Good afternoon. My name is Karl Plank and I am beginning my 8th year as Superintendent of Schools in School District 308 serving Oswego and parts of Aurora, Montgomery, Plainfield and Joliet in Kendall, Kane and Will Counties. Today I am here representing my district and the Large Unit District Association (LUDA). This organization represents the 54 largest unit school districts in the State of Illinois and the needs of over 50% of the State's school children. On behalf of all the LUDA districts, I thank you for your continued support of school children throughout the State of Illinois and your willingness to serve on this Advisory Board. My testimony will focus on 10 points as follows:

• Any new funding formula should recognize the 4 main components of our present formula. 

• Adequate funding - the definition of an adequate finance system was attempted during Bob's administration as State Superintendent. Adequacy is still an issue in the formula and I think a good place to start in its new definition would be the adequacy model that was developed several years ago. Obviously conditions have changed and  that formula will have to be changed, but it is an appropriate place to start. 
• Change to a broad, fair, responsive tax system - the current system has been criticized for years for being over reliant on the property tax system to develop a significant portion of the revenue to operate public schools. If that system is going to be changed significantly, another tax is going to have to be used as the basis for the financial support of public schools. I suggest that the income tax is broader, fairer and more responsive to people's ability to pay taxes than is the property tax. In the move from the property tax to the income tax, the General Assembly will have to be willing to shift money from wealthier to poorer geographic areas of the state for equity and to support tax increases for adequacy . The General Assembly will also have to consider the inadequate level of funding for special education services currently in spite of the fact that they now proudly proclaim "full funding" of categoricals. "Full funding" means that a local school district receives $8,000 toward the total cost of a special education teacher's regardless of whether that teacher makes $25,000 or $75,000. 
• Provide a block grant for several categorical programs - I do not suggest that special education or transportation be included in the block grant. I suggest that a model for this proposal could be the one currently in use by the Chicago Public School System provided by present legislation. The block grant of the categorical programs would provide a school district the flexibility to deliver those services with significantly less paperwork and internal bureaucratic responses in providing the services to students.
• Long-range/multi-year budget planning - any change to a new foundation formula should include as part of it a long-term commitment by the General Assembly to an adequate foundation formula and biannual review for improvement. The current formula was provided with a 3 year commitment from the legislature to move from 4225 to 4425 over a three year period. That 3-year commitment coupled with the continuing appropriations pledge provided the financial stability that was afforded school districts. Funding stability is currently temporary and will disappear with the expiration of the continuing appropriations and funding levels set in the current law. Whether you were well served by this formula or not as a school district, you certainly knew what your state revenue budget figure was going to be well ahead of time in order to allow you to prepare. Continuing appropriations have made budgeting at the local district level a significantly different process as compared to the old days when we would hear late in June or perhaps early in July regarding the level of state revenue after having to commit ourselves contractually as required by statute to all our certified personnel the previous April. 
• Tax caps - the legislative mandate providing tax caps has had a negative impact on the ability of many districts to provide necessary educational programming. The law limits districts' access to local funds and will have serious impact on the total financial support for a school district. As an example, Oswego District 308 lost access to $370,000 in the last tax cycle. Spreading that kind of impact across the state has had serious implications for financial support of a number of school districts. 
• Three-year average for the average daily attendance in the foundation formula - declining enrollment districts are being seriously impacted. If the hold harmless portion of this formula is eliminated as has been discussed at meetings of  superintendents and EFAB, many of LUDA's members would lose significant amounts of money in state revenue and currently have very little in the way of options to respond to that loss.
• Chicago reforms - in general the management reforms provided by the legislature for the public schools in Chicago have been working quite well for that district in its attempts to improve. Chicago Public Schools indicate that administrative overhead has been reduced and program flexibility increased. I suggest that the model for improving the remainder of the districts in the state could benefit from the reforms provided by the legislature in Chicago. 
• Capital funding - school construction grant law - The current state school capital funding program is too small and does not provide a permanent long-term solution to statewide school capital fund needs. Oswego District 308 in its most recent enrollment calculation grew at an annual rate in excess of 7.5%. With the approved developments currently on the table, that rate of enrollment growth will only increase unless the economy of the country changes significantly. We have in excess of 3500 approved housing units already in subdivisions that only need to be built and sold. Those 3500 units do not consider the fact that new subdivisions of significant size are being proposed in our villages or cities as we speak. The school construction grant program has provided us with 2 grants in excess of $8,000,000. In addition, we have received entitlement to a third grant and are working with the Illinois State Board of Education and Capital Development Board to establish a dollar amount for that grant as we plan a new junior high school. While Oswego is probably not typical of growth school districts in the State of Illinois, it is certainly not alone nor the largest district in terms of numbers of students or percent of student enrollment growth. The school construction grant program is highly important to districts such as mine as we continue to not only grapple with academic reforms required by the State of Illinois but the growth of our district in student enrollment. 
• What works and what won't - many of the suggestions I have made for changes in a foundation formula will require political decisions that are unpopular. Unless the political will exists to make a significant change, none will ever be made. Unless the political will exists to provide adequate funding for any formula designed by EFAB or any other group in the state, it will not work. If adequate funding is provided, many formulas exist in the minds of people in Illinois and in use in other states that will work better than what we have currently. Briefly, if adequate funding is provided, many formulas will work as an improvement to what we have, but without adequate funding, none will work. 

Thank you for your consideration of these remarks. appreciate the enormity of your task and commend the committee for its efforts to improve the current funding formula.