Search

When examining school-level funding, the Chicago Panel discovered that schools with at least 90 percent low-income students average $350 less per pupil than schools with more affluent students. To overcome these inequities, the Chicago Panel proposed a finance system based on funding schools rather than school districts. (12 references) (MLH)

Examines the changing role of teachers after passage of Chicago's School Reform Act. It explores the new roles of education professionals, issues of teacher empowerment in Chicago reforms, how teachers have become increasingly involved, and the efforts to assist teachers' professional development. (GLR)

Outlines and evaluates Chicago's (Illinois) school reform efforts which used a school-based management experiment that granted authority to local parents, community representatives, and school professionals as a strategy for improving student achievement. It also covers recent trends in school-improvement efforts and discusses how extensively schools should be changed. (GLR)

Addresses Clune's school finance adequacy model from a practitioner's perspective, outlining six concerns: adequacy as a new structure or a federal categorical program; adequacy's legal basis; the chances of increasing federal Chapter 1 spending from $6.3 billion to $25 billion; program funding versus compensation focus; adequacy model control issues; and policy jurisdiction interactions. Praises the model's potential for linking adequate resources with program accountability. (MLH)

The Chicago School Reform, adopted in December 1988, requires the school system to raise its student achievement levels to national norms in 5 years; to reallocate the system's resources away from the administration and toward schools, particularly those with high enrollments of economically disadvantaged students; and to establish Local School Councils (LSCs) as the basis for school-based management. On the basis of an ongoing intensive study of 14 Chicago schools and other investigations, the following midway conclusions are stated: (1) LSCs have been established and, for the most part, function successfully; (2) school improvement plans have focused more on "add-ons" than on altering the regular instructional programs of schools; (3) principals have adopted new roles and are providing new leadership; (4) teachers have become increasingly involved and positive about reform; (5) resources have been increasingly focused on the schools, with the greatest increases in schools enrolling the highest proportions of disadvantaged students; (6) national school improvement efforts are working in Chicago to assist many schools; and (7) it is still too early to see any changes in student achievement. The appendix lists the schools involved in major school improvement networks and the common principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools. (50 references) (MLF)

This report provides an analysis of current inequities in school finance in Illinois, the historical roots of those inequities, and an analysis of alternative options for funding primary and secondary education. An introduction briefly describes the basis for the constitutional challenge to the current funding system. The next section describes the current state of school finance in Illinois, asking how uneven student support is from district to district. A historical section discusses the trends that have helped to shape the current situation including changes in the state's population, school enrollment changes, changes in the property wealth base, and state policies that have increased inequity. A section on tax efforts of state school districts describes low and high tax efforts and provides some examples of tax inequity. The next section offers a definition of equity. The final section describes options to improve equity including the following: (1) statewide foundation property tax option; (2) excess value state property tax option; (3) state non-residential education property tax option; (4) county assumption option; (5) increased foundation level option; and (6) income tax-property tax offset option. Included are 11 figures; 28 tables; a glossary; and 9 appendices containing data on racial and ethnic shifts, enrollment trends, assessed valuation trends, poverty impacted districts, per pupil revenue, tax rate comparisons, tax exchange, and tax rates. (JB)

School districts in Illinois are supported by revenues received primarily from local property taxes. Since the amount of local funds generated to support schools are affected by differences in property wealth, and property wealth is inequitably distributed, the funds available to provide an education to each student are also inequitably distributed. This funding inequity is the result of changes in school enrollments, property wealth, state policy, and tax efforts. An equitable funding system would allow no more than a 1.5 to 1 ratio between the 95th and 5th percentile districts in peer pupil revenue or in operating tax rates per $100 in assessed valuation. Six funding options were evaluated to ascertain the extent to which each option would provide an equitable funding system, they are: the statewide foundation property tax option; the excess value state property tax option; the county assumption option; the increased foundation level option; and the income tax/property tax offset option. Developed analyses of the first four options are offered with nine tables that illustrate financial comparisons of each option and the original funding system. An additional table is appended. (EJS)

As a result of state legislators' conviction that Chapter 1 fund mismanagement by the Chicago Public Schools had led to yearly increases in administration size to the detriment of students' real needs, the Chicago School Reform Act of 1988 placed a cap on noninstructional expenses and a progressive cessation on state aid to the poverty impaction element of Illinois' school aid formula. The corrective action required all but 5 percent of Chapter 1 funds to be spent only in schools. School funds have been reallocated to give teachers a 33 percent salary increase and to increase school-level staff while reducing administration size. Prior to reform, schools enrolling between 90 percent and 99 percent low income students received the least funding, while those with 100 percent and less than 30 percent received the most. Although the base level of funding is still far from equal, categorical programs can even out per pupil support so that Chapter 1 funding can have more compensatory effects. Continuing concerns in the arena of fund reallocation relate to the overall fiscal health of the Chicago Board of Education. Graphs and tables are provided to help illustrate funding and staffing changes. (16 references) (EJS)

Three competing models for public school improvement are described as points of reference. The technical transfer model of school reform focuses on how to better transfer knowledge already in the possession of academics. Placing the locus of authority in the classroom is the main issue of the professionalization model for school improvement. The client empowerment model for reform gives authority to the consumers of education. Underlying these views is the effort to restructure schools and school systems. Three separate approaches that make up the general category of school restructuring are: (1) enhancing teacher professionalization by rethinking teacher preparation and advocating empowerment; (2) using competition pressures to improve schools via enrollment choice, and (3) implementing parent-dominated school-based management. Examples of each approach in Chicago and other areas are given. School-based management was established in Chicago during 1988 with a set of 5-year goals such as improving student achievement and improving attendance and graduation rates. A similar program of local school management was established in Great Britain in 1986 and 1988. Both reforms are based in legal mandates imposed upon local education agencies. Common themes in the educational reforms enacted for Chicago and Great Britain include a concern for the disadvantaged and budget control, although differences such as curriculum diversity and budgetary approaches do exist. Issues in comparing approaches to school-based management encompass criteria for judging program success; the roles of professionals, clients, and students; and the locus of authority. (28 references) (EJS)

This book is a case study of the Chicago (Illinois) Public Schools 1980s reform movement imposed from the outside through legislation. The first chapter describes why school reform was necessary in Chicago. Chapter 2 focuses on a single high school in that system and shows the difficulties in trying to improve its performance. Chapter 3 describes the citizen initiative, which mobilized a movement for reform, and provides a chronology of the effort and an analysis of the elements of the mobilization. Chapter 4 reviews the national movement for reform in the 1980s. Chapter 5 describes the major elements in the Chicago restructuring plan, including goals, reallocation of resources to the school level, and school-based management. Chapters 6 and 7 examine the shift in roles of the actors involved in school-based management. Implications are drawn for schools of education and the preparation of educational professionals. Chapter 8 describes the initial year of implementation. Chapter 9 sets the Chicago effort back in the national context. Five sources of information on the Chicago restructuring, and lists of member organizations of the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance are appended. A 149-item list of references is included. (JB)

In November 1990, a group of 47 school districts filed suit against the state of Illinois, charging that inequity in school financing violates the right to equal protection under the state constitution. This report, prepared by a coalition of 17 Chicago-based nonprofit organizations, provides Illinois citizens with an analysis of current school finance inequities, some historical background, and alternative funding options. Illinois schools are supported by revenues received from local property taxes, state aid and grants, and federal grants. The amount of support varies from district to district, due to differences in property wealth, tax rates, and the number of low-income students qualifying for state or federal assistance. Some property wealth variations are so high and the state support level so low that revenue disparities have reached an intolerable 5:1 ratio. Funding inequity causes may be traced to three areas: school enrollments, property wealth, and state policy. Some taxpayers bear an unfair tax burden, while others pay very little. Addressing both equity in per pupil expenditure and taxpayer equity, The EdEquity Coalition has examined four funding options: (1) an increased foundation level of state support; (2) an income tax-property tax offset; (3) a county assumption formula; and (4) a state nonresidential education property tax. Combinations of these options are both possible and likely. Appendices contain information on racial/ethnic population shifts, Illinois school enrollment figures, property wealth changes, poverty-impacted districts, per pupil revenues, county tax exchange gains and losses, and county tax rates for the county assumption option. (MLH/author)