National Comparisons

Recently, a number of states and cities across America have incorporated elements of school choice into their education systems in the hopes of improving student achievement. Starting in 2011 and expanded in 2013, Indiana joined this movement by enacting three bills—House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1001, HEA 1002 and HEA 1003—which, when taken together, create one of the more comprehensive school choice programs in the nation (collectively the “Indiana Choice Legislation”).  At its core, the Indiana Choice Legislation utilizes public tax dollars to subsidize school choice. These subsidies come in the form of vouchers, state income tax deductions and state income tax credits.

Indiana’s goal of enhancing student achievement is laudable.  It also directly coincides with growing national concern over the academic performance of America’s school children as measured under respected, international benchmarks like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) “Programme for International Student Assessment” (PISA) exam.  Indeed, in the most recent PISA exams, the performance of America’s children (considered as a whole) came in at just 27th in math, 20th in science, and 17th in reading.

The question for policy makers in Indiana then, is can Indiana expect its school choice program to enhance student performance or help build a better public education system statewide?

This paper will not utilize in its analysis studies conducted by organizations with a clear bias, be it pro-voucher or anti-voucher. It instead draws on objective, peer-reviewed analyses. The goal is to answer two key questions about the Indiana Choice Legislation as objectively as possible.

First, does the actual documented track record of existing voucher programs demonstrate that those programs in fact achieved the desired goal of enhancing student achievement? Here, the short and clear answer is no.

Second, can voucher programs be expected to enhance student performance or improve public education systems, based on the education reforms implemented in the nations that currently rank in the top five in the world in reading, math, and science under PISA? Again, based on the evidence, the answer is no.

Recent projections show that the state of Illinois will run a deficit ranging from $7.59 to $7.96 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. This is, however, nothing new. According to the Comptroller’s Office, the state has run a deficit in its General Fund every year since at least FY1991. This creates genuine cause for concern, since over $9 out of every $10 spent through the General Fund goes to four core service areas: education (35 percent), healthcare (29 percent), human services (20 percent), and public safety (6 percent).

Given that the state’s General Fund deficits have been sustained over such a long period of time, many believe that spending on those core services in Illinois must be exceedingly high, and hence a major reason why the state experiences recurring budget shortfalls. The data on spending, however, paint a very different picture. When considered over the long-term, it is clear that General Fund spending on services in Illinois is actually declining in real terms after adjusting for inflation. 

Reducing spending in real terms over time could be an appropriate path to follow if service spending in the state was exceptionally high or overly generous compared to service spending in other states. However, under any objective evaluation, Illinois ranks near the bottom nationally in its spending on core services, which means that reducing investments in real terms over time is not an appropriate way to deal with the state’s deficits. 

This Issue Brief compares Illinois’ General Fund (GF) spending on services to other states using three metrics: (i) per capita; (ii) as share of state Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and (iii) number of state employees per 1,000 residents. Under each metric, Illinois ranks as one of the lowest spending states in the nation.  

The City of Chicago has undergone a gradual but radical transformation in the past two decades. A city of neighborhoods, once characterized by bungalows and two-flats and smaller rental properties affordable to working families, has morphed into a city of high-rise condos and high-cost homes. The “City that Works”—once a stable home to working and middle-class people—is now losing its heart and soul, as more households flee to the suburbs in search of affordable housing, robbing our city of its tax base, its social capital, and its cultural character, and leaving our city with more neighborhoods of concentrated affluence and more neighborhoods of concentrated despair. Most disturbingly, our elected officials are failing to invest significant public resources or political will in solving this problem. If we allow the status quo to proceed, we put the future success of our city at risk; and most working and middle-class families will continue to move away. If we act together, we can build a city for all Chicagoans. This Report examines the crisis conditions of affordable housing and offers a way forward.

2006 national comparison of total state and local revenue as a percentage of personal income. 

A list of the corporate income tax rates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2006.

A list of personal income tax rates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia in 2006.

This Issue Brief explains why increased revenue is needed to address Illinois' budget deficits.

This Issue Brief provides an overview of the Taxpayer Accountability and Budget Stabilization Act (P.A. 96-1496), which took effect in fiscal year 2011. The Taxpayer Accountability and Budget Stabilization Act (i) increased the personal and corporate income tax rates; (ii) suspended the Net Operating Loss carry forward deduction for corporations; (iii) and, capped General Fund spending for fiscal years 2012-2015.