Illinois School Funding Reform Commission – Working Group Notes
TOPIC: Evidence-Based Model
DATE: 01/05/17
Commission Members and Staff in Attendance
- Sen. Barickman
- Sen. Bertino-Tarrant’s office
- Rep. Currie
- Rep. W. Davis
- Sen. Lightford
- Rep. Mayfield
- Rep. Pritchard
- Secretary Purvis
- Sen. Rezin
- Lt. Governor Sanguinetti
- Regional Superintendent Scott
- Rep. Winger
-
Colleen Atterbury
Derek Cantu
Mike Hoffmann
Madeline McCune
Jenna Mitchell
James O'Brien
Gerson Ramirez
Sara Shaw
Bob Stefanski
Dane Thull
Stakeholder Groups Represented
- Advance Illinois
- AIRSS
- Civic Committee
- Concordia University – Chicago
- CPS
- CTBA
- CTU
- ED-RED
- IASA
- IASBO
- IEA
- Illinois Special Education Coalition
- INCS
- IPA
- LEND
- Menta Group
- NPR Illinois
- Stand for Children
- Teach Plus
Guiding Questions
o What would be the right elements for Illinois?
o What would be the right priorities for Illinois?
o What results would we expect from investing different amounts of money?
o What results would we expect from tweaking elements (e.g., 17 students in a class instead of
15)?
o How would investment in the elements/adequacy tie to accountability?
o How do we motivate ownership of money and outcomes at the district level?
o What is the pro/con analysis of using enrollment vs. ADA in defining district’s adequacy target?
Meeting Notes
o Recap of January 4 large commission meeting
o Long meeting
o Commissioners that stayed discussed how transportation may remain separate from any
distribution model.
o
o
o
o
Commission received the most recent version of EBM language being worked on by ISBE and
IASBO.
o Some elements in SB231 are included in the draft
o Language still in progress
 Does the Commission need to add anything to the EBM bill? Is there any
substantive change required?
 As of now, the Commission members have discussed the mechanics and
nuances of questions in EBM.
o Capitol Fax recently stated there is the possibility of other bill language being worked on
outside of Commission, but no one can confirm that.
The EBM does not force districts to use their dollars a certain way. There are, however, three
general buckets in which dollars allocated for that bucket must be used, in whatever manner, in
that bucket :
o Special Education has a federal statute. Therefore, it would fall under one of the buckets
to distribute direct funds.
o Low-Income - Similar to special education in that there are federal and state
requirements on distributing dollars for low-income students.
o English Learners- There is an application process to receive state dollars. The EBM
model uses the same bill language for ELs as in SB231.
EBM claims inherent transparency and accountability
o Claim of “natural accountability system” given the model’s focus on student outcomes
and measures of capacity. It could also check whether the resources are being used
efficiently towards a best practice element.
Annual Spending Plan would be requirement.
o “Each school district would be required to file an annual spending plan by the end of
September of each year as part of the annual budget public hearing process. These
plans would describe how each district would utilize the Base Minimum Funding and
Evidence-based funding it receives from the State.”
o What happens in a case where an elementary school tries innovative tactics and
challenges the 27 elements?
 Example: If Gray Elementary, a school in CPS, which a few years ago decided to
try a new teaching module which brings 150 kids in one room and students
would rotate different study areas. How would the class size element in the
EBM deal with the school?
 If Gray were to use the EBM, they would have to articulate how and why they
are changing the class structure.
 Under the EBM, Gray would still have the autonomy to try new teaching styles
because it is a performance-based budget. In the report back that each school
would have to do, Gray can explain how they have allocated their resources to
change their outcomes. If a school is not producing good results and is not
following best practices, then they would have to rethink how to accomplish
their goals.

o
o
o
The model also takes into account what the school can prioritize its funding on.
If there is more need for instructional coaches in one school, then that school
can spend more on it than what is recommended. The point is to have flexibility.
The annual reporting to school districts would have to be taken seriously. It would need to cover
four broad areas:
o Adequacy Cost
o Local Capacity Target
o Net State Contribution
o Actual State Contribution
Accountability vs. transparency
o If ISBE has no power in the application of EBM, then these are not accountability
measures but rather transparency measures.
o If EBM makes the decisions, someone asked whether ISBE would make a serious effort
to review all of the reporting from schools when they no longer have any control?
o Need for transparency and accountability when there are serious problems in our public
school system.
o Concern that there will not be enough staff for the accountability and transparency
desired since ISBE may be struggling to fill vacant positions.
 Is it worth it to for ISBE to hire a staff to make sure the EBM works as it should?
o If the state and community members have to invest a lot more funds into this system,
the expectation is that there would be growth. Especially for the low income, low
performing districts.
Education funding has historically focused on inputs and not outputs. It is possible to run into
the same problems once we stop focusing on growth measures. There is some concern that the
recent conversations have not centered on growth and have dealt more with inputs.
o The reason for a school not achieving its goals can be because of how it allocates its
resources. The EBM would help with changing and reallocating the resources schools
have to reach their goals.
o Would there be any expectation of tying inputs to the outcomes on the annual spending
plan for school districts?
 Not as written; the assumption is that the balanced accountability model will
balance the inputs and outputs.
o The Annual Spending Plan meeting can be an opportunity for having a community
discussion. Doing so would help alleviate the concern of members of the commission
who would want more transparency in the process.
o Accountability measures should be a part of the conversation as well.
 Some are concerned that ESSA and other orgs pushing for less accountability
would result in only studying one group of people. While No Child Left Behind
had its flaws, previously ignored students were for the first time tested to see
where they are at.
o Is there a section of accountability?
 As of now the EBM includes reporting to focus on transparency but does not
have a section in the bill to focus on accountability.
o
o
o
o
Having an expert panel would help facilitate and implement the EBM. It will make sure
he state uses the most recent data and works to ensure there is progress.
The Panel will study all the following elements and make recommendations to the State
Board, General Assembly, and the Governor:
 Annual spending plans
 The Comparable Wage Index (within five years).
 Maintenance and operations. Recommendations for maintenance and
operations costs, including capital maintenance costs, and any additional
reporting data required from school districts (within five years).
 "At-risk student" definition. Exploring additional alternatives to DHS (within five
years).
 Benefit costs. The % of salary to account for benefit costs (within five years).
 Technology. The per pupil target for technology (every three years)
 Local Capacity Target. Recommendations for measures in addition to EAV
(within three years).
 Funding for alternative schools, laboratory schools, safe schools, and alternative
learning opportunity programs (within five years).
 Funding for college and career acceleration strategies. Including Advanced
Placement, dual-credit opportunities, and college and career pathway systems
(within five years).
 Special education investments. Whether and how to account for disability types
within the special education funding category (within five years).
Would CPS be included in the profession panel considering it holds 20% of the state’s
total student population?
 CPS would have several opportunities to sit in the panel through representation
in state organizations
 However, that may rely on the generosity of some state organizations that do
not see eye to eye with CPS.
 Recommendation for the expert panel to include CPS since it most accurately
represents a wide spectrum of the state.
There may a need to reconsider who sits on the panel, because some would argue that
it would be the same agencies that have started or perpetuated an ineffective education
system.