|
|
|
For the State of Illinois and the rest of the country the Strayer-Haig or some version of it has been operating for the majority of the century. It would be wonderful to think that the committee will discover a new formula to reflect the essential variables of the formula that would solve all the concerns of the diverse districts in the state. (However, the chances this will happen are slim. The probability that this will happen is slight). What the committee will most likely deal with is the relationship of these variables to the final formula. In analyzing the formula one quickly sees four variables. Increases in two variables bring more money to school districts while the other two variables decrease the amount of money going to local districts. The foundation level was the variable that became the focal point of the last change in the formula. $4225 was set as the adequacy level for students in the state. The setting of the amount for the foundation level is one of the key charges of the committee. The second variable is student count. This was another controversial issue that was changed in the last formula. This decision effectively removed the increase of the foundation level for high schools. Any increase in student count will increase state aid. The next two variables decrease state aid. The variable that decreases the amount of state aid involves local wealth. The discussion involving the EAV calculation revolves around the tax cut issues. Should tax cut limitations become a part of the formula? The double legislation addresses this issue. Finally, the tax rate calculation is the best understood but of equal importance to the formula. The changes made three years ago simplified the calculations. It brought additional funds to many districts. As it is today, the legislature does not operate in a vacuum. State funding resulted in expenditures being made predicated on continued state funding. To avoid putting these districts in peril hold harmless was established. My proposal is simple. Establish a comprehensive and reliable way of establishing the foundation level. This should be calculated by an independent agency. Keep the student count the same as it is now. Use available EAV (that is, not restricted by tax caps) rather than present EAV in the calculation. Finally, eliminate the dual district penalty. Presently, an elementary district's tax rate is $2.30 and the high school tax rate is $1.05. The combined total is $3.35 compared to the unit district's tax rate of $3.00. This causes the $.35 penalty for dual districts. If the state believes in unit districts, mandate them. Elementary rates and high school rates should equal the district rates. There are two other issues. First, hold harmless should remain at the present level. The second issue involves funding of poverty students. The increase in the foundation level will eventually eliminate this issue. Census data well as the free and reduced lunch count are flawed. In today's technological world, the wealth or poverty of a district can be calculated by the state. Furthermore, the step function of calculation for poverty reimbursement should be changed to a linear function. Educational funding in Illinois has increased by the passage of Senate Bill 452. It was only a beginning. The goal of 50% state funding for education is laudable. Continue supporting funding all students. |
|
|