Your Turn

Money makes the grade:
Rich school districts come in first

By JAMES P. DURKIN

F^ive years ago, when my wife and I attended Illinois State University in Bloomington-Normal, the school held an annual "Teacher Recruitment Day." They still do. And it's the same story every spring: The line to apply for teaching jobs at the wealthier school districts extends out the door to the parking lot. Only a few people apply to teach at poorer districts.

Why the disparity? Teachers want three things: They want to work in districts that pay their employees well; they want to work in districts that are safe; and they want to work in communities where parents take an interest in their children's education.

In Illinois, these three variables are met most often in wealthier school districts, where the spending per pupil is highest.

It's true that money is not the answer to everything. But anyone who contends that money does not matter in school finance is blind to the facts that even beginning teachers realize: In the Chicagoland area, many school districts with the highest test scores are located in the property-rich North Shore and northwest suburbs in Cook County and in the wealthier areas of DuPage and Lake counties.

In the south suburban Country Club Hills school district — where I grew up — the 1995 Illinois Goals Assessment Program score for reading for eighth graders was 209. The state average on a 500-point scale was 246. That district, which has been on the state's financial watch list for six of the last eight years, spent $4,366 to educate each of its students. At the same time, in the wealthy North Shore district of Kenilworth, the

reading score for eighth graders was 343. At $8,844 per pupil, that district spent twice what Country Club Hills spent on each of its students.

Because wealthy school districts can afford the best equipment and educational facilities, and are able to pay higher salaries, they can recruit the best teachers. In 1995, for instance, Kenilworth paid its teachers an average of $53,639 a year. Country Club Hills, meanwhile, paid an average of $31,418. That's more than $20,000 less than Kenilworth, and lower than the state average of $39,505.

Further, wealthier school districts can afford to hire more teachers and are more likely to have smaller class sizes. And any teacher will tell you that a smaller class size means more personalized instruction.

Because Illinois' school districts are primarily funded by local property taxes (on average 59 percent of the funding), property wealth in large part determines the ability of a community to financially support public education. Children whose parents live in a neighborhood with a rich property tax base are lucky. A community of $200,000 homes, or a district that lands a shopping mall or a nuclear power plant has hit the jackpot because it's able to generate extra dollars due to the high market value of those properties.

Children in communities with less property wealth don't fare as well. In fact, the problem of school finance grows the farther south one moves in the Chicago area. According to my own analysis, the Illinois State Board of Education's 1992 annual report on school funding showed that 29 north and northwest suburban Cook County elementary school districts spent an average of $6,939 per pupil. The board's report two years later showed that 22 south suburban districts averaged only $4,641 per pupil.

Nearly 80 percent of school districts spend less than the $3,893 per student recommended as an adequate level by a state legislative task force.

This discrepancy is due in large part to the lower property values in some poorer communities.

Children and taxpayers of the region should be furious with the present system of school finance. On no grounds of funding fairness or common sense can one argue that the schoolchildren of the Chicago area — or the state — are receiving an equitable and adequate education.

Even when the Illinois General Assembly allocates more money for education, the funding inequities remain. Despite an additional $194.6 million provided by the state for this fiscal year, the state's share of funding education has declined from 48 percent in 1975 to 32 percent today. When the state's share fails to keep pace with the rate of inflation, property taxpayers pick up the slack.

Education is a collective benefit — not just a service to the parents of school-age children. It is meant to produce a literate and intelligent citizenry. Educated children are more likely to lead productive lives, pay taxes, respect property ownership and avoid the criminal justice system.

Simply put, money is part of the problem. That's long been obvious to those who make a living providing education.

Now it's time for Gov. Jim Edgar and the Illinois General Assembly to make money part of the answer to improving our schools. 

James P. Durkin teaches American politics part-time at the College of DuPage. He works in Chicago for DynCorp and lives with his wife, a first-grade teacher, in Woodridge.

December 1995 /Illinois Issues /31