Roger L. Fitzpatrick, Controller/Treasurer - Peoria Public Schools.

My name is Roger Kilpatrick and for the last nine years I have served as the Controller and Treasurer for the Peoria Public Schools. I appreciate this opportunity to speak before you today on this subject that is of vital concern to the welfare of our school district and the students we serve. Prior to joining Peoria Public Schools I spent 20 years in manufacturing, banking, and public accounting. As a result when I joined the school district I was very familiar with the concepts of cost control, efficiency, and limited resources from a private enterprise point of view. I quickly found that our Board of Education and the Superintendent believe strongly in fiscal responsibility and accountability. These people realize that education is a dynamic business and that you must plan for tomorrow as you develop programs today. The actions of this body could provide the assistance to that educational process that is necessary for the future. 

When we look at funding mechanisms for schools we often lose sight of the fact that in trying to develop relatively simple methods of allocating funds, what we are really trying to accomplish is providing the resources to deliver the services to meet each child's needs. When you go to the doctor or the hospital you are not treated as if your needs are exactly the same as the patient next to you. You are treated and charged for your individual needs. In looking at the current state funding mechanisms we see the necessity to examine both the strengths and weaknesses from our viewpoint so that the needs of our children can be met. 

When the current General State Aid formula was implemented, it was designed to assist many districts and potentially protect others from being banned. We were one of those districts that with the substantial increase in funding by the state did not recognize any gain in our General State Aid. In the current formula the additional funding available for low-income students was dramatically reduced. In a district that now has a student population of 60% that comes from low-income families, this situation is critical. The needs of these students exceed the poverty grant amounts allocated in the current formula. We calculate that we lost approximately $3,000,000 in funds provided for low- income students with the new formula. If districts with large populations of low-income students are to be held accountable for their results, then they need to have the resources available to provide the services for those students. Just as treating a medical patient with special needs, the resources need to be devoted to helping that patient reach a full recovery. The concept of providing additional weighted resources for those students is good, but the needs of those students exceed the additional funding that is available. In short, the poverty grant amounts need to be increased. 

In addition both the current and prior General State Aid formulas have a flaw that penalizes districts that are heavily dependent on state assistance to a greater degree. As an example if a district receives $100 in funding, $50 from local taxes and $50 from General State Aid, and local taxes increase by $1 due to increases in Equalized Assessed Valuation, the State Aid is reduced. This process is logical because local wealth is a major factor for equalization. But if we look at this situation closely, the only way that the district gains in revenue is when additional funds are added to the State Aid formula. If the State Aid is increased by 6%, or $3 in this case, the total funding that the district now receives is $103 or an increase of 3%. 1 know that this is an over simplification, but it highlights the fact that it is imperative that increases to the Foundation Level in true dollar gains need to keep pace with the growing costs of education. 

The final area of funding that I would like to address is in the categorical funding, specifically funding for students with special needs. Urban districts with large populations of students from low-income backgrounds tend to maintain larger populations of students with special needs. Additionally, because of the diversity of the programs for students with these needs, these districts tend to attract students from other districts because of the services provided. Once these students are enrolled and identified, the services in most cases are mandated. The funding for these students and their personal needs must be increased. Because of the cost of theses mandated services, resources must be taken from other students and programs in order to provide adequate services. The funding mechanism should be adjusted to provide more appropriate funding for these students with mandated higher costs that will reduce the financial burden on those districts that have above average needs. 

In summary, we encourage this body to stress more significant and appropriate weighting for those districts with large populations of low-income students. If we are to meet those challenges we need the resources. In addition the funding for the Foundation Level needs to be increased much more rapidly than current levels to have an equalizing effect. Finally, the allocations for students with special needs should be adjusted to more appropriately reflect the true cost of providing mandated services in districts with larger concentrations of students with those needs.  We encourage each of you to do as we have pledged and put the individual needs of each student as the priority.  We need your support and assistance to maintain and improve education for future generations.  Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today.