This comment by a reader explains that ALEC managed to slip a voucher into a needed school funding bill in Illinois, but it does not explain why elected officials in Illinois did not understand what was happening and block it. A “tax credit” is a voucher by another name. It was designed for states with constitutions that prohibit vouchers, with language that unequivocally says that public money may not be spent in religious schools for any purpose.
The tax credit allows corporations and wealthy individuals to give large sums to an independent entity (which takes a cut). The independent entity uses the money to give scholarships to students to go to religious schools. The corporation and individual get a tax credit, and the state loses money that would otherwise be in the state treasury.
The anonymous reader writes:
So: In terms of funding its schools, Illinois ranked #50, providing only around 26% of school funding. This had resulted over time in astonishing inequity, with districts spending between $7000 (poor, downstate, rural) and $32,000 per student (Chicago North Suburbs).
The new formula, which is referred to as the “EBM”, evidence-based-model, considers each of IL’s 852 school districts as a separate entity, calculates what the district can provide for schools (based on property taxes and federal aid), what is needed (using a state-wide baseline of about $12,200 iirc and incorporating all special characteristics of each district), and then separates schools into four Tiers, 1-4. The lion’s share of state funding will go to Tier 4 school districts, followed by Tier 3 (there are mathematical formulas involving percentages here), Tier 2, and Tier 1 (no state aid, deemed more than adequate). Determination of funding levels is based on 27 separate criteria (derived from, but not identical to Odden & Pincus’s model) and sensitive to the fact that different schools/districts may have different student profiles and thus, funding needs.
If all goes as planned: no district will ever lose money from the previous year (this is the famous “hold harmless” clause); all districts will gradually converge towards equity in public education resources; individual districts may, if deemed at 110% adequacy, choose to reduce property taxes, and each district’s state funding will be determined by its actual, evidence-based needs.
The bill’s chief sponsor in the Illinois Senate is to my mind a hero – very few people apart from the authors and the state’s superintendents of schools have understood how ground-breaking this bill is. For many districts–including the one where I was raised (poor, urban, downstate)–this will entail a near-reversal of funding percentages from what obtained previously.
The whole voucher thing–never wanted, never intended, not in the original version of the bill–has to do with unfortunate events in state politics over the summer. The original version of the voucher amendment – it was an ALEC bill, tweaked for Illinois – was weakened in the final version: yearly limit of $75 million (instead of $100 m) (and thus theoretically available to around 10,000 out of Illinois’ 2,000,000 school-age children, or one-half of 1%); 75% credit (instead of 100%); no year-over-year increases (instead of an automatic increase of 25% per year); tight regulations/audits by an independent outside auditor (plus spending cap of 10% for non-education activities such as advertising), and a sunset provision for automatic repeal at the end of 5 years unless it’s reintroduced as separate legislation.
It’s the job of public education advocates in Illinois to make sure that it isn’t re-introduced as a standalone bill – Illinois has no provision for referendums for Article X of its constitution (“Education”), so let’s hope the (national) public education advocacy groups assist Illinois’s own group (RaiseYourHandforIllinois)–and let’s hope that advocacy group gets on top of this, and stays on top of it, for the next five years so that it’s DOA in 2024. This is a big challenge, because we can lose sight of longer-term threats in the heat of day-to-day crises, of which Illinois has more than its share.
During the months I followed the issue in both the political and education press/blogs, I discovered that (a) even top political writers in the state didn’t understand vouchers, and absolutely refused to understand how “tax credits” were a specially-crafted form of voucher for states with some version of the Blaine Amendment, and (b) it was nigh-on impossible to attract the interest of national-level education writers to what was about to happen–thus, most of the national-level coverage came after the fact, when it was too late to do anything.
That’s why sites like this one are so vital – they allow us to remain current with what’s happening in states other than our own, so that we can be alert when something similar is afoot at home.

The so-called Blaine amendments, which are in some state’s constitutions, which prohibit public money going to religiously-operated schools, were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. See Trinity Lutheran School District v. Pauley (2017).
LikeLike
Charles, the Supreme Court decision in the Trinity Lutheran case did not declare the Blaine amendments unconstitutional. It said that the money that went for putting down a new playground surface should be available to all schools.
States with Blaine amendments still ban vouchers unless their own state courts overturn them.
LikeLike
Q The exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 7-2 majority. END Q
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-577
Read the decision.
LikeLike
The decision explicitly stated that it was only deciding on the narrow, narrow issue at hand. Nothing more!
LikeLike
Diane Will the deceit never end. It sounds like the health-care “debate.” If it doesn’t pass with this language, and people don’t want it, then they change the language, try to sneak it in, bury it beneath other issues, or otherwise “George Orwell” it until they get what they want, all the while thinking the public are suckers and losers.
If you want to know one BIG reason Trump got elected, it was because so many who didn’t vote much before, got sick and tired of the do-nothing double-speaking CONGRESS–acting just like the above–a long time ago, and were simmering quietly about it until: out pops drain-the-swamp Trump. Trump has Mitch McConnell, my-way-or-the-highway Tea Party, and now Freedom Caucus’ dark money-slime dripping from every ignorant and mean-spirited thing he thinks, says, and does.
LikeLike
We all have different explanations for why Trump got elected, but the bottom line (in my view) is that a very large proportion of qualified citizens don’t vote.
The new health care bill will strip health care insurance from 32 million people by 2027.
The GOP has next in line a tax cut of $1.5 Trillion that will benefit the wealthiest on the assumption that those who get richer will create new jobs. That’s trickle-down economics. It didn’t work under Reagan and it won’t work now. But it will make the top 1% very happy and produce more campaign contributions for the GOP and fund more effort to suppress the votes of those who are hurt by these policies.
LikeLike
dianeravitch We’ll be debating “how did that happen?” for years, I am sure. However, apparently many Trump voters WERE those voters (that you talk about in your note) who didn’t vote before this election; but who (1) were not party-connected; but (2) were disgusted with “Congress,” for instance, shutting down the government, but not only that; and (3) were drawn to Trump because he promised change (from what they were so disgusted with). But of course just voting won’t do; but informed voting? Hopefully.
LikeLike
The previous election had a low turnout of qualified voters. The maxim in law is “quietat es conseteri”, Silence is consent.
LikeLike
The saddest part to me is ed reform managed to hijack the whole bill discussion.
This bill is supposedly “about” public schools. they’re never mentioned.
Public schools are simply a legislative vehicle to get more funding for charter and private schools. they could care less what happens to the 90% of families in the public schools.
Their representatives should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be captured to the extent that they no longer serve NINETY PER CENT of families. They do nothing for public schools. They add ZERO value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The exact and most dangerous truth: “Public schools are simply a legislative vehicle to get more funding for charter and private schools.” Public tax money continues to come in and be subsequently deposited into those massively lucrative public ed. coffers, year after year after year.
LikeLike
The US Department of Education omitted 97% of school families when they cheered for this bill.
That’s outrageous,that they’re so far in the ed reform bubble public schools don’t exist.
Throw them out. Find people who have some interest in public schools. They’re not serving you well.
LikeLike
Creeps! Nothing is sacred anymore. Sick people are in charge.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch, many thanks.
In answer to your specific question “why state officials did not understand what was happening and block it”:
(1) state officials understood very well what was happening, but
(2) they couldn’t block it, because the votes weren’t there
The reason for (2) is political rather than educational.
By late June, Illinois had gone 740 days without a budget, longer than any state in U.S. modern history. A budget was finally passed–over the governor’s veto–which contained a provision that said budget would only become effective once Illinois had adopted the “evidence-based model” of school funding. This made passage of a bill mandatory.
Six weeks passed. In the meantime, the governor had issued an AV (amendatory veto) of SB 1, the original bill submitted for his signature. The AV contained the “rider” or “amendatory” bill re: scholarship “tax credits.” This amended version, having failed in both houses, was subjected to revisions by the IL General Assembly leadership, and essentially all of its destructive elements, elements which would have eviscerated the actual evidence-based funding model, were eliminated–all but one, the tax credits.
These were part of a “closed door” deal worked out to obtain sufficient Republican votes to pass the core bill, now renamed SB 1947, which required a super-majority in both houses. Negotiations took place among the four leaders of the IL House and Senate over a period of days, without the bill’s writers/sponsors present. At some stage(s), Cardinal Cupich had become involved, as had Mayor Emanuel. It is also worth noting that all four of Illinois’ General Assembly leaders are graduates of Catholic schools, and this rider was generally referred to as a “bailout” for Illinois’ failing Catholic schools (about 500 of them).
Tax credits were the price paid to gain the requisite super-majority in the IL legislature to pass evidence-based funding for the state’s schools. The consequences of SB1947’s not passing would have included a budget which could not be implemented–in a state with a $15 billion backlog of unpaid bills, being threatened by Moody’s and S & P’s to downgrade its bonds to junk status– and school districts to which the IL Comptroller was forbidden from releasing funds; even as things stood, the first two tranches of Aug 10 and Aug 20 were missed.
On a personal note, thanks to my reading of your site over the past year or so, I realized what was happening immediately, probably sooner than Illinois’s political/education reporters. I understood what the governor’s replacement of nearly his entire staff by employees from the Illinois Policy Institute (part of the State Policy Network, closely allied to ALEC) implied about the amendatory veto, and I understood what the tax credits were.
Despite multiple comments on the state’s leading political blog and an effort to communicate my concerns to a couple of ed bloggers/reporters, no one seemed interested in what was going down in Illinois. I wrote about the bill, and the tax credits, extensively on my own blog, but it’s unknown to everybody who could have raised the issue nationally. It was a frustrating and disheartening experience.
For those interested, Funding Illinois’ Future (@FundILFuture) will be holding a Webinar on SB1947 on September 26.
And I note that Raise Your Hand Illinois (@ILRaiseYourHand) started their campaign against vouchers today, not a day too soon imho.
Note to Charles: As Dr. Ravitch noted, the SCOTUS decision in Trinity Lutheran School District v. Pauley was (deliberately, probably) very narrow, and did not extend to state funding for curriculum per se. SCOTUS is reportedly shopping around for a case to put curricular funding on trial, which will of course put the Blaine Amendment on trial as well.
LikeLike
Governor Rauner is an arrogant hedge fund guy who despises public schools.
This voucher deal is a giveaway to the Catholic Church political leaders. Any church that relies on government funding will one day regret it.
LikeLike
Rauner ran a private equity firm, not a hedge fund. I don’t think he really despises public schools; he has in fact increased funding to them beyond the tax-credit cost and other charter schemes. What he despises are public-sector unions, particularly CTU.
He is a true believer that schools should compete. This is what makes him dangerous for public education.
LikeLike
Q As Dr. Ravitch noted, the SCOTUS decision in Trinity Lutheran School District v. Pauley was (deliberately, probably) very narrow, and did not extend to state funding for curriculum per se. END Q
The Trinity decision, nullified the Missouri state prohibition on providing aid to religiously-operated schools (contained in the Missouri Blaine amendment). I agree that the decision did not specifically address “curriculum”, the case involved providing recycled tire chips for the playground.
Nevertheless, the court ruled that public money can be provided to parents to select a non-public school that does provide “curriculum” and educational services in the Zelman decision in 2002.
I would be very interested, if the court is shopping around for another case to re-visit either Zelman or Trinity. Please keep me informed.
LikeLike
No, that decision did not nullify the Missouri Constitutional wording. If it had you can bet every regressive xtian right wing reactionary would have been shoving it down everyone’s throats from the decision to kingdom come. And that hasn’t happened.
LikeLike