ptatc

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 16, 2015 -> 08:03 AM) I believe Indiana also supplements costs for local schools with local taxes like sales tax etc. I'm not sure Indiana's spending model is anything that should be used as a model though.. Edit, I take that back. It appears that local governments have approved extra taxes for their schools so areas like Carmel are back to their old tax levels to assure better education. Exactly what I would expect to happen. Part of the illinois legislation (SB 1) also limits local school districts from raising taxes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 10:19 PM) This state government has proven to me that they give two s***s about kids with special needs. It's gotten progressively worse and when they hit 18 there is nothing available. It's mentioned in the bill as the % of funding going from 13 to 18. Being in education I agree with you but it's in the bill. I don't think any of it will be enacted due to the unconstitutional ruling so it will all be negotiated again. Who knows what it will look like next time. The only reason it passed that time was because it was tied to the pension reform that most wanted.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 10:02 PM) You will see a difference in the state funding for some schools, particularly the ones who have high income per student but in no way is it taking all of my local taxes for other districts. If that happened local governments would be force to defund that avenue of funding and find another way to get money for local schools like sales tax and privatization. There would be a huge uproar. Isn't this the bill that the Supreme court found unconstitutional for the pension reforms? Will that effect this part. Also, you will find a big difference in funding for the schools with few special needs students.

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 04:55 PM) Should, but won't. Can, but can't. Would, but... shorn't They really won't let it go.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:36 PM) SB1 has the reformed 2015 version of SB16. And what is changing is the amount of state funded allocation that is already in place. I hope you're right but i don't think that is correct. i can't find any information that SB 1 has anything but retirement issue included. I know SB 16 was defeated, that's why I said proposed. I know that it is still a priority in springfield and they will work on it again after the budget impasse. Edit: OK, I found the section that you are referring too. There is a section in SB 1 in which it's described. The keys there are that the ISBE can decide how to determine what a low income student is and that districts with higher % of special needs will get up to 5% more of the funding than before. The biggest change is how local available resources are determined and allocated. This is where you will see the big difference in the school funding. Isn't this the one found unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court? Does that effect this?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:26 PM) SB1 (the new bill) will not allocate all of my taxes that go to my local schools out of the district. That's false. SB 1 is the pension reform act not the school funding reform act. Here is a IBHE power point summarizing the proposed bill. It says that the state will raise the % of local property tax that goes to the state to 95% from 44%. http://www.isbe.net/budget/FY15/fy15-sb16-ppt.pdf

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:06 PM) They are propaganda sites because when I click the about button that's what it states. There is a current model in place that contributes some money towards a state pool for allocation and the new bill which isn't anything like what you said isn't much different. Your original statement was that most of our money that now goes towards our local schools will now go towards others outside of our districts and that's categorically false. I'm sure not all of the sites said that. Anyway as I said they were just ones I found with a quick search. From my understanding there will be a major shift in how much of the money from local taxes goes to the state. I'm pretty sure it's SB16 is the one. I do not think what I said is false. From all of the discussion of the Bill at the universities and the funding issues from our district these are the issues in the Bill.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 09:00 PM) They aren't going to take all the funds like he stated. They may change the pool that already exists with prior legislation but it will never be total reallocation because it's moronic. Check out other states and the way they fund public school. It is the norm. This is why Illinois ranks toward the bottom in state funding each year. Because the state doesn't fund our schools for the most part it's the local taxes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:51 PM) I don't see anywhere in there where all the taxes that now go to schools goes into one large bucket. Not only would that collapse the school systems but it would destroy the real estate market in certain areas. Chicagos school system would be a vacuum sucking up and burning cash unnecessarily. Do you have sources other than blogs and political propaganda sites? I've never heard of anything like this being remotely considered at any local government meetings. These were just the ones I quickly found online. If you consider them "political propaganda" sites, look around you should find something more to your liking. I believe it's SB16 that is the current version of the bill.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:22 PM) That's not going to pass in the way you state. Even in that model most of your local taxes will stay local while some will go into a pool of which special needs and low income schools get the lions share. We have a government in place now that have taken money from special needs programs already so it's clearly not a priority. Second. Won't ever happen. You aren't going to steal from the rich suburbs and give to Chicago in this state. They already do that for the pension system. Chicago has a separate pension system but the rest of the state pays into it.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:22 PM) That's not going to pass in the way you state. Even in that model most of your local taxes will stay local while some will go into a pool of which special needs and low income schools get the lions share. We have a government in place now that have taken money from special needs programs already so it's clearly not a priority. Second. Won't ever happen. You aren't going to steal from the rich suburbs and give to Chicago in this state. It's already passed one of them, I think the house. I do think it will pass in some form. It is more the norm for the rest of the country. Everything is on hold due to the budget impasse but eventually it will become a focus again. If you look at the reference about what schools win and lose our school district (Lincolnway in New Lenox/Frankfort) will lose 4 million dollars. This is a district that is closing a school due to financial difficulties (that however is another story)

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 06:05 PM) Can you elaborate on the tax changes? Where did you get this info? There is a proposed bill that will change the funding of the schools. Currently, Illinois is only one of two states that fund the schools by local taxes. Illinois is proposing switching to the national norm where all of the taxes for schools go into one fund and is dispersed to all schools in the state. The priorities for funding go to 1. percentage of low income students, 2. percentage of ESL and 3. percentage of special needs students. I'm not positive that is the order but those are the three priorities in the current proposal. It is currently just a proposal but it has a great deal of support. The unions are sending out info as it really effects some districts. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/201...-school-funding http://www.rebootillinois.com/2015/03/25/e...-formula/35412/ http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwat...gnificant_.html Here are just a few references but you can find many more just looking online.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) I'm sorry, but this is ignorant. Are there scary people out there...? Absolutely. But, I can't worry about that every second of every day that my children are at school. I pay my taxes in Oak Park (hi Rock!) and I can not only see where those dollars go, they are tangible. Whether it's the Park District, streets and san, or the schools. We moved here because of the schools. We moved here because we can walk to all three. But most importantly, we chose to forge good relationships with the day care provider/nanny/head mistress/principal/teachers of every place they've been. We still see our nanny. We still see our in-home day care provider. We still see our Montessori head mistress and teacher. We email regularly with both of my son's teachers (Boy #1 is related to his class. Boy #2 has a sensory processing disorder, so we email/talk to his teacher more often). It's just like our parents said to us when we were younger, you take out what you put in. We are in a time now when, even if we are in a good district, we as parents make more time to help with our kids education. The American Dream, at least the way I interpret it is: my kids will do better than me and I will do whatever it takes to get them there. This will be changing soon with the proposed changes to the school funding system. Your taxes will no longer be going to your schools. Most of it will be going to schools outside of your district.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 11:41 AM) Its a very careful balance between parental involvement and detrimental helicopter parents though. You have to make sure you are not the parent who is blaming the teacher for your child's issues in the classroom. Too many parents nowadays fall into that category. No doubt. By involved parents the studies cite, making sure students do homework, being at kids sporting events/extracurricular activities, booster clubs etc. The negatives are blaming the institution and punishing kids for bad grades. It's the positive involvement that is key.

Pumped to see Star Wars Thursday and head to Colorado for skiing Friday

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 10:18 AM) The religious part of this equation I could live without. I don't believe there is a pre-requisite to have religion involved in any way in a quality education. Are there overlapping values that both share? Of course. Research has shown that the best schools and the best education come from the involvement of the parents and how involved the child is in the education. The religious part is just the by product of this. It's not the teaching of religon that matters it's just that this type of parent and student is more engaged. This is the type of school you look for. One that gets the parents and students more involved.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Dec 15, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) I wish this level of outrage for cheaters who lie to try to cover their tracks existed in football. The NFL is a league founded by bookies looking for a way to make money. It's a league that owes the interest in it to gambling including vegas and fantasy football. They will never by that tough on these types of issues.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 07:23 PM) I'd like a backup plan just in case Danks or EJ completely fall apart, but the top 3 is just about as solid as it gets. Not to mention that Fulmer is waiting in the wings if they need him. Fulmer is not as advanced as Rodon was. I don't think he will be called up except for a cup during September.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Dec 12, 2015 -> 05:20 PM) I miss Murph on the Score, but he can be a loon. Not the aquatic bird. I agree. He was such a Cubs homer it was funny. He actually talked sports and games. He wasn't trying to make sports radio more than what it is.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 11:48 AM) If he is cleared to play, than I think it would be awesome for him to get out their just a bit. My presumption is with other injury issues on the club, they might not have the option to be able to use a roster spot on a limited White (as we are already so thin at WR). I presume White would not be a primary option and instead would be focused on certain routes and would get limited playing time (really more of a get your feet wet experience than anything else). This is a misconception when it comes to terminology. Just because he is cleared to play does not mean he is in football shape. He may be healthy from the injury however if he is not in shape to play he could become fatigued and possibly injure something else. Cleared to play and ready to play are 2 very different things.

QUOTE (GreenSox @ Dec 12, 2015 -> 01:02 PM) The Sox have made a few trades that, in my mind, were a little strange...essentially low ceiling starter prospects for minor league relief pitchers. Generally you have a reasonable chance of turning some of these minor league starters into relievers so I'm not sure what the point was. Still, they really haven't traded anyone that figured to be in the rotation. They may have to sign a FA starter next year...so be it. Honestly, had the Sox traded Q for 2 young position players who could start, they would almost be in a position where they could contend with 2 signings - a)a pitcher to replace Q and b)a hitter. Because the Sox don't want to trade any good players or sell high, they could trade their prospects..but this would also require at least supplemental FAs AND the whole scheme would be on a tight 2 year window with zero room for error...kind of what the Sox have been doing for 7 years. The sox minor league system seems to do pretty well with pitchers. If they trade one away for a different one, I'll trust they know the strength and weaknesses of each and that they'll hit more than they miss. Hitters on the other hand, I wouldn't trust their evaluation and much.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 09:03 PM) McMahon is on the same timeline as Michalczewski. The sox will be using Lawrie regardless of production as two years to evaluate Trey and hopefully there is something there. As others have said McMahon can always be moved off 3B if they need to make room for his bat. This is the exact scenario Hahn discussed on MLB the other day. He mentioned if Lawrie stays long term he can switch to 2B.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:34 PM) Tell you what, let's turn this mess around, stop trying to "miraculously rescue the franchise with a miracle playoff run", build a solid foundation that can actually make the playoffs a couple years in a row, do that, and if there's no attendance pulse, I promise to apologize? No this point I agree with. I would prefer the team just cincentrate on building a winning team. Im just saying that I dont think that is rnough to bting fans to the ballpark. Its perfectly fine with me as I go whether they are winning or losing. However when they win I get to go to playoff games. I have season tickets to the bears and sox. I really like going to playoff games. Thry just havent happened much lately. Im not arguing that it isnt the right thing to do. Im just saying I disagree with people who say that efen regular playoff runs will consistently increase attendance to a great extent, it will some.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:20 PM) I could see the Sox moving. But I ALSO could see the team staying. Are Jerry's relatives and the investors going to sell the team when he dies or keep it? In a city as big as Chicago, are there rumors of any local zillionaires wanting to buy and keep the team in Chicago? If the Reinsdorfs and the investors keep the team forever, ugh. I could see it moving or continuing to flounder. Disagree. Think back to 2005. The White Sox had done it. World Series. The Sox were the toast of the town. The Cubs franchise sucked. Oh yes they were still the Cubs and all the sellouts and the darlings of the baseball world. But they were truly second fiddle. The Sox COMPLETELY and utterly blew it. Almost instantly the team began its downward trend. Now finally the last 3 years the team has sucked. But after 05 the Sox had their chance to be THE team in town for a long time. They only have themselves to blame. I dont know if the Central Division teams went after them, but the Sox have one of the worst organizations in the Central now. Very sad. It can change again, but no question the Sox had it all going in 05 and blew it! You are just proving my point. Only world series winning will bring fans in.

QUOTE (Dunt @ Dec 11, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) Last year they spent $128 million across 4 players. One of their biggest offseasons in franchise history. As a comparison, the f***ing Diamondbacks just spent $206.5 million on 1 player. Not saying that model is beneficial to building a winner, but the Sox hardly spend big in FA. They are always going for the lower tier guys. Abreu is the largest contract in franchise history at $68 million. Great gamble by the organization, but the Sox are 1 of, what, 8 teams that have never had a contract over $100 million? Over $70 million for that matter? They haven't gone over their J2 allotment yet to replenish an otherwise mediocre farm system that was greatly in need of a talent infusion. Neighborhood has a lot to do with bringing in money for a team, whether you choose to admit that or not is completely up to you. I like Bridgeport, but again, to a casual fan, what is there that would make you want to go to a game? Not everyone is a rabid baseball fan. I dont need them to compete with the Cubs, that really isn't feasible. I think it's a lazy narrative to say that Sox fans just make excuses though. People want to see postseasons, the Sox havent delivered on that. Interest will diminish when you arent ever playing in October. How does a neighborhood bring money in for the team? It's he other way around. I dont think people go to the cubby bear and decide hey guess what there is a baseball park next door lets go. Even if they did that is a small percentage of the group. Fans go there for the game but hang around before or after. So what your saying about free agency is that if you arent one of the top spenders it doesn't matter. If pe ople want to see post seasons only, explain the attendance of the cubs and boston before 2004. Fans still went there. Im not denying that the attendance would go up if they made the playoffs. I just dont think it would consistently stay there like it does for many other teams who havent been to the post season regularly.