On Thursday, the Chicago Board of Education members failed our oath to Chicago’s students, parents, families, employees and taxpayers.
By an 11-7 vote, with one member abstaining, the board approved a last-minute amendment that placed $150 million in unapproved and unappropriated state revenue into the district’s budget. In doing so, those members disregarded the professional recommendations and warnings of the superintendent, the chief financial officer, the finance team and the district’s chief legal counsel.
That day, good governance lost.
Good governance is not about choosing the most politically attractive answer. It is not about dismissing difficult facts as fearmongering. It is not about writing numbers into a legally consequential document because we believe someone else should eventually provide the money.
Good governance requires us to make decisions based on the resources available today, not the resources we hope may arrive tomorrow.
More Top Picks Best Walking Shoes For Plantar Fasciitis
Every member of this board says they want the same outcome: protecting classrooms, supporting educators and ensuring every child receives the education they deserve. Illinois has unquestionably failed to fully fund Chicago Public Schools under its own evidence-based funding formula. We must continue fighting for every dollar our students are owed.
But advocacy is not budgeting.
Advocacy asks what should happen. Budgeting requires us to act responsibly based on what we know today while preparing for what may happen tomorrow. A promise is not an appropriation. Political pressure is not cash in the district’s bank account. Hope is not revenue.
The majority was warned that state law requires the board to adopt a balanced budget. It was warned that the added $150 million had not been approved by the General Assembly, signed into law or guaranteed to arrive during this fiscal year. The majority nevertheless decided that it knew more than the professionals we employ to protect the financial and legal integrity of CPS.
That decision exposed the board and the district to serious legal and financial risk.
Banks, credit-rating agencies, bondholders and investors do not evaluate a budget based on the sincerity of our intentions. They evaluate whether the revenue is real, whether the assumptions are defensible, and whether the district can meet its obligations. If lenders conclude that this budget is not genuinely balanced, CPS could face delayed financing, tighter borrowing conditions, higher interest rates, or a reduced willingness in the market to lend to the district at all.
The consequences could begin almost immediately. CPS has warned that timely passage of a balanced budget is necessary to secure the short-term financing needed to make payroll in September. If that financing is delayed or disrupted, the people who educate our children, clean our schools, serve meals, support students with disabilities, protect our buildings and keep the district operating could face uncertainty over their first paycheck of the school year.
No responsible board should gamble with the paychecks of its employees.
And even if financing remains available, it may become more expensive. Every additional dollar paid in interest is a dollar taken away from students. That can mean fewer repaired roofs, fewer modernized science laboratories, fewer accessible entrances and elevators, fewer upgraded heating and cooling systems, fewer lead and asbestos remediation projects and fewer safety improvements. Communities that have waited years for basic investments may be told to wait again.
This is what fiscal irresponsibility looks like in practice. It does not remain confined to a spreadsheet.
The majority’s gamble also creates the threat of a second crisis in January. If Springfield does not approve a supplemental appropriation — or if the money does not arrive in time — the layoffs avoided today may return in the middle of the school year. The district could be forced into hiring freezes, spending restrictions, furloughs, program reductions or massive midyear layoffs after students have already formed relationships with their teachers and support staff.
That is not protecting children. It is postponing painful decisions and transferring the risk directly to students, families, and employees.
We have seen the consequences of budgeting around uncertain state revenue before. When promised dollars failed to arrive, schools experienced midyear disruption and employees lost their jobs. Good governance means learning from that history — not repeating it while insisting that this time hope will somehow be enough.
A board of education has a duty to question district leadership. We should challenge assumptions, demand alternatives, scrutinize every expenditure and fight relentlessly for additional revenue. But oversight does not mean ignoring every professional recommendation when the facts interfere with a preferred political narrative.
We hired experts for a reason.
We selected a superintendent and asked her to lead. We employ financial professionals to determine which revenues can responsibly be included in a budget. We rely on legal counsel to advise us about our duties under Illinois law. Board members cannot celebrate expertise when it supports their position and discard it when it does not.
Our oath requires more discipline than that. We swore to advocate for students, protect the district’s assets, respect taxpayer interests, and ensure that every student has the opportunity to reach their maximum potential. That obligation requires both urgency and restraint: fighting for every dollar our schools deserve while refusing to pretend that hoped-for funding is already in hand.
Springfield should fully fund Chicago’s schools. The city should declare a substantial tax-increment financing surplus. We should pursue responsible structural revenue, reduce unnecessary borrowing, and begin solving the 2028 deficit immediately.
But none of those goals excuses adopting a budget that rests on money that does not exist today.
The majority did not merely make an optimistic accounting assumption. It placed employee paychecks, the district’s legal compliance, our creditworthiness, future classroom resources and long-overdue capital investments at risk.
If Springfield eventually provides the $150 million, the majority will claim vindication. I hope the money arrives. Every student, parent, educator and taxpayer should hope so.
But responsible governance cannot consist of hoping everything works out.
If the money does not arrive, the consequences will not fall primarily on the board members who cast these votes. They will fall on employees worried about their paychecks, students who may lose trusted adults in the middle of the year, families whose programs may be reduced, taxpayers forced to absorb higher interest costs, and communities whose promised school improvements will once again be postponed.
Eleven members chose speculation over evidence, politics over professional judgment, and short-term applause over long-term stability.
More Top Picks How To Talk To Your Child About Their Diagnosis
That is not responsible stewardship. That is gambling with the stability of CPS and asking our students, employees, families and taxpayers to cover the losses.
Angel Gutierrez represents District 8A on the Chicago Board of Education.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].