Why not base school-funding formula on proven research?
The environment in Springfield couldn't be more toxic or dysfunctional. The virulence of the budget debate between Illinois' Republican governor and Democrat-controlled legislature leaves scant hope the sides will ever agree on anything of substance. Yet despite all the political vitriol, a meaningful, bipartisan consensus has actually emerged concerning one of the most fundamental services the state provides: public education. Apparently, everyone agrees that Illinois' current school funding formula doesn't work. And by doesn't work, I mean creates a system that doesn't have the resources needed to educate all students, and then compounds that problem by distributing unfairly the inadequate resources it does have.
Just how inadequate and unfair is school funding in Illinois? Consider adequacy first. The "Foundation Level" - i.e. minimum expenditure per pupil - for the current fiscal year is $6,119. Unfortunately, that level of funding isn't tied to any actual costs of educating students. Instead, it represents a political calculation of what Illinois' existing fiscal system can afford, which isn't nearly enough. This should surprise no one, given that the accumulated deficit in the General Fund that covers education exceeds $9 billion - or over 40 percent of state spending on current services.
Indeed, in large part because of the state's fiscal woes, estimates are that Illinois' current K-12 funding falls some $5 billion short of what's needed to get most "non-at-risk" children passing the state's standardized tests. Educating "at-risk" kids, who are poor, learning English or have special needs, would cost more.
Our state-level of school funding is so inadequate that Illinois ranks last in the nation in the portion of education paid for by state taxes. This in turn compels local schools to over-rely on local property taxes to fund education - effectively tying educational quality to the property wealth of a kid's community. In fact, as poverty increases in Illinois communities, funding for their schools decreases - the definition of unfair. No wonder Illinois received the failing grade of "F" in a recent national report on school funding equity - and no wonder there's bipartisan consensus that the existing formula has to go. But what should replace it?
How about a formula based on the cost of what the research shows works to, you know, educate kids? Which happens to be precisely what the evidence based model of school funding, introduced in the General Assembly by Sen. Kimberly Lightford, a Maywood Democrat, and Rep. Will Davis, a Harvey Democrat, would do.
Developed by university researchers, the evidence-based model starts by identifying those educational practices which have a statistically meaningful correlation to enhancing student achievement over time. And by "enhancing student achievement," I mean better test scores, reduced dropout rates and disciplinary problems and improved high school graduation and college enrollment rates. It then costs out the funding needed to provide those evidenced-based practices to all students who attend public schools, including those who are low-income, have special needs or are learning English. Heck, it even adjusts for differences in regional cost factors.
Better yet, by tying school funding to those educational practices the research proves work, the evidence-based model effectively ensures school districts would get precisely the amount of resources required to educate the kids they serve - and not a penny more. In other words, it not only creates an education funding regime that's adequate in amount and fair in distribution, but it also benefits taxpayers by capping school funding at what's actually needed to generate the student achievement outcomes that we all desire.
Let's hope the toxic environment in Springfield doesn't infect the discussion over replacing Illinois' inadequate and inequitable school funding formula. After all, there's already broad, bipartisan consensus about the need to do so - and what better basis for creating an even broader bipartisan consensus over how to do so can there be, than the evidence of what actually works.
Ralph Martire is executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a bipartisan fiscal policy think tank. rmartire@ctbaonline.org