO ND NC NH IL NV

Committed to Greatness // 5

6 // FocalPoint | Winter–Spring 2013

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 fi gures 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.

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 “fl at” 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 fi scal capacity. States are graded according to the ratio of state spending on education to per-capita gross domestic product.

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.

The study, updated in 2012 from the original 2010 report, shows these findings for Illinois:

Is School Funding Fair? — A Report Card for Illinois —

Funding Distribution Grade F

Effort Grade D

Funding Level Rank 29

Coverage Rank 33

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 fi ve states with a statistically signifi cant “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.

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 fl awed 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 schoolchil-dren and their families, who are not getting a fair break under the present system.”

Demographics Illinois ChicagoNumber of students 2,023,087 409,055Number of schools 4,058 672% Low-income 43% 83%% English Language learners 5% 14%

BPI, a Chicago-based public interest law and policy center, fi led a lawsuit in 2010 on behalf of two Illinois taxpayer plaintiffs. The suit was fi led 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.

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 for-

mula 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.

This statewide comparison of an evi-dence-based approach to school fi nance adequacy to current revenues (2008) in Illinois is replicated after the Wisconsin school fi nance

adequacy study methodology (Odden et al), which charges that, “Given the curriculum stan-

dards the state has decided all students should be taught, the knowledge needs of the emerging global

economy and the performance levels to which all students need to achieve to participate effectively in the economy, however, it is time to focus on school fi nance adequacy—to identify what it would take programmatically to teach students to those performance levels and to fully fund those programs.” //

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.

Excerpt: The evidence-based school fi nance 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 adequa-cy framework is to consider the adequate (or suffi cient) fi scal resources that would enable all students to perform at high levels. An adequacy framework fi rst necessitates that current money within the system is used in different ways.

Under an equity framework, the dollar amount that is used as the foundation or baseline is often arbitrarily determined: The money in the system is a result of political compromise. However, under an adequacy framework, the founda-tion of the baseline dollar amount is strategic. So, any money above and beyond what the system currently has should be determined —and hopefully used—in ways that are consistent with research and best practice.

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 fi led 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 expeditious-ly 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 fi nance systems across the county. The results of this evaluation can be used by stakeholders, community leaders, elected offi cials, 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.

ONE PROPOSED SOLUTION: EVIDENCE-BASED FINANCE ADEQUACY IN ILLINOIS: A CASE FOR “ADEQUACY FUNDING” By Michelle Turner Mangan and Ted Purington

To read specifi cs of the model, read the full report here: www.isbe.net/EFAB/pdf/Appendix_IV_fy11.pdf

“The greatest danger for most of us is not that we aim

too high and miss, but we aim too low and reach it.”

– Michelangelo

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

To read the full report, visit www.schoolfundingfairness.org

What does adequate funding look like? According to this study: $12,532 per-pupil