Illinois School Funding Reform Commission
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Summary as Approved by Commission Members
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
10:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m.

Illinois State Board of Education, Videoconference Room (3rd Floor), 100 N. First St.,
Springfield, Illinois

Illinois State Board of Education, Videoconference Room (14th Floor), 100 W.
Randolph, Suite 14-300, Chicago, Illinois
Attendees
Commission Members
Springfield
Avery Bourne
Representative, 95th
District
Andy Manar
Senator, 48th District
Jodi Scott
Regional Superintendent of
Schools for Henderson,
Knox, Mercer, and Warren
Counties
Fred Crespo
Representative,
44th District
Sheri Jesiel
Representative, 61st
District
Karen McConnaughay
Senator, 33rd District
Barbara Flynn Currie
Representative,
25th District
Kimberly Lightford
Senator, 4th District
Bob Pritchard
Representative,
70th District
Iris Martinez
Senator, 20th District
Beth Purvis (Chairperson)
Secretary of Education
Rita Mayfield
Representative, 60th
District
Christine Winger
Representative,
45th District
Chicago
William Davis
Representative, 30th
District
James Dimas, Secretary,
Department of Human
Services
Illinois State Board of Education
Dan McConchie
Senator, 26th District
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—1
0564_02/17
Call-In Participants
Jason Barickman
Senator, 53rd District
Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant
Senator, 49th District
Emily McAsey
Representative, 85th District
Chris Nybo
Senator, 24th District
Sue Rezin
Senator, 38th District
Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) Staff
Amanda Elliott
Legislative Affairs
Allie Lichterman
Superintendent’s Office
Kate Anderson Foley
Division Administrator
Tony Smith
State Superintendent of
Education
Robert Wolfe
Chief Financial Officer
Midwest Comprehensive Center (MWCC) Staff
Jeremy Rasmussen
Meeting Objective
To amend the draft report where needed and achieve consensus.
Opening
Representative Crespo motioned to approve the meeting minutes from January 12. Mr. Dimas
seconded.
Dr. Purvis began the meeting by reading the original letter from the governor advising that an
education funding reform commission be developed. After reading the letter, Dr. Purvis said
there has been a tremendous amount of bicameral work that the commission has accomplished.
She thanked everyone who has played role in helping the commission understand the various
complex issues of education funding in Illinois. She said this report/framework will be used for
the General Assembly to come together and craft legislation. She said this report will only be as
useful as what comes next. She said the governor and ISBE team stand ready to work with the
individual caucuses.
Dr. Purvis then suggested a motion that this be accepted as a bicameral report. Afterward, the
commission will review the places in the report they feel do not accurately reflect the areas of
consensus. This way, the commission can determine what additional items may go in or come
out.
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—2
Representative Pritchard moved to accept the motion. Representative Davis seconded.
Amendments to the Draft Report
Representative Currie said the language about pension disparity between Chicago and the rest of
the state needs to be part of the report.
Dr. Purvis said that pension disparity between Chicago and the rest of the state is addressed in
the final paragraph on page 2 of the report:
“It is necessary to face the challenges of adequate school funding head-on. The state currently
spends about $11 billion on elementary and secondary education, including about $4 billion for
current and legacy cost of teacher retirement. Without clearly identified resources for the
framework, the $11 billion in spending will continue to be inadequate and inequitable. In
addition, the $4 billion in current pension expenditures do not contribute to any formula goals of
adequacy and equity. Any transitions to a new formula will also bring challenges.”
Representative Currie said that language does not answer the problem that she is raising. She
said her point is that $4 billion goes to pensions, but it doesn’t go to Chicago.
Dr. Purvis then read from the top of page 5:
“Both the normal costs of pensions and statewide pension liabilities affect the ability of the state
to make strides toward adequate school funding. As reported by multiple expert presenters to the
Commission, differences in salaries across the 852 school districts create further inequity via
disparities in pension contributions.”
Representative Currie said that the language too does not address the fact that Chicago gets
nothing. She suggested adding language to the report that states: “CPS also is the only school
district in the state that must pay its own employer contributions to its teacher pension fund.
Although both of these situations were discussed on multiple occasions, the commission could
not come to consensus on how parity could be achieved.”
Dr. Purvis suggested adding a sentence at the top of page 5 that states: “…compounding that
issue, CPS is the only district responsible for paying its own pension costs.”
Mr. Dimas asked on page 3, in the second paragraph, if it would be helpful to include language
that state funding alone is unlikely to be sufficient to fill the gap and that new service delivery
approaches also may be needed.
Representative Currie said she absolutely agrees with that.
It was then discussed exactly where on page 3, in the second paragraph, this new language would
be inserted.
Mr. Dimas then talked about the community school concept, which would help certain schools
co-locate service delivery programs. Having such services available in or near schools would
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—3
make those services more accessible. He said prioritizing those services is something worth
investing in, especially in addressing concentrated poverty.
Representative Currie said what Mr. Dimas is describing has to be part of how we (the
commission) define education funding.
Dr. Purvis said one of the goals of this administration is to determine how to better align the
resources across different human service agencies. She said Mr. Dimas’s language puts forth the
intent that the work that will be done by the General Assembly to ensure a better funding
formula has to be coordinated with existing services across the other agencies that oversee
education funding.
Representative Crespo said that paragraph 3 on page 3 mentions the $3.8 billion over 10 years.
He asked: Should the assumptions that go into the $3.8 billion be spelled out (e.g., baseline
number being used, rate of inflation)?
Dr. Purvis suggested cutting out all the language after this text: “Elements will be written into
statute. However, it is important to the members of the commission that there be flexibility in
their implementation so the districts can implement strategies that will lead to the best academic
and social emotional outcomes for their students. After three years of the initial implementation,
ISBE should suggest changes where warranted.”
Representative Crespo said he thinks a range should still be mentioned ($3.8 billion over 10
years).
Dr. Purvis said her concern is that we do not know at this moment what the range is, so it might
be better to take it out rather than leave it in.
Representative Jesiel said she was hesitant to take out the language at the end of paragraph that
discusses the $3.8 billion range.
Dr. Purvis suggested just taking out the “$3.8” and leave it at “billions.”
After some discussion, it was decided that the language should state: “A minimum state
contribution of $3.5 billion.” Then, in the sentence where it says “In fact, for the state to take
primary responsibility for educational funding (i.e., 51%),” this will be added: “That figure ($3.5
billion) would rise by at least $2.5 billion.”
It also was suggested that the language around a “ten-year timeframe” (on page 3) should be
changed to “over the next decade.”
Senator McConchie asked: Does arguing this (for the state to take primary responsibility for
educational funding) go beyond what the courts have interpreted the constitution to mean?
Representative Currie said she believes that is an important point, but you could change it by
saying “For the state to take an increasingly larger share of responsibility for education funding,”
which would then avoid the question of what does “primary” mean.
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—4
The language now reads:
“In fact, for the state to take an increasingly larger share of responsibility for education funding
(e.g., 51%), this figure is projected to rise by at least $2.5 billion. However, the rate at which we
achieve that goal has not yet been decided. Furthermore, this figure does not account for
additional capital needs of the districts.”
Dr. Purvis then asked if there are any more changes.
Representative Mayfield said on page 5, in the third paragraph, it says that the money can be
used for direct services of professional development. Then, a couple of sentences later, it says the
money can’t be used for professional development. She said clarity is needed here.
Page 5, paragraph 3, was then edited to reflect greater clarity.
Representative Mayfield also said the concept of a cost shift (as related to pensions) is not
addressed in the report.
Dr. Purvis said that’s because consensus was never reached on the concept of a cost shift.
It was then recommended that the subject of cost shifts be added to the outstanding issues
requiring the resolution portion of the report. Dr. Purvis suggested this language: “Although the
commission has had robust conversation about the effects of pension costs on school funding, no
consensus has been met.”
Dr. Purvis said you can come up with a standalone education bill that does not address pensions,
but addresses adequacy and equity. She said that’s why this language wasn’t included.
Senator McConnaughay asked if there is consensus around the idea that we need to get the cost
shift accomplished, but lack of consensus on how to get there.
There did not appear to be consensus.
Dr. Purvis said her recommendation would be to not have this language reflected in the
framework. She said it hasn’t received the same attention as other issues.
There was a question of how this conversation on pensions is different compared to what
Representative Currie brought up earlier in regard to CPS and pensions. On this note, Dr. Purvis
said there are things in the current school code that treat districts differently. She said CPS is one
of those things.
Representative Currie added that CPS being the only school district in the state that must pay its
own employer contributions to its teacher pension fund is a factual statement. The issue being
discussed here (pensions and cost shift) is how do we in a report, where we have not decided
anything, mention that issues may need to be resolved at some point down the road?
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—5
Regarding mandate relief, Representative Currie said those mandates go there because somebody
thought they would be helpful in reaching appropriate educational outcomes. She said the section
on mandate relief comes off as advocating for the removal of mandates.
Senator McConchie suggested adding language to this effect: “Over a hundred unfunded
mandates have each been approved by the general assembly and signed by the governor.”
After a brief conversation, it was tweaked to read as follows: “Over a hundred unfunded
mandates have each been approved by general assemblies and governors.”
Representative Currie asked if they could make a couple of changes in the CPS block grant
discussion on page 7 under “Mandate Relief”: “…in this respect, CPS is unlike any other
district.” She suggested referencing the CPS pension issue here again.
Dr. Purvis suggested having the first sentence end like this: “As discussed in the commission,
CPS currently receives additional funds through the special education, special education
transportation, and other line items via block grants. They would receive a lesser amount if they
applied for reimbursement of those funds.” Dr. Purvis also recommended another line that states:
“Data indicate that CPS is spending these funds appropriately for these purposes.”
Representative Jesiel pointed out that on the bottom of page 4, in regard to the local capacity
targets, she was concerned that the language wasn’t strong enough to compel the general
assembly to revisit the issue of property tax relief, especially for districts that are taxed high and
are not at adequacy.
Dr. Purvis said one idea discussed earlier was the ability for districts to have a referendum
specifically to lower the tax. She then suggested making the language stronger, as follows:
“…with the expectation that this issue would be addressed.”
Representative Jesiel was satisfied with Dr. Purvis’s suggestion.
Senator McConchie asked to look at page 5, paragraph 2, regarding no change to the Early
Childhood Block Grant. He said there is no context that spells out what is meant by that.
Dr. Purvis said the way the CPS block grant is set up is that there are specific slots based on
geographical location in the state. Although CPS has a higher proportion of those slots than they
do students around the state, it is because they have a higher proportion of low-income students.
The recommendation made earlier was for the block grant to specifically meet the needs of lowincome students in certain areas of the state. To keep it the way it is, with those slots, reflects that
intention.
Representative Currie said she liked Dr. Purvis’s explanation, but that context is missing in the
report itself.
Ms. Scott said one of the issues from the early learning community is that the block grant
continues to be a separate line item and does not necessarily stay the same.
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—6
The commission agreed that Ms. Scott’s point (that the block grant continues to be a separate
line item and does not necessarily stay the same) would be a good change in the language.
The language around “no change to the block grant” was changed to read: “Consensus was
reached to leave the early childhood funding line item out of the integrated formula.”
Representative Currie wondered whether it was necessary to talk about private school choice.
She said the commission never came to consensus on that issue (located in unresolved issues).
Dr. Purvis said it’s an issue important to the governor and that we (the governor’s office) have
received a lot of requests that this issue (private school choice) be considered.
Dr. Purvis asked, “Given all the changes that have been discussed, is there consensus that this
report represents a framework to be used by members of the general assembly with support from
the governor’s office for future conversations about school funding reform?”
All commission members were in favor, none were opposed, and none abstained.
Dr. Purvis gave a sincere thank you for all the hard work from commission members, advocacy
groups, and experts.
Representative Pritchard motioned to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Representative
Mayfield.
The meeting adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
Illinois State Board of Education
Illinois School Funding Reform Commission Meeting Minutes—7