Did you support the education funding reform bill that the governor signed in 2017?

Education

I was not there to vote on this issue but I feel the vast majority of this bill was well written and I would have voted yes. However, I would have strongly opposed the $200,000,000.00 of our tax dollars that were used to bail out the Chicago Teachers Pension fund even though my wife is a Chicago teacher. The percentage of a Chicago teachers' paycheck that goes towards their pension system is significantly lower than what our teachers in Lake County pay and to cover this difference with our tax dollars is unreasonable.

Yes, and it was nice to have party collaboration.

I believe there were many aspects of the education funding reform compromise that ought to be applauded. The new school funding formula, which was years in the making, ensures that every public school in Illinois, regardless of location, receives the funding it needs to ensure an adequate education for every student. The new formula also sets guidelines for increases in funding for public schools. Increased funding from the state to pre-K through 12 educational institutions is hugely important to ensure that all schools have the resources they need to provide an adequate and successful education. Increased funding from the state also relieves the pressure to increase property taxes on local homeowners.

This was an imperfect bill for a large and complicated problem. I'm frustrated with the political games lawmakers played with the proposal and passage of the legislation, but I strongly support the opportunity scholarships included in the bill, which will give students across the state access to better schools and educational opportunities.

I am in favor of a program that equalizes education funding among public schools by favoring the districts that have fewer funds available. There is a section that offers voucher money for use in private schools that I will seek to eliminate.

Mostly, yes. I disagree with the $75 million to private schools, but that was a small price to pay to finally get something passed.

I have my concerns with this bill. I'm glad that we were able to get funds to our public schools - however, I'm weary of the tuition tax credits for private schools. I desire to see as much funding as possible for our public school systems.

I have my concerns with this bill. I'm glad that we were able to get funds to our public schools - however, I'm weary of the tuition tax credits for private schools. I desire to see as much funding as possible for our public school systems.

No - I felt it was a bailout for Chicago and didn't directly address many of the issues facing students and their access to quality education across the state.

While there were some positive parts of the legislation, its my belief that the bill will hurt downstate schools in the long run. A child shouldn't be funded at a different level because of ZIP code, and we should be leveling the playing field for all students---Chicago, Monticello, or Cairo.

I enthusiastically support the tax credit scholarship program for low income students contained in the legislation. Children should not be relegated to failing schools and decreased opportunities because of their zip code, and because in some cases adults in parts of the school system are only concerned about their own prosperity. I am adamantly opposed to the bailout of Chicago schools and I believe the scholarship program could have been achieved without bailing out Chicago.

Yes. I would have voted for it

yes. to a point. more needs to be done to address downstate struggling school districts.

Not in its entirety.

One of the legislative achievements I am most proud of during my tenure in the General Assembly is the negotiation and passage of the new education funding formula that became law last summer. This bipartisan, historic law allows students all across the state access to the best educational opportunities, regardless of family income status or location. It is also a prime example of how working together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and respecting each other's priorities can result in a compromise where everyone wins.

I have not seen the full analysis on how it affected every school district in the 89th. However, it my understanding and I have been told that every district financially benefited as a result of this bill, that's a good thing.

The education funding reform bill that the governor recently signed includes many good and some bad provisions, but the core components of the bill are a great improvement over our previous school funding formula. The formula changes ensure that education dollars appropriated by the General Assembly are allocated based on need and adequacy, and not necessarily location. There are also certain requirements for local school districts to publish how they spend taxpayer dollars, increasing transparency and accountable government. Finally, the bill included an historic opportunity scholarship program that has the potential to change the lives of thousands of underprivileged Illinois schoolchildren by offering their parents true school choice.

I support the program for the reasons listed below. One negative portion of the bill was certain aspects of the formula that gives priority to Chicago Public Schools over other underperforming school districts. Because the formula allocates funding based on certain need-based criteria, these changes direct money to CPS before other needy schools across Illinois. I disagree with this Chicago-biased aspects of the formula and would advocate for their removal.

There are portions I agree with and portions I disagree with.

I would have preferred a different reform bill. Illinois had been identified as the worst of the fifty states in providing adequate resources to low-income schoolchildren. That problem on its own should have concerned our legislature and our citizenry. So, yes, I support this reform bill's intention to bring needed resources to low-income schoolchildren, but no, I take issue with the parameters for recipients of the scholarships. The bill sets the income levels too high to serve the families in greatest need. The reform bill does not target low-income children with its opportunity scholarships. The households with the greatest need are not making annual incomes anywhere near $73,000 for a family of four. Illinois faces a financial crisis. Providing a tax credit (and removing revenue from the public coffers) for a non-urgent matter (moving lower-middle-class families into private schools) would be unwise. I say "would be" only because the votes must not have been there without this tax credit. What do I think about it? I think we need to remember that we are a republic, and that virtue has rewards.

It is no secret the K-12 funding system in Illinois is among the worst in the nation. There are undoubtedly aspects of the passed legislation, for example changes to the school funding formula which reflect a positive change in the way in which money is distributed across the state. At the same time, portions of the bill are far from perfect. I supported many of the concepts of the legislation and did support the final version of the bill, but would have liked to see a more perfect version.

Even though I'm not yet a current member of the General Assembly, I believe that providing a more balanced funding formula to all school districts within the state of Illinois is a good place to start with education funding reform. I want to be a leader that fights for our children's K-12 education.

I believe that if local school districts are being supported by the state, as is constitutionally required, there needs to be accountability as well. For decades, the failing Chicago Public Schools have proven they can't educate kids successfully.

It is not perfect, but it will benefit many students across the state.

I support the funding formula component. I do not support publicly funded tax credits for private school tuition.

I cannot say I support or oppose this bill without knowing the average cost of sending a student to public school and the amount saved by increasing the enrollment at the private schools compared to the amount of tax revenue not received and that saved by the lower expenses allotted to public schools. However, I support our government passing bipartisan bills that keep children on schedule with their education, provide options for education and encourage all education structures to provide the best education for our children.

Yes, voted for Compromise funding bills SB1 and 1947.

I strongly support the new education funding formula. The new evidenced based formula has key elements that make sure that schools with low income students, English learners, etc. receive more necessary funding; the system moves our state towards funding education more equitably.

I support much of the education funding reform bill that was passed. The new education funding formula that will now be implemented is vital in order to support school districts with the greatest needs. I also support the pension relief provided by the funding reform bill. I know that our pension obligations are making it tough for our government entities to survive and thrive, and we need to find creative solutions in order to continue to hold up our end of the deal for workers while continuing to come up with the resources necessary to ensure every child has access to a high-quality public education. However, the troublesome portion of the bill was the part that provides tax credits for private schools. This sets a precedent that I fear will grow into a full-blown voucher program in this state at a time where we all need to be investing everything we have into public education and not providing incentives to opt out.

I am a firm believer in public education and how it can lift up children, families, and communities - and that we should be doing everything possible to ensure the success of our public school system. I myself am a proud Local School Council member of my 8 year-old daughter's school, Sauganash Elementary, which is our wonderful neighborhood school that we have the privilege to attend. Every child in Illinois should have access to a public school like ours and that is something I am committed to working on in Springfield.

I support the evidence-based funding formula that is in the bill. However, I do not support other aspects of the bill, such as diverting public funds to private schools.

I do not support using tax money to subsidize tuition at private/religious schools. It's disingenuous for our leaders to tell us for years that we are too broke to fund public schools properly and then, at the eleventh hour, to thrown in a $100 million in tax breaks for their rich friends to fund private school tuition.

I'm glad that the school formula was revamped, but I would have liked to see more investment in schools. Again, a progressive income tax would be welcome to bring in additional revenue.

I would have to say yes, I believe without reading its entirety, but the bottom line always is it's not what I support, it's what my bosses, the people of the 57th district support. I represent all of them if they voted for me or not.

Although I believe that some of the final additions to the compromise bill that the Governor signed were not helpful to the majority of Illinois students, I do support the education funding reform package because ultimately it fixed an antiquated formula and gave more money to our schools that need it most.

Yes, I would have voted for it.

Yes. I don't like that the State still has to fund a certain %age of CPS pensions, and would rather see that be a total function of that district and it's property tax payers, however, the scholarships (if used correctly to help the poor and those in under performing schools) can be good. Also, a higher paying scholarships for the most vulnerable persons with disabilities could be good.

While far from perfect I would have voted for that bill. While I wasn't thrilled with the Tax Credit Scholarships (see below) I want to make it clear that when it is time to vote I will be a pragmatist. Legislation is created by a compromise of competing ideas and interests. If a bill has a lot more good in it than what I view as bad (and as long there is nothing immoral or unconstitutional in it), and I don't think that there is a real chance to further improve it, I am going to vote for it. The most immediate benefit of the bill was that the schools could open on time.

However, certainly the best two things about the bill were: (1) the state was finally picking up a bigger tab for education so that we could decrease our reliance on real estate taxes for educational funding, which had previously resulted in shocking differences in educational funding depending on the wealth of a community; and (2) that the state was finally making a substantial contribution to the Chicago Public Schools pension fund. This remedied a longstanding inequity (that went back to a deal made long ago when the first Mayor Daley wanted home rule powers) where state revenues were paying into pension funds for educators everywhere but Chicago. Another benefit for the CPS was the ability to raise additional tax revenue to help address its own unfunded pension problem. The statewide funding split was also more equitable in my view in that the poorer districts (particularly downstate and Chicago) received a larger share of the funds.

Not in its entirety, no. I support the general concept of reforming how our schools are funded, but am unconvinced that the evidence-based model created in the bill will control costs. I also support the $75 million dollar private school scholarship fund that the bill created; however the version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Manar had significant flaws. First, it should have calculated funding on a per pupil basis. Calculating per school directed more money to shrinking schools in and around Chicago to the detriment of those downstate. Not only that, but the bill also contained $221 million bailout to cover the cost of Chicago teacher pensions.

Yes. I don't like that the State still has to fund a certain %age of CPS pensions, and would rather see that be a total function of that district and it's property tax payers, however, the scholarships (if used correctly to help the poor and those in under performing schools) can be good. Also, a higher paying scholarships for the most vulnerable persons with disabilities could be good.

Yes, but it was not sufficient to meet the true needs across the state let alone Chicago.

Yes, I would have voted for it.

Not in its entirety, no. I support the general concept of reforming how our schools are funded, but am unconvinced that the evidence-based model created in the bill will control costs. I also support the $75 million dollar private school scholarship fund that the bill created; however the version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Manar had significant flaws. First, it should have calculated funding on a per pupil basis. Calculating per school directed more money to shrinking schools in and around Chicago to the detriment of those downstate. Not only that, but the bill also contained $221 million bailout to cover the cost of Chicago teacher pensions.

Yes, but it was not sufficient to meet the true needs across the state let alone Chicago.

With the exception of the income tax credit for private school scholarships, I generally support the education funding reform bill. I am particularly pleased that we have changed the way we look at school funding from arguing over which districts have the political clout to get more state funds to looking at what the evidence shows us works in the classroom. What the education reform bill is missing is the extra resources the State needs to provide to our schools.

The recently-passed changes to the state funding formula under SB1947 are an important step in the right direction in addressing the inequities of school funding in Illinois. However, I oppose measures to privatize public assets such as the tax credit scholarship program included in SB1947, which uses public resources to fund private education. While there is a lot of progress in SB1947, I would not have been able to support the legislation unless the tax credit scholarship program was removed.

I support the funding formula component. I do not support publicly funded tax credits for private school tuition.

With the exception of the income tax credit for private school scholarships, I generally support the education funding reform bill. I am particularly pleased that we have changed the way we look at school funding from arguing over which districts have the political clout to get more state funds to looking at what the evidence shows us works in the classroom. What the education reform bill is missing is the extra resources the State needs to provide to our schools.

I'm glad that the school formula was revamped, but I would have liked to see more investment in schools. Again, a progressive income tax would be welcome to bring in additional revenue.

The recently-passed changes to the state funding formula under SB1947 are an important step in the right direction in addressing the inequities of school funding in Illinois. However, I oppose measures to privatize public assets such as the tax credit scholarship program included in SB1947, which uses public resources to fund private education. While there is a lot of progress in SB1947, I would not have been able to support the legislation unless the tax credit scholarship program was removed.

I support this first real effort to fix the school funding formula. I do not, however, support the entirety of that bill. Taxpayer money should not go towards funding private education and charter schools. Rather it should be spent on improving our public education system and ensuring that all school districts in the state are properly funded. Though the bill improved the formula, funding levels in the state are still insufficient. The state legislature should fund school districts according to the level of need of their students. I am an educator and understand our education system from every perspective- teacher, administrator and tax payer. Education funding and reform is one of my key platform areas.

Though I am glad to see the additional funds for CPS that the bill allotted, this bill does not repair the flawed funding formula that currently exists and the injection of funds is insufficient. Also, the voucher system that it allows is a slap in the face to the Chicago Teacher's Union and actually works counter to all efforts to reform CPS and improve public education.

Yes, the Education funding bill will help spread funds to more of the underserved school districts of the state. It will also give some parents the opportunity to choose what schools they want their child to attend. By increasing the availability of school choice, parents are able to decide what the best education route is for their children.

I support this first real effort to fix the school funding formula. I do not, however, support the entirety of that bill. Taxpayer money should not go towards funding private education and charter schools. Rather it should be spent on improving our public education system and ensuring that all school districts in the state are properly funded. Though the bill improved the formula, funding levels in the state are still insufficient. The state legislature should fund school districts according to the level of need of their students. I am an educator and understand our education system from every perspective- teacher, administrator and tax payer. Education funding and reform is one of my key platform areas.

Yes, the Education funding bill will help spread funds to more of the underserved school districts of the state. It will also give some parents the opportunity to choose what schools they want their child to attend. By increasing the availability of school choice, parents are able to decide what the best education route is for their children.

No response provided.

I supported the change to the funding formula, which is something I have spent years helping to push. The bill itself was bittersweet, however, and ended up losing my vote due to the private school scholarships. Our previous funding formula was broken and deeply inadequate, and it was most deeply felt by my constituents who had to attend badly underfunded Chicago public schools. The new formula helps everyone, but will go an especially long way for the most underfunded schools around the state, including CPS that were most harmed under the old formula. I was deeply saddened that public money for private and religious schools was a trade-off I was supposed to accept in exchange for basic fairness and funding parity.

For the most part yes, I think it was a good bill where the Governor compromised to get more equitable funding for our public schools. Illinois has one of the largest disparities in education funding from school district to school district because of our over reliance on property taxes and this some of the provisions in this bill were a step in the right direction to dealing with that disparity.

For the most part yes, I think it was a good bill where the Governor compromised to get more equitable funding for our public schools. Illinois has one of the largest disparities in education funding from school district to school district because of our over reliance on property taxes and this some of the provisions in this bill were a step in the right direction to dealing with that disparity.

I supported the Bill to reform the inequitable school funding formula because children of CPS have far too little funding to be afforded the education that will allow them to be competitive in our continuously growing global economy. However, I would like to have saw more consolidations from CPS attached, such as, an elected school board now, not 2023. Also, with the state picking up large shares of the Daley/Rahm teacher pension crisis coupled with the lack of reforms from CPS such as an elected school I would have fought to the end to see more property tax hike restrictions. Bottom line, CPS students need more money but CPS cannot be trusted with more. Oversight must be attached with any additional funding.

I supported the Bill to reform the inequitable school funding formula because children of CPS have far too little funding to be afforded the education that will allow them to be competitive in our continuously growing global economy. However, I would like to have saw more consolidations from CPS attached, such as, an elected school board now, not 2023. Also, with the state picking up large shares of the Daley/Rahm teacher pension crisis coupled with the lack of reforms from CPS such as an elected school I would have fought to the end to see more property tax hike restrictions. Bottom line, CPS students need more money but CPS cannot be trusted with more. Oversight must be attached with any additional funding.

I will withhold judgement until we start to see if it actually fixes the problem of unequal funding.

My union, the IEA said that the bill "takes money away from public education and gives it to wealthy tax donors through a personal tax break in the same bill that finally provides fair funding to Illinois schools — and there is no funding set aside for this voucher program."

I support the education funding reform bill signed in 2017 despite its imperfection. It is undeniably more equitable than how schools were funded in the past. The fact that Chicago's pensions will be covered by the state like every other public school district is important.

While the education funding reform bill begins to address some of the funding inadequacies in the most needy schools, it opens up the path to a voucher program by allowing tax credits for private school scholarships. I would oppose public funding to support vouchers of any kind.

Yes, I do support the education funding reform bill that the governor signed in 2017. The current funding of public schools thru local property tax is woefully unfair

SB 0001 is/was a good piece of legislation that I supported.

I support the education funding reform recently signed into law. Without quality public education available to all children, we cannot be the society we aspire to be. Our democracy requires an informed and thoughtful public. An uneducated and uninformed citizenry will not be able to assess the impact of public policy affecting them and will not be able to select quality effective leaders. As the quality of public education declines, many children are being left behind and will be less able to complete for jobs that provide good wages nor act in the interest of themselves and their families.

I did not like everything that is contained in Senate Bill 1947, like the scholarship tax credit that I believe rewards the wealthiest donors who would qualify for the tax relief. I support reform that levels the playing field to ensure that every child has access to quality education and increases the state's investment in public schools, which should help to relieve the over-reliance on property taxes to fund schools.

The final variation of SB1 included the best formula for Chicago Public Schools which I support. It also included an unnecessary private school voucher that I do not support. We can not combine our public school funding with private school credits. I do not support the voucher system and look forward to seeing it removed in future legislation.

I agree with some of it- for example the increased school funding for economically poor areas and the ability of wealthier areas to lower their property taxes through a referendum.

Overall, I believe SB1947 is a significant step forward in increasing equity and quality in our K-12 public schools across the state. That said, I believe there are specific aspects of the law that require further evaluation and vigilante oversight by legislators like myself who have expertise and experience in our schools, from volunteers to board members to policymakers. It is negligent, for example, to give tax credits for private and parochial scholarships when we are 50th in the nation in terms of state funding of education. In addition, funding for the $350M in new revenue to public schools has not yet been allocated, and we must ensure it actually happens each year. Finally, the current law wrongly penalizes school districts that are growing in enrollment because state funding is held at the same level for most if not all the schools in my district regardless of the number of students served.

I support the move to an evidence-based formula to address disparate funding of schools throughout the state. And, I support appropriating additional dollars to be distributed to school districts for this purpose. Article X of the Illinois Constitution imposes on the state the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education. Illinois has never met that responsibility. The result has been a patchwork system of schools that relies on the property tax base/political will of the residents of those school districts to pay for the education of their children. This has created a highly inequitable system of public schools in this state with widely divergent ability to properly educate our children.

I did not like everything that is contained in Senate Bill 1947, like the scholarship tax credit that I believe rewards the wealthiest donors who would qualify for the tax relief. I support reform that levels the playing field to ensure that every child has access to quality education and increases the state's investment in public schools, which should help to relieve the over-reliance on property taxes to fund schools.

The final variation of SB1 included the best formula for Chicago Public Schools which I support. It also included an unnecessary private school voucher that I do not support. We can not combine our public school funding with private school credits. I do not support the voucher system and look forward to seeing it removed in future legislation.

Overall, I believe SB1947 is a significant step forward in increasing equity and quality in our K-12 public schools across the state. That said, I believe there are specific aspects of the law that require further evaluation and vigilante oversight by legislators like myself who have expertise and experience in our schools, from volunteers to board members to policymakers. It is negligent, for example, to give tax credits for private and parochial scholarships when we are 50th in the nation in terms of state funding of education. In addition, funding for the $350M in new revenue to public schools has not yet been allocated, and we must ensure it actually happens each year. Finally, the current law wrongly penalizes school districts that are growing in enrollment because state funding is held at the same level for most if not all the schools in my district regardless of the number of students served.

I supported the education funding reform component, but I voted against the bill. I was opposed to the private education tax credit portion of the bill. This provision was dropped into the bill without ANY discussion at all and without a single hearing to discuss the ramifications of this provision. We had just doubled the private education tuition tax credit with the budget. I could not see how a state that had just accumulated $16 Billion in unpaid bills and barely passed a budget over the veto of the governor, could so quickly and without any process at all, blow a $75 million dollar hole in that budget.

I supported the education funding reform component, but I voted against the bill. I was opposed to the private education tax credit portion of the bill. This provision was dropped into the bill without ANY discussion at all and without a single hearing to discuss the ramifications of this provision. We had just doubled the private education tuition tax credit with the budget. I could not see how a state that had just accumulated $16 Billion in unpaid bills and barely passed a budget over the veto of the governor, could so quickly and without any process at all, blow a $75 million dollar hole in that budget.

No, Too expensive. No measures in place to gage effectiveness. There is a potential that the additional money put in the system could be wasted.

No. The education funding reform bill disproportionately helped Chicago Public Schools at the expense of the rest of the state.

There are many positive and negative components of the new education funding reform bill. I believe the new formula a step in the right direction, as it directs scarce taxpayer money to schools based on need. Next comes the difficult work of ensuring that all schools are adequately and fairly funded based on the confines of the new formula. There were also new transparency mandates in the new funding reform bill that will enable taxpayers to learn about how their tax dollars are spent in school districts across the state. Unfortunately, there were special considerations given to Chicago Public Schools over all other Illinois school districts, and those rules will divert ta

No, Too expensive. No measures in place to gage effectiveness. There is a potential that the additional money put in the system could be wasted.

I considered this a bailout for the Chicago School system and did not benefit School Districts in my district. Many schools in the district are owed millions of dollars from over the past five years that has yet to be paid. Programs and staff are being cut. Our kids deserve better.

I wasn't in the Legislature when it was passed and signed, but I do support it. It gives us something to continue to work on and improve. It's not the perfect solution, but it offers a coherent policy to continue to improve upon.

There are many positive and negative components of the new education funding reform bill. I believe the new formula a step in the right direction, as it directs scarce taxpayer money to schools based on need. Next comes the difficult work of ensuring that all schools are adequately and fairly funded based on the confines of the new formula. There were also new transparency mandates in the new funding reform bill that will enable taxpayers to learn about how their tax dollars are spent in school districts across the state. Unfortunately, there were special considerations given to Chicago Public Schools over all other Illinois school districts, and those rules will divert ta

I considered this a bailout for the Chicago School system and did not benefit School Districts in my district. Many schools in the district are owed millions of dollars from over the past five years that has yet to be paid. Programs and staff are being cut. Our kids deserve better.

I wasn't in the Legislature when it was passed and signed, but I do support it. It gives us something to continue to work on and improve. It's not the perfect solution, but it offers a coherent policy to continue to improve upon.

No. The education funding reform bill disproportionately helped Chicago Public Schools at the expense of the rest of the state.

While I appreciate the effort to make education more equitable and fair, it could have been fairer for the taxpayers outside the city of Chicago.

Yes it was a step in the right direction. I support the bipartisan method in which the bill was negotiated and passed. This is an example of what the residents require of their elected officials. I support a fair funding method for all areas of the state to ensure that students can learn and succeed wherever they are, and an equal chance for education.

While I appreciate the effort to make education more equitable and fair, it could have been fairer for the taxpayers outside the city of Chicago.

Yes it was a step in the right direction. I support the bipartisan method in which the bill was negotiated and passed. This is an example of what the residents require of their elected officials. I support a fair funding method for all areas of the state to ensure that students can learn and succeed wherever they are, and an equal chance for education.

Yes. It's a step in the right direction. I look forward to the state's full funding of education.

Overall, yes. After attending a presentation, I do support the effort to create an education funding reform bill so that there can be an increase in state level funding to schools, more accountability of the dollars granted to schools and transparency in local school administrations.

Overall, yes. After attending a presentation, I do support the effort to create an education funding reform bill so that there can be an increase in state level funding to schools, more accountability of the dollars granted to schools and transparency in local school administrations.

The education reform bill that was signed is a first step in the process to reform education funding. Local residents still need more controls and the ability to combine school districts and decide what administration costs should be. We are spending too much on education.

The education reform bill that was signed is a first step in the process to reform education funding. Local residents still need more controls and the ability to combine school districts and decide what administration costs should be. We are spending too much on education.

Yes. It's a step in the right direction. I look forward to the state's full funding of education.

There are parts of the education funding reform bill that I support like the inclusion of a tax credit scholarship program for low income students. At the same time, I was not happy with the inclusion of what has been deemed a Chicago Bailout and forcing suburban schools to continue to transfer money to Chicago while our property taxes skyrocket to fund our own schools.

There are parts of the education funding reform bill that I support like the inclusion of a tax credit scholarship program for low income students. At the same time, I was not happy with the inclusion of what has been deemed a Chicago Bailout and forcing suburban schools to continue to transfer money to Chicago while our property taxes skyrocket to fund our own schools.

I don't support all of it, but I don't think anyone supports everything in that bill. That's what makes it a great bill. If everybody is a little unhappy, everybody compromised, and that is how government should work.

Yes, I supported the education funding reform bill that the Governor signed, although I wish he had signed SB 1 (i.e. the version without the tax credits for private schools).