Money Matters
Unequal Funding = Unequal Outcomes
Thirteen Year Gaps are Massive
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
Rondout School District
72/Libertyville Community
School District 128
$100,000
Auburn CUSD 10
$50,000
$0
Amount Spent Per
Pupil, 1994 - 2007
Uneven Gaps Statewide
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000
$80,000
83 Districts or Paths
$60,000
79 Districts or Paths
$40,000
$20,000
$0
Amount Spent Per Pupil
1994 - 2007
Most high-spending
districts in the
Pie 1, Rest
of State,
six-county
region
8%, 8%
8%
Six County
Chicagoland
Region
Rest of State
92%
Pie 1, Six
County
Chicagolan
Most low-spending
districts are
Pie 1, Rest
of State,
downstate
4%, 4%
4%
Downstate
Districts
Rest of State
96%
Pie 1,
Downstate
Gaps add up
For 342,829 students who started CPS in 1994:
• If spending at Rondout & Libertyville level: $73.6 Billion
• If spending at CPS level:
$37.8 Billion
• Difference between levels
$35.8 Billion
High-poverty Districts Shortchanged
Per-Pupil Funding Averages 2005 - 2006
$11,000
$10,703
$10,296
$10,000
$407 Gap
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
High Poverty Districts
Low Poverty Districts
Masking Inequality
Per-Pupil Funding without Poverty Grants 2005 - 2006
$11,000
$10,584
$10,000
$9,190
$9,000
$1,394 Gap
$8,000
$7,000
High Poverty Districts
Low Poverty Districts
Huge Projected Gaps
Weighted Per-Pupil Funding 2005 - 2006
$11,000
$9,928
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,548
$2,380 Gap
$7,000
High Poverty Districts
Low Poverty Districts
Where Districts Stack Up
Per-Pupil Funding Distribution 2005 - 2006
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Where Districts Really Stack Up
Weighted Per-Pupil Funding Distribution 2005 - 2006
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Bleeding a Turnip
• The 83 districts with 2005 property tax rates of less than
2% generated an average of $12,717 per pupil.
• The 112 districts with property tax rates of 5% or more
generated an average of $6,063 per pupil.
Commercial/Industrial Gaps > Residential
Gaps between districts with property tax rate <2%
and property tax rate ≥5% by per pupil property value:
• Residential:
• Commercial:
• Industrial:
7.4 times larger
8.9 times larger
12.9 times larger
Link Between Farm & Poor Districts
• 15% of the 868 districts were farm districts
• 30% of districts property tax rates ≥5% were farm
districts
• 3% of districts with property tax rates <2% were farm
districts
• Tax rate for Ford Heights SD 169: 7.843%-highest in IL.
• Tax rate for East St. Louis SD 189: 7.415%-2nd highest.
• Tax rate for Park Forest SD 163: 7.298%-4th highest.
How the Illinois School Funding System
Creates Significant Educational Inequities
that Impact Most Students in the State
Property Taxes as a
Percentage of District
Revenue
90%
80%
83.25%
75.58%
70%
60%
45.66%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10 %
0%
Foundation formula districts receive significantly less than
the amount received by flat grant and alternative formula
districts in property tax revenue, meaning they rely far more
heavily on state support.
http://www.isbe.net – “2007 IL Report Card”
F la t G ra nt
A lt e rna t iv e F o rm ula
F o unda t io n F o rm ula
Equalized Assessed Valuation by
School District Type
$700,000.00
$651,578.50
$600,000.00
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
$325,509.31
$300,000.00
$121,797.08
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
Average EAV
http://www.isbe.net “2007 Illinois Report Card”
Flat Grant
Alternative Formula
Foundation Formula
Total School Tax Rate per $100
10.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
7.84%
3.06%
2.12%
Flat Grant
Alternative Formula
Foundation Formula
1.0%
0.0%
Tax Rate
http://www.isbe.net “2004 Illinois Report Card”
Illinois Total Property Tax Revenue Growth
Vs. State Median Income Growth
45.00%
Total Property Tax
Revenue Growth
State Median Income
Growth
42.12%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
All data inflation adjusted to 2008
17.41%
20.00%
Income Data: US Department of Census
Property Tax Data: IL Department of Revenue
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
2.84%
0.83%
0.00%
1990-2005
2000-2005
Average Teacher Salary
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
$64,222
$57,473
$46,511
Flat Grant
Alternative
Formula
Foundation
Formula
Percentage of Teachers with
Masters Degree
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
62.98
54.19
Flat Grant
37.27
Alternative
Formula
Foundation
Formula
Percentage of students meeting or exceeding
ISAT Standards (Grade 8, 2006)
92%
90%
90%
90%
88%
86%
87%
86%
84%
82%
80%
80%
80%
78%
76%
74%
Reading
Math
Flat Grant
Alternative Formula
Foundation Formula
PSAE Average Score (2006)
164
164
163
163
162
160
160
158
160
159
157
157
156
156
154
152
150
Reading
Math
Science
Flat Grant
Alternative Formula
Foundation Formula
Total and Instructional Spending Differentials
On average, Flat Grant districts spend $4186 more in total
per pupil spending than Foundation Formula school
districts.
When it comes to instructional expenses, Flat Grant
districts spend $2324 more per student on average than do
Foundation Formula districts.
2006-2007 Per Pupil Spending
$14,000
All Districts South of I-80
$12,350
All Flat Grant Districts in IL
$12,000
$10,000
$7,815
$8,000
$7,176
$4,755
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Operational
Expenditures
Instructional
Expenditures
• Forty-nine (49) out of the 52 flat grant districts in Illinois are
located north of I-80.
• Flat grant districts, on average, spend 36% more on
operational expenditures, and 33% more on instructional
expenditures, than all school districts south of I-80.
2006 PSAE Score Comparison: Flat Grant vs. Districts
South of I-80
164
164
163
163
162
160
158
157
157
155
156
154
152
150
Flat Grant Districts
Statewide
All Districts South of I80
Average PSAE scores reflect the disparities in academic
performance among district types.
Math
Science
Reading
Regression of ISAT Performance Vs. Per-pupil Instructional
Expenditure for School Districts with 3-8% Low Income Rates
Percent of Students Meeting and Exceeding
Illinois Standards on the ISAT (2006)
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
3000
5000
7000
9000
11000
13000
Per-pupil Instructional Expenditure
Active
Model
Conf. interval (Mean 95%)
Conf. interval (Obs. 95%)
*Linear regression is a statistical analysis that shows the correlation of two or more variables, in this case, how per-pupil
expenditures correspond to ISAT test scores. The regression line (heavy red) represents the predicted test score results a
school district should obtain, given a specific level of instructional expenditure.
Regression of ISAT Performance Vs. Per-pupil
Instructional Expenditure for Districts with 2732% Low Income Rates
100
Overall ISAT 2006
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Per Pup il Inst r uct io nal Exp end it ur e
A ct ive
M o d el
C o nf . int er val ( M ean 9 5%)
C o nf . int er val ( Ob s. 9 5%)
Low Income Focus
Equalized Assessed Valuation
$445,930
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Lowest Poverty (0-4% LIR)
Highest Poverty (68-100% LIR)
$81,422
Average EAV
Per Pupil Spending:
Highest vs. Lowest Poverty Districts
$11,000
$10,000
$10,695
Highest LIR Districts
$9,697
Lowest LIR Districts
$9,000
$8,000
$6,201
$7,000
$6,000
$5,198
$5,000
$4,000
Operational
Expenditures
Instructional
Expenditures
Percentage of Teachers with
Masters
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
56.12
35.62
Lowest Poverty (LIR 0-4%)
Highest Poverty (LIR 68100%)
Average Teacher Salary
Percent Teachers
with Masters
$60,000
$58,528
$55,000
$50,000
$48,911
Lowest Poverty (LIR 0-4% )
Highest Poverty (LIR 68100% )
$45,000
$40,000
Average Teacher Salary
There exists a significant discrepancy in teacher salary and the percentage of teachers with
masters among lowest and highest LIR school districts. This gap in teacher quality mirrors
disparities in academic performance and district wealth between the school districts with the
highest and lowest concentrations of low income students.
Percentage of students meeting or exceeding
ISAT Standards (Grade 6, 2006)
93%
89%
90%
80%
70%
61%
60%
Highest Poverty
Lowest Poverty
55%
50%
40%
30%
Reading
Math
The percentage of students meeting or exceeding ISAT
standards in the districts with the lowest levels of poverty is
markedly different from those districts with the highest
levels of poverty.
Percentage Meeting plus exceeding
PSAE (2006)
80.0
63.7
60.0
40.0
26.1
20.0
0.0
% Meet plus exceed
Lowest Poverty
Highest Poverty
Average 2006 PSAE Reading
Scores
165
161
158
160
155
150
148
145
Lowest LIR
Highest LIR
State
140
Average 2006 PSAE Math Scores
Average Score
165
160
160
156
155
150
146
145
140
135
Average Score
Lowest LIR
Highest LIR
State
Lowest LIR Districts Making AYP
4%
No
Yes
96%
Highest LIR Districts Making AYP
29%
No
Yes
The disparity between those districts
meeting AYP corresponds directly to a
school district’s LIR.
http://www.isbe.net “2007 Illinois Report Card”
71%
Percentage of African-American Students in
High and Low Poverty Schools
60.0%
55.04%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
Highest Poverty districts
20.0%
Lowest Poverty Districts
10.0%
0.0%
1.28%
Percentage of Students in Districts with Poverty Rate of 30% or Greater
92.83%
100.00%
90.00%
66.45%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
21.60%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
%White of Total White Pop
%Black of Total Black Pop
%Hispanic of Total Hispanic Pop
Racial Breakdown of
Lowest Poverty Districts
Hispanic
4%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
6%
Native American
0%
Other
2%
African American
1%
Caucasian
87%
Racial Breakdown of Flat Grant Districts
Hispanic
8%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
9%
African American
5%
Native American
0%
Other
2%
Caucasian
76%
For More Information:
Center for Tax and Budget Accountability
www.ctbaonline.org
Ralph M. Martire
Executive Director
(312) 332-1049
rmartire@ctbaonline.org
Chrissy A. Mancini
Director of Budget and Policy Analysis
(312) 332-1481
cmancini@ctbaonline.org
Yerik Kaslow
Research Associate
(312) 332-2151
ykaslow@ctbaonline.org
Money Matters
Unequal Funding = Unequal Outcomes