.png)
Last week, when repeatedly pressed by journalists to state whether there was a contingency plan if CPS does not submit payment to the City of Chicago before the March 31 deadline, Mayor Brandon Johnson quipped, 'Call on the name of Jesus.' He may need to enact that strategy.
Seven members of the Chicago Board of Education have taken a firm stand against a proposal that would allow Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to reimburse the city for a contentious pension payment. Their opposition effectively halts, at least for now, the city’s attempt to balance its budget using school district funds.
In a letter received on Sunday and addressed to Board President Sean Harden on Saturday, the seven board members declared their refusal to support the city's request for a $175 million reimbursement from CPS. This reimbursement would necessitate an amendment to the school district’s budget, requiring a two-thirds majority—14 out of 21 votes—to pass. Given the current opposition, the city does not have enough support to proceed.
Board President Sean Harden, who only casts a vote in the event of a tie, has not publicly commented on the matter. Neither Harden nor a spokesperson for Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office could be reached immediately for a response.
In their letter, board members Jessica Biggs, Therese Boyle, Jennifer Custer, Angel Gutierrez, Carlos Rivas Jr., Ellen Rosenfeld, and Che “Rhymefest” Smith explained their stance, emphasizing the lack of a sustainable funding mechanism to support such a payment. “We cannot in good conscience make payments towards things for which we have no sustainable means of raising revenue,” they wrote. This group of board members has, at times, been critical of policies supported by Mayor Johnson, who appointed 11 of the 21 board members.
The pension reimbursement issue has been the subject of intense debate for months between city officials and CPS leadership. Some board members have resisted proposals that involve budget cuts, borrowing funds, or restructuring debt to cover the payment—solutions that have been put forward by City Hall and, more cautiously, an independent consultant.
“As a body entrusted to govern the Chicago Public Schools, its teachers, staff, and students, it is important to make decisions that are in the best interest of the district and in line with our fiduciary responsibilities,” the letter stated. “Any terms brought forth that suggest more borrowing and the addition of more debt to the district is not financial best practice and creates further risk to the district.”
This latest development underscores the ongoing tension between CPS and city officials over fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. Chicago Public Schools, already facing financial challenges, has struggled with budgetary constraints, teacher contract negotiations, and infrastructure needs. Adding another financial obligation without a clear plan for funding it has raised alarms among some board members who fear long-term repercussions for the district.
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration has argued that the reimbursement is necessary to maintain fiscal stability for the city. City officials contend that CPS has benefited from past financial assistance from the city and should contribute its fair share. However, opponents on the board insist that CPS must prioritize its own financial health before assisting the city’s budget.
The city’s proposal to cover the pension payment through borrowing or budget reallocations has been met with resistance, as critics warn of the dangers of increasing CPS’s debt burden. Some financial experts have echoed these concerns, arguing that further borrowing could negatively impact the district’s credit rating and long-term stability. Others, however, believe that short-term financial maneuvering may be necessary to address immediate fiscal needs.
For now, the deadlock means that the city will have to explore alternative strategies to close its budget gap. While the mayor’s office may attempt to renegotiate terms or persuade additional board members to support the reimbursement, it is unclear whether such efforts will succeed.
This dispute also highlights broader governance challenges as the city transitions to a fully elected school board by 2027. The composition of the board, with a mix of elected and appointed members, has led to ideological divisions and policy disagreements. As the board continues to evolve, future budgetary and governance decisions are likely to face similar scrutiny and debate.
Moving forward, CPS and city officials will need to focus on finding sustainable financial solutions that do not jeopardize the district’s ability to serve its students. Whether through increased state funding, revised taxation strategies, or budget restructuring, the debate over fiscal responsibility in Chicago’s public education system is far from over.
For now, the seven board members standing against the pension reimbursement have effectively stalled the city’s efforts, sending a clear message that any financial commitments must align with the district’s long-term stability and best practices. The resolution of this issue will likely set a precedent for future financial negotiations between CPS and City Hall, shaping the trajectory of school funding in Chicago for years to come.