John Vivoda, Glen Ellyn Elementary School District #41 Board Member

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this "White Paper'. Although I Am a board member of Glen Ellyn Elementary School District 41, I come to you as a citizen who sees this advisory board as a tremendous opportunity to address what I view as discriminatory funding of K- 1 2 Public Education in Illinois. 

Our great state is extremely varied and, in my opinion, there is not a funding formula that can take all of the variables into account to equate Chicago to Sterling to Rockford to Jacksonville to Effingham    ... and be fair to a constituency that does not have the right to vote. 

At a summary level, the current system of funding relies on property value per student and the local tax rate to determine funding levels. No other department in Illinois is funded this way. IDOT funds transportation projects throughout the state based on lane miles and use. The Secretary of State distributes offices throughout the state based on population and need. AFDC & prisons are likewise funded based on need per case or inmate. Unlike IDOT the Tollway Authority, etc., Public Schools are governed by elected officials at the point of delivery. Those individual Boards of Education are held responsible for the results that grow out of the lack of funding by the State. 

I believe funding of Public Schools by the State of Illinois should follow the same logic applied to other departments, authorities, etc. A flat dollar per student distribution across the state regardless of socioeconomic standing or cost of living adjustments would be the fairest and most consistent system of funding. Assuming the State would fund at approximately 50% of the average expenditure level, any child who would qualify for Title I programs should get double the flat rate. The Legislature would have the responsibility to fund education at what it deems is an adequate amount each year, and held accountable response for actual funding. Individual districts could levy the balance to fund what that particular community has determined is important. 

The double reimbursement amount for Title I students should ease the burden of poorer communities that do not have the property values upon which to tax at an affordable rate. I would also advocate for the double level funding for students from families whose annual income is the poverty level plus 25% versus the pure Title I qualification. 

If this system of funding were adopted, Federal Funding for K-12 Education should be converted to a block grant to the state and added to the pool of funds available to all students. This would be in keeping with many of the initiatives that the U.S. Legislature has pursued in the last 6 years and would save local districts a lot of time and effort now spent in the pursuit of grant dollars. 

Funding for Special Ed would be separately funded but should follow the same logic for funding. I have to admit that even flat rate reimbursement would have to be scaled to account for the extremely varied needs of Special Ed students. It will take a group of individuals to work this out properly. But in no case should funding be based on Equalized Assessed Value per student. 

All of the funds should be made available to the local district for any purpose the local elected Board of Education deems appropriate. That way each district's unique set of circumstances; demographics, geography, rising enrollment, failing enrollment, older buildings, new buildings, etc. can be addressed and funded to meet the local communities desires and goals in accordance with State Standards. Local Boards of Education will be held responsible for their collective actions and not the actions of the State Legislature 

I regret that I was not able to attend the Public Hearing on September 28"' to voice my position of "Simple Fair Formula Funding" (S3F). Again, I thank you for your time and consideration. I can be reached at work (312)399-5497, if you have any questions or require additional information.