The state of the State

School funding has been in the words of one state lawmaker the Gordian knot of Illinois politics. Polls show that citizens say they want better schools and would be willing to pay for them, but for 15 years state leaders have been unable to reach anything approaching consensus on how Illinois should fund public schools. Without agreement, school funding has grown more inequitable for the last 15 years. Now Illinoisans have a chance to vote for a constitutional change that could force higher state funding, requiring new money that would almost certainly have to come from higher state taxes.

It's a politician's dream come true. Put the question to the voters. If citizens say yes, raise taxes and tell them their vote required it. If citizens say no, tell those pushing for increased school spending that the people have spoken.

Things are seldom that simple or clear-cut, and the proposed constitutional amendment is no exception. Education is unlikely to "win" the vote. Ratification will require approval by three-fifths of those voting on the question or by the typically more difficult to attain majority of those voting in the general election. Even an education "win" in November carries no guarantee that the school finance problem will be solved.

The issue is being posed to voters by a constitutional amendment that made its way onto the ballot in rather curious fashion. Facing a May 3 deadline for General Assembly passage in order to put the question on the November ballot, Sens. Arthur L. Berman (D-2, Chicago) and John W. Maitland Jr. (R-44, Bloomington) introduced Senate Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 130 on March 31. It was a shell, which passed through the executive committee and was amended three weeks later to say what the sponsors wanted it to say.

The constitutional amendment would make three changes to the education article of the Illinois Constitution.

• It would make education a fundamental "right" of citizens instead of a fundamental "goal" of government.

• It would add language that says the paramount duty of the state is "to guarantee equality of educational opportunity as a fundamental right of each citizen."

• The state's responsiblity for financing the system of public education would change from "primary responsibility" to "preponderant financial responsibility."

On the floor Berman explained his legislative intent: to raise the right to education to a higher plane and to require lawmakers to give education priority funding consideration. "A part of the intent of this constitutional amendment is to require the state to provide, at a minimum, more than half of the cost of funding an adequacy methodology which is sufficient to provide a thorough, efficient and high quality education for each student in Illinois," Berman said.

The amendment needed 36 Senate votes and got 38, split along partisan and regional lines. All 28 Democrats who voted on the resolution voted "yea," joined by 10 Republicans, seven from downstate.

In the House, Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-30, Chicago) sponsored the measure. Republicans countered with a series of 12 amendments that would have required the state to pay more than half the cost in each school district, rebate real estate taxes, distribute money only on a per pupil basis or print on the amendment that adoption would result in a tax increase. Nine were defeated; three were withdrawn. The measure needed 71 votes and got support from 61 Democrats and 10 Republicans, nine of them from downstate.

The first skirmishes were over cost. Gov. Jim Edgar, who could be put in a box because of his no-new-tax and subsequent no-new-general-tax positions, avoided taking a position on the amendment. He did say that it would cost $3 billion and require a 50 percent increase in income tax rates. The nonpartisan Legislative Research Unit put the cost at between $1.1 billion and $2.9 billion, depending upon how federal aid was figured in and whether or not it was presumed local property taxes dropped as

8/June 1992/Illinois Issues

state aid rose. Berman himself, 10 days after the House vote, put the cost at $1.8 billion, money that he argued could be found without a tax increase.

Opposition came quickly. The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Manufacturers' Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association pledged to oppose the referendum in November.

The amendment's place on the ballot guarantees increased attention from anti-tax zealots, on the one hand, and from teachers' unions and other education interests, on the other. Each side will expend energy and spend money, pushing its cause. And in some places the proposition could affect legislative elections that determine whether the General Assembly is controlled by Democrats or Republicans.

To date the issue has pitted winners against losers. Voting for the amendment were Democrats and downstate Republicans, whose schools would most likely benefit; opposing it were suburban lawmakers. Teachers' unions, whose members would benefit, support it; business, sensitive to new taxes, opposes it. Given the focus on winners and losers, the kind of reasoned debate that would bring consensus on school funding is unlikely.

And even approval by voters could mean nothing. The constitutional amendment contains no formula, appropriates no money and imposes no tax. The amendment is merely words, words that will be subject to interpretation by the courts. Although a court could say that the language requires the state to do this or that, it could also say that voters elect lawmakers to make such decisions.

And even a favorable ruling from a court will most likely only return the issue to the General Assembly. The courts are far more likely to tell the General Assembly to solve a problem than to impose a judicial solution. And when the courts say, "Fix it," the issue comes back to the same legislature that has been unable to resolve it.

The initial debate has been over the amendment's price and who would pay that price. The debate should be over what Illinoisans want from their schools and what schools can and should be expected to provide. Without an answer to those questions, debate over the constitutional amendment will simply pit "winners" against "losers." If voters entering the polling place in November are left to choose between voting "against the children" or "for a tax increase," nothing will change.

June 1992/Illinois Issues/9