I plan to post another update on the ongoing Chicago teacher’s strike but I’m a bit rushed for time this morning. To tide you over I thought I’d post the very interesting graphic I stumbled across last night. There’s a widespread folk belief in Illinois that Chicago doesn’t pay its own freight. I think this graphic might illustrate the reality a little better.
I don’t have ready figures for how much the Chicago Public Schools receives from the state. As I’ve previously posted Illinois is dead last among the states in its percentage of funding for public education at 18%.
My view: Chicago pays the state plenty in taxes. Is the state treating Chicago fairly?
There’s a great irony in all of this. Right now Springfield is solidly in the hands of Chicago pols. If Chicago isn’t being treated fairly by Springfield, I wonder what the state legislature’s priorities actually are?
Assuming the far left column is population (color discrimination is not my strength), it look as though Chicago underpays some on sales and property tax. Does the strike affect only Chicago proper, or are Cook and the collar counties involved?
Steve
I interpret that a little differently. I think that Chicago property values are lower and that Chicago’s high sales tax rate (highest in the nation among big cities) has driven retail out of the city.
The strike only affects Chicago proper.
Something else I’ve intended to mention and never gotten around to. Chicagoans are in the peculiar position of paying for the retirements of both retired Chicago teachers and retired non-Chicago teachers. Chicago has its own distinct teachers’ retirement fund, funded out of the city budget, while the pension of teachers other than Chicago teachers are paid from the Illinois Teachers Retirement System. That’s funded by the state government.
Which means that not only do we pay for retired Chicago teachers but retired non-Chicago teachers as well (through our state taxes). We’re the only city in Illinois that has that distinction.
I generally think its best to divide Illinois into three roughly equal parts, the city, the suburbs, and downstate, but this chart gives me pause. I’ve never given much thought to where to place suburban Cook County, but if we are focused on the Chicago schools, then I would put them into the suburbs:
City: 21% of the population / 20% of the income
Suburbs 43% of the population / 50% of the income
Downstate 35% of the population / 29% of the income
This indicates personal income is proportionately high in the suburbs and low downstate and the city itself is representative of the middle. Two problems with this simple story:
a. The city and suburbs constitute a metropolitan area (that in some cases includes areas of WI & IN), which by definition means an area with contiguous high-population density and strong social and economic ties. The stereotypical office worker commutes to the city for his/her job, then returns home to the suburbs where he/she reports income, pays income and property taxes and sends his kids to school, while paying some sales tax to the City (though this can be avoided). They are not entirely severable.
b. Cost of living makes the income comparisons inexact. Springfield is usually listed as having one of the ten lowest costs-of-livings in the U.S. It’s probably not much different with other mid-size downstate cities. Purchasing power may need to be considered in the comparisons of personal income. OTOH, I think the cost-of-living in “the City” has been exaggerated over the last few days, its not Manhattan or San Francisco. Housing is too expensive.
Sure. People who work in the city and make higher incomes live (or move out to) the suburbs. For better schools, of course.
My Chicago neighborhood used to have lots of physicians, dentists, and lawyers living in it. They’re mostly gone now—moved to Northbrook or Warrenville.
On the sales tax, do we know whether or not that is just the state’s portion of the sales tax? If this is a chart, merely reflecting the state’s 6.25% sales tax, then I could easily see the 3.25% markup on the sales tax in Chicago depressing sales. If this chart shows the total of the entire sales tax collectied by the state, its very surprising to me; I’d also have to consider things like vendor compliance with the law.
“Is the state treating Chicago fairly?”
My understanding from somewhat informative sounding comments in places like Eric Zorn’s threads is that the state does contribute roughly half of the education budget of the Chicago schools, while only a percentage or two to wealthy suburban schools. Take that for what it is, but it didn’t strike me as laugh-out loud wrong. I believe the state education funding formula places importence on percentage of students in poverty. If the formula gave the same per capita distribution to Chicago as Northbrook, I’d be outraged.
FWIW, I strongly supported the property tax/ income tax swap from several years ago. My local representative did not vote his community’s interests, he followed the orders of the suburban leadership of the Republican Party.
Warrenville? Yikes.
But I understand the point. Wheaton, Naperville, Shaumburg and on it goes.
I pay $21K in property taxes for a house that cost $820 but is now worth only $700k. I know I’m supporting Aurora. It is what it is.
You’d have to tell me if you think it’s fair.
Roughly 80% of Chicago students qualify as impoverished for purposes of the federal lunch program. I think that’s pretty much what you’d suspect in the dynamics that obtain in Chicago. Anybody with money either moves out of town, sends their kids to a place like Chicago Latin, or to one of the archdiocesan or Jesuit schools.
If I’d had kids I’d probably have sent them to the local parochial school and then to Loyola.
Just think: if we privatized education, as we have food, gasoline and video games, we wouldn’t have to look at all these graphs and, better yet, wouldn’t have to support all the wanton breeding and the attempts to turn Chicago kids into silk purses with taxpayer dollars.
There are lots of us taxpayers out here who are non-breeders who do not care to support mis-education of kids in Chicago or elsewhere.
@Dave, I’m not familiar with the schools your mention, I spent the last hour with a very casual acquaintance, who complained about his ability to keep his single child in the Catholic school systems. He was raised on a farm and attended Catholic school throughout his life, I don’t know his job, but I know his neighborhood, which would be middle-class to upper middle-class. He couldn’t afford to send his child to the closest grade school, so he sent her to one with more modest tuition, but every year it goes up and every year she has fewer classmates. High school tuition should be around $9,000 a year and he cannot afford it, and will be moving some time in the next few years to the suburbs. I asked him about whether the High School had income-based tuition, and he said tuition supports/waivers are for football players. You can bring money and support with more state championships, and a brand new football stadium.
The situation of the Catholic school system in this town has in my impression changed dramatically in the last 20 years. Schools serving poorer or working class neighborhoods are closing or have very low attendance, kept alive by subsidies from other parts of the city. According to the NCEA, average tuition for Catholic high schools in the country is $8,182, and the per pupil cost: $10,228. According to the NAEP, the average per pupil cost for Illinois public schools is $11,120. I am not sure if I’m comparing apples to apples, but its close enough given that public schools tend to absorb most of the special needs children.
Bottom line: education is expensive. Many of the factors bedeviling the public school system exist for private schools: rising healthcare costs and lack of labor productivity. If this meandering comment sounds like its critical of the Church, its because of its historical commitment to educating the under-served, and I wonder whither the future.
@PD Shaw
The tuition at Catholic schools is just the entry fee. Grammar schools are less expensive than high schools, but they are not cheap. The Archdiocese does provide funds to the schools, but it depends upon the wealth of the system. Some of the schools also receive funds from their Order.
One problem is that most of the schools are run by laypeople, and the teachers need to be paid. I think the standards have also affected the qualifications for the teacher, and this increases the pay for teachers.
@TastyBits, thank you for the insight. I might be a bit naive in being raised in a suburb with one Catholic elementary school. Here, there are more schools, with more echos of historic ethnic groupings and neighborhood loyalties. I didn’t think that there would be significant tuition differences between schools in the same city diocese, or that the schools doing better would the ones charging the most. (Veblen goods?)
“The tuition at Catholic schools is just the entry fee. ”
Heh. Sounds like you’ve been hit up for the “annual drive” the auction, the “you know, we are looking for some sponsors…”
It’s all good by me if the education is worth it. Where our daughter now attends, I think it is. Even though I’m also funding a first class public school system through property taxes.
It is what it is, as they say.