Needs justify using state funding to solve problems for students

The recent increase in school funding from the state of Illinois was welcome if overdue news to districts around the state. Community Consolidated School District 46 was no exception to this relief. These newly approved funds, totaling approximately $1.1 million, are not as has been asserted by some, "additional" or "extra". Rather, this is the state attempting to live up to its obligation to fully fund schools.

Schools are funded from three main sources - federal, state and local. Currently, federal sources account for approximately 3 percent in District 46, local sources (property taxes, registration fees, tuition, etc.) add 71 percent and state funding is the final 26 percent.

The amount of General State Aid in District 46 is based on the state of Illinois' Foundation Level Formula. This formula is based on the equalized assessed value of all property within the district, Average Daily Attendance and a supplemental amount for low income students.

The state uses EAV to determine the available local resources of the community. It then uses ADA to figure out a total foundation level that is appropriate for our district. The difference between the two becomes the first portion of GSA paid to the district. A supplemental portion is paid for low income students and is determined by multiplying the number of low income students by a set formula. The additional amount is added to the EAV/ADA portion and then the state determines the percent of GSA it will pay. Since FY2009 the Illinois has prorated the foundation level for District 46 (and other districts) so that schools received only a portion of their GSA. This proration has ranged from 88.7 percent to 99.9 percent depending on the year. In total, this equates to District 46 alone losing $3.65 million in state aid since 2009.

To say that the recently approved increase in school funding is "additional" or "extra" is grossly misleading. The state would have to pay out the $3.65 million that District 46 failed to receive over the past seven years in addition to the increased funding for the 2016-17 school year just to catch up on its obligations. Only then could any funding beyond that could be considered "extra".

Once this is all understood, there is still the question of what to do with the new funding? The district has unmet needs ranging from physical to instructional to financial.

Physical needs include (but are not limited to) repaving parking lots at all seven schools costing $4.9 million and new roofing at five schools costing $3.2 million as well as the purchase or repair of instruments for the music program. The cost of these projects will increase over time due to inflation, so it makes sense to tackle them sooner rather than later.

Instructional needs include adding foreign language and full-day kindergarten programs. These funds could be used to add these programs but the uncertain future of the availability of money to to maintain them beyond one year makes it difficult to move forward.

So the question arises, should we release the $1.1 million and return it to the taxpayers? The district has examined this possibility and determined that doing so would reduce the $1.1 million to approximately $940,000 due to fees and negative arbitrage and result in a total of $92 in benefit to the owner of a $150,000 house over a period of 8 years.

This equates to $11.50 per year.

Also consider additional costs totaling thousands of dollars could be incurred in the form of inflationary increases for the roofing and paving projects and other maintenance which could, in turn, increase taxpayer costs. So, while any benefit to the taxpayers is to be seriously considered, we have to weigh the potential costs and benefits.

My question to you: Is it worth $11.50 per year for a new roof on your child's school? Is it worth $11.50 per year for your neighbor's child to play a timpani that doesn't wobble because it's missing a wheel? I would argue it is worth much more than $11.50.

To the child, I think it's priceless.

Steven Strack, of Hainesville, is president of the Grayslake District 46 Board of Education. The views expressed in this guest column are his own and do not represent the school district or the board of education.