Blazing New Trails - Connexions

Experiences with PTELL in Six Illinois School Districts: Leadership Perceptions and Student Performance 293
serving as the chief financial decision-makers in school systems consider it irresponsible to do
anything other than take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that every tax dollar is
captured and that the district is able to maintain a level of bonded debt without voter approval.
PTELL rewards the district that refrains from maximizing the tax levy in a given year by
denying it access to that revenue in all future years.
Students in districts under PTELL are treated to a static set of instructional and noninstructional
programs. Changes to those programs come very slowly and expansion of
choices is not a common feature of Central Illinois school districts under PTELL, as school
leaders focus more on building cash reserves for future use than they do on the development
of programs. Understanding the experience of school leaders and students under PTELL may
become much more important as the poor condition of the national economy continues. Public
schools in Illinois face $311 million in cuts in state funding for fiscal year 2011 (Broadway,
2010, August 4). State cut-backs may force more pressure on local taxpayers to provide more
financial support for the local schools. This pressure may, in turn, generate a tide of taxpayer
support for limiting the allowable increase in local property tax, with PTELL a readily
available tool to accomplish that goal. That potential development makes it more vital that a
well-rounded understanding of PTELL is available. Potential PTELL supporters should be
made aware of both the tax cap’s apparent fiscal shortcomings and its potential long-term
harm on the educational experience offered to students. School leaders in districts not
currently under PTELL need to understand what other school leaders have faced once PTELL
becomes a fact for their school districts.
Moultrie County held the last referendum on PTELL in April of 2003 (Illinois
Department of Revenue, 2009) with the measure meeting defeat. It has not appeared on the
ballot in any other general election after that time. However, since the completion of the
multi-case study (Forney, 2007), economic conditions in Illinois may motivate property
owners in the central region of the state to resurrect PTELL as a means of exerting control
over the growth of property tax. A discussion of the fairness of the property tax or its
appropriateness as a vehicle of funding public education was beyond the scope of this study.
What emerged was an understanding that PTELL encouraged fiscal practices that are not
consistent with taxpayer expectations, established financial conditions that were not
conducive to long-term school district solvency, and led to limitation of educational
opportunities that may have a negative impact on the learning and academic achievement of
students.
REFERENCES
Broadway, J. (2010, August 4). School transportation slashed 42%. State School News Service. Retrieved August
30, 2010, from http://www.illinoisschoolnews.com/2010/1606018119 map.pdf
Citrin, J. (1979). Do people want something for nothing: public opinion on taxes and governmental spending.
National Tax Journal, 32(2s), 113–129.
Cox, J. & Lowery, D. (1990). The impact of tax revolt era state fiscal caps. Social Science Quarterly 71(3), 492–
509.
Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Downes, T., Dye, R. & McGuire, T. (1998). Do limits matter? Evidence on the effects of tax limitations on
student performance. Journal of Urban Economics, 43. 401–417.
Dye, R. & McGuire, T. (1997). The effect of property tax measures on local government fiscal behavior. Journal
of Public Economics, 66(3), 469–487.
Dye, R., McGuire, T. & McMillen, D. (2005). Are property taxes more binding over time? National Tax
Journal, 58(2), 215–225.