Funding education: Is Illinois a 'guilty government'?

In 1977-1978 only six states spent more per capita than Illinois on its elementary and secondary schools, when cost-of-living differences were accounted for.

In 1987-1988 only six states spent less per capita than Illinois on its elementary and secondary schools, when cost-of-living differences were accounted for.

Education funding in Illinois has again been examined and again found lacking in a study by Illinois State University's Center for the Study of Educational Finance. Researchers detail Illinois' fall from the top to the middle of the pack in elementary and secondary education financing and from the middle to the bottom in its funding for higher education in a report entitled "Guilty governments: the problem of inadequate educational funding in Illinois and other states." The arguments and some of the numbers are familiar from last year's unsuccessful tax hike campaign. It should come as no surprise that G. Alan Hickrod, director of the center and author of the paper, identifies Illinois as a guilty government: "Illinois has an abysmal record in funding public education."

The study analyzes federal data to look at state spending for education in the 1977-1978 and 1987-1988 fiscal years. One measure was spending per average daily attendance in the public schools (ADA). In 1977-1978 Illinois stood sixth in its spending per ADA; by 1987-1988 it had dropped to 20th. Only Arizona, which fell from 25th to 45th place, fell farther.

Hickrod corrected the data for the differences in cost of living, which over the decade grew 4.5 percent faster in Illinois than the average for the rest of the country. Those corrected numbers show Illinois falling from fourth to 28th place. With the 24-rank fall, Illinois led the country in cost-of-living adjusted decline in

School district per pupil receipts by region, 1986-1987
Receipts	Chicago	Suburban*	The other 96 counties
local state federal	$1,715 1,935 490	$3,572 963 100	$1,896 1,328 161
Total	$4,139	$4,635	$3,385
Fall enrollment	431,000	672.000	722,000
*Includes suburban Cook County and DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will counties. Source: Comptroller Roland W. Burris.

state spending per average daily attendance.

State spending per ADA measures the level of effort, Hickrod says. He also examines state spending per capita, which he characterizes as an indication of a state's willingness to invest in its human resources. Illinois leads the nation in loss of willingness to invest. In state spending per capita Illinois fell from sixth place to 34th place. In per capita spending adjusted for cost-of-living changes it plummeted from seventh to 44th place. Both were the biggest declines in the country.

Hickrod and company also make the same analyses of higher education spending. The direction is the same, although Illinois higher education funding was relatively smaller in 1977-1978. so the state started lower and did not have as far to fall. Higher education funding per full-time equivalent student slipped from 35th in 1977-1978 to 47th in 1987-1988. Adjusted for the cost of living, the decline was from 38th to 47th. Higher education spending per capita decreased from 30th to 43rd, and when adjusted for cost-of-living changes, it dropped from 36th to 43rd.

Hickrod moves from the simple ranking of states based on state spending to a more sophisticated ranking that takes into account a state's income growth. Called the income elasticity of demand, this ranking measures the increase in spending for a particular good or service as compared with the increase in overall income. A ratio of 1.00 indicates that spending for a service grew at the rate of income. A ratio greater than 1.00 results when spending grew faster than income and indicates a priority given to that area of spending. A ratio below 1.00 indicates lack of interest in that area.

In the study, percentage increases in per capita spending for education are compared with increases in the state's per capita income. Only eight states — Alaska, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming — had ratios of 1.00 or above for elementary and secondary education spending over the decade. Illinois' ratio stood at .652, ahead of only Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, Minnesota and Arizona. After a political campaign where education got lots of attention, Hickrod pointedly observes, "If education has been a priority of the state in question, then the ratio will be greater

February 1989 | Illinois Issues | 25

than 1.00. If it is far less than 1.00, then one is simply listening to a lot of balderdash if any politicians from that state claim that education is a priority."

The study makes the same kind of analysis for higher education. There are a dozen states that have a ratio greater than 1.00. The ratio for Illinois was .835 placing the state 32nd in the country. Comparison of the priorities between lower and higher education poses questions that Hickrod cannot answer. Massachusetts, for example, assigns a relatively low priority to lower education and a high priority to higher education. Minnesota and Hawaii follow that pattern. Likewise, further analysis would be required to determine whether there were other demands for public services or whether public spending was given a low priority, Hickrod notes.

Hickrod uses his information to pick winners of his contest, and Illinois earns a place. "The winners — or from our point of view, the losers — in the 'guilty governments' contest would seem to be three states: biggest loser, Arizona; next biggest loser, California; third biggest loser, Illinois. The citizens of these

State education funding: beware of averages Averages confuse the issue of school finance as often as they clarify them. One argument made against providing more money for schools has been that Illinois already spends more on average than other states spend on schools. In December Comptroller Roland W. Burris presented information from the National Education Association that showed Illinois 15th among the states in total revenues per pupil. That source put Illinois 1987-1988 revenues per pupil at $4,872, which is $240 or 5.2 percent above the national average. The Illinois numbers are also averages. Consider that in Illinois 60 percent of the students attend schools in the Chicago metropolitan area, where costs of living are higher. How valid are comparisons, for instance, between Illinois and, say, Vermont, whose largest city is the size of Belleville? An earlier Illinois State University study established a geographic cost of living index among the states, using a statistical model that included consumer price index, personal income, value of a standard house and population change. By that measure Illinois stood 7.7 percent above the national average in 1988; neighboring Indiana stood 3.4 percent below average. If you account for cost of living differences and apply them to the National Education Association figures, Illinois ends up $100 or so below the average instead of above it. The lesson. Beware of of numbers, especially averages. Michael D. Klemens

three states must expect to reap a very small harvest from what they have not sown."

Hickrod's study is damning. It is also somewhat limited. It measures state spending for education, and in Illinois that is the smaller part of elementary and secondary financing (most is from local taxes). The study begins during the golden age of school finance when Illinois was at its peak in funding schools. And use of the per capita measures does not fully account for Illinois' declining school population.

In December Comptroller Roland W. Burris issued a report on Illinois' public schools. He delineated both the decline in state spending over the last decade and the increase in local spending. According to Burris' analysis, state spending for elementary and secondary education has increased $737.4 million, or 34.6 percent, between the 1978-1979 and the 1987-1988 school years. Over the same period, local spending for schools increased $1.54 billion or 67.1 percent.

The state share of public school funding declined from 43.9 percent to 39.3 percent over that period. The local share similarly increases from 47.3 to 52.7 percent of funding. Nationally, state funding for education averaged 50.2 percent in 1987-1988, and local source funding averaged 43.6 percent.

The Burris report also differentiated education funding by region. Burris' numbers, for the 1986-1987 school year, compared per student receipts for Chicago, suburban districts around Chicago and the rest of Illinois. (See box, page 25.) Suburban schools have the highest receipts and raise the most locally. Chicago schools receive the highest amount of state money per student. Schools in the other 96 counties receive less state aid than Chicago and raise less locally than suburban schools. Burris concludes that state spending for public schools in the current (1989) fiscal year will be approximately that of fiscal 1987, sparking continued demands for a tax increase.

Hickrod suggests that a court challenge to the current system might get some attention and some cash. As part of the "guilty governments" study, Hickrod examined funding in 17 states where court challenges to the system of funding education were brought. He compared funding increases with those in states where there was no such challenge. And he compared levels of funding in those 17 states before and after the challenges. His initial findings, which he admits are subject to more detailed analysis, are that the average level of funding went up whether a case was won or lost: "We interpret of our results to mean that the pressure brought upon the state legislature was enough to increase the funding for K-12 education regardless of whether the case was won or not."

He proposes a second way of drawing attention to the issues, urging a push for a constitutional amendment that strengthens the education article of the state Constitution. (Hickrod was one of a handful of individuals and about the only educator to support the call for a constitutional convention that voters overwhelmingly rejected in November.) Hickrod would lengthen the education article to include a statement that there is a basic right to an education. Specifically, he proposes the sentence, "The right to an education being fundamental to the exercise of all other constitutional rights, there exists a basic right of all citizens to an adequate primary and secondary education." Hickrod suggests that the effort to propose and pass a constitutional amendment would pressure the General Assembly to increase funding in the same way that a lawsuit would.

Finally, after arguing fervently for better funded schools, Hickrod acknowledges that a more effective campaign could be brought by non-academics: "All right, perhaps we have overstated the case, but we believe the risks of underinvestment in education far outstrip the risks of overinvestment in education." He can and will be accused of having a vested interest. No one can charge him with hiding in the ivory tower.

February 1989 | Illinois Issues | 26