POLITICS

Illinoisans who are concerned about the state's sorry record on education finance are facing a classic "good news-bad news" scenario as the General Assembly prepares to end its spring session this month.

The good news for those who worry about our children's future is that the school funding issue seems to have appeared on legislative radar screens tuned to the November election.

The emergence a few weeks ago of House Speaker Lee A. Daniels' "Quality First" program suggests that warning bells went off in the House Republican caucus after the Elmhurst Republican helped Senate President James "Pate" Philip, a Republican from Wood Dale, deep-six Gov. Jim Edgar's school funding initiative. Brushing off school kids might not be a good idea, the alarms signalled.

In fact, it might even prompt folks who care about the schools to vote against some of our candidates. So Presto! Out of the magician's hat pops $500 million more for schools without a tax increase, proof that education is the top priority for Daniels' troops.

That's the good news.

The bad news, of course, is that lawmakers are unlikely to do anything meaningful about school finance in the last month of the session. For that matter, they probably won't approve Daniels' scheme either, a blessing for anyone who cares about responsible budgeting.

Nor will they approve the more attractive political fig leaf offered by the governor, a constitutional amendment whose main goal, one suspects, is to put some backbone into the legislative body.

The shortcomings in Illinois' current system of financing elementary and secondary education have been well-documented, most recently by a commission headed by former University of Illinois President Stanley Ikenberry, which proposed the amendment Edgar embraced.

The panel concluded that Illinois relies too heavily on local property taxes to fund schools, with the state now paying less than one-third of the cost of elementary and secondary education. As a result:

• Wide disparities exist among the resources local school districts have to educate their children. Property-rich districts can spend $12,000 or more for each child; poorer districts scrape by on a fourth as much.

• Although homeowners and businesses in some districts see their property taxed at the highest rates allowed, local schools still can't raise the funds needed to offer quality academic programs. In other districts blessed with a large industrial base, minimum tax rates produce enough revenue to offer programs that rival small colleges.

• Some 700,000 youngsters — almost 40 percent of public school students — go to school in districts that don't have the money to provide an adequate education. That funding level, the Ikenberry panel estimated, is about $4,225 per pupil.

Based on those conclusions, the commission drafted a sound blueprint to revamp the system, including provisions that would reduce educational disparities, provide adequate resources for all students and offer property tax relief.

The price, however, would be higher state income taxes, partially offset by lower real estate taxes.

In a concession to election-year skittishness on taxes, implementation of the panel's recommendations was linked to voter approval of constitutional changes. Thus, all that was asked of lawmakers this spring was to place the amendment on the November ballot, allowing voters a direct say on the issue. Even that proved too daunting for Republican leaders.

Instead, Daniels proposed an inferior substitute. While the amendment approach might have been ineffectual, relying as it did on the legislature to fill in the details, at least it would have done no harm. In contrast, the House GOP fallback position could do real damage to state finances and other programs, while ignoring the real questions of equity, adequacy and tax reform.

The key provision of the plan would pump some $412 million in per-pupil grants ranging from $225 to $250 into all local school districts, from the wealthiest to the poorest. And just in case some well-to-do suburb might lose out, the scheme includes an extra $4 million earmarked to make sure every district comes out ahead. So much for equity.

42 ¦ May 1996 Illinois Issues

Budget chicanery is all that's available to politicians who want to delude the voters into believing Illinois' education problems can he solved without increasing state taxes.

On the adequacy front, a $250-per-pupil boost won't close the gap for poor districts that are hundreds of dollars below the Ikenberry panel's recommended foundation level.

Nor does the plan require any property tax relief, although House Republicans said some districts might choose to use the $250 bounty to cut taxes.

While the plan clearly fails the test of true school financing reform, its financial underpinnings are worse, resting as they do on the sort of smoke-and-mirrors budget gimmicks that have bedeviled the state for years. The time-tested menu includes dipping into the cash reserves, slowing down payments to the state's creditors and slicing some $150 million from other budget areas.

Among the items on the chopping block is money to fill some 2,500 new or vacant state jobs. Concerned social service advocates said the job cuts would hurt the mentally ill and the disabled, while union officials warned public safety would be threatened if vacancies among prison guards and state troopers were not filled.

Drawing down the state's end-of-year balance and stiffing vendors are telltale signs that the state is living beyond its means — spending more than it takes in. Illinois still has not recovered the high credit rating it lost because of such practices in the past.

But such budget chicanery is all that's available to politicians who want to delude voters into believing Illinois' school funding problems can be solved without increasing state taxes.

Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

Illinois Issues May 1996 ¦ 43