A proposal to remake how Illinois funds public universities is moving forward in the House even as illinois university leadership warns the plan could weaken the state’s “strongest public universities” by redistributing resources.
What changed in Springfield—and why Illinois University is pushing back
The measure to create an evidence-based funding formula for higher education was approved in a House committee on Thursday. Supporters describe it as an attempt to build a more equitable system after years of underfunding, modeled on an evidence-based approach Illinois adopted for K-12 school districts in 2017. The bill also calls for boosting higher education funding by $135 million annually for the next 15 years.
Illinois State University President Aondover Tarhule was among eight university leaders who signed a letter backing the proposal, arguing it would provide “stable, predictable funding for every public university. ” In that statement, the presidents tied stability to easing tuition pressure, strengthening recruitment and enrollment, improving student outcomes, increasing graduation rates, and growing economic investment.
Opposition inside the committee included House Republicans, who voted against the bill and suggested universities should look for other areas to cut costs and find ways to attract more students.
The sharpest institutional resistance described in testimony came from the University of Illinois System, which opposed the plan previously when it failed to advance in the Senate last year and is opposing it again. Nicholas Jones, executive vice president of the University of Illinois System, said the system supports evidence-based funding in principle but wants changes to the proposed formula. Jones argued that while “equity and adequacy are shared goals, ” the proposed legislation “does not achieve equity or adequacy” and instead redistributes resources in a way that under-resources the state’s strongest public universities.
Who says the current system is failing—and what the bill promises to fix
Christy Borders, a professor in the Illinois State University College of Education, testified on behalf of the University Professionals of Illinois union. Borders said Illinois State University has seen record enrollment in recent years but remains in a financial crisis.
Borders directly challenged the idea that universities can solve the funding problem by growing enrollment. “Contrary to what some might believe, institutions cannot simply enroll our way out of this under funding issue, ” Borders said. She also said several institutions have made cuts to programs due to a lack of funding.
Supporters of the measure argue that an evidence-based formula would align funding with need and address gaps created by years of insufficient state investment. The context for that dispute is a tight state budget year in which higher education funding increased by 1%, an increase educators say has not kept up with inflation.
Within that debate, Jones emphasized the risk of redistribution without enough overall growth in state appropriations. He said the University of Illinois System wants more total funding for higher education in Illinois to avoid reductions in what it receives as other schools with bigger adequacy gaps receive more. He warned that “in the event of flat or reduced funding, ” negative impacts on the system would be “amplified dramatically, ” potentially worsening inequities rather than addressing them. Jones also said the system represents three universities and that cuts to one university affect all universities in the system.
Borders, however, pointed to a key counterclaim about the mechanics: she noted that every university would see a dollar amount increase, though some would receive a smaller share relative to others. In her framing, funding would be “adequately and equally shared across the universities based on their need and their level of adequacy for funding. ” The clash over what counts as “equity” is central—whether it is defined by lifting institutions furthest from adequacy fastest, or by ensuring that historically better-funded institutions do not lose ground in relative terms.
What happens next: a campus forum in ET and a broader fight over “equitable” funding
While the House committee vote moves the bill forward, universities are also taking the argument to campuses. Southern Illinois University said SIU Carbondale faculty, staff, and students are invited to an in-depth conversation on Wednesday, April 1, about a proposed new data-driven formula to distribute state funding to public universities.
The event—titled “The Time is Now: Equitably Funding our Universities”—is hosted by SIU System President Dan Mahony and the Coalition for Transforming Higher Education Funding, with the SIU Alumni Association and the coalition. It is scheduled for 4: 30–6: 30 p. m. ET, with the program beginning at 4: 45 p. m. ET, at the Student Center International Lounge, and includes options for in-person or virtual attendance. The discussion is set to focus on the proposed Adequate and Equitable Public University Funding Act before the Illinois General Assembly, identified as Senate Bill 13/House Bill 1581, and will include expert higher education researchers and audience feedback.
SIU’s announcement also outlined a longer-term view of the stakes: it said that over the last 15 years, state support to Illinois’ public four-year universities has been cut in half, prompting tuition and fee increases and worsening affordability issues for students. It described full funding projections for SIU Carbondale and SIU Edwardsville that include additional graduates and increased local tax revenue annually. The framing positions the legislation as not only a university funding change, but an economic development issue for communities anchored by public campuses.
For now, the fault line remains clear: supporters say the evidence-based formula offers stability and equity after prolonged underfunding, while the University of Illinois System argues the formula as written could penalize the state’s strongest institutions unless overall funding rises enough to avoid harmful redistribution. As the bill advances, illinois university remains a central player in determining whether Illinois can agree on what “adequate and equitable” actually means—and who pays the price if the state’s higher education budget stays tight.
