Funding plan punishes successful schools

Recently proposed legislation, Senate Bill 16 offers a new funding formula that attempts to address disparities in the state of Illinois's school funding formula.

I support the state in their effort to develop a formula to better fund public schools. However, I cannot support any formula that penalizes efficiently run school districts that operate below the state average for expenditure per pupil and achieve higher than state average performance scores.

Bill proponents have yet to provide specific data regarding the 2015-16 funding levels.

However, keeping all existing funding factors equal, our initial calculations project District 300 would lose more than $2 million dollars annually.

Additionally, school districts surrounding Kane County stand to lose over $31 million dollars.

Other concerns with SB 16 include:

1. Weighted factors not based on actual costs: The proposed weighting for student needs in SB 16 is not based on the actual cost to deliver services and were pulled from other states utilizing weightings. If the formula is weighted for student needs, the weight should reflect the actual cost to provide services.

2. No foundation floor: District 300 is concerned that the SB 16 foundation level is based upon total current resources and the total student weighting figure. Without an established floor for the foundation level, state funding will continue to be volatile and we cannot quantify the true impact of the bill on District 300's finances.

3. Creation of winners and losers: District 300 has serious concerns with a funding system that creates winners and losers. We cannot support a funding system that penalizes efficiently run school districts with low tax rates, low per-pupil spending and high test scores that will be asked to subsidize smaller, less efficient districts.

4. Mandate relief: SB 16 does not include mandate relief and districts that stand to lose significant state dollars require relief to respond to decrease funding. Local school boards should have the opportunity to make a decision on recommended mandates and opt out on an annual basis as part of the budget hearing process.

5. Impact uncertainty: The following must be addressed to fully understand how SB 16 will impact District 300:

• What is going to happen with state revenue (i.e. income tax extension)?

• How was the foundation level of $5,154 determined?

• Will the state honor the actual foundation level or continue providing partial funding?

• Is there any plan to reduce other state revenue not included in this calculation to offset losses?

• What are the plans for pension reform and property tax relief?

• What is the plan to replace the funds provided by the income tax if this source of revenue is not renewed?

For fiscal year 2013, SB 16 created 475 losers and 462 winners under the guise of equity, yet it fails to address adequacy. How can we achieve a system that ensures adequacy first?

In District 300, we strive to ensure every single student is college or career ready upon graduation. The passage of SB 16 reduces funding that is critical for ensuring the success of our mission.

It is my intent to advocate for each and every student in our district, to ensure they are provided the funding that ensures their future success.

I invite you to learn more about this issue during an SB 16 Impact Forum hosted by state Rep. Mike Tryon, state Sen. Karen McConnaughay and area school district superintendents from 6 p.m. 8 p.m. at the Jacobs High School Auditorium, 2601 Bunker Hill Drive, Algonquin.

Fred Heid is superintendent of schools for Community Unit School District 300 based in Hampshire.