It's not just unfair, it's unconstitutional.

School Funding in Illinois is Unfair and Unconstitutional

Is our state education funding system set up to keep the rich rich and the poor poor? Why are some Illinois schools excellent and some failing in so many ways? While there are numerous variables that affect school quality, one critical issue in Illinois is fair funding of schools. Schools in wealthy areas spend much more per student than schools in lower income areas. According to the Illinois Comptroller’s office, “…expenditures per pupil ranged from a low of $4,281 to a high of $28,285...” This disparity is obscene.

Not only is it unfair, it is also unconstitutional.

Article X, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states:

A fundamental goal of the People of the State is the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities. The State shall provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education in public schools through the secondary level shall be free. There may be such other free education as the General Assembly provides by law. The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education.

Illinois is not living up to this admirable constitutional declaration. The last provision, that the state of Illinois has the “primary responsibility” for financing free, efficient and high quality educational institutions and services, is clearly not being enforced. In fact, during the 2007-2008 school year the state of Illinois contributed a smaller percentage to k-12 public schools than all other states. Illinois only contributes 26.7% of total school funding, placing Illinois dead last in the United States; 50 out of 50. Instead, the responsibility for funding public schools in Illinois has fallen on local governments, which cover 65% of the cost of k-12 education, the highest percentage of any state.

Why does it matter if the state of Illinois funds a smaller percentage of education, leaving local governments to pay a larger percentage? In small affluent suburbs it doesn’t cause much of a problem at all. With large property tax revenues, relatively small school-age populations, and shared interest in excellent schools these suburbs more than make up for the state’s lack of funding. So, in Illinois, some schools receive less than half the state average of  $9,099 per student and some receive more than twice that average?

While some argue that money does not matter in education, it is hard to believe that a district which spends $4,281 per student is providing the same, constitutionally mandated, high quality education provided by a district which spends $28,285. Apparently, children in rural and urban low-income communities just don’t deserve the same “high quality education” as children in upper income suburbs.

In 1987 Education Secretary William Bennett said, ''I'm not sure there's a system as bad as the Chicago system'' and extreme actions such as mayoral control and expanding charter schools have been taken to try to remedy the situation but by most measures public schools in Chicago haven’t improved much. The real problem begins in our funding formula. Nobody is complaining about failing schools in Winnetka, Highland Park and Oak Park which benefit from high funding rates stemming from local wealth.

Mayoral control, Renaissance 2010 school closings and the move to charter and contract schools haven’t improved schools in Chicago much. A recent national study showed that only about 15% of charter schools perform better than comparable neighborhood schools which means that 85% perform as well or worse. Charters alone are clearly not the answer. Why are we putting our eggs in this charter basket, when a more fundamental issue is likely to blame for our chronically underperforming urban and rural schools.

The constitutional goal is a fair one, promising “efficient,” “free,” and “high quality” education in the state. I propose that policy be enacted to guarantee that Illinois funds the actual cost of providing this high quality education to all students in the state. At a minimum, the state should be required to follow the guidelines set by the non-partisan Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) with additional funding to be provided based on students with special needs since the EFAB specifically does not include those students in its estimates. Currently the state is not required to meet EFAB guidelines and never has since they were first enacted in 2003.

I suggest that state legislators and Governor Quinn walk through some of our Illinois schools that get by on less than $5,000 per student and then take a drive to a few of the schools which spend over $15,000 per student.  Maybe then they will commit to scrapping our unfair, inequitable education funding system in Illinois and live up to the constitutional commitment that our state will be the primary source of funding for the “educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities.”

Sources:

---

NEA research Rankings and Estimates Dec. 2009 p. 41

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/us/schools-in-chicago-are-called-the-worst-by-education-chief.html

http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104029.pdf

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=010500050HArt.+18&ActID=1005&ChapAct=105%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A05/&ChapterID=17&ChapterName=SCHOOLS&SectionID=49211&SeqStart=121000000&SeqEnd=124100000&ActName=School+Code.

A rose by any other name.... would still push for charter schools.

The Renaissance School Fund is changing its name to New Schools for Chicago, but it is still pushing to turnaround schools it considers failing. At least it is now recognizing that some of the charter schools which were seen as the solution are actually part of the problem.

From Catalyst http://www.catalyst-chicago.org/notebook/index.php/entry/1080 

Ty Fahner, the president of the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago is quoted in the article as saying, “But we’re not going to continue to make-believe that just because it’s a charter that makes it better. That’s not the case.” So why is the Commercial Club of Chicago still pushing charters?

One thing that the CTU spokesperson left out of her critique of charters in the article is that nationally only 17% do any better than neighborhood schools... even with additional private funds and the (intentional or not) skimming of the most motivated students and families and filtering out the most difficult and expensive to educate students.

I'm glad that there is finally an admission that just being a charter school does nothing to improve a school. Maybe we can shift the debate to improving all schools which serve the most high need students.

Nobody ever called for charters in the Northshore suburbs where schools are well funded and students don't suffer the ill-effects of poverty and marginalization. Those schools have strong teachers unions, elected school boards and superintendents rather than CEOs. Nobody is trying to run Northshore or private schools on the corporate model, why do we think that low income kids need schools "turnedaround" by the Commercial Club of Chicago?

The false choice of education reform: Corporate Model vs. Status Quo

From Truthout's article about the false choice many corporatist education reformers push, and too many media outlets promote:

"...the corporate reformers, such as Bill Gates and Michelle Rhee  - present the public with a false choice: that there is, on the one hand, the "status quo," one that doesn't work, and, on the other, their "reform" movement, which is the only pathway out of our morass of mediocrity. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has unquestioningly bought into this limited conception of educational reform."

Education 'Inception' and Michelle Rhee's wrong idea

Michelle Rhee sweeping out the dirt...

Valerie Strauss's "Answer Sheet" blog posts a commentary by Sam Chaltain suggesting that Michelle Rhee is using the language of conquest and conflict to build support for her version of slash-and-burn education reform.

Chaltain suggests that building positive emotions around issues works better, and we can certainly point to the success of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as evidence that this is sometimes true.

It seems to me, though, that in the education debate the drivers of the conversation have had great success with a negative emotional approach. From Bill Bennett's 1988 assertion that the Chicago Public Schools were the worst in the nation to Bill Gates' recent attacks on teachers unions through Performance Counts legislation in Illinois, the language has been about creating conflict between parents and teachers as if they have very separate agendas.

What works best? Language of conflict and conquest or language of cooperation and shared goals? So far in the education reform debate (arena), conflict and conquest seem to be more effective (dominating.)

A video from the grassroots of education frame changing

 

Chicago Parents Occupy Elementary School Building to Prevent Demolition - Watch the video on Democracy Now!

A preliminary deal has been reached between Chicago Public Schools and a group of parents who have occupied a field house at Whittier Elementary School for thirty-seven days to prevent its demolition. The Chicago Public Schools have agreed to build a library and scrap plans to demolish the field house and lease it to the local parents’ association instead. We get a report from Democracy Now!’s Jaisal Noor and speak to Chicago community organizer Cecile Carroll.  - democracynow.org

The school reform frame must change.

The Myth of Charter Schools,  Diane Ravitch in the New York Review of Books

Education historian and former Assistant Secretary of Education in the G.H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations wrote an insightful critique of the film "Waiting for Superman" in which she challenges the popular "common sense" the film seems to be promoting. The film, which has been featured on Oprah and NBC's "Education Nation" is based on the idea that charter schools run on public money by private companies are the solution to the crisis in education. The fact that Ravitch once supported the ideas of charter schools and the high-stakes testing of No Child Left Behind which drives this privatization makes her argument that much more powerful.

Ravitch uses hard data to make her point that most charter schools do no better than comparable public schools for their students. Her review is full of corrections to the assumptions and the assertions made by the film. She questions the idea of there being a crisis in public education at all. Ravitch sites a Gallop pole which reveals that an "overwhelming majority" of those polled are dissatisfied with public schools, yet 77% of parents give the school their children attend an A or a B rating.

Another notion which I hear all the time is that "money isn't the issue" in education, and that you can't just throw money at the problem. If that's the case why do wealthy areas around Chicago spend around 18 thousand dollars per student per year while CPS spends around 9K even when students entering schools in the wealthy suburbs come into kindergarten more ready to learn? Money isn't the whole answer, but more equitable funding of schools certainly is part of the solution.

The frame is clearly skewed and our children will pay the price... actually it's primarily the children who have the fewest resources who will pay most dearly. When schools are in competition with each other, principals must become PR agents to attract the "best" students who will raise their test scores and make the school most attractive to other "good" students. Students who are difficult or expensive to educate are filtered or pushed out. The burden is shifted from the state to parents to create educational opportunity for their children. Now parents must use their time and money and connections to research and visit and apply to magnet schools, charter schools, and selective enrollment schools. The very students who need the best schools to help them overcome disadvantages such as extreme economic insecurity, hunger, homelessness, disabilities and chaotic family life are the ones whose parents don't have the time, money or social connections to find and compete to get into a "school of choice." The system will continue to provide excellent schools for mostly white middle class people and the weakest schools for these students who are mostly of color.

Ravitch does a good job of reframing many of these issues, but my concern is that the New York Review of Books can't compete with Oprah or NBC News "Special TV Events." Is there a way to get these ideas out in a way that a good chunk of voting/campaign contributing people will consider them as an alternative to the dominant frame? I'd love to hear thoughts on a set of talking points that could be used from the grassroots on up... can there actually be such a thing as grassroots talking points?