PROMOTING EQUITY - IFFiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017ILSchoolStudy_RaisingQuali… ·...

An analysis of location, performance,and investment in Illinois public schools

RAISING QUALITY PROMOTING EQUITY

Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve.

IFF is a nonprofit community development financial institution (CDFI) that provides comprehensive community development solutions across the Midwest. As part of the organization’s mission to strengthen nonprofits and the communities they serve, IFF Research conducts analyses to facilitate strategic planning and resource allocation for states, municipalities, school districts, foundations, and nonprofits throughout the country.

Over nearly fifteen years on the cutting edge of school improvement, IFF has developed a signature approach to education research that assesses need for quality K-12 public schools. IFF’s school study methodology is distinctive in its spatial analysis of performing capacity at a local level. Its place-based approach helps education stakeholders craft data-driven interventions and maximize the reach of investments. Previous analyses have informed policy and decision-making such as investments in districts and schools, strategic facilities planning and site selection, identification of schools for potential turnarounds, solicitations and selection criteria for charter schools, and targeted communication regarding public school options.

IFF’s education needs assessments evolved out of a partnership with Chicago Public Schools (CPS). In 2003, CPS leaders recognized a need to identify neighborhoods to prioritize for the location of new performing schools. IFF’s research enhanced the district’s ability to target its school improvement efforts and led to a better distribution of K-12 options for families. The needs assessment methodology has evolved and been adapted to guide policy and practice in Cleveland, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Raising Quality, Promoting Equity is IFF’s second statewide school study, following an assessment of Indiana public schools in 2013.

Raising Quality, Promoting Equity was conducted by IFF Research with financial support from the Joyce Foundation and from the Walton Family Foundation. The project’s advisory committee included representatives from the offices of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), Advance Illinois, the Archdiocese of Chicago, the Illinois Network of Charter Schools, New Schools for Chicago, Stand for Children Illinois, Thornton Fractional High School District 215, and Williamsfield Community Unit School District 210.

PREFACE

ONLINE TOOLwww.iff.org/ILSchoolStudy

The data visualization suite that accompanies this report allows users

to compare schools, districts, and study areas of their choosing with the

state and with customizable sets of peers from a variety of perspectives.

Users interested in their school, district, or region can see how their

outcomes in performance, funding, and return on investment (ROI) stack

up to those of nearby places, of demographically similar communities, or

of the state as a whole.

RAISING QUALITY PROMOTING EQUITY

An analysis of location, performance,and investment in Illinois public schools

IFF PROJECT STAFFR. Jovita Baber, Ph.D. Vice President of Research and Evaluation

Nicholas V. DiRago Research Associate

Megan McGowan Data Analyst

Jesse Bakker GIS Analyst

Katie Coleman Corporate Communications Manager

IFF ADVISORY TEAMJoe Neri President and Chief Executive Officer

Matt Roth Chief Operating Officer

Jose Cerda III Vice President of Corporate Communications and Public Affairs

Susana Vasquez Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

Andrew Alt Director of School Services

Jenny Boyts School Services Manager

Kiae Considine Director of Resource Development

Dennis Marino Senior Project Manager

Andrea Poole Director of Lending, School Services

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ADVISORY COMMITTEEDaniel Anello Chief Executive Officer New Schools for Chicago

Derek Cantù Policy Analyst Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois

Tim Farquer Superintendent and Curriculum Director Williamsfield Community Unit School District 210

Jason Helfer, Ph.D. Deputy Superintendent for Teaching and Learning Illinois State Board of Education

Thomas McGrath Associate Superintendent and Chief Operating Officer Archdiocese of Chicago Office of Catholic Schools

Ginger Ostro Executive Director Advance Illinois

Beth Purvis, Ed.D. Secretary of Education Office of the Governor of Illinois

Mimi Rodman Executive Director Stand for Children Illinois

Evelyn Sanguinetti Lieutenant Governor of Illinois

Sara R. Shaw Managing Director and Advisor of Education Policy Office of the Governor of Illinois

Creg E. Williams, Ed.D. Superintendent Thornton Fractional High School District 215

Pamela Witmer Senior Manager of Policy Illinois Network of Charter Schools

PEER REVIEWERSHeather Y. Anichini President and Chief Executive Officer The Chicago Public Education Fund Jeff Broom Director of School Quality Measurement Chicago Public Schools Juan Jose Gonzalez Director of Youth and Education Policy City of Chicago Christopher Merrett, Ph.D. Director and Professor Western Illinois University Institute for Rural Affairs Kevin O’Mara Executive Director High School District Organization of Illinois Diane Rutledge Executive Director Large Unit District Association Robin M. Steans Trustee Steans Family Foundation Sara Ray Stoelinga, Ph.D. Sara Liston Spurlark Director University of Chicago Urban Education Institute Norman Walzer, Ph.D. Senior Research Scholar Northern Illinois University Center for Governmental Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 1

DATA AND METHODS ................................................................................................................................................... 5

REFERENCE MAPS AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 9

PART I: NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 16

PART II: DISTRICT FUNDING .................................................................................................................................... 30

PART III: RETURN ON INVESTMENT ..................................................................................................................... 46

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 53

DISTRICT PROFILES: BRIGHT SPOTS FOR FUTURE INVESTMENT ............................................................. 56

IN DEPTH: CHICAGO ................................................................................................................................................... 63

APPENDIX A: SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY GRADE LEVEL AND STUDY AREA ........................................ 71

APPENDIX B: SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE CATEGORIZATION SCHEME .................................... 87

MAPS Map 1: Density of School-Aged Children ............................................................................................................................................................... 11Map 2: Children in Poverty ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13Map 3: Service Level.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21Map 4: Service Gap...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25Map 5: Funding Adequacy ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 39Map 6: Return on Investment (ROI), Study Areas ................................................................................................................................................. 51Map 7: Service Level, City of Chicago ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64Map 8: Service Gap, City of Chicago ........................................................................................................................................................................ 68

CHARTS Chart 1: Enrolled Students by School Performance ................................................................................................................................................ 18Chart 2: Service Level in Study Areas ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19Chart 3: Poverty and Proficiency in Illinois Public School Districts .................................................................................................................... 27Chart 4: School Performance by Income Level ....................................................................................................................................................... 28Chart 5: Supplemental Funds Needed Per Dollar ................................................................................................................................................... 32Chart 6: Cost Weighting Example ............................................................................................................................................................................. 34Chart 7: Enrolled Students by Funding Level .......................................................................................................................................................... 35Chart 8: Funding Adequacy by Income Level ......................................................................................................................................................... 36Chart 9: Weighted Revenue Per Pupil by District Income Level .......................................................................................................................... 36Chart 10: Funding Adequacy by Geography ........................................................................................................................................................... 37Chart 11: Revenue Sources for K-12 Public Education .......................................................................................................................................... 41Chart 12: Income, Wealth, and Revenue for K-12 Education ............................................................................................................................... 42

Chart 13: Instructional Spending and Proficiency .................................................................................................................................................. 43Chart 14: Wealth, Spending, and Performance ....................................................................................................................................................... 44Chart 15: Income, Performance, and Return on Investment (ROI) ..................................................................................................................... 47Chart 16: Return on Investment (ROI) by Funding Adequacy ............................................................................................................................. 49Chart 17: Overhead Spending by Return on Investment (ROI) ........................................................................................................................... 50Chart 18: Enrolled Students by School Performance in Elgin-Area School District U-46 vs. Illinois ............................................................ 57Chart 19: Student Demographics in Elgin-Area School District U-46 ................................................................................................................ 57Chart 20: Funding and Wealth in Elgin-Area School District U-46 .................................................................................................................... 58Chart 21: Student Demographics in Vienna School District 55 ........................................................................................................................... 59Chart 22: Funding and Wealth in Vienna School District 55 ................................................................................................................................ 60Chart 23: Enrolled Students by School Performance in Collinsville School District 10 ................................................................................... 61Chart 24: Student Demographics in Collinsville School District 10 .................................................................................................................... 61Chart 25: Funding and Wealth in Collinsville School District 10 ........................................................................................................................ 62Chart 26: Enrolled Students by School Performance in Chicago Public Schools ............................................................................................... 65Chart 27: Poverty and Performance in Chicago Public Schools ........................................................................................................................... 66Chart 28: Student Demographics in Chicago Public Schools ............................................................................................................................... 66Chart 29: Funding and Wealth in Chicago Public Schools .................................................................................................................................... 70

TABLES Table 1: IFF Performance Rating for Illinois Public Schools, 2013-14 ................................................................................................................... 6Table 2: Statewide Enrollment Breakdown, 2013-14 ................................................................................................................................................ 9Table 3: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Statewide .................................................................................................................................. 18Table 4: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, High-Need Areas .................................................................................................................... 23Table 5: Supply and Demand by Study Area, Ranked, High-Need Areas ............................................................................................................ 24Table 6: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Chicago .................................................................................................................................... 63Table 7: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Chicago, High-Need Areas ................................................................................................... 67

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW

Seizing the Moment. As the educational landscape evolves in the Prairie State, exciting opportunities are emerging to raise quality and promote equity in Illinois public schools. Over the past several years, standardized assessments have increased in rigor; momentum for school funding reform has picked up; and the state is gaining considerable autonomy over its public schools as the Every Student Succeeds Act takes effect. Illinois’s success in transforming these and other opportunities into progress hinges on stakeholders’ capacity to coalesce around a comprehensive school improvement agenda.

Raising Quality, Promoting Equity is designed to facilitate this collaborative process of agenda-setting. At its core, the study is a supply-and-demand needs assessment. In line with statewide goals to promote ninety percent of students to grade level in math and reading by 2032, the analysis identifies the places in Illinois in which the most children cannot access a public school in which all or nearly all students succeed in core subjects. Embedded in this research question is the assumption that every child can learn. Zip code, race, ethnicity, family wealth, first language, or learning style should not diminish access to quality education. To safeguard opportunity for children across Illinois, the public education system must guarantee that all families have a high-quality K-12 school close to home.

Boosting Performance to Raise Quality. A high level of academic performance is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of a high-quality school. High-quality schools challenge and support children to realize their potential. They not only transmit basic skills but foster critical thinking, self-understanding, social and emotional learning, cultural competency, citizenship, and wellness.

Standardized tests do not measure these vital components of high-quality schools; by the same token, high-quality schools accomplish more than state assessments can capture. As such, high-quality schools do not teach to the test. They teach to the whole child, which allows them to achieve high levels of performance in subjects that standardized tests assess.

Yet even in the context of holistic, whole-child education, solid training in reading and math is a foundational function of K-12 schooling. Students, families, and taxpayers depend on this training to build a skilled workforce that can participate in the economy and attract investment. If many children cannot access schools that will prepare them to achieve in reading and math, increasing the availability of grade-level preparation in these subjects should be a top priority for the K-12 system.

To evaluate Illinois’s progress towards guaranteeing basic academic preparation for all children, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity determines the proportion of students that can access a K-12 public school with high levels of reading and math performance in each of 234 geographies across the state. It then identifies the areas with the widest gaps between enrolled students and seats in high-performing schools. The analysis also examines the relationship between poverty and academic performance.

The supply-and-demand focus of the needs assessment shifts emphasis from the performance of individual students and schools to the quality and geographic distribution of the services that the K-12 public school system provides statewide. In this way, the methodology gauges whether the system is meeting students’ needs and delivering a quality service to taxpayers. Funding and ROI: Two Sides of the Same Coin. After analyzing patterns in school performance and identifying

2

the areas in which there is the most need for high-performing schools, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity examines district funding and return on investment (ROI). Fiscal decisions at federal, state, and local levels fundamentally shape educational opportunities. For this reason, an assessment of the K-12 landscape in Illinois is incomplete without insight into the effectiveness of resource allocation across and within districts.

Analyses of resource allocation in this report stem from two principles about revenues and expenditures in public schools. At the most basic level, state and local leaders should guarantee that schools and districts have enough resources to meet their students’ academic needs. In turn, school districts should use public funds wisely to maximize the quality of the services that they provide.

In evaluating the school funding system in the state, the study uses the benchmarks of adequacy and equity: do districts have enough funding to meet students’ needs, and does the system guarantee that enough resources flow into low-income communities to compensate for inequalities in local resources? The study then turns to ROI, which gauges the impact of districts’ day-to-day spending on outcomes in critical academic subjects. Together, the analysis of district funding and ROI helps stakeholders understand — at state, regional, and district-by-district levels — whether educators have enough resources to guarantee high levels of academic achievement and whether local decision-makers are utilizing those resources in impactful ways. A Tool for Action. Ultimately, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity and the accompanying online tool are designed to support the work of stakeholders in K-12 education in Illinois. Beginning from a shared vision of a public education system in which high-quality schools are abundant and evenly distributed across the Prairie State, the study presents data and analysis that can help decision-

makers develop differentiated strategies to raise quality and promote equity in schools across our state.

KEY FINDINGS

The K-12 public education system in Illinois does not provide a substantial majority of families the option to send their children to high-performing schools. Twelve percent of students in the state have access to a public school that has achieved the goal of preparing all or nearly all of its students to read, write, and do math at grade level. The lack of performing options in Illinois is a statewide issue that cuts across geographies — upstate and downstate, in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Only a small handful of affluent suburban municipalities has enough seats in high-performing public schools for every child from kindergarten through high school. Public education in Illinois is inequitable. The public school system does not equalize opportunity for Illinois residents; it reinforces inequalities among them. Because the state relied heavily on property taxes to fund public education, school districts serving low-income communities were far more likely to be underfunded than those in more affluent parts of the state. Municipalities with lower property wealth were therefore forced to tax at high rates to maintain public schools. Yet even despite this heavy financial burden on residents, Illinois’s poorest students had almost no access to high-performing schools. Across the state, standardized test scores gauged family wealth about as well as they assess math and reading ability. Fairer school funding, however, seems likely to help close the achievement gap. Nearly three out of five students in the state were enrolled in districts with precarious funding levels in the absence of funding reform. The state’s funding system thereby compromised most children’s access to performing

3

schools. Funding inadequacy is a statewide issue, but low-income and downstate communities were more likely to face underfunding than wealthier and upstate peers.

Many underperforming and underfunded school districts are making good use of the financial resources at their disposal. From the standpoint of contributing to core academic achievement, many of the most impactful dollars in the state’s public education system are being spent in districts that are approaching, but have not yet reached, high levels of reading and math performance. Moreover, return on investment (ROI) is twenty percent higher in underfunded school districts than in adequately funded school districts. For these reasons, some underfunded and underperforming school districts appear to be among the best candidates for future investment and even potential sources of best practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS FRAMEWORK late of recommendations, see page #.

Academic accountability, adequate and equitable resources, and financial stewardship should represent a unified statewide effort to improve K-12 public schools. Performance, funding, and return on investment must be addressed jointly and holistically to raise quality and promote equity in public education in Illinois.

The broad scope and deep reach of this collaborative agenda means that community, school, district, municipal, regional, and state leaders have interdependent roles to play, in conjunction with support from the nonprofit and philanthropic sectors. Raising Quality, Promoting Equity presents a framework through which all stakeholders can approach school improvement, allowing for differentiated responsibility without losing sight of common goals.

STRATEGICALLY DETERMINE WHERE

Calibrate efforts to supply AND demand...Use the geographical distribution of supply

(seats in high-performing schools) and demand

(children enrolled in K-12 public schools) across

the state to identify areas in which to target school

improvement efforts. Pay special attention to

the high-need areas that this study identifies.

...using the service level...The service level is the proportion of students

in a study area who have access to a high-

performing school. Communities with the lowest

levels of service, or with no service at all, have the

highest levels of need per school-age resident.

...and the service gap.The service gap is the number of students in a study

area who lack access to a high-performing school.

Communities with the widest service gaps have the

greatest numbers of students in need. The wider

the service gap, the more students in need can be

reached by successful school improvement efforts.

For a full list of recommendations, go to page 53.

4

ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE RESOURCES

Invest in underfunded schools and

districts. Guarantee adequate

and equitable funding for every

school in Illinois: ensure that

all schools are equipped to

meet students’ needs and

that the state funding

system compensates

for disparities in

local wealth.

ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITYSet high standards for academic performance, and hold schools to them

through a clear accountability system. Implement rigorous summative

ratings that meaningfully capture progress towards promoting all or nearly

all students to grade level, and tailor supports to each school’s rating.

FINANCIALSTEWARDSHIP

Empower local and regional

stakeholders to identify best

practices for resource allocation

and to align their spending to

maximize impact on school

performance. Structure

investments in districts

and schools based on

need and the impact

of current spending

on performance

outcomes.

HOLISTICALLY DETERMINE HOW

RAISING QUALITY, PROMOTING EQUITY A UNIFIED FRAMEWORK FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT IN ILLINOIS

5

DATA Data Year. The findings contained in Raising Quality, Promoting Equity are based on data from academic year 2013-14. For elementary and middle schools, the standardized examination in Illinois in 2013-14 was the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT); for high schools, it was the Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE). Beginning in 2014-15, the state transitioned to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) examinations. There were two main reasons for the decision to use data from 2013-14 in this study despite the state’s transition to a new testing regime.

First, the federal K-12 district finance data on which the latter portions of the study are based were only available through 2013-14. It was necessary to use directory, enrollment, and performance data from the same year in order to make meaningful comparisons among performance, funding, and return on investment.

Second, the state restricted the use of scores from the 2014-15 administration of PARCC in accountability systems. Although the performance metric in this study is not constitutive of an accountability system, IFF aligned with state policy to avoid confusion and did not utilize 2014-15 PARCC scores in generating performance ratings for schools and districts. And because the data for the study were processed before 2015-16 PARCC scores were made public, the 2013-14 administration of standardized tests was the best available option for analysis.

Also due to the transition in standardized tests, rolling averages or other multi-year data, which would have required the use of outcomes from prior to 2013-14, were not used in generating performance ratings or

other measures. While multi-year or rolling data have advantages, they were outweighed by the concern that the findings would have been insufficiently current if scores from academic years prior to 2013-14 were incorporated.

Data Sources.

Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University Comparable Wage Index Updates Chicago Public Schools Attendance Boundaries ISAT Performance Levels PSAE Performance Levels Twentieth Day Membership Reports City of Chicago Community Area Boundaries Esri Single-Year Age Data Illinois Network of Charter Schools Charter School Directory and Enrollment Illinois State Board of Education Directory of Educational Entities Fall Enrollment Counts Illinois Report Card Original EAV and Tax Rates Reports School District Financial Profiles National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data Local Education Agency Finance Survey Public School Directory Public School Membership US Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2014 School District Boundaries

DATA AND METHODS

6

1 The state will likely begin assigning schools to one of four performance tiers beginning in 2019-20. The proposed system, however, was not yet public at the time that this study began.

METHODOLOGY

Needs Assessment. The core of Raising Quality, Promoting Equity is a supply-and-demand needs assessment. It answers a basic question: where in Illinois do the most children lack access to a public school in which all or nearly all students succeed in core subjects?

To answer this question, the analysis divides the state of Illinois into 234 study areas, which are the base geographical unit of the needs assessments. Ninety study areas correspond to counties. In the higher-density metropolitan areas of Chicago, Rockford, Peoria, and East St. Louis, counties are subdivided into clusters of zip codes. Within each study area, supply is the number of seats available in high-performing K-12 public (district and charter) schools. Demand is the number of children enrolled in all K-12 public schools. The difference between supply (performing seats) and demand (students) is the service gap, the number of additional seats in high-performing schools that need to be made available in a study area in order to reach all students in the system. The service level is the quotient of supply over demand, the proportion of students who currently have access to a high-performing public school within a study area.

The service level and service gap are calculated within each study area for three grade divisions (grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12). The service gaps within the three divisions are summed to arrive at K-12 totals. Each study area is then ranked by its service gap within the grade divisions. Finally, with adjustments for population density, a composite K-12 ranking is created from the study area’s rankings within each grade group. The highest-ranked fifth of the study areas are designated as high-need areas. Unlike many states, Illinois did not publicize a summative evaluation of school performance in 2013-14.1 With input from the advisory committee for Raising Quality, Promoting Equity, IFF consulted best practices from other Midwestern states to create an accessible and action-oriented categorization of schools. In determining which schools contributed to supply within a study area, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity places schools and districts into one of five groups on an A — F scale. A school or district was considered performing if it had a rating of A or B.

• Schools and districts first entered a base grouping determined by their composite proficiency rate in reading and math.

Table 1: IFF Performance Rating for Illinois Public Schools, 2013-14

Base Grouping(Reading & Math Composite Score)

Extra Credit PenaltyElementary &

Middle Schools High Schools

90% proficient or above A

Exceptional levels of student growth

Exceptional rates of graduation and college enrollment

High rates of non-participation in assessments

80-89.9% proficient B

70-79.9% proficient C

60-69.9% proficient D

50-59.9% proficient F

7

• Elementary and middle school scores advanced one group (e.g., from a C to a B) if the school or district was exceeding standards for student growth in math and reading (i.e., if the average of a school’s reading and math growth levels on the Value Table Growth Model was at least 115).

• High school scores advanced one group if the school’s or district’s graduation rates — across all students and among low-income students — and sixteen-month postsecondary enrollment rates were both in the top quartile statewide.

• All scores receded one group (e.g., from a B to a C) if less than ninety-five percent of students or of low-income students were tested in reading and math.

These performance ratings do not — and are not designed to — capture all of the meaningful aspects of quality public education. Their advantage is that they contribute to the key research question elaborated above by assessing the proportion of students that is prepared to achieve in core academic subjects — reading and math. District Funding. Illinois is an economically and demographically diverse state. The costs associated with running a school district vary widely across its urban, suburban, town, and rural regions. Moreover, the state’s children enter the public school system with a wide array of academic needs. The prices of providing services that can meet these needs vary with the composition of the student body and the size of the school district. This diversity has consequences for a central goal of Raising Quality, Promoting Equity: analyzing equity and adequacy in Illinois’s school funding system.

Drawing from best practices in school finance research, most financial figures in Raising Quality, Promoting Equity are weighted to standardize expenditures and revenues across geographically and demographically dissimilar districts. The study adjusts revenue and expenditure figures in two basic ways.

It first applies a cost of living adjustment using the Comparable Wage Index, a widely used set of multipliers for individual school districts based on the cost pressures of the labor market in which they are located. The index adjusts figures upward in school districts in which the cost of living is below the national norm and downward in school districts in which the cost of living is above the national norm.

Then, a set of weights2 is applied based on the district’s size and its populations of three student groups that need additional educational resources in order to thrive: low-income students, English language learners, and children with disabilities. The function of these weights is to normalize the reach of revenues and expenditures as if all enrolled children were general education students with no need for specialized or intensive supports. The number of students within each of the three subgroups is multiplied by the corresponding weight to arrive at an adjusted enrollment total that measures the number of general education students that the district would be able to accommodate with a given revenue or expenditure. To arrive at weighted per-pupil figures, disctrict-wide totals are divided by the adjusted enrollment. The cost adjustments utilized in this analysis allow districts to be compared as if they were educating the same students in the same place. The principle behind the weights is

2 After a review of the literature on school district finance, IFF chose to adopt weights that Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) developed for an analysis of district funding in Montana. APA are national leaders in school finance research and in the past have been commissioned by the State of Illinois to

analyze the state’s K-12 funding formula. A principal advantage of these weights is that they differentiate costs based on district size. Recognizing the relative differences in cost burden based on size is helpful in the context of Illinois, where some districts enroll only a few dozen students and others enroll tens of thousands.

8

simple: each dollar spent in public schools goes further to meet student need in places where the cost of living is lower and children need fewer intensive or specialized educational services. The weighted figures can therefore be considered measures of how much need a school district is positioned to meet with a given amount of revenue or expenditure. A school district with higher weighted revenue can access more goods and services and therefore is able to meet more need from a financial perspective.

Finally, based on weighted per-pupil revenue, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity makes a determination about the adequacy of funding levels in all school districts in Illinois for which full financial data were available. This determination is based on the Foundation Level (FL) that the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) released every other year, with adjustments for inflation. The FL was a statewide standard for the amount of combined local and state funding necessary to educate a general education student in Illinois; in 2013-14, it was $8,672 per pupil. The study compares a district’s weighted revenue to the FL to gauge funding adequacy.

Each district’s level of revenue is assigned a category:

Funding Adequacy Revenue vs. Foundation Level (FL)

Adequate 3.5% or more above FL

Borderline Within 3.5% of FL

Underfunded 3.5% or more below FL

Return on Investment. In Raising Quality, Promoting Equity, return on investment (ROI) measures reading

and math achievement per dollar spent on a district’s K-12 operations, after the weights described above have been applied. It is derived by dividing a district’s composite proficiency rate in reading and math by its weighted operational expenditure per pupil.

Operational expenditures comprise instruction, staff and pupil support, food, transportation, and overhead. Included in overhead spending are administration, central office and business services, and maintenance. Debt service, long-term capital expenditures, and other costs that can reasonably vary from year to year are not included in operational expenditures.

For the purposes of this study, “return” does not connote overall district quality. Rather, ROI is strategically based more narrowly on the academic foundation that drives Raising Quality, Promoting Equity: proficiency in reading and math. For each school district, ROI answers a basic question: given the amount of need that a district’s funding allows it to meet, how well are students performing in core academic subjects?

Districts’ ROI are assigned to one of three groups:

Return on Investment Rank

High ROI Highest third of ROI

Medium ROI Middle third of ROI

Low ROI Bottom third of ROI

A step-by-step demonstration of the process of cost weighting can be found on pages 31-34.

A detailed breakdown of the school district expenditure categorization scheme utilized in this

report can be found in Appendix B.

9

ENROLLMENT BREAKDOWN

In 2013-14, approximately 2.28 million students in Illinois enrolled in over 4,200 district schools, 148 charter schools, and more than 1,500 private schools. For every ten students, nine attended a public school and one attended a private school.3 Ninety-seven percent of public school students attended district schools, and three percent attended charter schools.

IFF included in the supply-and-demand analysis all public (district and charter) schools that offered general education programming and administered the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) and/or Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE) in academic year 2013-14. Types of schools that the analysis does not include are written in light gray in the table above.

REFERENCE MAPS AND FIGURES

Number of Schools

Enrollment Percentof TotalGrades K-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 Total

DISTRICT 4,234 878,916 446,984 590,627 1,987,748 87%

TRADITIONAL 3,677 844,194 428,504 538,082 1,860,171 82%

General Education 3,677 844,194 428,504 538,082 1,860,171 82%

MAGNET/SELECTIVE 147 31,877 16,027 40,106 90,163 4%

General Education 147 31,877 16,027 40,106 90,163 4%

SPECIAL PROGRAM 410 2,845 2,453 12,439 37,414 2%

Special Education 151 2,265 1,671 4,824 10,530 0%

Alternative/ Vocational 163 307 727 6,974 8,549 0%

Early Childhood 88 273 1 17,806 1%

Correctional Institution 8 55 640 529 0%

CHARTER 148 23,112 11,878 26,523 63,462 3%

DISTRICT-AUTHORIZED 144 22,257 11,625 26,054 61,874 3%

General Education 120 22,257 11,625 21,409 57,225 3%

Alternative/Vocational 24 4,645 4,649 0%

STATE-AUTHORIZED 4 855 253 469 1,588 0%

General Education 4 855 253 469 1,588 0%

PRIVATE 1,541 88,373 39,674 47,624 229,966 10%

General Education 1,154 84,092 38,744 45,133 208,051 9%

Special Education 112 714 791 1,818 4,702 0%

Alternative/Vocational 32 493 139 673 1,622 0%

Early Childhood 243 3,074 15,591 1%

Total 5,923 990,401 498,536 664,774 2,281,176 100%

Table 2: Statewide Enrollment Breakdown, 2013-14

DISTRICT SCHOOLS

CHARTER SCHOOLS

PRIVATE SCHOOLS

TRADITIONAL DISTRICT

MAGNET/SELECTIVE

SPECIAL PROGRAM

DISTRICT-AUTHORIZED

STATE-AUTHORIZED

3 Enrollment data for many private schools in academic year 2013-14 was incomplete or missing. It is likely that private school enrollment was slightly higher than indicated in the table above. The quality of available data makes a fully accurate count impossible.

10

DEMOGRAPHIC REFERENCE MAPS

Raising Quality, Promoting Equity contains several sets of maps that explore the distribution of performance, funding, and return on investment across the state. It can be useful to compare these outcomes to the population of school-age children and the proportion of children from low-income households in individual places. IFF invites readers to reference the maps in this section when analyzing the others that are distributed throughout the report. In this way, stakeholders can visualize the relationships among population, poverty, and the outcomes that this study presents in the places that are of interest to them.

Demographic shifts in Illinois over time should be taken into account, especially with regard to the population of low-income students in the state. The public school student body has grown substantially poorer over the last decade. Between 2005 and 2015, the proportion of school districts in which over half of students lived in low-income households more than tripled from thirteen to forty-three percent.4 In urban centers and outside of the major metropolitan areas in the state, low-income student populations have increasingly become the norm in K-12 public schools. Higher-income school districts, on the other hand, are concentrated in and around the state’s major metropolitan areas.

4 Advance Illinois, Every Student Counts: The State We’re in 2016-2017: A Report on Public Education in Illinois, November 2016.

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

11

Map 1: Density of School-Aged Children

13

Map 2: Children in Poverty

16

INTRODUCTION: KEEPING PROMISES Article X of the Constitution of the State of Illinois binds the state to guaranteeing “the educational development of all persons to the limits of their capacities” through a system of free “high-quality public educational institutions and services.”5 Access to basic academic skills is fundamental to fulfilling this promise — as is safeguarding access equitably to students of all socioeconomic backgrounds. Every public school must therefore be equipped to prepare all or nearly all pupils to achieve at grade level — as the foundation, not to the exclusion, of the many other dimensions of a high-quality school. Failure to prevent a large number of students from falling behind grade level shortchanges taxpayers who contribute to the system with the expectation of a quality public good in exchange. It also compromises our state’s long-term economic competitiveness. More fundamentally, however, an underperforming K-12 school system fails to meet the state’s explicit constitutional responsibilities to children. The needs assessment at the core of this study finds that, in most public schools, a substantial share of the student body finishes the year behind grade level in core subjects. Statewide, twelve percent of K-12 public school students had access to an A- or B-rated school in 2013-14 based on the metrics developed for this study. And while the need for performing schools was spread across the state —

upstate and downstate, in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas — low-income communities had disproportionate need for high-performing K-12 schools. In many places in which IFF has conducted K-12 education needs assessments, the need for performing public school seats has been concentrated more heavily in a handful of high-need areas. For this reason, IFF often recommended that stakeholders focus attention in the highest-need areas in order to have the greatest impact on the service gap. In Illinois, however, the K-12 landscape was practically the reverse of other states’ situations in 2013-14. Rather than identifying concentrated pockets of low performance, across Illinois IFF found only concentrated pockets of high performance. The need for performing schools is a system-wide challenge. It will require a comprehensive solution with collaboration among local, regional, and state stakeholders to increase the service level and close the service gap. The data presented in this chapter illuminate the level of need across the state and allow for local and regional comparisons within it. In this way, education stakeholders can better understand the landscape and collaborate across sectors and levels of government to keep Illinois’s promises to the children of our state.

5 Constitution of the State of Illinois, art. X, §1.

PART I NEEDS ASSESSMENT: SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

17

A SYSTEM-LEVEL ASSESSMENT

Fifty-eight percent of K-12 public school pupils

in Illinois were proficient in reading and math

in 2013-14.6 Relative to other states, a 2014

comparative analysis of school performance called

Illinois’s academic outcomes “middling.”7 These

data reveal substantial room for improvement but

do not suggest chronic underperformance.

To be sure, student-level metrics such as the

percentage of children on grade level communicate

important information about school quality. This

study, however, evaluates public education in

Illinois at the system level. Rather than asking how

many individual students are managing to succeed

within the public school system, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity assesses the extent to which

schools fulfill a basic promise of public education:

to guarantee access to basic skill-building to all

children and to create environments of rigor and

high achievement.

To understand academic outcomes at the system

level, this study analyzes access to quality in the

aggregate. The objective is less to rate individual

schools than to understand the landscape of K-12

options in counties and neighborhoods. Viewed

from this angle, the situation of public education

in the Prairie State is more severe than the

proportion of students on grade level suggests.

6 Data from academic years 2014-15 and 2015-16, when Illinois transitioned to the nationally normed Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) examinations, returned lower results. In both years, about a third of Illinois public school students were on grade level in math and reading. Relative to children in other states, then, an even greater proportion of K-12 public school students in Illinois were behind grade level in 2014-15 and 2015-16 than the 2013-14 data utilized in this study suggest.

7 U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation and American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Leaders & Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on K-12 Educational Effectiveness, 2014. The comparison in this study is based on the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.8 Illinois State Board of Education, State Template for the Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, April 2017, pp. 22-30.

STATEWIDE UNDERPERFORMANCE The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), in consultation with stakeholders throughout the state’s education community, have established a goal for ninety percent of students to be proficient in reading and math by 2032.8 When standards that align with this goal are applied across Illinois, severe underperformance comes into view. In 2013-14, the K-12 system in Illinois did not provide a substantial majority of families the option to send their children to schools in which all or nearly all students finished the year on grade level in core subjects.

• Statewide, twelve percent of students had access to a school in which all or nearly all students finished the academic year on grade level in reading and math.

• Based on the metrics developed for this study, schools with ratings of C, D, or F predominated K-12 education in Illinois. Over half of students attended F-rated schools.

• The state needed over 1.6 million additional seats in A- or B-rated schools for every child enrolled in the K-12 system to have access to a high-performing public school.

Based on the metrics developed for this study, within and across grade levels, roughly eight out of nine students lacked access to an A- or B-rated public school in 2013-14. No particular grade division was in appreciably higher need than any other. Each grade division’s level of need was in line with its share of the Illinois student body. Statewide, about a third of demand was in high schools, about a quarter in middle schools, and just under half in elementary schools; the service gap was distributed across the state with nearly identical proportions.

18

55%

19%

15%

8%3%

AB

C

D

F

Chart 1: Enrolled Students by School PerformanceSERVICE LEVEL AND SERVICE GAP

The service gap and the service level are

complementary ways of assessing need for quality

K-12 public school seats. These two components

of the analysis can be utilized hand-in-hand for the

purposes of prioritizing and tailoring components of

a comprehensive school improvement agenda. For

example, in both Massac and Ogle Counties, the K-12

service level is just under eight percent, meaning

that about eight percent of students had access to an

A- or B-rated public school. Massac County, however,

needs to create about 2,300 seats to close the service

gap, while Ogle County needs to create about 7,500.

Ogle County has a wider service gap and is ranked

number thirty-five out of the 234 study areas, making

it a high-need area at the K-12 level. Massac County’s

service gap, on the other hand, is ranked 139. Reforms

designed to reach the greatest number of students

might focus on Ogle County, whereas interventions

designed to increase quality in places with low access

to performing schools could reasonably focus on either.

*Because some schools overlap grade divisions, the number of performing schools may not sum.

Grade Division

Performing Schools Demand Supply Service

GapService Level

Percent of Gap

K-5 274 812,130 106,800 706,060 13% 43%

6-8 162 441,165 47,528 393,637 11% 24%

9-12 32 594,857 59,854 535,003 10% 33%

K-12 355* 1,848,852 214,182 1,634,670 12% 100%

Table 3: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Statewide

19

As the final section of this chapter demonstrates, insufficient access to high-performing K-12 public schools in Illinois was more pervasive in low-income communities than in wealthier parts of the state in 2013-14. Without diminishing the depth of need for better access to A- and B-rated schools in economically marginalized neighborhoods, however, it is crucial to underscore that the lack of performing options in Illinois was a statewide issue that cut across geographies and socioeconomic groups. Based on the performance metrics applied in this study, an A- or B-rated public school was the exception in almost every part of the Prairie State in 2013-14.

In ninety-five percent of the 234 study areas into which Raising Quality, Promoting Equity divides Illinois— in cities, suburbs, towns, and rural areas alike, across demographic and socioeconomic spectra — most students did not have access to an A- or B-rated public school in 2013-14:

• In seventy-eight percent of the study areas, less than one in ten K-12 students had access to an A- or B-rated K-12 public school.

• More than half of K-12 students had access to an A- or B-rated K-12 public school in only twelve of the 234 study areas.

• In almost half of the study areas, there was effectively no access at all to A- or B-rated K-12 public schools.

78%

0-10%served

Chart 2: Service Level in Study Areas

11%6% 11-25% served

26-50% served51-75% served

76-100% served

20

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

Moreover, even the few study areas in which access to A- and B-rated schools was more than marginal were clustered in a small handful of areas of the state:

• All of the study areas in which more than ten percent of K-12 students had access to a high-performing school were in the Chicago, Peoria, and Bloomington-Normal metropolitan areas.

• Only two study areas — covering the affluent North Shore Chicago suburbs of Glencoe, Winnetka, and Wilmette — had enough performing seats for every child enrolled in the system in grades K-12.

21

Map 3: Service Level

ONLINE TOOL:www.iff.org/ILSchoolStudy

Evaluate outcomes in places of interest to

you using the online tool. See the results of

the needs assessment across the state, along

with key performance indicators for every

public school.

23

Grade Division

Performing Schools Demand Supply Service

GapService Level

Percent of Gap

K-5 41 304,694 17,510 287,184 6% 18%

6-8 27 160,187 5,704 154,483 4% 9%

9-12 3 207,389 5,579 201,810 3% 12%

K-12 48* 672,270 28,794 643,477 4% 39%

HIGH-NEED AREAS In 2013-14, just under two fifths of the need for seats in high-performing K-12 public schools in Illinois was located in the forty-seven high-need areas that this study identifies. With adjustments for population density, these geographies are the fifth of the study areas in which the largest numbers of children did not have access to a school with a rating of A or B based on the metrics that IFF applied in this study to gauge progress towards the statewide goal of achieving ninety percent proficiency in reading and math. Across the high-need areas, only one out of twenty-five children enrolled in the K-12 public school system in 2013-14 had access to a school that provided grade-level reading and math preparation to all or nearly all of its students. This service level is lower than in Illinois as a whole, in which approximately one out of eight children had access to a school that had reached or approached statewide goals for reading and math proficiency.

The ranking of study areas by need for performing seats can facilitate stakeholders’ efforts to strategically target local and regional interventions:

• Local officials may want to understand how the need for higher-performing public schools in their communities compares to that of peers in order to advocate for greater resources.

• Nonprofit, philanthropic, and private sector entities who want to maximize the impact of their investments could choose to focus on the high-need areas, where the largest number of seats needs to be created and economies of scale are more advantageous.

• The high-need areas can also guide regional and state-level stakeholders who want to compare outcomes across the state.

Bearing in mind the statewide context — that eight out of nine students lacked access to an A- or B-rated school across Illinois in 2013-14 — the high-need areas are an actionable guide to prioritizing areas in which to improve school quality.

*Because some schools overlap grade divisions, the number of performing schools may not sum.

Table 4: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, High-Need Areas

24

Table 5: Supply and Demand by Study Area, Ranked, High-Need Areas

Rank Study Area Demand Supply Service Gap Service Level1 Sangamon County 28,767 731 28,036 3%

2 Chicago: Chicago Lawn, West Lawn 23,313 897 22,416 4%

3 Chicago: Archer Heights, Brighton Park 21,527 776 20,752 4%

4 Champaign County 21,425 116 21,309 1%

5 Elgin 19,898 899 19,000 5%

6 Chicago: Lawndale 19,629 738 18,891 4%

7 McLean County 22,403 3,974 18,429 18%

8 Burlington, Pingree Grove, Carpentersville 17,958 729 17,228 4%

9 Rock Island County 17,787 0 17,787 0%

10 Cicero 17,126 4 17,121 0%

11 Rockford, Cherry Valley 17,076 665 16,411 4%

12 Kankakee County 16,652 9 16,644 0%

13 Chicago: Belmont Cragin, Hermosa 16,575 738 15,837 4%

14 LaSalle County 16,238 85 16,154 1%

15 South Elgin, Bartlett, Streamwood 16,544 767 15,777 5%

16 Round Lake Beach, Volo 16,007 257 15,750 2%

17 Macon County 14,686 0 14,686 0%

18 Crystal Lawns 16,147 931 15,216 6%

19 Richton Park, University Park, Crete, Willowbrook 13,903 520 13,383 4%

20 DeKalb County 14,206 1 14,205 0%

21 Chicago: New City, Fuller Park 13,865 570 13,295 4%

22 Vermilion County 12,238 2 12,236 0%

23 Chicago: Lower West Side 13,514 641 12,872 5%

24 Peoria 13,667 923 12,743 7%

25 Boone County 9,870 5 9,864 0%

26 Cahokia, Millstadt, East Carondelet 12,736 0 12,736 0%

27 Chicago: South Chicago, Calumet Heights, East Side 13,258 590 12,669 4%

28 Williamson County 9,602 0 9,602 0%

29 Rockdale, Elwood, Ingalls Park 12,572 158 12,414 1%

30 Adams County 8,429 0 8,429 0%

31 Lakemoor, Johnsburg, Holiday Hills 12,501 254 12,247 2%

32 Oswego, Boulder Hill 15,157 2,989 12,168 20%

33 Grundy County 8,207 176 8,032 2%

34 Chicago: Lincoln Park, Lakeview 15,042 3,070 11,972 20%

35 Ogle County 8,176 633 7,543 8%

36 Woodridge, Lisle, Downers Grove 14,430 2,550 11,880 18%

37 Lake Villa, Fox Lake Hills, Channel Lake 11,805 10 11,795 0%

38 Knox County 7,231 0 7,231 0%

39 Aurora (Central) 12,140 376 11,764 3%

40 Waukegan 11,811 132 11,680 1%

41 Henry County 7,333 428 6,904 6%

42 North Aurora 11,521 6 11,515 0%

43 Whiteside County 6,566 32 6,534 0%

44 Granite City, Hartford, Wood River 11,467 0 11,467 0%

45 Chicago: Logan Square 11,916 473 11,443 4%

46 Stephenson County 6,250 0 6,250 0%

47 Chicago: Avondale, North Center, Irving Park 13,097 1,938 11,159 15%

25

Map 4: Service Gap


Evaluate outcomes in places of interest to

you using the online tool. See the results of

the needs assessment across the state, along

with key performance indicators for each

public (district and charter) school.

27

POVERTY AND PERFORMANCE

The persistence of achievement gaps in Illinois is well-known. Past research has identified the disparities in academic opportunity between students from the richest and poorest parts of the Prairie State as among the widest in the country.9 Of course, underperforming schools are not exclusive to poor communities. At the system level, however, children from lower-income households are in greater need of A- and B-rated public schools than their higher-income peers. The inequalities between the services provided to rich and poor Illinoisans are stark. In the highest-income school districts in the state, a school that fails to reach roughly forty percent or more of its students is a rare exception; in the most economically disadvantaged communities in Illinois, it is the norm. Even in the context

of a state with deep and diffuse need for higher K-12 educational quality, the public education system has most dramatically failed to guarantee educational opportunity to children from households on the economic margins. Rather than serving as an instrument of equalization, public education in Illinois reproduces socioeconomic inequalities among residents. Across Illinois, household income and school performance were tightly linked in 2013-14. Standardized test scores in public schools gauged family wealth almost as well as they assessed math and reading ability. Indeed, one of the strongest correlations in the data that IFF analyzed for Raising Quality, Promoting Equity was the inverse relationship between student achievement and household income. As the proportion of a school district’s population that was below the poverty line increased, proficiency in math and reading decreased.10 The poorer a neighborhood,

Chart 3: Poverty and Proficiency in Illinois Public School Districts

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Meals

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

9 Advance Illinois, Every Student Counts: The State We’re in 2016-2017: A Report on Public Education in Illinois, November 2016.

10 r(846) = -.819, p < .001

28

the higher the proportion of students that the public education system in Illinois did not reach with grade-level preparation in reading and math.

Moreover, based on the performance metrics that IFF applied in this study, even Illinois’s short supply of A- and B-rated public schools was concentrated in the highest-income communities in the state:

• Three out of four high-performing schools in the state were located in the highest-income school districts.

• Only the most economically prosperous communities had access to a significant number of schools that had achieved the goal of promoting all or nearly all students to grade level in math and reading.

• Six percent of schools in high-income districts had a rating of F, while over thirty percent — nearly three hundred schools — were rated A or B. On the other hand, in all other districts combined, seventy-one percent of schools had a rating of F, and less than three percent — only eighty-one in all — were rated A or B.

• In low-income school districts, eighty-three percent of schools were F-rated — over fourteen times the proportion in high-income communities.

In Illinois, there are major barriers to high-performing schools across the state, in almost every city and town. The impact of these barriers on low-income communities, however, is disparate. Stakeholders cannot raise quality in Illinois public schools without first promoting equity.

1,500

Chart 4: School Performance by Income Level

High

1,000

Mid-HighLow-MidLow

500

C

D

F

B

A

District Income Level

30

PART II: DISTRICT FUNDING

INTRODUCTION

Analyzing school performance in isolation from factors that are crucial to shaping it yields an incomplete picture of public education in the state. Funding patterns in particular illuminate reasons that some districts fall short of the levels of reading and math preparation that public education should guarantee to every child. Schools cannot meet rigorous academic standards in the absence of adequate funding, including additional resources for student groups that need specialized educational services in order to thrive. For these reasons, education leaders and policymakers across the United States have long grappled with the role of local resources in funding public education. Many states have reformed systems that rely heavily on property taxes and other municipal funding sources on the grounds that they disadvantage lower-wealth communities.11 Yet despite consensus on the need to correct Illinois’s locally-driven school funding model — as one journalist put it, “Everyone agrees the state’s funding formula needs to be updated” and “nearly everyone agrees [it] penalizes students in poorer districts”12 — the state’s regressive formula remained stable for decades. In recent years, initiatives to make school funding fairer in states throughout the country have often been grounded by an adequacy target designed to ensure that all children have access to public schools that can perform at a certain baseline.13 The bipartisan Illinois School Funding Reform Commission recommended such an approach for the

Prairie State in early 2017.14 As of the publication of this report, such reforms had not been passed into law. And although the state budget for fiscal year 2018 increased Illinois’s contribution to its public schools by over three hundred million dollars,15 the new appropriation fell short of the three to six billion dollars that the Funding Reform Commission estimated would be necessary to stabilize revenues for public education moving forward.16 At the state level, K-12 public schools in Illinois spent approximately the national average per pupil in 2013-14.17 That Illinois kept pace with national norms overall, however, does not answer two crucial questions about school funding within the state. These two questions have to do with adequacy and equity. The question of resource adequacy is straightforward: do districts have enough money to provide the services that their student bodies need? Adequacy, then, is inextricably linked to equity. The Center for Public Education usefully frames the question of funding equity as, “Do funds flow to schools according to need?”18

In the absence of additional revenue streams from state and federal sources, lower-wealth school districts are unlikely to keep pace with the amount of funds that wealthier districts can raise from property taxes and other local reservoirs. If the state funding formula does not compensate for inequalities in municipal property wealth, resource disparities surface between poorer and more affluent communities. All else held equal, these disparities give an edge to wealthier school districts, which have more dollars to support the education of each child.

11 See John Youngman, “School Finance and Property Taxes,” Land Lines, Winter 2016, pp. 16-28; Matthew M. Chingos and Kristin Blagg, Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share of School Funding?, The Urban Institute, May 2017.12 Ashley Lisenby, “School funding overhaul again faces long odds in Springfield,” Chicago Sun-Times, February 8, 2016.13 See John Youngman, “School Finance and Property Taxes,” Land Lines, Winter 2016, pp. 16-28.

14 See Illinois School Funding Reform Commission, Report to the General Assembly and Governor, February 2017.15 See Illinois State Budget, Fiscal Year 2018, pp. 474-80.16 Illinois School Funding Reform Commission, Report to the General Assembly and Governor, February 2017, p. 4. 17 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the States 2015 and Estimates of School Statistics 2016, May 2016.18 Center for Public Education, Educational Equity: What Does It Mean? How Do We Know When We Reach It?, January 2016.

31

An equitable public school funding system appropriates additional revenue to communities with limited financial resources so that they can offer the same level of high-quality educational services as wealthier peers. And, crucially, the condition of equity cannot be achieved through disproportionate tax burdens on lower-income communities. A state-commissioned analysis suggested that, as of 2012, the Illinois school finance system was failing to meet these fundamental conditions of equity in K-12 funding.19 Raising Quality, Promoting Equity builds on these findings using data from academic year 2013-14.

IN DEPTH: COST WEIGHTING

Illinois is an economically and demographically diverse

state. The costs associated with running a school

district vary widely across its urban, suburban, town,

and rural regions. Moreover, the state’s children enter

the public school system with a wide array of academic

needs. The price of providing services that can meet

these needs varies with the composition of the student

body and the size of the school district.

This diversity has consequences for a central goal

of Raising Quality, Promoting Equity: analyzing the

equitability and adequacy of school funding in Illinois.

In this study, district funding analysis is comparative.

Evaluations of equity compare resource levels across

socioeconomic groups, while evaluations of adequacy

compare school district revenues to the state-

established minimum for per-pupil funding. Yet in

terms of the amount of need it can meet, a dollar in

one district is not necessarily equivalent to a dollar in

another. Without adjustments based on factors that add

costs for school districts, meaningful comparisons in

the area of district finance are difficult to make.

Drawing from best practices in school finance research,

most financial figures in Raising Quality, Promoting Equity are weighted to standardize expenditures and

revenues across geographically and demographically

dissimilar districts. The principle behind the weights

is simple: each dollar spent in public schools goes

further to meet student need in places where the cost

of living is lower and children need fewer intensive or

19 Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Overview of the Structure of the Illinois School Finance System, September 2013.

32

specialized educational services. The cost weights utilized

in this analysis allow districts to be compared as if they

were educating the same students in the same place. The

weighted figures can therefore be considered measures of

how much need a school district is positioned to meet. A

school district with higher weighted revenue can access

more goods and services and therefore can meet more

need from a financial perspective.

Raising Quality, Promoting Equity uses two kinds of cost

weights. The study first applies a cost of living adjustment

using the Comparable Wage Index (CWI), a widely used

set of multipliers for individual school districts based

on the cost pressures of the labor market in which they

are located. Then, a set of weights20 is applied based

on the district’s population of low-income students,

English language learners, and children with disabilities.

These weights deflate revenue and expenditure totals to

normalize how much need each district’s resources could

meet per pupil if every student required the same types of

educational services (i.e., if they were enrolled in general

education programming), based on the levels of additional

funding needed per pupil outlined in Chart 5.

Consider the following example of the combined effects of

the cost of living adjustment and the need-based weights.

In 2013-14, Joppa-Maple Grove UD 38 — a small school

district near the Illinois-Kentucky border with 280 enrolled

students — spent $11,504 per pupil on K-12 operations.

Wauconda CUSD 118, a larger district in Lake County that

educated over four thousand students in the same year,

had operational expenditures of $11,510 per pupil. At first

glance, it might appear that funding levels were essentially

equal between the two districts.

20 After a review of the literature on school district finance, IFF chose to adopt weights that Augenblick, Palaich and Associates (APA) developed for an analysis of district funding in Montana. APA are national leaders in school finance research and in the past have been contracted by the State of Illinois to analyze the state’s K-12 funding formula. A principal advantage of the weights that APA

developed for its study in Montana is that it differentiates costs based on district size. Recognizing the relative differences in cost burden based on size is helpful in the context of Illinois, where some districts enroll only a few dozen students and others enroll tens or hundreds of thousands.

Chart 5: Supplemental Funds Needed Per Dollar

Low-Income Students

Small District

Medium District

English Language Learners Children with Disabilities

LargeDistrict

Small District

Medium District

LargeDistrict

Small District

Medium District

LargeDistrict

$0.39 $0.37

$0.50

$0.76

$0.60$0.50

$1.33

$1.48

$1.22

33

Due to differences in educator salaries and other regional

cost factors, however, a dollar goes substantially further

to fund schools in Joppa-Maple Grove that it does in

Wauconda. Joppa-Maple Grove is situated in one of the

least expensive labor markets in the state, while Wauconda

is in one of the costliest. Based on the Comparable

Wage Index (CWI), each dollar can pay for roughly one

quarter more educational goods and services in Joppa-

Maple Grove than it can in Wauconda. Applying that

index to account for cost of living, Joppa-Maple Grove’s

CWI-adjusted per-pupil funding is $14,183, while that of

Wauconda is $10,760. After standardizing spending levels

based on differences in the labor market, then, a twenty-

seven percent gulf in funding levels emerges that was not

discernible from raw per-pupil spending.

Yet in order to make accurate comparisons amongst

diverse districts, it is important to ask not only how much

a district’s budget allows it to purchase but for whom it

needs to make those purchases. This question has to do

with the educational needs of the district’s student body.

Relative to a general education student, districts need

supplementary funds to provide a quality education to

vulnerable or marginalized student groups.

Adding the need-based cost weights to the CWI-adjusted

spending figures adjusts both districts’ spending totals

by approximately the same proportion — but for distinct

reasons. Just under two thirds of the student body in

Joppa-Maple Grove lived in low-income households in

2013-14, compared to only about a quarter of students in

Wauconda. In Joppa-Maple Grove, there were no English

language learners, and ten percent of students had a

disability; in Wauconda, one in ten students was learning

English, and fourteen percent had a disability.

After applying the weights above in combination with the

CWI-adjusted figures, Joppa-Maple Grove’s spending is

weighted downward by thirty-eight percent to $10,307,

and that of Wauconda is weighted downward by thirty-five

percent to $7,968. These weights are roughly equivalent.

In Joppa-Maple Grove, however, it is the population of low-

income students that drives the adjustment, whereas in

Wauconda more of the change is due to the proportions of

English language learners and students with disabilities.

Although the raw per-pupil spending figures suggest that

the two school districts were spending about the same

amount on K-12 operations, adjustments for cost of living

and student need reveal that, in financial terms, Joppa-

Maple Grove UD 38 was able to meet twenty-six percent

more academic need than Wauconda CUSD 118 in 2013-14.

Without making adjustments to revenue and expenditure

figures based on geography and demographics, these

disparities would be hidden in the data. Raising Quality, Promoting Equity puts all districts on an even playing field

by applying best practices in K-12 funding research to

normalize funding and spending levels across Illinois’s

diverse educational landscape.

34

To gauge funding adequacy, this report utilizes a state

standard for the minimum amount of combined state and

local funds necessary to run a high-performing school:

the Foundation Level (FL)21 published biennially by the

Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB). In 2013-14,

the EFAB FL was $8,672 per pupil for a general education

student.22 Because the cost-weighting methodology

employed in this study normalizes revenues to a general

education population with a consistent statewide cost

adjustment, weighted figures can be compared directly to

the FL to evaluate funding adequacy.

Based on each district’s weighted funding level, this

report designates Joppa-Maple Grove UD 38 as adequately

funded and Wauconda CUSD 118 as underfunded.

Chart 6: Cost Weighting Example

Funding Per Pupil Funding Per Pupil,Adjusted for Cost of Living

Funding Per Pupil, Adjusted for Cost of Livingand Weighted for Student Needs

Joppa-Maple Grove UD 38

$11,504

Wauconda CUSD 118

$11,510


Wauconda CUSD 118


Wauconda CUSD 118

$14,183

$10,760 $10,307

$7,968

21 The foundation level (FL) should be distinguished from the statutory level (SL), which was the amount of funding that the state legislature agrees to guarantee school districts in a given year. At $6,119 per pupil, the SL in 2013-14 was about seventy percent of the amount that EFAB determined each district needs.

22 Based on numerous additional cost pressures, including the services required to meet the needs of vulnerable or marginalized students, supplemental grants and revenue supports beyond the FL are recommended on a district-by-district basis. See Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board, Illinois Education Funding Recommendations: A Report Submitted to the Illinois General Assembly, January 2015; Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Overview of the Structure of the Illinois School Finance System, September 2013.

35

FUNDING ADEQUACY Statewide Underfunding. Schools cannot create environments of rigor, support, and achievement if they do not have enough funds to meet their students’ academic needs. The Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board’s (EFAB’s) Foundation Level (FL), a statewide standard for the amount of money needed provide quality education to a general education student, was $8,672 per pupil in 2013-14. Comparing districts’ weighted state and local revenue in that year to the FL reveals how their funding levels stacked up to the amount of resources that districts needed to guarantee access to core academic training. Using the FL as a benchmark, fifty-seven percent of public school students in Illinois — over 1.1 million children — were enrolled in a school district that was underfunded or borderline underfunded in 2013-14. These gaps in funding forced districts to work with fewer dollars than the state’s recommendation, creating obstacles to vital educational resources. By placing nearly three out of five public school students in fiscally precarious educational settings, the state’s education funding formula compromised the majority of children’s opportunity to access a performing school.

Location, Poverty, and Funding Adequacy. Data surrounding poverty and location are vital to a comprehensive education improvement agenda in a demographically and geographically diverse state such as Illinois. The preceding chapter of Raising Quality, Promoting Equity highlighted ties between income and school performance. And while the need for higher-performing schools was relatively well-spread throughout the state, the communities in which a substantial number of students had access to an A- or B-rated school were

concentrated in the state’s higher-income suburbs. Particularly given the salience of income and geography for understanding school performance, the relationships among poverty, location, and district funding merit exploration. Mirroring patterns in school underperformance, statistically significant associations emerged between funding adequacy and income level in the Prairie State.23 In 2013-14, underfunding disproportionately affected Illinois’s lowest-income school districts. The poorest districts were approximately five times more likely than their high-income peers to have insufficient revenue based on state standards. Whereas an underfunded or borderline underfunded school district was an exception in higher-income areas of the state, it was the norm in Illinois’s low-income communities.

44%

Underfunded

Chart 7: Enrolled Students by Funding Level

13%

43%

Borderline

AdequatelyFunded

23 χ2 (6, N = 855) = 146.7, p < .001

36

In weighted dollars, which equalize the amount of need that a school district is positioned to meet based on its financial resources, average revenue per pupil in high-income districts ($12,704) was one third higher than in low-income districts ($9,549) in 2013-14. Higher-income school districts had, on average, over three thousand additional dollars with which to educate each student when location and student need are taken into account.

These patterns in school district funding translate into disparities in the quality of educational services that could be provided to students. Increased revenue opens up possibilities for districts to fund any number of educational programs that might boost student outcomesin math and reading and beyond: smaller class sizes, staffing improvements, specialized instruction, tutoring programs, better textbooks and equipment, facilities upgrades, etc. The funding system in Illinois public

schools structurally guarantees that students whose guardians have higher incomes have access to more opportunities in the public education system than students from poorer households.

Alongside income-based disparities, statistically significant associations emerged in the adequacy of funding available to school districts by geography in 2013-14.24

• A greater proportion of students in urban areas were enrolled in underfunded school districts than students who resided in rural, town, or suburban areas.

Chart 8: Funding Adequacy by Income Level

Mid-High Income

Low-Mid Income

Low Income

High Income

Underfunded AdequatelyFundedBorderline

Chart 9: Weighted Revenue Per Pupilby District Income Level

Mid-High

Income

Low-Mid

Income

Low Income

High Income

Federal

State

Local

Revenue Source

24 χ2 (6, N = 855) = 40.6, p < .001

37

• Districts located in towns — on the fringes of metropolitan areas — were underfunded at higher rates than districts in urban, suburban, or rural areas. The funding formula in Illinois was more likely to underfund a district in a town than a district in an urban center — even though a lower proportion of students in towns attended underfunded districts than students in cities.

Furthermore, when district funding levels were aggregated to the 234 study areas into which Raising Quality, Promoting Equity divides Illinois, regional gulfs in funding adequacy emerged. Underfunded school districts were dispersed throughout the state in 2013-14. Overall, however, educational resources tended to be less adequate downstate than upstate. In the northern half of Illinois, only a handful of locations — Chicago, some of its suburbs, and Kankakee County — were underfunded at the study area level. In southern Illinois, by contrast, most districts were underfunded or on the borderline.

Chart 10: Funding Adequacy by Geography

SuburbanTownRural Urban

Underfunded AdequatelyFundedBorderline

38

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

39

Map 5: Funding Adequacy


Evaluate and compare district funding

outcomes using the online tool, which allows

users to zoom in and see individual districts’

funding levels, along with a set of key

financial and performance indicators.

41

FUNDING EQUITY

Combined, the 855 school districts analyzed in this study received over thirty billion dollars in revenue in academic year 2013-14. Fifty-nine cents of each dollar came from local sources — primarily from property taxes. The state of Illinois provided just over a third of education funding. This model of school funding made Illinois exceptional — for the extent of its reliance on municipalities to fund K-12 education, for the slim portion of education funding that the state directed, for the failure of its funding formula to shore up resources in low-income districts, and for the lack of progress in making funding more equitable over time.

• Local resources accounted for a larger proportion of K-12 school funding in Illinois than in any state in the country, and nowhere did state funding account

for a smaller percentage of overall revenue for public education. Based on estimates from the National Education Association, Illinois relied about sixty percent more on locally sourced revenue and fifty percent less on state-distributed revenue to fund public schools than the average state.25

• For 2014, Illinois received a funding distribution rating of F from the Education Law Center, which evaluates funding relative to student poverty.26

• The Education Trust found Illinois’s resource gap between high- and low-income school districts to be “by far the largest” in the United States.27

• The Urban Institute found Illinois’s state education spending to be the most regressive in the country in 2013-14. And whereas some states reduced or eliminated regressivity in their funding formulas over the past two decades, Illinois’s school funding was slightly more regressive in 2014 than in 1995.28

One clear way that residents of lower-income neighborhoods attempted to correct for this imbalance in funding levels is by paying more in school taxes. To compensate for the gap in funding that state resources did not fill, taxpayers in low-income school districts were taxed at twenty-five percent higher rates than taxpayers in high-income school districts in 2013-14. In this way, the state’s reliance on local sources to fund schools placed a disproportionate financial burden on poor communities. The funding structure in Illinois effectively required residents with the least disposable income to contribute even more of it to schools — and they still recouped less adequate resources in return.

59% Local

Chart 11: Revenue Sources for K-12 Public Education

34%

7%

State

Federal

25 National Education Association, Rankings & Estimates: Rankings of the States 2015 and Estimates of School Statistics 2016, May 2016.26 Bruce Baker, Danielle Farrie, Monete Johnson, Theresa Luhm and David G. Sciarra, Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card, sixth edition, Education Law Center, January 2017.

27 Natasha Ushomirsky and Davis Williams, Funding Gaps 2015: Too Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the Most, The Education Trust, March 2015.28 Matthew M. Chingos and Kristin Blagg, Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share of School Funding?, The Urban Institute, May 2017.

42

Given this landscape, disparities in funding adequacy are unsurprising. The funding structure in the Prairie State, by channeling a relatively small proportion of education funding through state channels, compromised the state’s leverage over school district funding. As a result, Illinois had less ability to compensate for inequalities arising from disparities in municipal property wealth than states that control a greater share of K-12 resources. These imbalances left low-income school districts, which are dependent on state aid to raise an adequate amount of funding for students, with little recourse.

Chart 12: Income, Wealth, and Revenue for K-12 Education

Mid-High

Income

Low-Mid

Income

Low Income

High Income

Federal

State

Local

RevenueSource

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

43

SPENDING AND PERFORMANCE

Does increased education spending boost academic achievement in public schools? In Illinois, spending appears to tell only part of the story; there are important factors other than money that impact school performance. Yet clearing a foundational bar for financial resources is usually necessary, if not always sufficient, to clear a foundational bar for academic performance in turn.

Consistent with the consensus of school finance research, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity finds that additional dollars in districts and classrooms alone are not necessarily

associated with stronger core performance outcomes. Across Illinois, there was a weak, but statistically significant, relationship between weighted overall29 and instructional30 spending and student achievement in math and reading in 2013-14. Once poverty levels were accounted for, weighted instructional31 or operational32 spending on their own — i.e., in the absence of other data on district spending patterns — could not explain differentiation in performance outcomes at the system level.

Variance in spending levels among districts with comparable performance outcomes illustrates the murky relationship between spending and performance in Illinois. For example, among districts that were achieving eighty percent proficiency in reading and math in 2013-14 — the basic floor for a rating of A or B in this study — some districts spent around $5,000 per pupil in weighted dollars on instruction, while others spent upwards of $10,000. Indeed, across the state, many districts that spent $10,000 or more on instruction had lower performance outcomes than districts spending around $5,000. Greater expenditures were not uniformly tied to better academic performance in Illinois in 2013-14, even when levels of student need and cost of living were taken into account.

Overall, however, adequately funded districts outperformed underfunded counterparts. Similarly, in weighted dollars, school districts with ratings of A or B averaged thousands more in spending per pupil than districts with ratings of C, D, or F. And at the district level, high levels of academic performance were exceedingly rare in the absence of adequate funding.

Chart 13: Instructional Spending and Proficiency

Instructional Expenditure Per Pupil (Weighted)

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

$5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000$0

29 r(846) = .254, p < .00130 r(846) = .408, p < .00131 When districts' composite proficiency rates in reading and math were regressed on low-income population and weighted instructional spending per pupil, the effect of weighted instructional spending per pupil was statistically insignificant at the .05 level (p = .126).32 When districts' composite proficiency rates in reading and math were regressed on low-income population and weighted operational spending per pupil, the effect of weighted operational spending per pupil was statistically insignificant at the .05 level (p = .851).

44

• Proficiency rates in adequately funded districts were nine points higher in math33 and ten points higher in reading34 than in underfunded districts.

• Four out of five performing schools in the state were in districts that were adequately funded.

• Of the 326 school districts that were underfunded or borderline underfunded, 316 were rated C, D, or F.

• Performing districts drew local revenue from a larger base of property wealth and could tax it at lower rates.

These findings add nuance to the adage that “you can’t throw money at the problem.” Additional revenue for

school districts on its own does not seem likely to boost performance in all places. Disparities in funding adequacy, however, impact the ability of many districts to provide their students with core academic training.

Increasing funding, especially to low-income and underfunded school districts, will not comprehensively address Illinois’s scarcity of high-performing K-12 public schools in the absence of other changes to policy and practice. Data on the uses and effectiveness of spending, such as return on investment, are crucial context for funding and performance data. Yet ensuring adequate and equitable funding is a crucial piece of the school improvement puzzle in the state. Statewide performance outcomes are not likely to improve without doing so.

Chart 14: Wealth, Spending, and Performance

$15,698

$12,206

$9,674$9,210

$8,814

C D FBA

33 The difference was statistically significant. Adequately funded districts had higher proficiency rates in math (M = 61.7, SD = 15.0) than underfunded districts (M = 52.5, SD = 13.4), t(742) = -7.82, p < .001.

34 The difference was statistically significant. Adequately funded districts had higher proficiency rates in reading (M = 62.0, SD = 13.1) than underfunded districts (M = 52.3, SD = 11.7), t(742) = -9.38, p < .001.

46

PART III: RETURN ON INVESTMENT

INTRODUCTION

Recent research in school finance suggests that substantial, long-term strategic investments in underperforming schools can improve outcomes in academic achievement, graduation, and other basic indicators of K-12 school quality — especially for students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.35 And, as preceding sections of this analysis have demonstrated, many districts in Illinois — particularly in poorer communities — lack enough funding to provide the resources that students need. Enhancing revenue streams for many districts in the state is an important component of raising school quality and promoting equity across districts. Yet some questions remain unanswered from performance and funding data. In which districts can additional revenue alone be expected to make substantial impact on performance outcomes? In what places does funding appear necessary but not sufficient? Are there districts in which any amount of funding seems unlikely to make a dent without structural changes to policy and practice? In order to strategically target statewide reform efforts, data that measure the effectiveness of educational expenditures are crucial. Raising Quality, Promoting Equity analyzes return on investment (ROI) in Illinois public school districts to connect and supplement the data on performance and funding with information on the impact of school spending.

In this report, ROI is an indicator of academic achievement per dollar spent. It measures the effectiveness of day-to-day spending for achieving proficiency in reading and math. After adjusting operational expenditures based on cost of living and the needs of the student body in a school district, ROI is calculated by dividing a district’s composite proficiency rate by the amount of money spent per pupil on K-12 operations. Medium or high ROI suggests that districts are making good to excellent use of the resources at their disposal for the purposes of achieving proficiency in math and reading relative to other school districts in the state. Low ROI suggests that districts’ spending has limited impact on this core academic indicator. IFF’s measure of ROI has a targeted purpose. It is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of district quality. Instead, it is designed to evaluate the effectiveness of district resource allocation and to guide strategic investment in school districts across Illinois based on districts’ current success in promoting high levels of academic performance in core subjects. ROI gauges whether funds are being used effectively to bring about proficiency in reading and math and, based on past performance, whether additional funds can be expected to have a significant impact on basic student outcomes.

35 Julien LaFortune, Jesse Rothstein, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, “School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22011, February 2016; C. Kirabo Jackson,

Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico, “The Effects of School Spending on Education and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131(1), February 2016, pp. 157-218.

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

47

POVERTY, PERFORMANCE, AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

This section focuses specifically on school districts that had not attained a rating of A or B in 2013-14, as lower-performing schools and districts will tend to be the center of statewide efforts to increase the impact of spending.

In districts with high return on investment (ROI), expenditures were going the furthest in bringing about student achievement in math and reading in 2013-14. As the chart above demonstrates, most underperforming districts with high ROI were rated C or D: they were near or approaching, but had not yet reached, high levels of academic achievement in core subjects. Spending had a more positive impact on performance, and future revenue could be more effective in improving academic outcomes, in districts with high ROI.

That districts can simultaneously be underperforming yet appear to be investment-ready is significant: it reinforces that, while money cannot solve all problems in K-12 schools, not every district that has yet to reach high levels of academic achievement in reading and math is making poor use of the resources at its disposal. Indeed, a considerable number of F-rated districts had high ROI in 2013-14.

At the same time, however, many districts with a rating of F, as well as a substantial number of C- and D-rated districts, had low ROI in 2013-14. Based on past patterns in funding and performance, additional dollars alone seem less likely to contribute to performance in math and reading in these places at a high rate.

Chart 15: Income, Performance, and Return on Investment (ROI)

Low ROI Medium ROI High ROI

Low Low-Mid

Mid-High

High Low Low-Mid

Mid-High

High Low Low-Mid

Mid-High

High

Income Income Income

C D F

48

Of course, many of these F-rated school districts were underfunded or borderline underfunded. That a district’s ROI is low or middling does not mean that it should not be eligible for additional funding — especially if its funding levels are inadequate. Very few districts, even with the most careful financial practices, will be able to bring a high number of students up to grade level when resources are insufficient for the task at hand. Low or medium ROI does suggest, however, that an underfunded district would benefit from concerted fiscal or programmatic support in conjunction with additional revenue in order to bring about better student outcomes in core academic subjects. If the district is underfunded, new revenue streams could be tied hand-in-hand with supports and incentives that encourage more effective resource allocation and the adoption of best practices from districts with higher performance and ROI.

ROI, EQUITY, AND ADEQUACY Trends in K-12 educational ROI also underscore the inequities that are embedded in the structure of K-12 public education in Illinois. It is true that many low-income and low-performing districts in Illinois had medium to high return on the resources that they had to invest. Even if these school districts were underfunded and/or underperforming, their spending was having a medium to high impact on improving reading and math outcomes for students. For example, sixteen percent of F-rated school districts had high ROI; about two thirds of these were located in low- or low-mid income communities. In many low-income school districts, then, spending was impactful — even where funding was insufficient.

As demonstrated by the concentration of low-income schools on the left side of the graph above, however, most districts that served large proportions of low-income students in Illinois in 2013-14 had low ROI outcomes. In these districts, operational spending had low impact on reading and math proficiency relative to the rest of the state.

Particularly given that low-income communities paid substantially higher tax rates to support their K-12 public schools, it is noteworthy that spending in low-income districts had less impact in terms of preparing them to succeed in reading and math. The prevalence of low-income districts with low ROI suggests that the education community should focus a significant share of comprehensive and targeted services on these districts in order to improve outcomes.

At the same time, however, it should be noted that in districts that are severely underfunded — as were the districts that most low-income students attended in 2013-14 — it is possible that the amount of resources that districts are able to provide to students does not allow for high ROI even with the most efficient and careful financial and programmatic practices. That the return on inadequate investments would in many cases be low is unsurprising.

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

49

Indeed, to conclude that lower-income districts are poor candidates for investment would be premature. Across the state, ROI was better in underfunded and borderline underfunded districts than in adequately funded districts in 2013-14. On average, ROI was twenty percent higher in underfunded school districts and fifteen percent higher in borderline funded school districts than in adequately funded school districts.36 The typical underfunded district had high ROI, while adequately funded districts tended to just clear the bar for medium ROI.

Underfunded school districts, which were disproportionately attended by students from low-income households, tended to have more impactful spending in 2013-14 than adequately funded districts. In many cases, then, shoring up the revenue streams of districts with inadequate funding levels can be expected to have a higher impact on core reading and math performance than investing financially in districts that have cleared a foundational level of funding.

As the data presented in this section illustrate, the relationships among poverty, funding, performance, and return on investment are multifaceted. To address the gap between Illinois's goals for school performance and current outcomes in classrooms across the state, a broad view of statewide trends must be fused with a careful district-by-district analysis of academic outcomes, funding levels, and the effectiveness of spending. By understanding interplay among these indicators at the macro and micro levels and using data to shape school improvement, stakeholders in K-12 education can maximize the impact of their work and streamline progress towards a system that reaches every child.

Chart 16: Return on Investment (ROI) by Funding Adequacy

Borderline Adequately Funded

Under-funded

Threshold for High ROI

Threshold for Medium ROI

36 A Kruskal-Wallis test revealed statistically significant differences in return on investment (ROI) by funding level, χ2 (2 = 82.4, p < .001). A Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences in ROI between adequately funded and borderline underfunded districts. It also revealed

statistically significant differences in ROI between adequately funded districts and underfunded districts. It did not reveal statistically significant differences in ROI between underfunded and borderline underfunded districts.

50

ROI, SPENDING, AND PERFORMANCE Levels of return on investment (ROI) illuminate differentiation in overhead spending across the state. On the whole, districts with high ROI dedicated more of their money to instruction and instruction-adjacent activities and less to overhead and administrative functions than districts with lower ROI in 2013-14. For the purposes of this study, overhead costs include central office services, general administration, school administration, and maintenance.

Districts with high ROI spent less on overhead than districts with low ROI in two key ways:

• Districts with high ROI spent less overall on overhead per pupil.

• Districts with high or medium ROI spent less on overhead relative to their expenditures on instruction. Compared to overhead expenses, instructional spending represented a greater share of the budget in districts with high and medium ROI than in districts with low ROI.

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

Chart 17: Overhead Spending by Return on Investment (ROI)

Overhead Spending Per Dollar Spent on Instruction Overhead Spending Per Pupil, Weighted

Low ROI

Medium ROI

High ROI

Low ROI

Medium ROI

High ROI

$0.42

$0.37 $0.37

$2,973

$2,167

$1,879

51

Map 6: Return on Investment, Study Areas


Evaluate and compare district Return on

Investment (ROI) using the online tool,

which allows used to zoom in and see

individual districts’ ROI, along with a set of

key financial and performance indicators.

53

Academic accountability, adequate and equitable resources, and financial stewardship should represent a unified statewide effort to improve school quality.

Strategically target this three-part process based on the distribution of supply and demand across the state, using the service level and service gap together to identify where to direct resources and attention. Then, use performance, funding levels, and return on investment (ROI) as guideposts for how to improve school quality in a particular place.

ACADEMIC ACCOUNTABILITY Set high standards for academic performance, and hold schools to them through a clear accountability system. In order to reach our state’s goal of ninety percent proficiency in math and reading statewide by 2032, all schools and districts will need to do their part by equipping the vast majority of their students with foundational academic skills. A school should only be considered performing if it is meeting this benchmark.

Implement rigorous summative ratings that, among other criteria, meaningfully capture progress towards the absolute benchmark of promoting all or nearly all students to grade level, not merely performance outcomes relative to other schools in the state. Tailor supports to each school’s rating.

• Reserve a designation of high-performing only for schools that have, among other achievements and benchmarks, successfully met the goal of promoting ninety percent of students to grade level in reading and math.

• Reserve a designation of near-performing only for schools that, among other achievements and benchmarks, have proficiency levels that can feasibly be raised to the target of ninety percent in the near future without major investment or intervention. Provide a grace period by which these schools must reach the target of ninety percent before an improvement plan is required.

• Reserve a designation of underperforming for schools that, among other indicators, are not nearing the target of ninety percent proficiency but do not have chronically low levels of underperformance. Require an improvement plan and provide a grace period for progress before comprehensive supports are required.

• Reserve a designation of chronically underperforming for any school in which the majority of students do not finish the academic year on grade level. Provide comprehensive supports to these schools.

The value of summative scores for school performance is their potential to be supportive, not punitive. As the

RECOMMENDATIONS

54

Illinois State Board of Education’s (ISBE’s) plan for implementing the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) states, “all schools have something to learn from and share with their colleagues in a supportive community of practice. … [A] summative determination should assist in … creating a connection between schools and districts throughout the state.”37 Summative scores can be a pillar of a system-wide network of support, innovation, and mutual improvement — but only if they accurately capture gradations in school performance relative to state goals.

ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE RESOURCES

Guarantee adequate and equitable funding for every school in Illinois. Invest in underfunded schools and districts.

First, establish an adequacy target for per-pupil funding for each school based on local and regional cost pressures, district size, and the educational needs of the student body. Then, guarantee that each school reaches its adequacy target in every academic year. Secure revenue streams by which the State of Illinois can fully compensate for disparities in local wealth and guarantee that all schools and districts reach their adequacy target each year.

Publicize the ratio between the individualized adequacy target and actual per-pupil funding — at the district level beginning immediately, and at the school level once school-level spending figures are available in compliance with ESSA.

Structure investments in districts and schools based on the effectiveness of current spending in increasing performance outcomes. Investment in districts with lower return on investment (ROI) should be accompanied by programmatic supports to increase the impact of spending.

FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP

Empower local and regional stakeholders to allocate resources within school districts in ways that will maximize impact on school performance and climate. Provide data that allow stakeholders to understand district spending patterns in a broader context and diffuse best practices across the state. For example, include the following in the state’s data dashboards:

• Data that allow stakeholders to compare spending decisions and funding levels with those of nearby or similar school and/or districts.

• A measure of how effectively schools and/or districts are using the funds at their disposal, such as return on investment.

Incentivize districts to maximize spending on instruction and minimize spending on overhead. When districts identify cost savings, especially after eliminating overspending on overhead, or recoup new revenue, encourage them to funnel the dollars into the classroom.

Revise the Limitation of Administrative Costs section of the School Code to limit overhead costs relative to instructional or operational spending rather than merely limiting year-to-year growth.

37 Illinois State Board of Education, State Template for the Consolidated State Plan Under the Every Student Succeeds Act, April 2017, p. 95.

56

In academic year 2013-14, over a third of school districts in Illinois were underfunded or borderline underfunded. With adjustments for student need and cost of living, about one quarter of districts had at least three hundred dollars less than the minimum amount of revenue that the Illinois Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) recommended to guarantee high performance in an efficiently administered school district. An additional twelve percent of districts were within three hundred dollars of the EFAB minimum. Overall, nearly three out of five students in Illinois were enrolled in these underfunded or borderline underfunded school districts in 2013-14. Unsurprisingly, very few of the school districts that had inadequate or borderline funding were performing. Of the 326 school districts that were underfunded or borderline underfunded in 2013-14, 316 were rated C, D, or F.

Return on investment, however, reveals that there were noteworthy positive outcomes in these districts even

if they had not yet reached statewide goals to reach all or nearly all students with grade-level preparation in core subjects. Within underfunded and underperforming districts, about half (147) had high ROI in 2013-14. Overall, they were achieving reasonable academic results given the funding at their disposal.

This section profiles three of these 147 bright spots for future investment. Two thirds of these districts were in communities with below-average property wealth, and just under half had above-average populations of low-income students. Approximately half were suburban, often on the outer ring of their metropolitan area. There was also a disproportionate concentration of these districts in downstate Illinois. By providing a small cross-section of the diversity that these districts encompass, Raising Quality, Promoting Equity sketches the types of information that stakeholders can marshal in designing their school improvement efforts.

ONLINE TOOLwww.iff.org/ILSchoolStudy

The data visualization suite that accompanies this

report allows users to compare schools, districts,

and study areas of their choosing with the state and

with customizable sets of peers from a variety of

perspectives. Users interested in their school, district,

or region can see how their outcomes in performance,

funding, and return on investment (ROI) stack up to

those of nearby places, of demographically similar

communities, or of the state as a whole.

DISTRICT PROFILES: BRIGHT SPOTS FOR FUTURE INVESTMENT

57

SD U-46

Elgin-Area School District U-46 enrolled over forty thousand students from eleven northwest suburbs of Chicago in Cook, DuPage, and Kane Counties. One of the municipalities that SD U-46 serves is Elgin, which is the sixth highest-need area that this study identifies. Overall, SD U-46 was keeping pace with state academic averages despite insufficient funding for its large populations of low-income students, English language learners, and children with disabilities. The district had low levels of overhead spending and high return on investment. Access to A- and B-rated schools was lower in SD U-46 than at the state level in 2013-14. Ninety-nine percent of students in SD U-46 attended a C-, D-, or F-rated school, as compared to eighty-nine percent statewide. There was one performing school in the district, Prairieview

Chart 19: Student Demographics in Elgin-Area School District U-46

Low-Income English Language Learners With Disabilities

Elgin-Area SD U-46

59.5%

StateAverage

43.5%

24.5%

4.0%

12.3%

14.3%

Elgin-Area SD U-46

StateAverage

Elgin-Area SD U-46

StateAverage

Chart 18: Enrolled Students by School Performance in Elgin-Area School District U-46 vs. Illinois

StatewideElgin-Area School District U-46

57%

29%

13%

1%

55%

19%

15%

8%

3%

C

D

F

B

A

58

Elementary School in Bartlett. Overall, however, SD U-46 was roughly on par with the state in terms of the proportion of students on grade level: fifty-five percent of SD U-46 students were proficient in reading in math, as opposed to fifty-nine percent in the average district.

These performance outcomes become more noteworthy when the needs of SD U-46 student body are compared to state averages. In 2013-14, SD U-46 had thirty-seven percent more low-income students, over six times as many English language learners, and only slightly fewer students with disabilities than the average district.

When funding levels are normalized to reflect the high cost of living in the Chicago metropolitan area and the additional costs necessary to provide a quality education to the subgroups listed above, SD U-46 received eighty-five percent of recommended funding levels. Despite the

high tax rate in the district — only twenty-two of the 858 districts analyzed in this report had higher rates than SD U-46 — the district’s low property wealth and the lack of sufficient revenue from the state limited funding.

SD U-46, which was nearly keeping pace with the state academically despite a funding gap and a high-need student body, had high return on investment. It also had one of the lowest ratios between overhead and instructional spending in the state: for every dollar spent in the classroom, SD U-46 spent only thirty-one cents on overhead. Overall, K-12 operational expenditure in this high-poverty, low-wealth school district had a high impact on reading and math outcomes. It seems likely to put additional funds to good use, but the district appeared to be tapping out its local resources in 2013-14 and would need additional state support in order to provide students, teachers, and school leaders with more resources.

Chart 20: Funding and Wealth in Elgin-Area School District U-46

State & Local Funding School Tax Rate Property Wealth Per Pupil

Elgin-Area SD U-46

$7,384

StateRecommendation

$8,6728.0%

4.3%

$100,809

$211,868

Elgin-Area SD U-46

Elgin-Area SD U-46

StateAverage

StateAverage

59

VIENNA SD 55

In 2013-14, Vienna SD 55 enrolled over four hundred students in a single elementary school, Vienna Grade School, near the southern tip of Illinois in Johnson County. Overall, Vienna was exceeding state academic averages despite insufficient funding for its large populations of low-income students, English language learners, and children with disabilities. The district had low levels of overhead spending and high return on investment.

Vienna Grade School is a D-rated school based on the metrics developed in this study. Sixty-four percent of students in Vienna SD 55 were on grade level in reading in math, clearing the statewide level by a full six points.

Moreover, Vienna SD 55 was successfully preparing a relatively high-need student body to achieve above the

state average. More than three out of five students in the district came from low-income households, nearly fifty percent higher than the state average. The district had few English language learners and a near-average population of children with disabilities.

When funding levels are normalized to reflect cost of living and the additional costs necessary to provide a quality education to the subgroups listed above, Vienna SD 55 received only seventy-eight percent of recommended funding levels. The district’s school tax rate was relatively low, suggesting that some additional revenue could potentially be raised locally, but the area’s low property wealth — just over a third of the state average — limited the amount of funding that could generated from local resources.

Chart 21: Student Demographics in Vienna School District 55


ViennaSD 55

64.1%

StateAverage

43.5%

1.6%

4.0%

13.6%14.3%

ViennaSD 55

StateAverage

ViennaSD 55

StateAverage

60

Vienna SD-55, which was ahead of the state academically despite a funding gap and a relatively high-need student body, had high return on investment. It also had one of the lowest ratios between overhead and instructional spending in the state: for every dollar spent in the classroom, Vienna SD-55 spent only twenty-two cents on overhead. Overall, K-12 operational expenditures in this high-poverty, low-wealth school district had a high impact on reading and math outcomes. The district seems likely to put additional funds to good use. Some may be able to be sourced locally, but it appears likely to need additional state support in order to provide students, teachers, and school leaders with more resources.

Chart 22: Funding and Wealth in Vienna School District 55


ViennaSD 55

$6,749

StateRecommendation

$8,672

3.0%

4.3%

$71,041

$211,868

ViennaSD 55

ViennaSD 55

StateAverage

StateAverage

SECTIONCONTINUED

ON NEXT PAGE

61

COLLINSVILLE CUSD 10

In 2013-14, Collinsville Community Unit School District 10 enrolled over six thousand students across four suburbs of St. Louis. The district had eight elementary schools, two middle schools, and a high school. All students in CUSD 10 attended a school with a rating below B, compared to eighty-nine percent of students statewide. Overall, however, CUSD 10 was nearly on par with the state in terms of the proportion of students who were on grade level: fifty-three percent of CUSD 10’s students were proficient in reading in math, as opposed to fifty-nine percent in the average school district.

These performance outcomes become more noteworthy when the needs of the CUSD 10 student body are

Chart 23: Enrolled Students by School Performancein Collinsville School District 10

StatewideCollinsvilleSD 10

74%

26%

55%

19%

15%

8%

3%

C

D

F

B

A

Chart 24: Student Demographics in Collinsville School District 10


Collinsville SD 10

58.0%

StateAverage

43.5%

6.5%

4.0%

15.0%14.3%

Collinsville SD 10

StateAverage

Collinsville SD 10

StateAverage

62

compared to state averages. CUSD 10 had over a third more low-income students, fifty percent more English language learners, and five percent more students with disabilities than the average district. When figures are normalized to reflect cost of living and the additional resources necessary to provide a quality education to the subgroups listed above, CUSD 10 received seventy-two percent of recommended funding levels. Despite the above-average school tax rate in the district, low property wealth and a lack of sufficient revenue from the state limited available funding.

CUSD 10, which was nearly keeping pace with the state academically despite a funding gap and a high-need student body, had high return on investment. Overall,

K-12 operational expenditures in this high-poverty, low-wealth school district had a high impact on reading and math outcomes. It seems likely to put additional funds to good use, but the district appears to be tapping out its local resources and will need additional state support in order to provide students, teachers, and school leaders with more resources.

Chart 25: Funding and Wealth in Collinsville School District 10


CollinsvilleSD 10

$6,272

StateRecommendation

$8,6724.5%

4.3%

$106,555

$211,868

CollinsvilleSD 10

CollinsvilleSD 10

StateAverage

StateAverage

63

City of Chicago School District 299 — commonly known as Chicago Public

Schools38 — is the country’s third-largest school district and enrolls

nearly twenty percent of public school students in Illinois. With an annual budget in excess of five billion

dollars, CPS is at the center of statewide discussions about education and fiscal policy. The district is also a frequent topic of conversation and analysis in the school reform community across the country. A comprehensive reform agenda in Illinois must address, but not overemphasize, public education in Chicago.

Needs Assessment: School Performance. Consistent with statewide trends, students in Chicago faced a shortage of K-12 public school options that were meeting the statewide goal of preparing all or nearly all students to achieve at grade level in 2013-14. Six percent of CPS students had access to a school that was rated A or B in 2013-14 based on the scale developed for this study, lower than the statewide service level of twelve percent.

None of the three grade spans emerges as significantly more in need of quality seats than any other within Chicago. Each grade span’s level of need was in line with its share of the CPS student body. Citywide, about half of demand was in elementary schools, just under a quarter in middle schools, and just over a quarter in high schools; the service gap was distributed across the city with nearly identical proportions. Largely because of Chicago’s network of high-performing magnet secondary schools, the service level in the city was marginally higher in grades 9-12 than in grades K-5 or grades 6-8. Across the city, however, nearly nineteen out of twenty students lacked access to an A- or B-rated K-12 option.

In eighty-four percent of the study areas in Chicago, less than one in ten K-12 students had access to an A- or B-rated public school. Unlike at the state level, however, none of the study areas in Chicago completely lacked access to high-performing schools, owing to population density and the availability of schools that accepted students from across the city. Citywide, however, over ninety percent of students were not able to access an A- or B-rated school. In only one

IN DEPTH: CHICAGO

*Because some schools overlap grade divisions,the number of performing schools may not sum.

Table 6: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Chicago

Grade Division Performing Schools Demand Supply Service

GapService Level

Percent of District

Gap

K-5 25 177,006 8,636 168,370 5% 50%

6-8 31 83,788 4,621 79,167 6% 23%

9-12 7 100,133 10,138 89,998 10% 27%

K-12 32* 360,927 28,794 337,532 6% 100%

38 Two state-commissioned public charter schools located in Chicago in 2013-14 served the city’s students but were not authorized by City of Chicago School District 299. For the purposes of this report, “Chicago Public Schools” refers to all public schools serving residents of Chicago, including the two state-

commissioned charter schools; “City of Chicago School District 299” refers specifically to the district.

64

Map 7: Service Level, City of Chicago

65

study area, covering the Mount Greenwood neighborhood, did more than a quarter of students have access to an A- or B-rated K-12 public school. In a handful of other study areas in Chicago north and east of Interstate 90, between ten and twenty-five percent of students could access an A- or B-rated school. Yet from a citywide perspective, a high-performing K-12 public school option was unavailable to most students in 2013-14.

Poverty, Performance, and Progress in Chicago. The challenges for school improvement in the largest city in the state are considerable. A comprehensive agenda must improve a system in which nearly all schools have not reached statewide goals of delivering grade-level preparation in core subjects to a substantial proportion of roughly 400,000 enrolled students. The relative severity of the lack of access to performing schools between the city of Chicago and the state of Illinois, however, should not

be overstated — particularly given the level of need that public schools in Chicago must meet. CPS is constitutive of the broader public education system in Illinois. Within this system, there is a strong inverse relationship between the percent of a district’s students that live in low-income households and academic achievement in math and reading. This wider context shapes outcomes in Chicago in two ways. First, CPS internally mirrors the relationship between poverty and performance that emerges at the state level. Higher-income students in Chicago had better-performing public school options than lower-income students in 2013-14. As the proportion of a district’s population that was below the poverty line increased, proficiency in math and reading decreased.39 Moreover, over half of A- and B-rated schools were magnet schools whose student bodies tend to under-represent children from low-income households and students of color.40 Overall, the relationship between poverty and performance was slightly less regressive within Chicago than at the state level, but poor students had disproportionately lower-performing K-12 options than more affluent peers. In this way, Chicago’s schools are, at least to an extent, products of the statewide context in which they are embedded. Second, CPS represents one pole of Illinois’s highly unequal educational system. In 2013-14, CPS educated over 345,000 low-income students, 68,000 English language learners, and 55,000 individuals with disabilities. In other words, CPS’s student body had twice the proportion of low-income students, over four times the proportion of English language learners, and about the same proportion of students with

39 r(549) = -.722, p < .001.40 A 2016 analysis found that selective enrollment and magnet schools in CPS enrolled children of color and low-income students at lower rates than other public schools around the city. See Kimberly Quick, Chicago Public Schools: Ensuring Diversity in Selective Enrollment and Magnet Schools, The Century Foundation, October 2016.

Chart 26: Enrolled Students by School Performance in Chicago Public Schools

StatewideChicagoPublic Schools

76%

12%

6%

4%

55%

19%

15%

8%

3%

C

D

F

B

A

3%

66

Chart 27: Poverty and Performance in Chicago Public Schools

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Meals

Chart 28: Student Demographics in Chicago Public Schools


CPS

85.7%

StateAverage

43.5%

17.0%

4.0%

13.8% 14.3%

CPS StateAverage

CPS StateAverage

67

disabilities as the average school district in Illinois. Of the 858 public school districts analyzed in this study, only twenty-six had student bodies with higher per-pupil need for specialized educational programming than CPS, and no district was obligated to provide this programming at such scale. Illinois as a whole, of course, struggles to provide high-performing public school options for low-income communities. That access to high-performing schools would be diminished in Chicago is unsurprising in the context of an inequitable statewide landscape. And yet, despite the structural inequities with which Chicago Public Schools must contend and the lack of high-performing K-12 options from which parents have to choose, there are meaningful signs of progress in Chicago’s public schools with regard to academic performance. For example, based on the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), “steep and continuing growth in Chicago” across and within student subgroups over the last fifteen years has buoyed otherwise stagnant or declining academic performance elsewhere in Illinois.41 Moreover, graduation rates across the city increased by over twenty percentage points between 1998 and 2014, and students showed higher levels of academic achievement even amidst increases in the rigor of coursework.42 So while there remains substantial work to do to increase access to

performing schools for Chicago students, there are important gains even in the face of major systemic obstacles.

High-Need Areas. Just over a quarter of the need for quality K-12 public school seats in Chicago was concentrated in the seven high-need areas that this study identifies. These study areas are the sections of the city in which the largest numbers of children did not have access to a school with a rating of A or B in 2013-14. The following twenty community areas are partially or fully contained within the high-need areas:

Geographically, almost all of the territory of the high-need areas is southwest of Interstate 90. Five of these seven study areas are located in a cluster roughly bound by the Interstate 290 to the north, Central Park Avenue to the west, 75th Street to the south, and Interstate 90-94 to the East.

Table 7: Supply and Demand by Grade Division, Chicago, High-Need Areas

Grade Division Performing Schools Demand Supply Service

GapService Level

Percent of District

Gap

K-5 0 46,897 679 46,218 1% 14%

6-8 0 22,441 607 21,834 3% 6%

9-12 0 28,008 2,406 25,606 9% 8%

K-12 0 97,347 3,689 93,658 4% 28%

Belmont Cragin

Chicago Lawn

Hermosa

North Lawndale

West Elsdon

Bridgeport

East Side

Lower West Side

South Chicago

West Lawn

Archer Heights

Brighton Park

Fuller Park

McKinley Park

South Deering

Avalon Park

Calumet Heights

Gage Park

New City

South Lawndale

41 Paul Zavitkovsky and Steven Tozer, Upstate/Downstate: Changing Patterns of Achievement, Demographics and School Effectiveness in Illinois Public Schools, University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Urban Education Leadership, Spring 2017, §4.

42 Elaine M. Allensworth, Kaleen Healey, Julia A. Gwynne, and René Crespin, High School Graduation Rates through Two Decades of District Change: The Influence of Policies, Data Records, and Demographic Shifts, University of Chicago Consotrium on School Research, June 2016.

68

Map 8: Service Gap, City of Chicago

69

There were no A- or B-rated schools located within the boundaries of Chicago’s high-need areas in 2013-14. An estimated 3,689 seats were available to students residing in these communities from A- or B-rated options in other community areas, such as magnet schools that accepted students from across the city.

As the previous section shows, however, there was substantial need for high-performing public schools in every community area in Chicago. Addressing the high-need areas will have a disproportionate impact on the service gap in Chicago’s public schools, but it will not address the majority of the need in the city.

Funding and Return on Investment in Chicago Public Schools. The level of need of the student body in Chicago is crucial to understanding performance, funding, and return on investment trends in CPS. Low-income students, English language learners, and individuals with disabilities need educational resources that are tailored to their learning styles. Chicago has some of the highest proportions of students with intensive educational needs in Illinois and is located in the most costly labor market in the state. For these reasons, CPS requires more per-pupil funding than almost any district in Illinois to meet a baseline of academic achievement.

CPS was underfunded in 2013-14. When funding levels are normalized to reflect the high cost of living in the Chicago metropolitan area and the additional costs necessary to provide a quality education to the subgroups listed above, the district received seventy-one percent of the Foundation Level (FL) that the Education Funding Advisory Board (EFAB) recommended for 2013-14. Yet despite this budgetary shortfall, CPS had medium return on investment (ROI). Relative to its peers, CPS’s day-to-

day spending had decent impact on the ability of students to read, write, and do math at grade level.

Furthermore, CPS spent a quarter on overhead for every dollar it spent in classrooms in 2013-14. Fewer than three dozen of the 855 districts analyzed for this study had a better overhead-to-instruction ratio. These spending levels are largely the result of the district’s efforts to cut over seven hundred million dollars in spending, mostly — but not entirely — on administration and other non-instructional goods and services.43 The district has made major progress in creating administrative efficiencies in order to widen the portion of the budget that can reach students and teachers more directly.

All in all, however, local resources and budgetary streamlining alone appear insufficient to allow CPS to address funding inadequacy and increase spending on activities that will prepare more students to achieve on grade level in reading and math. Property tax increases in the city are capped based on the rate of inflation.43 And, while property in Chicago is more valuable than in most high-poverty districts in Illinois, property wealth is still a quarter lower than the state average. Any additional revenue that can be raised locally for public schools in Chicago will probably not close the bulk of the district’s funding gap. In the absence of sufficient compensatory income from higher levels of government, it will be difficult for CPS to shore up its revenue streams. Alongside targeted and comprehensive efforts to increase the effectiveness of instructional programming, CPS should be considered a candidate for additional financial resources. More state funding alone for CPS will not solve the district’s financial problems, but the situation seems unlikely to improve without it.

43 Josh McGee, Chicago Crowd-Out: How Rising Pension Costs Harm Current Teachers — and Students, Manhattan Institute Issue Brief, May 2016.

70

Chart 29: Funding and Wealth in Chicago Public Schools


CPS

$6,223

StateRecommendation

$8,672

3.66%

4.3%

$161,232

$211,868

CPS CPSStateAverage

StateAverage

71

Rank Study Area

Grades K-12 (Overall) Grades K-5 . Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12

Demand SupplyService

GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

1 Sangamon County 28,767 731 28,036 3% 13,059 364 12,695 3% 45% 6,904 367 6,538 5% 23% 8,803 0 8,803 0% 31%

2 Chicago: Chicago Lawn, West Lawn 23,313 897 22,416 4% 11,487 161 11,326 1% 51% 5,388 150 5,238 3% 23% 6,438 587 5,852 9% 26%

3 Chicago: Archer Heights, Brighton Park 21,527 776 20,752 4% 9,486 139 9,347 1% 45% 4,650 128 4,522 3% 22% 7,391 508 6,882 7% 33%

4 Champaign County 21,425 116 21,309 1% 9,265 63 9,202 1% 43% 5,387 53 5,333 1% 25% 6,774 0 6,774 0% 32%

5 Elgin 19,898 899 19,000 5% 9,348 612 8,737 7% 46% 4,529 216 4,313 5% 23% 6,021 71 5,950 1% 31%

6 Chicago: Lawndale 19,629 738 18,891 4% 9,913 135 9,777 1% 52% 4,739 120 4,619 3% 24% 4,978 483 4,495 10% 24%

7 McLean County 22,403 3,974 18,429 18% 10,112 3,395 6,717 34% 36% 5,618 256 5,363 5% 29% 6,673 323 6,350 5% 34%

8 Burlington, Pingree Grove, Carpentersville 17,958 729 17,228 4% 8,676 373 8,303 4% 48% 4,138 356 3,782 9% 22% 5,144 0 5,144 0% 30%

9 Rock Island County 17,787 0 17,787 0% 7,071 0 7,071 0% 40% 4,331 0 4,331 0% 24% 6,386 0 6,386 0% 36%

10 Cicero 17,126 4 17,121 0% 8,518 1 8,517 0% 50% 4,241 1 4,240 0% 25% 4,366 3 4,364 0% 25%

11 Rockford, Cherry Valley 17,076 665 16,411 4% 8,092 346 7,746 4% 47% 4,085 319 3,766 8% 23% 4,899 0 4,899 0% 30%

12 Kankakee County 16,652 9 16,644 0% 7,190 6 7,184 0% 43% 4,231 3 4,228 0% 25% 5,231 0 5,231 0% 31%

13 Chicago: Belmont Cragin, Hermosa 16,575 738 15,837 4% 8,423 132 8,291 2% 52% 3,576 120 3,456 3% 22% 4,577 487 4,090 11% 26%

14 LaSalle County 16,238 85 16,154 1% 6,950 61 6,889 1% 43% 3,975 24 3,951 1% 24% 5,313 0 5,313 0% 33%

15 South Elgin, Bartlett, Streamwood 16,544 767 15,777 5% 7,552 485 7,067 6% 45% 3,875 264 3,610 7% 23% 5,118 18 5,100 0% 32%

16 Round Lake Beach, Volo 16,007 257 15,750 2% 6,946 169 6,777 2% 43% 3,449 87 3,362 3% 21% 5,611 1 5,611 0% 36%

17 Macon County 14,686 0 14,686 0% 6,733 0 6,733 0% 46% 3,655 0 3,655 0% 25% 4,297 0 4,297 0% 29%

18 Crystal Lawns 16,147 931 15,216 6% 6,663 466 6,197 7% 41% 4,158 465 3,692 11% 24% 5,327 0 5,327 0% 35%

19 Richton Park, University Park, Crete, Willowbrook 13,903 520 13,383 4% 5,218 520 4,698 10% 35% 3,261 0 3,261 0% 24% 5,425 0 5,425 0% 41%

20 DeKalb County 14,206 1 14,205 0% 6,180 0 6,179 0% 44% 3,525 1 3,525 0% 25% 4,501 0 4,501 0% 32%

21 Chicago: New City, Fuller Park 13,865 570 13,295 4% 7,268 101 7,168 1% 54% 3,401 95 3,306 3% 25% 3,196 375 2,821 12% 21%

22 Vermilion County 12,238 2 12,236 0% 5,671 1 5,670 0% 46% 2,969 1 2,968 0% 24% 3,598 0 3,598 0% 29%

23 Chicago: Lower West Side 13,514 641 12,872 5% 5,980 218 5,762 4% 45% 2,993 78 2,915 3% 23% 4,540 345 4,195 8% 33%

24 Peoria 13,667 923 12,743 7% 6,780 352 6,428 5% 50% 3,136 315 2,822 10% 22% 3,750 257 3,493 7% 27%

25 Boone County 9,870 5 9,864 0% 4,233 2 4,231 0% 43% 2,444 3 2,441 0% 25% 3,193 0 3,193 0% 32%

26 Cahokia, Millstadt, East Carondelet 12,736 0 12,736 0% 4,936 0 4,936 0% 39% 3,254 0 3,254 0% 26% 4,546 0 4,546 0% 36%

27 Chicago: South Chicago, Calumet Heights, East Side 13,258 590 12,669 4% 6,604 96 6,508 1% 51% 3,304 95 3,209 3% 25% 3,350 399 2,951 12% 23%

28 Williamson County 9,602 0 9,602 0% 4,346 0 4,346 0% 45% 2,304 0 2,304 0% 24% 2,952 0 2,952 0% 31%

29 Rockdale, Elwood, Ingalls Park 12,572 158 12,414 1% 5,889 158 5,731 3% 46% 2,839 0 2,839 0% 23% 3,843 0 3,843 0% 31%

30 Adams County 8,429 0 8,429 0% 3,720 0 3,720 0% 44% 2,030 0 2,030 0% 24% 2,679 0 2,679 0% 32%

31 Lakemoor, Johnsburg, Holiday Hills 12,501 254 12,247 2% 5,148 254 4,894 5% 40% 3,091 0 3,091 0% 25% 4,262 0 4,262 0% 35%

APPENDIX A: SUPPLY AND DEMAND BY GRADE LEVEL AND STUDY AREA

Hig

h-N

eed

Are

as

72

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

1 Sangamon County 28,767 731 28,036 3% 13,059 364 12,695 3% 45% 6,904 367 6,538 5% 23% 8,803 0 8,803 0% 31%

2 Chicago: Chicago Lawn, West Lawn 23,313 897 22,416 4% 11,487 161 11,326 1% 51% 5,388 150 5,238 3% 23% 6,438 587 5,852 9% 26%

3 Chicago: Archer Heights, Brighton Park 21,527 776 20,752 4% 9,486 139 9,347 1% 45% 4,650 128 4,522 3% 22% 7,391 508 6,882 7% 33%

4 Champaign County 21,425 116 21,309 1% 9,265 63 9,202 1% 43% 5,387 53 5,333 1% 25% 6,774 0 6,774 0% 32%

5 Elgin 19,898 899 19,000 5% 9,348 612 8,737 7% 46% 4,529 216 4,313 5% 23% 6,021 71 5,950 1% 31%

6 Chicago: Lawndale 19,629 738 18,891 4% 9,913 135 9,777 1% 52% 4,739 120 4,619 3% 24% 4,978 483 4,495 10% 24%

7 McLean County 22,403 3,974 18,429 18% 10,112 3,395 6,717 34% 36% 5,618 256 5,363 5% 29% 6,673 323 6,350 5% 34%

8 Burlington, Pingree Grove, Carpentersville 17,958 729 17,228 4% 8,676 373 8,303 4% 48% 4,138 356 3,782 9% 22% 5,144 0 5,144 0% 30%

9 Rock Island County 17,787 0 17,787 0% 7,071 0 7,071 0% 40% 4,331 0 4,331 0% 24% 6,386 0 6,386 0% 36%

10 Cicero 17,126 4 17,121 0% 8,518 1 8,517 0% 50% 4,241 1 4,240 0% 25% 4,366 3 4,364 0% 25%

11 Rockford, Cherry Valley 17,076 665 16,411 4% 8,092 346 7,746 4% 47% 4,085 319 3,766 8% 23% 4,899 0 4,899 0% 30%

12 Kankakee County 16,652 9 16,644 0% 7,190 6 7,184 0% 43% 4,231 3 4,228 0% 25% 5,231 0 5,231 0% 31%

13 Chicago: Belmont Cragin, Hermosa 16,575 738 15,837 4% 8,423 132 8,291 2% 52% 3,576 120 3,456 3% 22% 4,577 487 4,090 11% 26%

14 LaSalle County 16,238 85 16,154 1% 6,950 61 6,889 1% 43% 3,975 24 3,951 1% 24% 5,313 0 5,313 0% 33%

15 South Elgin, Bartlett, Streamwood 16,544 767 15,777 5% 7,552 485 7,067 6% 45% 3,875 264 3,610 7% 23% 5,118 18 5,100 0% 32%

16 Round Lake Beach, Volo 16,007 257 15,750 2% 6,946 169 6,777 2% 43% 3,449 87 3,362 3% 21% 5,611 1 5,611 0% 36%

17 Macon County 14,686 0 14,686 0% 6,733 0 6,733 0% 46% 3,655 0 3,655 0% 25% 4,297 0 4,297 0% 29%

18 Crystal Lawns 16,147 931 15,216 6% 6,663 466 6,197 7% 41% 4,158 465 3,692 11% 24% 5,327 0 5,327 0% 35%

19 Richton Park, University Park, Crete, Willowbrook 13,903 520 13,383 4% 5,218 520 4,698 10% 35% 3,261 0 3,261 0% 24% 5,425 0 5,425 0% 41%

20 DeKalb County 14,206 1 14,205 0% 6,180 0 6,179 0% 44% 3,525 1 3,525 0% 25% 4,501 0 4,501 0% 32%

21 Chicago: New City, Fuller Park 13,865 570 13,295 4% 7,268 101 7,168 1% 54% 3,401 95 3,306 3% 25% 3,196 375 2,821 12% 21%

22 Vermilion County 12,238 2 12,236 0% 5,671 1 5,670 0% 46% 2,969 1 2,968 0% 24% 3,598 0 3,598 0% 29%

23 Chicago: Lower West Side 13,514 641 12,872 5% 5,980 218 5,762 4% 45% 2,993 78 2,915 3% 23% 4,540 345 4,195 8% 33%

24 Peoria 13,667 923 12,743 7% 6,780 352 6,428 5% 50% 3,136 315 2,822 10% 22% 3,750 257 3,493 7% 27%

25 Boone County 9,870 5 9,864 0% 4,233 2 4,231 0% 43% 2,444 3 2,441 0% 25% 3,193 0 3,193 0% 32%

26 Cahokia, Millstadt, East Carondelet 12,736 0 12,736 0% 4,936 0 4,936 0% 39% 3,254 0 3,254 0% 26% 4,546 0 4,546 0% 36%

27 Chicago: South Chicago, Calumet Heights, East Side 13,258 590 12,669 4% 6,604 96 6,508 1% 51% 3,304 95 3,209 3% 25% 3,350 399 2,951 12% 23%

28 Williamson County 9,602 0 9,602 0% 4,346 0 4,346 0% 45% 2,304 0 2,304 0% 24% 2,952 0 2,952 0% 31%

29 Rockdale, Elwood, Ingalls Park 12,572 158 12,414 1% 5,889 158 5,731 3% 46% 2,839 0 2,839 0% 23% 3,843 0 3,843 0% 31%

30 Adams County 8,429 0 8,429 0% 3,720 0 3,720 0% 44% 2,030 0 2,030 0% 24% 2,679 0 2,679 0% 32%

31 Lakemoor, Johnsburg, Holiday Hills 12,501 254 12,247 2% 5,148 254 4,894 5% 40% 3,091 0 3,091 0% 25% 4,262 0 4,262 0% 35%

73

32 Oswego, Boulder Hill 15,157 2,989 12,168 20% 7,242 2,981 4,261 41% 35% 3,655 9 3,646 0% 30% 4,261 0 4,261 0% 35%

33 Grundy County 8,207 176 8,032 2% 3,415 110 3,305 3% 41% 2,029 66 1,963 3% 24% 2,763 0 2,763 0% 34%

34 Chicago: Lincoln Park, Lakeview 15,042 3,070 11,972 20% 7,056 1,908 5,148 27% 43% 2,753 857 1,895 31% 16% 5,233 305 4,928 6% 41%

35 Ogle County 8,176 633 7,543 8% 3,404 633 2,771 19% 37% 2,007 0 2,007 0% 27% 2,765 0 2,765 0% 37%

36 Woodridge, Lisle, Downers Grove 14,430 2,550 11,880 18% 5,578 1,319 4,259 24% 36% 3,452 498 2,954 14% 25% 5,400 733 4,667 14% 39%

37 Lake Villa, Fox Lake Hills, Channel Lake 11,805 10 11,795 0% 4,467 6 4,461 0% 38% 3,525 4 3,521 0% 30% 3,812 0 3,812 0% 32%

38 Knox County 7,231 0 7,231 0% 3,260 0 3,260 0% 45% 1,692 0 1,692 0% 23% 2,280 0 2,280 0% 32%

39 Aurora (Central) 12,140 376 11,764 3% 6,169 195 5,974 3% 51% 2,771 181 2,590 7% 22% 3,200 0 3,200 0% 27%

40 Waukegan 11,811 132 11,680 1% 5,425 45 5,381 1% 46% 2,542 34 2,508 1% 21% 3,844 53 3,791 1% 32%

41 Henry County 7,333 428 6,904 6% 3,321 428 2,892 13% 42% 1,641 0 1,641 0% 24% 2,371 0 2,371 0% 34%

42 North Aurora 11,521 6 11,515 0% 5,269 4 5,265 0% 46% 2,752 1 2,751 0% 24% 3,500 0 3,500 0% 30%

43 Whiteside County 6,566 32 6,534 0% 2,171 32 2,139 1% 33% 1,723 0 1,723 0% 26% 2,672 0 2,672 0% 41%

44 Granite City, Hartford, Wood River 11,467 0 11,467 0% 4,969 0 4,969 0% 43% 2,854 0 2,854 0% 25% 3,644 0 3,644 0% 32%

45 Chicago: Logan Square 11,916 473 11,443 4% 6,044 91 5,953 2% 52% 2,889 76 2,814 3% 25% 2,982 307 2,675 10% 23%

46 Stephenson County 6,250 0 6,250 0% 2,670 0 2,670 0% 43% 1,456 0 1,456 0% 23% 2,124 0 2,124 0% 34%

47 Chicago: Avondale, North Center, Irving Park 13,097 1,938 11,159 15% 6,777 1,148 5,629 17% 50% 2,963 463 2,500 16% 22% 3,357 327 3,030 10% 27%

48 Macoupin County 6,130 0 6,130 0% 2,363 0 2,363 0% 39% 1,620 0 1,620 0% 26% 2,147 0 2,147 0% 35%

49 Homewood, Glenwood, Lansing 11,083 9 11,074 0% 3,954 9 3,945 0% 36% 2,702 0 2,702 0% 24% 4,427 0 4,427 0% 40%

50 Highland, Collinsville, Alhambra, Maryville 11,044 79 10,966 1% 4,585 44 4,542 1% 41% 2,675 35 2,640 1% 24% 3,784 0 3,784 0% 35%

51 Woodford County 6,284 247 6,037 4% 2,640 247 2,393 9% 40% 1,577 0 1,577 0% 26% 2,067 0 2,067 0% 34%

52 Hanover Park, Carol Stream 12,893 2,020 10,873 16% 5,620 1,628 3,992 29% 37% 2,892 278 2,614 10% 24% 4,381 113 4,268 3% 39%

53 Barrington, Lake Barrington 14,865 4,064 10,801 27% 5,882 2,920 2,962 50% 27% 3,744 1,060 2,684 28% 25% 5,239 84 5,155 2% 48%

54 Jackson County 5,916 0 5,916 0% 2,514 0 2,514 0% 42% 1,416 0 1,416 0% 24% 1,986 0 1,986 0% 34%

55 Roscoe, Machesney Park, Loves Park 11,383 604 10,778 5% 4,490 475 4,015 11% 37% 3,044 129 2,915 4% 27% 3,848 0 3,848 0% 36%

56 Marion County 5,865 0 5,865 0% 2,538 0 2,538 0% 43% 1,390 0 1,390 0% 24% 1,937 0 1,937 0% 33%

57 Summit, Burbank, Bridgeview 10,804 164 10,639 2% 5,087 163 4,924 3% 46% 2,441 1 2,440 0% 23% 3,276 0 3,276 0% 31%

58 Hoffman Estates 16,003 5,374 10,630 34% 7,362 2,789 4,572 38% 43% 3,618 1,465 2,153 40% 20% 5,024 1,119 3,904 22% 37%

59 Jefferson County 5,607 0 5,607 0% 2,611 0 2,611 0% 47% 1,294 0 1,294 0% 23% 1,702 0 1,702 0% 30%

60 Lombard, Villa Park 12,088 1,573 10,516 13% 5,120 1,031 4,089 20% 39% 2,690 354 2,336 13% 22% 4,278 188 4,091 4% 39%

61 Franklin County 5,397 0 5,397 0% 2,242 0 2,242 0% 42% 1,312 0 1,312 0% 24% 1,842 0 1,842 0% 34%

62 Dixmoor, Harvey, Blue Island 10,416 0 10,416 0% 5,033 0 5,033 0% 48% 2,483 0 2,483 0% 24% 2,900 0 2,900 0% 28%

63 Palatine 13,232 2,908 10,324 22% 5,725 1,073 4,652 19% 45% 2,996 800 2,196 27% 21% 4,511 1,035 3,476 23% 34%

Hig

h-N

eed

Are

asM

id-H

igh-

Nee

d A

reas

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

74

32 Oswego, Boulder Hill 15,157 2,989 12,168 20% 7,242 2,981 4,261 41% 35% 3,655 9 3,646 0% 30% 4,261 0 4,261 0% 35%

33 Grundy County 8,207 176 8,032 2% 3,415 110 3,305 3% 41% 2,029 66 1,963 3% 24% 2,763 0 2,763 0% 34%

34 Chicago: Lincoln Park, Lakeview 15,042 3,070 11,972 20% 7,056 1,908 5,148 27% 43% 2,753 857 1,895 31% 16% 5,233 305 4,928 6% 41%

35 Ogle County 8,176 633 7,543 8% 3,404 633 2,771 19% 37% 2,007 0 2,007 0% 27% 2,765 0 2,765 0% 37%

36 Woodridge, Lisle, Downers Grove 14,430 2,550 11,880 18% 5,578 1,319 4,259 24% 36% 3,452 498 2,954 14% 25% 5,400 733 4,667 14% 39%

37 Lake Villa, Fox Lake Hills, Channel Lake 11,805 10 11,795 0% 4,467 6 4,461 0% 38% 3,525 4 3,521 0% 30% 3,812 0 3,812 0% 32%

38 Knox County 7,231 0 7,231 0% 3,260 0 3,260 0% 45% 1,692 0 1,692 0% 23% 2,280 0 2,280 0% 32%

39 Aurora (Central) 12,140 376 11,764 3% 6,169 195 5,974 3% 51% 2,771 181 2,590 7% 22% 3,200 0 3,200 0% 27%

40 Waukegan 11,811 132 11,680 1% 5,425 45 5,381 1% 46% 2,542 34 2,508 1% 21% 3,844 53 3,791 1% 32%

41 Henry County 7,333 428 6,904 6% 3,321 428 2,892 13% 42% 1,641 0 1,641 0% 24% 2,371 0 2,371 0% 34%

42 North Aurora 11,521 6 11,515 0% 5,269 4 5,265 0% 46% 2,752 1 2,751 0% 24% 3,500 0 3,500 0% 30%

43 Whiteside County 6,566 32 6,534 0% 2,171 32 2,139 1% 33% 1,723 0 1,723 0% 26% 2,672 0 2,672 0% 41%

44 Granite City, Hartford, Wood River 11,467 0 11,467 0% 4,969 0 4,969 0% 43% 2,854 0 2,854 0% 25% 3,644 0 3,644 0% 32%

45 Chicago: Logan Square 11,916 473 11,443 4% 6,044 91 5,953 2% 52% 2,889 76 2,814 3% 25% 2,982 307 2,675 10% 23%

46 Stephenson County 6,250 0 6,250 0% 2,670 0 2,670 0% 43% 1,456 0 1,456 0% 23% 2,124 0 2,124 0% 34%

47 Chicago: Avondale, North Center, Irving Park 13,097 1,938 11,159 15% 6,777 1,148 5,629 17% 50% 2,963 463 2,500 16% 22% 3,357 327 3,030 10% 27%

48 Macoupin County 6,130 0 6,130 0% 2,363 0 2,363 0% 39% 1,620 0 1,620 0% 26% 2,147 0 2,147 0% 35%

49 Homewood, Glenwood, Lansing 11,083 9 11,074 0% 3,954 9 3,945 0% 36% 2,702 0 2,702 0% 24% 4,427 0 4,427 0% 40%

50 Highland, Collinsville, Alhambra, Maryville 11,044 79 10,966 1% 4,585 44 4,542 1% 41% 2,675 35 2,640 1% 24% 3,784 0 3,784 0% 35%

51 Woodford County 6,284 247 6,037 4% 2,640 247 2,393 9% 40% 1,577 0 1,577 0% 26% 2,067 0 2,067 0% 34%

52 Hanover Park, Carol Stream 12,893 2,020 10,873 16% 5,620 1,628 3,992 29% 37% 2,892 278 2,614 10% 24% 4,381 113 4,268 3% 39%

53 Barrington, Lake Barrington 14,865 4,064 10,801 27% 5,882 2,920 2,962 50% 27% 3,744 1,060 2,684 28% 25% 5,239 84 5,155 2% 48%

54 Jackson County 5,916 0 5,916 0% 2,514 0 2,514 0% 42% 1,416 0 1,416 0% 24% 1,986 0 1,986 0% 34%

55 Roscoe, Machesney Park, Loves Park 11,383 604 10,778 5% 4,490 475 4,015 11% 37% 3,044 129 2,915 4% 27% 3,848 0 3,848 0% 36%

56 Marion County 5,865 0 5,865 0% 2,538 0 2,538 0% 43% 1,390 0 1,390 0% 24% 1,937 0 1,937 0% 33%

57 Summit, Burbank, Bridgeview 10,804 164 10,639 2% 5,087 163 4,924 3% 46% 2,441 1 2,440 0% 23% 3,276 0 3,276 0% 31%

58 Hoffman Estates 16,003 5,374 10,630 34% 7,362 2,789 4,572 38% 43% 3,618 1,465 2,153 40% 20% 5,024 1,119 3,904 22% 37%

59 Jefferson County 5,607 0 5,607 0% 2,611 0 2,611 0% 47% 1,294 0 1,294 0% 23% 1,702 0 1,702 0% 30%

60 Lombard, Villa Park 12,088 1,573 10,516 13% 5,120 1,031 4,089 20% 39% 2,690 354 2,336 13% 22% 4,278 188 4,091 4% 39%

61 Franklin County 5,397 0 5,397 0% 2,242 0 2,242 0% 42% 1,312 0 1,312 0% 24% 1,842 0 1,842 0% 34%

62 Dixmoor, Harvey, Blue Island 10,416 0 10,416 0% 5,033 0 5,033 0% 48% 2,483 0 2,483 0% 24% 2,900 0 2,900 0% 28%

63 Palatine 13,232 2,908 10,324 22% 5,725 1,073 4,652 19% 45% 2,996 800 2,196 27% 21% 4,511 1,035 3,476 23% 34%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

75

64 Livingston County 5,248 74 5,174 1% 2,188 74 2,114 3% 41% 1,279 0 1,279 0% 25% 1,782 0 1,782 0% 34%

65 Durand, Pecatonica, Winnebago 10,834 535 10,299 5% 4,422 230 4,193 5% 41% 2,278 306 1,973 13% 19% 4,133 0 4,133 0% 40%

66 Gurnee 10,224 87 10,137 1% 3,975 52 3,923 1% 39% 2,504 35 2,469 1% 24% 3,745 0 3,745 0% 37%

67 Fulton County 5,118 0 5,118 0% 2,324 0 2,324 0% 45% 1,218 0 1,218 0% 24% 1,576 0 1,576 0% 31%

68 Bolingbrook 10,499 428 10,071 4% 4,704 121 4,583 3% 46% 2,506 116 2,389 5% 24% 3,289 190 3,099 6% 31%

69 Bureau County 4,718 0 4,718 0% 1,919 0 1,919 0% 41% 1,258 0 1,258 0% 27% 1,540 0 1,540 0% 33%

70 Lebanon, Mascoutah, Freeburg, New Athens 10,012 33 9,979 0% 4,393 32 4,361 1% 44% 2,339 1 2,338 0% 23% 3,280 0 3,280 0% 33%

71 Wheaton, Warrenville 12,913 3,003 9,909 23% 5,572 2,704 2,868 49% 29% 3,017 243 2,774 8% 28% 4,324 56 4,268 1% 43%

72 Effingham County 4,409 0 4,409 0% 1,702 0 1,702 0% 39% 1,055 0 1,055 0% 24% 1,651 0 1,651 0% 37%

73 Frankfort Square, Frankfort 10,648 801 9,847 8% 3,745 801 2,944 21% 30% 2,679 0 2,679 0% 27% 4,224 0 4,224 0% 43%

74 Christian County 4,323 0 4,323 0% 1,545 0 1,545 0% 36% 1,166 0 1,166 0% 27% 1,612 0 1,612 0% 37%

75 Chicago: Lincoln Square, Albany Park 10,233 407 9,826 4% 5,109 82 5,026 2% 51% 2,242 67 2,175 3% 22% 2,882 258 2,625 9% 27%

76 Berwyn, Stickney 9,819 0 9,819 0% 5,001 0 5,001 0% 51% 2,387 0 2,387 0% 24% 2,430 0 2,430 0% 25%

77 Monroe County 4,247 0 4,247 0% 1,485 0 1,485 0% 35% 1,172 0 1,172 0% 28% 1,589 0 1,589 0% 37%

78 Chicago: West Town, Near West Side 10,204 410 9,794 4% 5,034 86 4,948 2% 51% 2,401 60 2,341 3% 24% 2,770 264 2,506 10% 26%

79 Chillicothe, Princeville, Dunlap, Bartonville 13,041 3,293 9,748 25% 6,187 1,333 4,854 22% 50% 2,878 832 2,046 29% 21% 3,975 1,127 2,848 28% 29%

80 Morgan County 4,204 0 4,204 0% 1,931 0 1,931 0% 46% 1,023 0 1,023 0% 24% 1,250 0 1,250 0% 30%

81 Chicago: Roseland, Pullman, Riverdale 10,219 526 9,694 5% 4,765 84 4,681 2% 48% 2,442 85 2,357 3% 24% 3,012 356 2,656 12% 27%

82 Lee County 4,192 0 4,192 0% 1,670 0 1,670 0% 40% 1,068 0 1,068 0% 25% 1,454 0 1,454 0% 35%

83 Algonquin 10,496 859 9,637 8% 4,165 478 3,686 11% 38% 2,641 381 2,260 14% 23% 3,691 0 3,691 0% 38%

84 Plainfield 11,185 1,613 9,573 14% 5,011 1,036 3,975 21% 42% 2,861 338 2,523 12% 26% 3,313 238 3,075 7% 32%

85 Montgomery County 4,014 0 4,014 0% 1,723 0 1,723 0% 43% 971 0 971 0% 24% 1,320 0 1,320 0% 33%

86 Chicago: Auburn Gresham 9,840 502 9,338 5% 4,715 79 4,636 2% 50% 2,504 78 2,426 3% 26% 2,621 345 2,276 13% 24%

87 Iroquois County 4,095 119 3,976 3% 1,595 119 1,476 7% 37% 1,065 0 1,065 0% 27% 1,434 0 1,434 0% 36%

88 Evanston 9,918 795 9,122 8% 5,057 795 4,262 16% 47% 2,101 0 2,101 0% 23% 2,759 0 2,759 0% 30%

89 Wood Dale, Bensenville 10,452 1,442 9,010 14% 4,199 738 3,461 18% 38% 2,339 242 2,098 10% 23% 3,913 462 3,451 12% 38%

90 Clinton County 4,341 407 3,934 9% 2,003 276 1,727 14% 44% 1,016 131 885 13% 23% 1,322 0 1,322 0% 34%

91 Crystal Lake, Lakewood 10,479 1,473 9,006 14% 4,232 1,464 2,768 35% 31% 1,883 8 1,875 0% 21% 4,364 0 4,364 0% 48%

92 East Peoria, Pekin 9,176 174 9,002 2% 3,629 114 3,515 3% 39% 2,248 10 2,238 0% 25% 3,300 50 3,250 2% 36%

93 Randolph County 3,923 0 3,923 0% 1,743 0 1,743 0% 44% 883 0 883 0% 23% 1,297 0 1,297 0% 33%

94 South Holland, Calumet City 8,975 0 8,975 0% 3,622 0 3,622 0% 40% 2,244 0 2,244 0% 25% 3,109 0 3,109 0% 35%

Mid

-Hig

h-N

eed

Are

as

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

76

64 Livingston County 5,248 74 5,174 1% 2,188 74 2,114 3% 41% 1,279 0 1,279 0% 25% 1,782 0 1,782 0% 34%

65 Durand, Pecatonica, Winnebago 10,834 535 10,299 5% 4,422 230 4,193 5% 41% 2,278 306 1,973 13% 19% 4,133 0 4,133 0% 40%

66 Gurnee 10,224 87 10,137 1% 3,975 52 3,923 1% 39% 2,504 35 2,469 1% 24% 3,745 0 3,745 0% 37%

67 Fulton County 5,118 0 5,118 0% 2,324 0 2,324 0% 45% 1,218 0 1,218 0% 24% 1,576 0 1,576 0% 31%

68 Bolingbrook 10,499 428 10,071 4% 4,704 121 4,583 3% 46% 2,506 116 2,389 5% 24% 3,289 190 3,099 6% 31%

69 Bureau County 4,718 0 4,718 0% 1,919 0 1,919 0% 41% 1,258 0 1,258 0% 27% 1,540 0 1,540 0% 33%

70 Lebanon, Mascoutah, Freeburg, New Athens 10,012 33 9,979 0% 4,393 32 4,361 1% 44% 2,339 1 2,338 0% 23% 3,280 0 3,280 0% 33%

71 Wheaton, Warrenville 12,913 3,003 9,909 23% 5,572 2,704 2,868 49% 29% 3,017 243 2,774 8% 28% 4,324 56 4,268 1% 43%

72 Effingham County 4,409 0 4,409 0% 1,702 0 1,702 0% 39% 1,055 0 1,055 0% 24% 1,651 0 1,651 0% 37%

73 Frankfort Square, Frankfort 10,648 801 9,847 8% 3,745 801 2,944 21% 30% 2,679 0 2,679 0% 27% 4,224 0 4,224 0% 43%

74 Christian County 4,323 0 4,323 0% 1,545 0 1,545 0% 36% 1,166 0 1,166 0% 27% 1,612 0 1,612 0% 37%

75 Chicago: Lincoln Square, Albany Park 10,233 407 9,826 4% 5,109 82 5,026 2% 51% 2,242 67 2,175 3% 22% 2,882 258 2,625 9% 27%

76 Berwyn, Stickney 9,819 0 9,819 0% 5,001 0 5,001 0% 51% 2,387 0 2,387 0% 24% 2,430 0 2,430 0% 25%

77 Monroe County 4,247 0 4,247 0% 1,485 0 1,485 0% 35% 1,172 0 1,172 0% 28% 1,589 0 1,589 0% 37%

78 Chicago: West Town, Near West Side 10,204 410 9,794 4% 5,034 86 4,948 2% 51% 2,401 60 2,341 3% 24% 2,770 264 2,506 10% 26%

79 Chillicothe, Princeville, Dunlap, Bartonville 13,041 3,293 9,748 25% 6,187 1,333 4,854 22% 50% 2,878 832 2,046 29% 21% 3,975 1,127 2,848 28% 29%

80 Morgan County 4,204 0 4,204 0% 1,931 0 1,931 0% 46% 1,023 0 1,023 0% 24% 1,250 0 1,250 0% 30%

81 Chicago: Roseland, Pullman, Riverdale 10,219 526 9,694 5% 4,765 84 4,681 2% 48% 2,442 85 2,357 3% 24% 3,012 356 2,656 12% 27%

82 Lee County 4,192 0 4,192 0% 1,670 0 1,670 0% 40% 1,068 0 1,068 0% 25% 1,454 0 1,454 0% 35%

83 Algonquin 10,496 859 9,637 8% 4,165 478 3,686 11% 38% 2,641 381 2,260 14% 23% 3,691 0 3,691 0% 38%

84 Plainfield 11,185 1,613 9,573 14% 5,011 1,036 3,975 21% 42% 2,861 338 2,523 12% 26% 3,313 238 3,075 7% 32%

85 Montgomery County 4,014 0 4,014 0% 1,723 0 1,723 0% 43% 971 0 971 0% 24% 1,320 0 1,320 0% 33%

86 Chicago: Auburn Gresham 9,840 502 9,338 5% 4,715 79 4,636 2% 50% 2,504 78 2,426 3% 26% 2,621 345 2,276 13% 24%

87 Iroquois County 4,095 119 3,976 3% 1,595 119 1,476 7% 37% 1,065 0 1,065 0% 27% 1,434 0 1,434 0% 36%

88 Evanston 9,918 795 9,122 8% 5,057 795 4,262 16% 47% 2,101 0 2,101 0% 23% 2,759 0 2,759 0% 30%

89 Wood Dale, Bensenville 10,452 1,442 9,010 14% 4,199 738 3,461 18% 38% 2,339 242 2,098 10% 23% 3,913 462 3,451 12% 38%

90 Clinton County 4,341 407 3,934 9% 2,003 276 1,727 14% 44% 1,016 131 885 13% 23% 1,322 0 1,322 0% 34%

91 Crystal Lake, Lakewood 10,479 1,473 9,006 14% 4,232 1,464 2,768 35% 31% 1,883 8 1,875 0% 21% 4,364 0 4,364 0% 48%

92 East Peoria, Pekin 9,176 174 9,002 2% 3,629 114 3,515 3% 39% 2,248 10 2,238 0% 25% 3,300 50 3,250 2% 36%

93 Randolph County 3,923 0 3,923 0% 1,743 0 1,743 0% 44% 883 0 883 0% 23% 1,297 0 1,297 0% 33%

94 South Holland, Calumet City 8,975 0 8,975 0% 3,622 0 3,622 0% 40% 2,244 0 2,244 0% 25% 3,109 0 3,109 0% 35%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

77

95 Coles County 3,899 0 3,899 0% 1,225 0 1,225 0% 31% 724 0 724 0% 19% 1,949 0 1,949 0% 50%

96 Woodstock, Hebron, Richmond, Spring, Grove 8,983 52 8,931 1% 3,693 43 3,650 1% 41% 2,246 9 2,237 0% 25% 3,044 0 3,044 0% 34%

97 Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn 8,854 0 8,854 0% 3,691 0 3,691 0% 42% 1,712 0 1,712 0% 19% 3,450 0 3,450 0% 39%

98 Saline County 3,477 0 3,477 0% 1,388 0 1,388 0% 40% 903 0 903 0% 26% 1,185 0 1,185 0% 34%

99 Aurora/Naperville 21,991 13,218 8,772 60% 9,399 6,354 3,045 68% 35% 5,501 2,378 3,123 43% 36% 7,091 4,487 2,604 63% 30%

100 McDonough County 3,354 0 3,354 0% 1,546 0 1,546 0% 46% 818 0 818 0% 24% 989 0 989 0% 29%

101 Chicago: Dunning 9,156 418 8,738 5% 4,728 76 4,652 2% 53% 2,270 70 2,200 3% 25% 2,158 272 1,886 13% 22%

102 Chicago: Humboldt Park 9,074 429 8,645 5% 4,934 79 4,856 2% 56% 2,350 67 2,282 3% 26% 1,790 283 1,507 16% 17%

103 Logan County 3,120 37 3,084 1% 1,287 37 1,250 3% 41% 685 0 685 0% 22% 1,149 0 1,149 0% 37%

104 Chicago: Loop, Near Southside, Armour Square 9,613 1,016 8,597 11% 5,459 755 4,704 14% 55% 2,046 49 1,997 2% 23% 2,108 212 1,896 10% 22%

105 North Lake, Melrose Park 8,798 214 8,583 2% 4,330 0 4,330 0% 50% 2,034 0 2,034 0% 24% 2,434 214 2,220 9% 26%

106 Shelby County 2,907 0 2,907 0% 1,206 0 1,206 0% 41% 706 0 706 0% 24% 995 0 995 0% 34%

107 Joliet 8,756 203 8,553 2% 4,605 163 4,442 4% 52% 1,961 40 1,921 2% 22% 2,190 0 2,190 0% 26%

108 Fayette County 2,902 0 2,902 0% 1,200 0 1,200 0% 41% 731 0 731 0% 25% 970 0 970 0% 33%

109 Yorkville, Plano, Millbrook, Newark 8,744 194 8,550 2% 3,917 159 3,757 4% 44% 2,135 35 2,101 2% 25% 2,692 0 2,692 0% 31%

110 Shorewood 8,600 124 8,476 1% 3,633 78 3,555 2% 42% 2,242 46 2,196 2% 26% 2,725 0 2,725 0% 32%

111 Jersey County 2,857 0 2,857 0% 1,036 0 1,036 0% 36% 692 0 692 0% 24% 1,129 0 1,129 0% 40%

112 Fairview heights, O'Fallon 8,677 314 8,363 4% 3,732 314 3,417 8% 41% 1,950 0 1,950 0% 23% 2,995 0 2,995 0% 36%

113 Jo Daviess County 2,915 204 2,711 7% 1,278 0 1,278 0% 47% 681 0 681 0% 25% 956 204 752 21% 28%

114 Chicago: Portage Park 8,731 419 8,312 5% 4,419 79 4,340 2% 52% 1,962 67 1,894 3% 23% 2,351 273 2,078 12% 25%

115 Lincolnwood 8,960 659 8,301 7% 3,171 448 2,723 14% 33% 2,116 210 1,905 10% 23% 3,673 0 3,673 0% 44%

116 Perry County 2,662 0 2,662 0% 1,208 0 1,208 0% 45% 622 0 622 0% 23% 831 0 831 0% 31%

117 Alsip, Crestwood, Oak Forest 8,717 447 8,271 5% 3,247 445 2,802 14% 34% 1,928 2 1,926 0% 23% 3,542 0 3,542 0% 43%

118 Glendale Heights 10,380 2,112 8,268 20% 4,581 716 3,865 16% 47% 2,426 1,396 1,030 58% 12% 3,373 0 3,373 0% 41%

119 Wayne County 2,546 0 2,546 0% 1,211 0 1,211 0% 48% 578 0 578 0% 23% 756 0 756 0% 30%

120 Hickory Hills, Palos Park, Palos Heights 9,911 1,676 8,234 17% 4,355 1,074 3,282 25% 40% 2,344 593 1,750 25% 21% 3,211 9 3,202 0% 39%

121 Union County 2,427 0 2,427 0% 1,042 0 1,042 0% 43% 647 0 647 0% 27% 738 0 738 0% 30%

122 Chicago: Garfield Ridge, Clearing 8,492 325 8,167 4% 3,904 58 3,845 1% 47% 2,017 55 1,962 3% 24% 2,571 212 2,359 8% 29%

123 Old Mill Creek, Zion, Winthrop Harbor 8,136 0 8,136 0% 3,192 0 3,192 0% 39% 1,903 0 1,903 0% 23% 3,041 0 3,041 0% 37%

124 Mercer County 2,383 0 2,383 0% 1,062 0 1,062 0% 45% 585 0 585 0% 25% 736 0 736 0% 31%

125 Ford Heights, Chicago Heights 8,127 0 8,127 0% 3,394 0 3,394 0% 42% 1,883 0 1,883 0% 23% 2,850 0 2,850 0% 35%

Mod

erat

e-N

eed

Are

as

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

78

95 Coles County 3,899 0 3,899 0% 1,225 0 1,225 0% 31% 724 0 724 0% 19% 1,949 0 1,949 0% 50%

96 Woodstock, Hebron, Richmond, Spring, Grove 8,983 52 8,931 1% 3,693 43 3,650 1% 41% 2,246 9 2,237 0% 25% 3,044 0 3,044 0% 34%

97 Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn 8,854 0 8,854 0% 3,691 0 3,691 0% 42% 1,712 0 1,712 0% 19% 3,450 0 3,450 0% 39%

98 Saline County 3,477 0 3,477 0% 1,388 0 1,388 0% 40% 903 0 903 0% 26% 1,185 0 1,185 0% 34%

99 Aurora/Naperville 21,991 13,218 8,772 60% 9,399 6,354 3,045 68% 35% 5,501 2,378 3,123 43% 36% 7,091 4,487 2,604 63% 30%

100 McDonough County 3,354 0 3,354 0% 1,546 0 1,546 0% 46% 818 0 818 0% 24% 989 0 989 0% 29%

101 Chicago: Dunning 9,156 418 8,738 5% 4,728 76 4,652 2% 53% 2,270 70 2,200 3% 25% 2,158 272 1,886 13% 22%

102 Chicago: Humboldt Park 9,074 429 8,645 5% 4,934 79 4,856 2% 56% 2,350 67 2,282 3% 26% 1,790 283 1,507 16% 17%

103 Logan County 3,120 37 3,084 1% 1,287 37 1,250 3% 41% 685 0 685 0% 22% 1,149 0 1,149 0% 37%

104 Chicago: Loop, Near Southside, Armour Square 9,613 1,016 8,597 11% 5,459 755 4,704 14% 55% 2,046 49 1,997 2% 23% 2,108 212 1,896 10% 22%

105 North Lake, Melrose Park 8,798 214 8,583 2% 4,330 0 4,330 0% 50% 2,034 0 2,034 0% 24% 2,434 214 2,220 9% 26%

106 Shelby County 2,907 0 2,907 0% 1,206 0 1,206 0% 41% 706 0 706 0% 24% 995 0 995 0% 34%

107 Joliet 8,756 203 8,553 2% 4,605 163 4,442 4% 52% 1,961 40 1,921 2% 22% 2,190 0 2,190 0% 26%

108 Fayette County 2,902 0 2,902 0% 1,200 0 1,200 0% 41% 731 0 731 0% 25% 970 0 970 0% 33%

109 Yorkville, Plano, Millbrook, Newark 8,744 194 8,550 2% 3,917 159 3,757 4% 44% 2,135 35 2,101 2% 25% 2,692 0 2,692 0% 31%

110 Shorewood 8,600 124 8,476 1% 3,633 78 3,555 2% 42% 2,242 46 2,196 2% 26% 2,725 0 2,725 0% 32%

111 Jersey County 2,857 0 2,857 0% 1,036 0 1,036 0% 36% 692 0 692 0% 24% 1,129 0 1,129 0% 40%

112 Fairview heights, O'Fallon 8,677 314 8,363 4% 3,732 314 3,417 8% 41% 1,950 0 1,950 0% 23% 2,995 0 2,995 0% 36%

113 Jo Daviess County 2,915 204 2,711 7% 1,278 0 1,278 0% 47% 681 0 681 0% 25% 956 204 752 21% 28%

114 Chicago: Portage Park 8,731 419 8,312 5% 4,419 79 4,340 2% 52% 1,962 67 1,894 3% 23% 2,351 273 2,078 12% 25%

115 Lincolnwood 8,960 659 8,301 7% 3,171 448 2,723 14% 33% 2,116 210 1,905 10% 23% 3,673 0 3,673 0% 44%

116 Perry County 2,662 0 2,662 0% 1,208 0 1,208 0% 45% 622 0 622 0% 23% 831 0 831 0% 31%

117 Alsip, Crestwood, Oak Forest 8,717 447 8,271 5% 3,247 445 2,802 14% 34% 1,928 2 1,926 0% 23% 3,542 0 3,542 0% 43%

118 Glendale Heights 10,380 2,112 8,268 20% 4,581 716 3,865 16% 47% 2,426 1,396 1,030 58% 12% 3,373 0 3,373 0% 41%

119 Wayne County 2,546 0 2,546 0% 1,211 0 1,211 0% 48% 578 0 578 0% 23% 756 0 756 0% 30%

120 Hickory Hills, Palos Park, Palos Heights 9,911 1,676 8,234 17% 4,355 1,074 3,282 25% 40% 2,344 593 1,750 25% 21% 3,211 9 3,202 0% 39%

121 Union County 2,427 0 2,427 0% 1,042 0 1,042 0% 43% 647 0 647 0% 27% 738 0 738 0% 30%

122 Chicago: Garfield Ridge, Clearing 8,492 325 8,167 4% 3,904 58 3,845 1% 47% 2,017 55 1,962 3% 24% 2,571 212 2,359 8% 29%

123 Old Mill Creek, Zion, Winthrop Harbor 8,136 0 8,136 0% 3,192 0 3,192 0% 39% 1,903 0 1,903 0% 23% 3,041 0 3,041 0% 37%

124 Mercer County 2,383 0 2,383 0% 1,062 0 1,062 0% 45% 585 0 585 0% 25% 736 0 736 0% 31%

125 Ford Heights, Chicago Heights 8,127 0 8,127 0% 3,394 0 3,394 0% 42% 1,883 0 1,883 0% 23% 2,850 0 2,850 0% 35%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

79

126 Hancock County 2,364 0 2,364 0% 1,065 0 1,065 0% 45% 528 0 528 0% 22% 770 0 770 0% 33%

127 Tinley Park 8,009 26 7,982 0% 2,795 26 2,768 1% 35% 1,838 0 1,838 0% 23% 3,376 0 3,376 0% 42%

128 Waucanda, Mundelein, Island Lake 8,312 560 7,752 7% 3,319 338 2,982 10% 38% 2,190 0 2,190 0% 28% 2,802 222 2,580 8% 33%

129 Bond County 2,351 2 2,348 0% 1,106 1 1,104 0% 47% 523 1 522 0% 22% 722 0 722 0% 31%

130 Orland Park 8,172 541 7,631 7% 2,675 479 2,196 18% 29% 2,032 62 1,970 3% 26% 3,465 0 3,465 0% 45%

131 Chicago: Kenwood, Grand Boulevard, Hyde Park 7,938 351 7,587 4% 3,366 60 3,305 2% 44% 1,620 57 1,563 4% 21% 2,952 234 2,718 8% 36%

132 Douglas County 2,337 0 2,337 0% 1,037 0 1,037 0% 44% 512 0 512 0% 22% 788 0 788 0% 34%

133 Dolton, Riverdale 7,484 58 7,425 1% 3,273 8 3,265 0% 44% 1,906 10 1,896 1% 26% 2,304 40 2,264 2% 30%

134 Crawford County 2,300 0 2,300 0% 832 0 832 0% 36% 600 0 600 0% 26% 869 0 869 0% 38%

135 Harvard, Marengo, Huntley 8,172 833 7,339 10% 3,073 409 2,664 13% 36% 2,189 424 1,765 19% 24% 2,910 0 2,910 0% 40%

136 Franklin Park 7,292 3 7,289 0% 3,116 1 3,115 0% 43% 1,588 1 1,588 0% 22% 2,588 1 2,587 0% 35%

137 Warren County 2,297 0 2,297 0% 878 0 878 0% 38% 580 0 580 0% 25% 840 0 840 0% 37%

138 Chicago: Chatham, Greater Grand Crossing 7,671 391 7,280 5% 3,772 62 3,710 2% 51% 1,894 62 1,832 3% 25% 2,005 267 1,738 13% 24%

139 Massac County 2,454 195 2,259 8% 1,195 166 1,028 14% 46% 569 29 541 5% 24% 690 0 690 0% 31%

140 East St. Louis, Brooklyn, Fairmont City 7,125 0 7,125 0% 3,295 0 3,295 0% 46% 1,712 0 1,712 0% 24% 2,117 0 2,117 0% 30%

141 Chicago: Beverly, Morgan Park, Washington Heights 7,376 337 7,039 5% 3,280 51 3,229 2% 46% 1,799 54 1,745 3% 25% 2,296 232 2,065 10% 29%

142 Cass County 2,235 0 2,235 0% 1,029 0 1,029 0% 46% 527 0 527 0% 24% 679 0 679 0% 30%

143 Chicago: Edgewater, Uptown 7,288 309 6,979 4% 3,789 64 3,725 2% 53% 1,720 48 1,671 3% 24% 1,779 196 1,583 11% 23%

144 Crest Hill, Fairmont 6,890 22 6,869 0% 3,061 13 3,048 0% 44% 1,677 9 1,668 1% 24% 2,152 0 2,152 0% 31%

145 Richland County 2,225 0 2,225 0% 1,003 0 1,003 0% 45% 508 0 508 0% 23% 715 0 715 0% 32%

146 Chicago: Forest Glen, North Park 8,650 1,816 6,833 21% 4,085 1,060 3,025 26% 44% 2,101 495 1,606 24% 23% 2,464 261 2,203 11% 32%

147 Edgar County 2,202 0 2,202 0% 714 0 714 0% 32% 650 0 650 0% 29% 838 0 838 0% 38%

148 Chicago: West Englewood 7,172 344 6,828 5% 3,415 57 3,357 2% 49% 1,705 55 1,650 3% 24% 2,052 232 1,820 11% 27%

149 Romeoville 6,916 130 6,786 2% 3,061 65 2,996 2% 44% 1,667 65 1,602 4% 24% 2,188 0 2,188 0% 32%

150 De Witt County 2,137 10 2,126 0% 795 10 784 1% 37% 620 0 620 0% 29% 722 0 722 0% 34%

151 Chicago: Woodlawn, Washington Park 7,102 318 6,784 4% 3,339 54 3,285 2% 48% 1,617 50 1,567 3% 23% 2,146 214 1,931 10% 28%

152 Clark County 2,089 0 2,089 0% 769 0 769 0% 37% 575 0 575 0% 28% 745 0 745 0% 36%

153 Morton, Washington, Hopedale, Heritage Lake 9,895 3,168 6,727 32% 4,616 2,070 2,546 45% 38% 2,278 184 2,095 8% 31% 3,001 914 2,087 30% 31%

154 Chicago: Jefferson Park 6,963 340 6,624 5% 3,322 70 3,251 2% 49% 1,621 58 1,563 4% 24% 2,021 211 1,809 10% 27%

155 Mason County 2,083 0 2,083 0% 898 0 898 0% 43% 486 0 486 0% 23% 699 0 699 0% 34%

156 Chicago: Garfield Park 6,870 317 6,553 5% 3,501 53 3,449 1% 53% 1,716 49 1,666 3% 25% 1,653 215 1,438 13% 22%

Low

-Mid

-Nee

d A

reas

Mod

erat

e-N

eed

Are

as

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

80

126 Hancock County 2,364 0 2,364 0% 1,065 0 1,065 0% 45% 528 0 528 0% 22% 770 0 770 0% 33%

127 Tinley Park 8,009 26 7,982 0% 2,795 26 2,768 1% 35% 1,838 0 1,838 0% 23% 3,376 0 3,376 0% 42%

128 Waucanda, Mundelein, Island Lake 8,312 560 7,752 7% 3,319 338 2,982 10% 38% 2,190 0 2,190 0% 28% 2,802 222 2,580 8% 33%

129 Bond County 2,351 2 2,348 0% 1,106 1 1,104 0% 47% 523 1 522 0% 22% 722 0 722 0% 31%

130 Orland Park 8,172 541 7,631 7% 2,675 479 2,196 18% 29% 2,032 62 1,970 3% 26% 3,465 0 3,465 0% 45%

131 Chicago: Kenwood, Grand Boulevard, Hyde Park 7,938 351 7,587 4% 3,366 60 3,305 2% 44% 1,620 57 1,563 4% 21% 2,952 234 2,718 8% 36%

132 Douglas County 2,337 0 2,337 0% 1,037 0 1,037 0% 44% 512 0 512 0% 22% 788 0 788 0% 34%

133 Dolton, Riverdale 7,484 58 7,425 1% 3,273 8 3,265 0% 44% 1,906 10 1,896 1% 26% 2,304 40 2,264 2% 30%

134 Crawford County 2,300 0 2,300 0% 832 0 832 0% 36% 600 0 600 0% 26% 869 0 869 0% 38%

135 Harvard, Marengo, Huntley 8,172 833 7,339 10% 3,073 409 2,664 13% 36% 2,189 424 1,765 19% 24% 2,910 0 2,910 0% 40%

136 Franklin Park 7,292 3 7,289 0% 3,116 1 3,115 0% 43% 1,588 1 1,588 0% 22% 2,588 1 2,587 0% 35%

137 Warren County 2,297 0 2,297 0% 878 0 878 0% 38% 580 0 580 0% 25% 840 0 840 0% 37%

138 Chicago: Chatham, Greater Grand Crossing 7,671 391 7,280 5% 3,772 62 3,710 2% 51% 1,894 62 1,832 3% 25% 2,005 267 1,738 13% 24%

139 Massac County 2,454 195 2,259 8% 1,195 166 1,028 14% 46% 569 29 541 5% 24% 690 0 690 0% 31%

140 East St. Louis, Brooklyn, Fairmont City 7,125 0 7,125 0% 3,295 0 3,295 0% 46% 1,712 0 1,712 0% 24% 2,117 0 2,117 0% 30%

141 Chicago: Beverly, Morgan Park, Washington Heights 7,376 337 7,039 5% 3,280 51 3,229 2% 46% 1,799 54 1,745 3% 25% 2,296 232 2,065 10% 29%

142 Cass County 2,235 0 2,235 0% 1,029 0 1,029 0% 46% 527 0 527 0% 24% 679 0 679 0% 30%

143 Chicago: Edgewater, Uptown 7,288 309 6,979 4% 3,789 64 3,725 2% 53% 1,720 48 1,671 3% 24% 1,779 196 1,583 11% 23%

144 Crest Hill, Fairmont 6,890 22 6,869 0% 3,061 13 3,048 0% 44% 1,677 9 1,668 1% 24% 2,152 0 2,152 0% 31%

145 Richland County 2,225 0 2,225 0% 1,003 0 1,003 0% 45% 508 0 508 0% 23% 715 0 715 0% 32%

146 Chicago: Forest Glen, North Park 8,650 1,816 6,833 21% 4,085 1,060 3,025 26% 44% 2,101 495 1,606 24% 23% 2,464 261 2,203 11% 32%

147 Edgar County 2,202 0 2,202 0% 714 0 714 0% 32% 650 0 650 0% 29% 838 0 838 0% 38%

148 Chicago: West Englewood 7,172 344 6,828 5% 3,415 57 3,357 2% 49% 1,705 55 1,650 3% 24% 2,052 232 1,820 11% 27%

149 Romeoville 6,916 130 6,786 2% 3,061 65 2,996 2% 44% 1,667 65 1,602 4% 24% 2,188 0 2,188 0% 32%

150 De Witt County 2,137 10 2,126 0% 795 10 784 1% 37% 620 0 620 0% 29% 722 0 722 0% 34%

151 Chicago: Woodlawn, Washington Park 7,102 318 6,784 4% 3,339 54 3,285 2% 48% 1,617 50 1,567 3% 23% 2,146 214 1,931 10% 28%

152 Clark County 2,089 0 2,089 0% 769 0 769 0% 37% 575 0 575 0% 28% 745 0 745 0% 36%

153 Morton, Washington, Hopedale, Heritage Lake 9,895 3,168 6,727 32% 4,616 2,070 2,546 45% 38% 2,278 184 2,095 8% 31% 3,001 914 2,087 30% 31%

154 Chicago: Jefferson Park 6,963 340 6,624 5% 3,322 70 3,251 2% 49% 1,621 58 1,563 4% 24% 2,021 211 1,809 10% 27%

155 Mason County 2,083 0 2,083 0% 898 0 898 0% 43% 486 0 486 0% 23% 699 0 699 0% 34%

156 Chicago: Garfield Park 6,870 317 6,553 5% 3,501 53 3,449 1% 53% 1,716 49 1,666 3% 25% 1,653 215 1,438 13% 22%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

81

157 Des Plaines 6,666 168 6,499 3% 3,025 44 2,981 1% 46% 1,456 0 1,456 0% 22% 2,185 124 2,062 6% 32%

158 Lawrence County 2,078 0 2,078 0% 985 0 985 0% 47% 480 0 480 0% 23% 613 0 613 0% 29%

159 Lyons, Riverside, Brookfield 7,324 828 6,496 11% 3,346 690 2,656 21% 41% 1,771 122 1,649 7% 25% 2,207 15 2,191 1% 34%

160 Piatt County 2,066 0 2,066 0% 772 0 772 0% 37% 547 0 547 0% 26% 746 0 746 0% 36%

161 Beecher, Peotone, Manhattan, Lakewood Shores 6,356 0 6,356 0% 2,332 0 2,332 0% 37% 1,695 0 1,695 0% 27% 2,329 0 2,329 0% 37%

162 Chicago: Englewood 6,642 291 6,351 4% 3,369 48 3,321 1% 52% 1,688 46 1,642 3% 26% 1,585 197 1,388 12% 22%

163 Pike County 2,011 0 2,011 0% 807 0 807 0% 40% 564 0 564 0% 28% 639 0 639 0% 32%

164 Glen Carbon, Edwardsville, Holiday Shores 6,321 0 6,321 0% 1,877 0 1,877 0% 30% 1,862 0 1,862 0% 29% 2,582 0 2,582 0% 41%

165 Clay County 2,002 0 2,002 0% 959 0 959 0% 48% 456 0 456 0% 23% 588 0 588 0% 29%

166 Oak Park 8,266 1,952 6,313 24% 3,867 1,951 1,916 50% 30% 1,840 1 1,839 0% 29% 2,558 0 2,558 0% 41%

167 Chicago: Austin 6,609 345 6,264 5% 3,518 60 3,458 2% 55% 1,647 53 1,593 3% 25% 1,443 231 1,212 16% 19%

168 Ford County 1,974 0 1,974 0% 736 0 736 0% 37% 546 0 546 0% 28% 691 0 691 0% 35%

169 Geneva, Batavia 10,615 4,402 6,214 41% 4,045 1,215 2,830 30% 46% 2,784 1,328 1,456 48% 23% 3,787 1,859 1,928 49% 31%

170 Lemont, Homer Glen 7,438 1,298 6,139 17% 2,776 0 2,776 0% 45% 1,889 0 1,889 0% 31% 2,773 1,298 1,474 47% 24%

171 Carroll County 2,010 107 1,903 5% 872 107 764 12% 40% 478 0 478 0% 25% 661 0 661 0% 35%

172 Mokena, New Lenox 6,173 41 6,132 1% 2,431 41 2,390 2% 39% 1,587 0 1,587 0% 26% 2,155 0 2,155 0% 35%

173 Greene County 1,867 0 1,867 0% 834 0 834 0% 45% 415 0 415 0% 22% 618 0 618 0% 33%

174 Rosemont, Park Ridge, O'Hare 6,160 68 6,093 1% 1,852 0 1,851 0% 30% 982 0 982 0% 16% 3,327 67 3,259 2% 53%

175 Addison 6,090 44 6,046 1% 2,736 33 2,703 1% 45% 1,400 11 1,389 1% 23% 1,954 0 1,954 0% 32%

176 White County 1,815 0 1,815 0% 765 0 765 0% 42% 445 0 445 0% 25% 605 0 605 0% 33%

177 Wheeling 7,401 1,387 6,014 19% 3,400 547 2,852 16% 47% 1,646 0 1,646 0% 27% 2,355 839 1,516 36% 25%

178 Johnson County 1,672 0 1,672 0% 775 0 775 0% 46% 385 0 385 0% 23% 512 0 512 0% 31%

179 West Chicago 6,971 1,063 5,908 15% 3,451 611 2,839 18% 48% 1,619 371 1,249 23% 21% 1,901 81 1,820 4% 31%

180 Chicago: Ashburn 6,216 312 5,904 5% 3,050 50 3,000 2% 51% 1,694 53 1,641 3% 28% 1,472 209 1,263 14% 21%

181 Moultrie County 1,625 0 1,625 0% 908 0 908 0% 56% 190 0 190 0% 12% 528 0 528 0% 32%

182 Naperville 22,004 16,214 5,791 74% 9,208 6,021 3,187 65% 55% 5,302 3,561 1,741 67% 30% 7,495 6,632 863 88% 15%

183 St. Charles, Campton Hills 10,296 4,543 5,753 44% 3,820 2,627 1,193 69% 21% 2,654 1,914 740 72% 13% 3,822 2 3,820 0% 66%

184 Marshall County 1,584 0 1,584 0% 741 0 741 0% 47% 380 0 380 0% 24% 463 0 463 0% 29%

185 Markham, Hazel Crest, Country Club Hills 5,581 0 5,581 0% 2,501 0 2,501 0% 45% 891 0 891 0% 16% 2,189 0 2,189 0% 39%

186 Cumberland County 1,504 0 1,504 0% 754 0 754 0% 50% 183 0 183 0% 12% 567 0 567 0% 38%

187 Bloomingdale 5,934 381 5,553 6% 2,014 249 1,765 12% 32% 1,417 76 1,342 5% 24% 2,503 57 2,446 2% 44%

188 Chicago: West Ridge 5,838 299 5,539 5% 2,832 58 2,774 2% 50% 1,364 50 1,313 4% 24% 1,642 191 1,452 12% 26%

Low

-Mid

-Nee

d A

reas

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

82

157 Des Plaines 6,666 168 6,499 3% 3,025 44 2,981 1% 46% 1,456 0 1,456 0% 22% 2,185 124 2,062 6% 32%

158 Lawrence County 2,078 0 2,078 0% 985 0 985 0% 47% 480 0 480 0% 23% 613 0 613 0% 29%

159 Lyons, Riverside, Brookfield 7,324 828 6,496 11% 3,346 690 2,656 21% 41% 1,771 122 1,649 7% 25% 2,207 15 2,191 1% 34%

160 Piatt County 2,066 0 2,066 0% 772 0 772 0% 37% 547 0 547 0% 26% 746 0 746 0% 36%

161 Beecher, Peotone, Manhattan, Lakewood Shores 6,356 0 6,356 0% 2,332 0 2,332 0% 37% 1,695 0 1,695 0% 27% 2,329 0 2,329 0% 37%

162 Chicago: Englewood 6,642 291 6,351 4% 3,369 48 3,321 1% 52% 1,688 46 1,642 3% 26% 1,585 197 1,388 12% 22%

163 Pike County 2,011 0 2,011 0% 807 0 807 0% 40% 564 0 564 0% 28% 639 0 639 0% 32%

164 Glen Carbon, Edwardsville, Holiday Shores 6,321 0 6,321 0% 1,877 0 1,877 0% 30% 1,862 0 1,862 0% 29% 2,582 0 2,582 0% 41%

165 Clay County 2,002 0 2,002 0% 959 0 959 0% 48% 456 0 456 0% 23% 588 0 588 0% 29%

166 Oak Park 8,266 1,952 6,313 24% 3,867 1,951 1,916 50% 30% 1,840 1 1,839 0% 29% 2,558 0 2,558 0% 41%

167 Chicago: Austin 6,609 345 6,264 5% 3,518 60 3,458 2% 55% 1,647 53 1,593 3% 25% 1,443 231 1,212 16% 19%

168 Ford County 1,974 0 1,974 0% 736 0 736 0% 37% 546 0 546 0% 28% 691 0 691 0% 35%

169 Geneva, Batavia 10,615 4,402 6,214 41% 4,045 1,215 2,830 30% 46% 2,784 1,328 1,456 48% 23% 3,787 1,859 1,928 49% 31%

170 Lemont, Homer Glen 7,438 1,298 6,139 17% 2,776 0 2,776 0% 45% 1,889 0 1,889 0% 31% 2,773 1,298 1,474 47% 24%

171 Carroll County 2,010 107 1,903 5% 872 107 764 12% 40% 478 0 478 0% 25% 661 0 661 0% 35%

172 Mokena, New Lenox 6,173 41 6,132 1% 2,431 41 2,390 2% 39% 1,587 0 1,587 0% 26% 2,155 0 2,155 0% 35%

173 Greene County 1,867 0 1,867 0% 834 0 834 0% 45% 415 0 415 0% 22% 618 0 618 0% 33%

174 Rosemont, Park Ridge, O'Hare 6,160 68 6,093 1% 1,852 0 1,851 0% 30% 982 0 982 0% 16% 3,327 67 3,259 2% 53%

175 Addison 6,090 44 6,046 1% 2,736 33 2,703 1% 45% 1,400 11 1,389 1% 23% 1,954 0 1,954 0% 32%

176 White County 1,815 0 1,815 0% 765 0 765 0% 42% 445 0 445 0% 25% 605 0 605 0% 33%

177 Wheeling 7,401 1,387 6,014 19% 3,400 547 2,852 16% 47% 1,646 0 1,646 0% 27% 2,355 839 1,516 36% 25%

178 Johnson County 1,672 0 1,672 0% 775 0 775 0% 46% 385 0 385 0% 23% 512 0 512 0% 31%

179 West Chicago 6,971 1,063 5,908 15% 3,451 611 2,839 18% 48% 1,619 371 1,249 23% 21% 1,901 81 1,820 4% 31%

180 Chicago: Ashburn 6,216 312 5,904 5% 3,050 50 3,000 2% 51% 1,694 53 1,641 3% 28% 1,472 209 1,263 14% 21%

181 Moultrie County 1,625 0 1,625 0% 908 0 908 0% 56% 190 0 190 0% 12% 528 0 528 0% 32%

182 Naperville 22,004 16,214 5,791 74% 9,208 6,021 3,187 65% 55% 5,302 3,561 1,741 67% 30% 7,495 6,632 863 88% 15%

183 St. Charles, Campton Hills 10,296 4,543 5,753 44% 3,820 2,627 1,193 69% 21% 2,654 1,914 740 72% 13% 3,822 2 3,820 0% 66%

184 Marshall County 1,584 0 1,584 0% 741 0 741 0% 47% 380 0 380 0% 24% 463 0 463 0% 29%

185 Markham, Hazel Crest, Country Club Hills 5,581 0 5,581 0% 2,501 0 2,501 0% 45% 891 0 891 0% 16% 2,189 0 2,189 0% 39%

186 Cumberland County 1,504 0 1,504 0% 754 0 754 0% 50% 183 0 183 0% 12% 567 0 567 0% 38%

187 Bloomingdale 5,934 381 5,553 6% 2,014 249 1,765 12% 32% 1,417 76 1,342 5% 24% 2,503 57 2,446 2% 44%

188 Chicago: West Ridge 5,838 299 5,539 5% 2,832 58 2,774 2% 50% 1,364 50 1,313 4% 24% 1,642 191 1,452 12% 26%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

83

189 Washington County 1,486 0 1,486 0% 554 0 554 0% 37% 275 0 275 0% 18% 657 0 657 0% 44%

190 Elmwood Park, River Grove 5,630 121 5,509 2% 2,424 22 2,402 1% 44% 1,295 19 1,276 1% 23% 1,911 79 1,831 4% 33%

191 Menard County 1,442 0 1,442 0% 516 0 516 0% 36% 382 0 382 0% 27% 543 0 543 0% 38%

192 Godfrey, Alton 5,272 0 5,272 0% 1,902 0 1,902 0% 36% 1,375 0 1,375 0% 26% 1,995 0 1,995 0% 38%

193 Mount Prospect 7,612 2,355 5,257 31% 3,117 1,368 1,749 44% 33% 1,868 53 1,814 3% 35% 2,627 934 1,694 36% 32%

194 Wabash County 1,346 0 1,346 0% 432 0 432 0% 32% 381 0 381 0% 28% 532 0 532 0% 40%

195 Chicago: South Shore 5,489 247 5,242 5% 2,460 43 2,416 2% 46% 1,180 39 1,141 3% 22% 1,849 164 1,684 9% 32%

196 Niles 5,712 512 5,200 9% 2,290 318 1,972 14% 38% 1,292 193 1,099 15% 21% 2,130 1 2,129 0% 41%

197 Hamilton County 1,312 0 1,312 0% 604 0 604 0% 46% 333 0 333 0% 25% 376 0 376 0% 29%

198 Rolling Meadows 8,069 3,105 4,964 38% 3,788 1,460 2,328 39% 47% 1,840 811 1,029 44% 21% 2,441 834 1,607 34% 32%

199 Jasper County 1,136 0 1,136 0% 537 0 537 0% 47% 124 0 124 0% 11% 474 0 474 0% 42%

200 Chicago: Norwood Park, Edison Park 6,040 1,168 4,872 19% 3,028 648 2,380 21% 49% 1,335 342 993 26% 20% 1,676 177 1,499 11% 31%

201 Prestbury, Kaneville, Elburn, Virgil 5,217 570 4,647 11% 2,374 237 2,137 10% 46% 1,271 239 1,032 19% 22% 1,573 94 1,478 6% 32%

202 Henderson County 1,011 0 1,011 0% 418 0 418 0% 41% 235 0 235 0% 23% 358 0 358 0% 35%

203 Forest Park, Maywood, River Forest 6,167 1,550 4,617 25% 2,816 868 1,948 31% 42% 1,428 460 968 32% 21% 1,922 222 1,701 12% 37%

204 Edwards County 999 0 999 0% 468 0 468 0% 47% 242 0 242 0% 24% 289 0 289 0% 29%

205 Hodgkins, La Grange, Western Springs 8,213 4,041 4,172 49% 3,435 2,604 831 76% 20% 1,925 1,429 496 74% 12% 2,854 9 2,845 0% 68%

206 Forest Lake, Kideer, Hawthorn Woods 8,031 3,865 4,166 48% 3,085 1,704 1,381 55% 33% 1,976 768 1,208 39% 29% 2,971 1,393 1,577 47% 38%

207 Alexander County 959 0 959 0% 548 0 548 0% 57% 140 0 140 0% 15% 271 0 271 0% 28%

208 Hillside 4,259 211 4,047 5% 2,031 0 2,031 0% 50% 1,027 0 1,027 0% 25% 1,200 211 989 18% 24%

209 Burr Ridge, Willowbrook, Darien 6,835 2,862 3,973 42% 2,435 1,079 1,356 44% 34% 1,702 602 1,100 35% 28% 2,698 1,182 1,517 44% 38%

210 Schuyler County 927 0 927 0% 326 0 326 0% 35% 256 0 256 0% 28% 345 0 345 0% 37%

211 Chicago: Rogers Park 4,101 226 3,874 6% 2,200 46 2,154 2% 56% 910 35 875 4% 23% 991 145 845 15% 22%

212 Pulaski County 875 0 875 0% 427 0 427 0% 49% 202 0 202 0% 23% 246 0 246 0% 28%

213 Elmhurst 7,834 4,218 3,615 54% 3,406 2,931 475 86% 13% 1,863 1,286 577 69% 16% 2,564 2 2,563 0% 71%

214 Westmont 8,377 5,052 3,325 60% 3,192 2,288 904 72% 27% 2,128 1,337 791 63% 24% 3,057 1,427 1,630 47% 49%

215 Scott County 836 0 836 0% 375 0 375 0% 45% 191 0 191 0% 23% 270 0 270 0% 32%

216 Arlington Heights 7,554 4,235 3,319 56% 3,208 2,212 996 69% 30% 1,735 1,117 618 64% 19% 2,610 905 1,705 35% 51%

217 Gallatin County 703 0 703 0% 355 0 355 0% 51% 157 0 157 0% 22% 190 0 190 0% 27%

218 Westchester 4,126 833 3,293 20% 1,733 404 1,329 23% 40% 1,147 310 838 27% 25% 1,245 119 1,126 10% 34%

219 North Chicago, Lake Bluff 4,923 1,659 3,264 34% 2,471 696 1,775 28% 54% 1,146 418 728 36% 22% 1,306 545 761 42% 23%

220 Brown County 675 0 675 0% 322 0 322 0% 48% 145 0 145 0% 22% 207 0 207 0% 31%

Low

-Nee

d A

reas

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

84

189 Washington County 1,486 0 1,486 0% 554 0 554 0% 37% 275 0 275 0% 18% 657 0 657 0% 44%

190 Elmwood Park, River Grove 5,630 121 5,509 2% 2,424 22 2,402 1% 44% 1,295 19 1,276 1% 23% 1,911 79 1,831 4% 33%

191 Menard County 1,442 0 1,442 0% 516 0 516 0% 36% 382 0 382 0% 27% 543 0 543 0% 38%

192 Godfrey, Alton 5,272 0 5,272 0% 1,902 0 1,902 0% 36% 1,375 0 1,375 0% 26% 1,995 0 1,995 0% 38%

193 Mount Prospect 7,612 2,355 5,257 31% 3,117 1,368 1,749 44% 33% 1,868 53 1,814 3% 35% 2,627 934 1,694 36% 32%

194 Wabash County 1,346 0 1,346 0% 432 0 432 0% 32% 381 0 381 0% 28% 532 0 532 0% 40%

195 Chicago: South Shore 5,489 247 5,242 5% 2,460 43 2,416 2% 46% 1,180 39 1,141 3% 22% 1,849 164 1,684 9% 32%

196 Niles 5,712 512 5,200 9% 2,290 318 1,972 14% 38% 1,292 193 1,099 15% 21% 2,130 1 2,129 0% 41%

197 Hamilton County 1,312 0 1,312 0% 604 0 604 0% 46% 333 0 333 0% 25% 376 0 376 0% 29%

198 Rolling Meadows 8,069 3,105 4,964 38% 3,788 1,460 2,328 39% 47% 1,840 811 1,029 44% 21% 2,441 834 1,607 34% 32%

199 Jasper County 1,136 0 1,136 0% 537 0 537 0% 47% 124 0 124 0% 11% 474 0 474 0% 42%

200 Chicago: Norwood Park, Edison Park 6,040 1,168 4,872 19% 3,028 648 2,380 21% 49% 1,335 342 993 26% 20% 1,676 177 1,499 11% 31%

201 Prestbury, Kaneville, Elburn, Virgil 5,217 570 4,647 11% 2,374 237 2,137 10% 46% 1,271 239 1,032 19% 22% 1,573 94 1,478 6% 32%

202 Henderson County 1,011 0 1,011 0% 418 0 418 0% 41% 235 0 235 0% 23% 358 0 358 0% 35%

203 Forest Park, Maywood, River Forest 6,167 1,550 4,617 25% 2,816 868 1,948 31% 42% 1,428 460 968 32% 21% 1,922 222 1,701 12% 37%

204 Edwards County 999 0 999 0% 468 0 468 0% 47% 242 0 242 0% 24% 289 0 289 0% 29%

205 Hodgkins, La Grange, Western Springs 8,213 4,041 4,172 49% 3,435 2,604 831 76% 20% 1,925 1,429 496 74% 12% 2,854 9 2,845 0% 68%

206 Forest Lake, Kideer, Hawthorn Woods 8,031 3,865 4,166 48% 3,085 1,704 1,381 55% 33% 1,976 768 1,208 39% 29% 2,971 1,393 1,577 47% 38%

207 Alexander County 959 0 959 0% 548 0 548 0% 57% 140 0 140 0% 15% 271 0 271 0% 28%

208 Hillside 4,259 211 4,047 5% 2,031 0 2,031 0% 50% 1,027 0 1,027 0% 25% 1,200 211 989 18% 24%

209 Burr Ridge, Willowbrook, Darien 6,835 2,862 3,973 42% 2,435 1,079 1,356 44% 34% 1,702 602 1,100 35% 28% 2,698 1,182 1,517 44% 38%

210 Schuyler County 927 0 927 0% 326 0 326 0% 35% 256 0 256 0% 28% 345 0 345 0% 37%

211 Chicago: Rogers Park 4,101 226 3,874 6% 2,200 46 2,154 2% 56% 910 35 875 4% 23% 991 145 845 15% 22%

212 Pulaski County 875 0 875 0% 427 0 427 0% 49% 202 0 202 0% 23% 246 0 246 0% 28%

213 Elmhurst 7,834 4,218 3,615 54% 3,406 2,931 475 86% 13% 1,863 1,286 577 69% 16% 2,564 2 2,563 0% 71%

214 Westmont 8,377 5,052 3,325 60% 3,192 2,288 904 72% 27% 2,128 1,337 791 63% 24% 3,057 1,427 1,630 47% 49%

215 Scott County 836 0 836 0% 375 0 375 0% 45% 191 0 191 0% 23% 270 0 270 0% 32%

216 Arlington Heights 7,554 4,235 3,319 56% 3,208 2,212 996 69% 30% 1,735 1,117 618 64% 19% 2,610 905 1,705 35% 51%

217 Gallatin County 703 0 703 0% 355 0 355 0% 51% 157 0 157 0% 22% 190 0 190 0% 27%

218 Westchester 4,126 833 3,293 20% 1,733 404 1,329 23% 40% 1,147 310 838 27% 25% 1,245 119 1,126 10% 34%

219 North Chicago, Lake Bluff 4,923 1,659 3,264 34% 2,471 696 1,775 28% 54% 1,146 418 728 36% 22% 1,306 545 761 42% 23%

220 Brown County 675 0 675 0% 322 0 322 0% 48% 145 0 145 0% 22% 207 0 207 0% 31%

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

85

221 Libertyville 11,791 9,254 2,537 78% 4,700 3,540 1,160 75% 46% 2,967 1,820 1,147 61% 45% 4,124 3,895 229 94% 9%

222 Chicago: Mount Greenwood 3,427 1,028 2,399 30% 1,621 632 990 39% 41% 769 280 490 36% 20% 1,036 117 919 11% 38%

223 Calhoun County 672 0 672 0% 273 0 273 0% 41% 134 0 134 0% 20% 265 0 265 0% 39%

224 Chicago: Hegewisch, South Deering 2,237 73 2,164 3% 955 12 943 1% 44% 516 12 504 2% 23% 766 49 717 6% 33%

225 Putnam County 669 0 669 0% 206 0 206 0% 31% 224 0 224 0% 33% 239 0 239 0% 36%

226 Lake Forest, Highland Park 9,130 7,130 2,000 78% 3,384 2,204 1,180 65% 59% 2,344 1,490 854 64% 43% 3,402 3,436 -34 101% N/A

227 Glenview 7,498 5,699 1,799 76% 2,448 2,030 418 83% 23% 2,181 1,020 1,162 47% 65% 2,868 2,649 219 92% 12%

228 Hardin County 602 0 602 0% 283 0 283 0% 47% 147 0 147 0% 24% 173 0 173 0% 29%

229 Buffalo Grove, Riverwoods 10,815 9,394 1,421 87% 4,525 3,796 729 84% 51% 2,628 2,185 443 83% 31% 3,663 3,414 249 93% 18%

230 Stark County 570 0 570 0% 52 0 52 0% 9% 192 0 192 0% 34% 326 0 326 0% 57%

231 Northbrook 6,255 5,398 857 86% 2,445 1,934 511 79% 60% 1,578 1,297 281 82% 33% 2,232 2,167 65 97% 8%

232 Wilmette 5,600 5,617 -16 100% 2,612 2,679 -68 103% N/A 1,482 1,426 55 96% 100% 1,507 1,511 -4 100% N/A

233 Pope County 528 0 528 0% 236 0 236 0% 45% 131 0 131 0% 25% 161 0 161 0% 30%

234 Glencoe, Winnetka 4,984 5,068 -84 102% 2,083 2,106 -23 101% N/A 1,404 1,462 -57 104% N/A 1,496 1,500 -3 100% N/A

Low

-Nee

d A

reas

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

86

221 Libertyville 11,791 9,254 2,537 78% 4,700 3,540 1,160 75% 46% 2,967 1,820 1,147 61% 45% 4,124 3,895 229 94% 9%

222 Chicago: Mount Greenwood 3,427 1,028 2,399 30% 1,621 632 990 39% 41% 769 280 490 36% 20% 1,036 117 919 11% 38%

223 Calhoun County 672 0 672 0% 273 0 273 0% 41% 134 0 134 0% 20% 265 0 265 0% 39%

224 Chicago: Hegewisch, South Deering 2,237 73 2,164 3% 955 12 943 1% 44% 516 12 504 2% 23% 766 49 717 6% 33%

225 Putnam County 669 0 669 0% 206 0 206 0% 31% 224 0 224 0% 33% 239 0 239 0% 36%

226 Lake Forest, Highland Park 9,130 7,130 2,000 78% 3,384 2,204 1,180 65% 59% 2,344 1,490 854 64% 43% 3,402 3,436 -34 101% N/A

227 Glenview 7,498 5,699 1,799 76% 2,448 2,030 418 83% 23% 2,181 1,020 1,162 47% 65% 2,868 2,649 219 92% 12%

228 Hardin County 602 0 602 0% 283 0 283 0% 47% 147 0 147 0% 24% 173 0 173 0% 29%

229 Buffalo Grove, Riverwoods 10,815 9,394 1,421 87% 4,525 3,796 729 84% 51% 2,628 2,185 443 83% 31% 3,663 3,414 249 93% 18%

230 Stark County 570 0 570 0% 52 0 52 0% 9% 192 0 192 0% 34% 326 0 326 0% 57%

231 Northbrook 6,255 5,398 857 86% 2,445 1,934 511 79% 60% 1,578 1,297 281 82% 33% 2,232 2,167 65 97% 8%

232 Wilmette 5,600 5,617 -16 100% 2,612 2,679 -68 103% N/A 1,482 1,426 55 96% 100% 1,507 1,511 -4 100% N/A

233 Pope County 528 0 528 0% 236 0 236 0% 45% 131 0 131 0% 25% 161 0 161 0% 30%

234 Glencoe, Winnetka 4,984 5,068 -84 102% 2,083 2,106 -23 101% N/A 1,404 1,462 -57 104% N/A 1,496 1,500 -3 100% N/A

Rank Study Area



GapService Level


GapService Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

GapDemand Supply

Service Gap

Service Level

Percent of K-12

Gap

87

APPENDIX B: SCHOOL DISTRICTEXPENDITURE CATEGORIZATION SCHEME

333 South Wabash Avenue

Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60604

iff.org

PROMOTING EQUITY - IFFiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017ILSchoolStudy_RaisingQuali… ·...

Documents

Transcript of PROMOTING EQUITY - IFFiff.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017ILSchoolStudy_RaisingQuali… ·...