Ted Purinton is an assistant professor, Department of Educational Leadership, at National-Louis University in Lisle, Illinois. Michelle Turner Mangan is an assistant professor, Department of Educational Foundations and Inquiry, at National-Louis University in Chicago.
Although Gov. Pat Quinn's budget spared cuts to education and actually funded programs that were slated for the chopping block, the summer of 2009 was no victory for school funding advocates. The inequities between districts in Illinois are still quite significant.
The Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) was established in 1997 by the General Assembly in order to provide biennial recommendations on minimum state aid. However, until August 13, 2009, because of former-Governor Rod Blagojevich's failure to fill board vacancies, the board had not met since 2005. According to the August meeting minutes, EFAB's recommended foundation level was $7,288 per student, but the appropriation is just $6,119 per student.
While more federal money was available as a result of the stimulus package, Illinois schools are still subject to huge discrepancies based on our model of school funding.
Undeniably, with a massive budget shortfall in the state, 2010 does not appear to be the best time to address school funding inequities. But, as an economically robust state — Illinois ranked fifth nationally and 27th in the world in 2008 with a gross state product of $663 billion, according to the Center for Tax And Budget Accountability (CTBA) — we do know that this recession will eventually end. The economy will be re-shaped according to new global realities.
It is precisely because we may not be able to fix the disparities in the remainder of this school year — or even in the next school year — that we should craft strategies for funding decisions for the future.
With EFAB now planning to meet every other month, an updated report will undoubtedly be a step in the right direction. But it will not address the underlying disparities plaguing schools in low-wealth districts. Indeed, most appraisals of our funding system have highlighted the inequities between schools in low-wealth districts and those in high-wealth districts.
At the October 7 EFAB meeting, Ralph Martire, CTBA executive director, told the board that Illinois ranks 49th out of 50 states in the portion of education funding covered by state (versus local) revenue. Illinois is more reliant on property taxes than even seven other states that don't have income tax.
While advocacy in the area of more equitable revenue streams will undoubtedly continue, it may be more instructive for us to consider more effective (or accurate) approaches of determining how much money is actually needed to end this state's appalling achievement gaps.
A number of states have used an innovative, transparent process to determine what an "adequate" amount of funding would be in order to ensure that all students, particularly high-poverty and English Language Learners (ELLs), can meet or exceed state academic standard benchmarks. This approach, often called "evidence-based adequate funding," employs findings from experimental studies of effective schooling strategies, as well as comprehensive school reform models, to determine the costs of "best practices" in all aspects of schooling, including staffing, materials, professional development and more.
Determining the true costs of funding Illinois schools is critical to resolving long-standing debates. Clearly, Illinois is home to many under-funded schools, yet taxpayers are justifiably weary that increased funding will not be applied toward the most appropriate practices that increase student learning.
EFAB uses a model of lower-than-average spending of high-achieving districts and is focused on two-thirds of a school's regular education population meeting or exceeding standards — not the 100 percent that NCLB mandates. While this model might lead us into a general direction of appropriate funding levels, it is still rather vague.
An evidence-based model of school funding opens up the black-box of EFAB and provides taxpayers with an accounting of how a base funding level is determined. Most importantly, it considers the additional financial needs incurred by districts for costs related to educating students with disabilities, ELLs, and those from high-poverty families.
Researchers at the Illinois School Funding Adequacy Initiative, based at National-Louis University in Chicago, along with a taskforce of politicians, superintendents and funding advocates are currently engaged in an effort to determine the costs of providing a world-class education system based on the evidence of best practices. Using the most current research, we are building a model that will provide answers for the many questions Illinois school administrators, board members and taxpayers have.
For example, the project compares current instructional material allocation patterns against the evidence and best practices for instructional materials. This evidence-based method provides far greater detail compared to other methods of determining funding allocations.
Traditionally, schools have been funded at levels suitable to (or even logistically possible for) local taxpayers. If voters in one community want to spend more money on their schools, they have that right. If voters in other communities cannot spend more of their local dollars on their schools, the schools in those communities are forced to compete with far fewer resources.
Over the past few decades, however, state legislatures and courts around the country have increasingly determined that such a model of funding is unfair. Therefore, states have worked to equalize funding as much as possible.
The evidence-based approach provides an unbiased assessment, using the best research, of what it truly costs to provide a world-class education to all students. It looks at budgets, program by program, and asks whether or not there is research to justify spending money on certain items in the name of student achievement. Certainly, it does not prescribe to districts how to spend money. It just indicates that certain practices have certain achievement effects, and those practices have certain costs, depending on a school district's geographic region.
The evidence-based funding model is based on real programmatic elements, yet it bears repeating that the elements of that model are not mandates. Districts determine whether to spend their resources in line with these recommended elements, as they know their individual needs the best.
While National-Louis faculty and researchers are gathering and analyzing data, Illinois schools must continue to highlight the discrepancies in state funding compared to the academic standards to which schools are held accountable. Indeed, Illinois schools will experience the effects of the current recession. Yet when the recession is over, we will need better answers and more effective approaches to reduce the unjust funding gaps across the state.