Europe business – Nomas Solo Mon, 06 Dec 2021 15:57:53 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Europe business – Nomas Solo 32 32 What is a bill consolidation loan? Mon, 06 Dec 2021 15:57:53 +0000 ]]>
What is a <a class=bill consolidation loan?” title=”What is a bill consolidation loan?” src-img=”×464.jpg” src-webp=”×464.jpg.webp” data-eio=”j”/>

Debt consolidation is one of the many debt relief solutions for the main types of debt. It is an ideal solution if you have several loans which are overwhelming in size and become practically impossible to manage. However, although it is a viable debt relief solution, a bill consolidation loan is not for everyone.

What is a bill consolidation loan? Learn about the basics of a bill consolidation loan, also known as a debt consolidation loan, below.

What is a bill (debt) consolidation loan?

A bill consolidation loan is a loan that pays off all consumer liabilities and debts combined. Consolidation combines all these loans into a single monthly payment. Unlike having multiple loans, each with different interest rates, a bill consolidation loan makes it easy to keep track of all of your loans with one major loan.

How does invoice consolidation work?

Bill consolidation involves using various forms of financing to offset other debts and obligations. You can apply for a loan to consolidate the different types of debt into a single liability and then erase them. Thereafter, you will make monthly payments on the new loan until you pay it off in full.

Most individuals apply for consolidation through credit unions, credit card companies, or banks. Both options are ideal, especially if you have a good relationship and an exceptional history with them. However, if neither is an option, you can turn to private lenders or mortgage companies.

It is important to note that bill consolidation loans do not erase your debts like other forms of debt relief. If you want to get out of debt completely, you can try debt settlement or file for bankruptcy. If you want to go bankrupt, hire a professional bankruptcy lawyer to help you accordingly. However, for debt settlement, you can consider a debt relief (settlement) program for the best settlement. You can read more about this at

Types of invoice consolidation

The bill consolidation loans are divided into secured and unsecured loans. A secured loan is backed by one of your assets, such as a car, which serves as loan collateral. On the other hand, unsecured loans are not asset backed and can usually come with higher interest rates. They are also more difficult to obtain and have lower allowable amounts.

Qualification for bill consolidation loans

As mentioned earlier, bill consolidation is not for everyone. This is due to the requirements for loan qualification. To be eligible for bill consolidation, you must have a stable source of income and a good credit rating. This is especially the case if you are trying a new financial lender for the first time.

Once the bill consolidation loan is approved, you or the lender will decide which of your many lenders to pay off first. However, it is advisable to pay off high interest debts first.

Pros and Cons of Bill Consolidation Loans


1. Improved credit score: By offsetting your principal as early as possible, interest payments stay low, which means you’ll pay less money. This helps to increase your credit score and your credibility with potential creditors.

2. Lower interest rates: Carrying over your existing debts, including those with very high interest rates, into a single monthly payment can help lower your overall repayment rates.


Unfortunately, taking a bill consolidation debt puts you in even more debt, unlike alternative debt relief options. Also, the longer the repayment schedule of the consolidated loan, the more money you will end up paying to the new lender. Paying attention to payment schedules is essential.

Final result

What is a bill consolidation loan and how does it work? A bill consolidation loan is a debt relief option that helps you pay off multiple debts and transfer them into one monthly payment. However, you need to have a good credit score and a good income to get the best result.

Source link

Is bill consolidation a good choice? Thu, 18 Nov 2021 16:31:23 +0000 Is bill consolidation a good choice? First of all, it depends on the reason why you should choose debt consolidation in the first place. If the debt you are dealing with is related to rather high interest rates, perhaps it can be controlled by consolidation. However, there is a fine line between what type of […]]]>
Is bill consolidation a good choice?

First of all, it depends on the reason why you should choose debt consolidation in the first place. If the debt you are dealing with is related to rather high interest rates, perhaps it can be controlled by consolidation. However, there is a fine line between what type of debt to consider for consolidation purposes and what debt you are better off paying as is.

In this article, you will learn about some of the trickier things about whether bill consolidation is right for you. You will also be introduced to a company that can point you in the right direction for help with reducing your personal debt.

There are, of course, several ways to consolidate your debt. It can lower your overall interest rate when all of your debts are placed in one monthly payment. Consolidation also gives you a cleaner credit history if used effectively.

Those who do and those who don’t

Debt consolidation is a matter that should not be taken lightly. With that in mind, if you are looking for a way to consolidate your debt, you need to know your debt amount.

Debt consolidation really has more to do with lowering the interest rate. is an organization dedicated to helping clients take those first steps in the debt consolidation process. The site offers an easy to understand process for consolidating debt, as well as a few different options for doing so.

With, you get a professional and friendly approach on how to best approach your financial situation and how to make debt consolidation work for you. The site offers readers helpful tips that explain what debt consolidation is and includes a series of guidelines for determining if consolidation is in fact the right way to go, or if another option may be available, such as a loan or credit card balance transfer. In other words, employees understand that paying multiple bills can lead to debt confusion and anxiety.

However, with their debt consolidation program, they will show you how to pay multiple bills on, using their own debt consolidation strategy. is another useful link to determine your specific consolidation case. On this site, you can find out how effective debt consolidation can be for your financial future. will give you a list of the current major lenders working with personal loans to pay off debt.

What Are Debt Consolidation Loans Used For?

In debt consolidation, the goal of a personal loan is to help the borrower pay off their debt by making one payment each month in order to pay off that debt. This means that any money paid for the loan will go directly to the lender instead of a third party.

This is probably the most direct way to pay off debt, although it does require a bit more responsibility on the part of the borrower, as that will be the person who will be making those payments. also has good information on the types of lenders who approve personal loans for the sole purpose of paying off debts. Hopefully, with this kind of information, you understand how to recognize if bill consolidation is the right choice for your financial needs.

Source link

10 Mistakes People Make When Trying To Get Out Of Bill Consolidation Tue, 12 Oct 2021 03:50:38 +0000 Controlling debt and making debt repayments responsibly allows for a wide range of worthwhile and rewarding activities and purchases. The purchase of a house, going to college, paying for unexpected costs like a new roof even buying an automobile and many more are much harder if not for the ability to purchase immediately and then pay […]]]>

Controlling debt and making debt repayments responsibly allows for a wide range of worthwhile and rewarding activities and purchases. The purchase of a house, going to college, paying for unexpected costs like a new roof even buying an automobile and many more are much harder if not for the ability to purchase immediately and then pay it off later Consolidation Now.

When household and personal debts become excessive it could trigger powerful emotions of frustration and unhappiness. People who are over their heads due to debt experience less satisfaction in life and lower emotional wellbeing, as well as lower sleep and health as per recent research. It’s the reason having the capacity to pay off debt is essential to financial success and general satisfaction.

The process of repaying debt isn’t always straightforward. There are a myriad of ways that a borrower could be lost on the way from debt-stricken to debt-free. Here are the top 10 most frequently made mistakes in trying to pay off their debts.

1. Becoming too hard on yourself

The stigma of over-indebtedness is not good. If you’re burdened with monthly loans it’s tempting to view it as proof of a sham-worthy weakness in your character. However, experts in the field of household finance argue that the inability to resist temptations is just one reason that could cause you to take on more debt than you are able to quickly pay back. The research over time suggests that a low income and a insufficient financial resources could be even more important factors than a lack of willpower.

In any case, it’s an issue that is widespread. In May of 2019 over two-thirds of 5 U.S. consumers told pollsters for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) they struggled to pay bills or expenses in the past year. The people with less income and less credit scores were more likely to have problems than others, and more than one-in-five six-figure earners also faced difficulties. Don’t waste time putting yourself in a position of being unable to succeed. Instead, make use of your energy to avoid making other mistakes.

2. Not taking advantage of help

There’s no need to attempt getting rid of your debts by yourself. A national network of non-profit credit counseling services is available to provide those in your position personalized face-to-face support in managing your financial and debts. For a nominal fee they will help you establish a plan to manage and eventually eliminate your debts.

It is possible that the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) can offer the name of local services.

3. Neglecting Financial Literacy

Being in debt isn’t solely about inability to control oneself. Knowing about finance is essential. Research conducted in research conducted in the United Kingdom found low-income people who had better money management capabilities had lower ratios of income to debt. The study found that financial literacy can lead to better borrowing choices. As an example, the people who knew the impact of compounding interest would be less likely make high-cost borrowing decisions.

You can increase your financial knowledge by studying personal finance publications, magazines, and information on the internet, such as Forbes Advisor. In addition, the non-profit National Endowment for Financial Education has provided funding for the development of several financial literacy-enhancing research-based programs.

4. Inability to Budget

Any debt repayment plan will be successful when your spending habits remain the same. To keep your expenses under control, you must create an budget.

All you have to do is keep track of your expenses and income, and limit your spending to what you earn in order to stay in the financial black. With a few simple steps, even the most budget-conscious can create an effective strategy for managing spending and balancing it against income.

5. You’re not tracking your progress, or rewarding Your Achievements

You can tap into the human nature to assist you in reaching your debt reduction goals through the word Gamification. Gamification makes use of the reward circuits in your brain to aid you in meeting your savings as well as other goals for your financial life. The principle is to develop challenges, competitions and rewards linked to your debt reduction goals.

The most important thing is to track the progress of your work and, once you reach a milestone, reward yourself. For example, if you’ve paid off your rate that is high credit card, for instance, you might allow yourself to purchase the item of clothing you’ve been eyeing. Personal finance applications like Digit and Qapital utilize gamification techniques to guide you on the path of financial satisfaction.

6. Avoiding Scams That Profit from the Indebted

Non-profit and for-profit debt relief programs are beneficial to borrowers who are struggling. They offer debtors credit counseling as well as debt management, and help using debt settlement strategies including negotiation of interest rate reductions or changing repayment terms, decreasing the amount owed, consolidating debt and refinancing.

However, scammers also target those who are vulnerable by offering credit relief plans that cost exorbitant fees, offer unclear conditions and make untrue promises. There is a CFPB database of complaints. CFPB is a database online of consumer complaints regarding the programs for debt relief. The NFCC as well as the Financial Counseling Association of America can offer recommendations to legitimate programs.

7. Not a good reason to file for bankruptcy.

Getting protection from creditors through the terms of either Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy laws provides the ability to pay off your debts and give you the chance to begin over. But, bankruptcy comes with restrictions and also serious disadvantages, such as an ongoing blemish on the credit report. Although it certainly can be used in certain situations, bankruptcy isn’t the most ideal choice for everyone who is struggling financially. It’s best to explore other options like credit counseling before you apply for your bankruptcy cards.

8. Setting unrealistic goals

Although you may be able to be debt free however, you might not be able to achieve it quickly with no sacrifice. In particular, instead of having to settle all of your debts in one go in the majority of cases, it makes sense to work on them by one at a time.

The debt avalanche technique is one method. It involves paying off your most expensiveand highest-interest debts firstand then focusing on the second-highest cost debt until you’ve completed the repayment of all your debts. This will require patience, concentration and discipline It’s also much more sensible than thinking of getting rid of your debts in one in one swoop. Some borrowers get the motivation they require by using the debt snowball strategy that lets you pay off your most smallest debts first in order to gain momentum towards your debt-free goals.

9. Not focusing on savings

It’s tempting to collect every cent of your income that isn’t dedicated to the essential expenses and use it for repaying debt. But, it’s more sensible to dedicate a portion of your cash as well as cents towards creating and keeping an emergency savings account.

In the event that you’ve got a dependable reserve for rainy days, for many years, the recommendation has been to stash away 3 to 6 months of your basic expenses in a rough estimate. If you do this, you’re more likely to not be forced to take out a loan to pay for the unexpected cost of medical bills or repair to your car or a bout of unemployment. Since three months of expenses could be many thousand dollars, putting aside even just $1,000 can be a great starting point. If you save only $100 per month, you could reach the amount of emergency savings in just an entire year.

10. Don’t Increase Your Income

The process of paying off debt and avoiding the temptation to go back into debt goes far beyond the control of spending. Also, you need to make enough money to sustain your lifestyle while you work on reducing your debt. In this regard, growing your income could be an important aspect of the debt repayment process.

Studies dating back to the past have discovered an amount of income that that consumers were able to earn is an important factor — perhaps the most crucial factor in determining how they pay their debts. You could be able to boost your earnings through making savings more efficient. Another method to increase your earnings is to begin doing a part-time job. Whatever the reason the income, it will result in more funds to pay down debt more quickly and less likely to slip back into debt in the future.

Bottom Line

These mistakes aren’t all the mistakes that you may make while trying to clear debt. One example is taking out loans which is secured through your property or another asset in order to settle your unsecured debts due to the possibility loss of collateral in the event that you fail to pay in time. These are just a few of the most frequent errors in repayment of debt. Beware of them and you’ll be able to pay down the amount of debt you have and improve your satisfaction.

Classrooms First: District Bill Consolidation can improve Illinois’ education outcomes while saving taxpayers money Sun, 10 Oct 2021 06:56:05 +0000 Illinois needlessly wastes scarce education tax dollars on excessive layers of school district administration, simultaneously depriving students of resources that could be better used on instruction costs and driving up the cost of education for property taxpayers. Largely as a result, the state’s outcomes have lagged lower-spending states for a 16-year period Bill Consolidation From […]]]>

Illinois needlessly wastes scarce education tax dollars on excessive layers of school district administration, simultaneously depriving students of resources that could be better used on instruction costs and driving up the cost of education for property taxpayers. Largely as a result, the state’s outcomes have lagged lower-spending states for a 16-year period Bill Consolidation

From 2003 to 2019, Illinois’s per pupil spending was the highest among neighboring states, but average student outcomes were worse. Bill Consolidation neighboring states spent between 8% and 25% less per pupil, but each of them scored better on student reading assessments by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Additionally, all but two states, Missouri and Kentucky, scored better on NAEP math rankings, and all of them had better high school graduation rates during the period.

Nationwide, 15 states spent less per pupil than Illinois but received better NAEP scores for both math and reading. Illinois ranks 15th for spending per pupil but 27th on both math and reading assessments on average since 2003.

The disconnect between Illinois’ high education spending and below-average student outcomes stems from overspending on the heirarchy above its schools. Overspending on district administration drives up costs while siphoning dollars away from students and teachers in the classroom, where spending has the best return on investment for student achievement.

Illinois was the only state to spend more than $1 billion on general district-level administration in 2018, further evidence of its position as an extreme national outlier. California, which has more than three times as many students, spent one-third less on general administrative costs at $780.5 million. California joined Illinois in spending more than $1 billion on general administration in 2019, but Illinois still spent more.

Illinois’ $631 per pupil spending on district administration is more than double the national average as of 2019.

Peer-reviewed research from economists and public policy experts has reached a consensus that “how” money is spent on education matters more for education quality than “how much” is spent. Studies also show consolidation of school districts, but not schools, offers a path to simultaneously reducing costs and improving student outcomes.

Original analysis from the Illinois Policy Institute adds further to the existing evidence, showing a strong statistical link between student outcomes and higher spending on instruction across all 50 states, but no relationship between education quality and higher spending on general administration. States with larger districts serving more students and more schools also, on average, spend less on district-level administration and place lower burdens on homeowners through property taxes.

Illinois’ current procedures for consolidation are woefully inadequate and have made Illinois the outlier it is today. Under current law, voter-initiated petitions for consolidation can be blocked by an “administrator’s veto.” Administrators with something to lose are often the chief opposition to more efficient school districts.

An earlier 1985 effort to reorganize Illinois school districts to better serve students’ needs was overturned by opposition from those involved in local school district administration. Illinois politicians chose then to prioritize financially conflicted special interest groups over Illinois’ children, parents and taxpayers.

If Illinois is to live up to its responsibility to support a high-quality education system that maximizes each student’s individual potential, lawmakers must set aside special interest opposition and put classrooms first. A bill currently moving through the Illinois General Assembly, the Classrooms First Act, offers the best opportunity to achieve that important goal

Introduction: Wasteful administrative spending drives up costs and holds back student achievement

Supporting a high-quality education that fosters children’s ability to maximize their potential is perhaps the most important responsibility of state government. Unfortunately, Illinois is failing to deliver on this goal as well as it should because of excessive and wasteful spending on district administration.

Illinois spends a lot per pupil on K-12 education, but its student outcomes range from average to worse. Overspending on district administration drives up costs while siphoning away dollars from the classroom, where they have the best return on investment for student outcomes.

From 2003 to 2019, Illinois’ per pupil spending was the highest among neighboring states at $11,875 on average. Neighboring states spent between 8% and 25% less per pupil, but each of them scored better on student reading assessments by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, also called the “nation’s report card” or NAEP. Additionally, all but two states, Missouri and Kentucky, scored better on NAEP math rankings and each neighboring state saw higher graduation rates.

One benefit of averaging state education data over multiple years is it smooths out any single year fluctuations and demonstrates a long-term pattern.

The bottom line is Illinois spends more on education to get less compared to its Midwest neighbors. Among all 50 states, Illinois ranks 15th for spending per pupil but 27th on both math and reading assessments since 2003. There are 15 states that spend less per pupil than Illinois but receive better NAEP scores for both math and reading (See Appendix A for data on all 50 states).

High and inefficient education spending also contributes to Illinois’ crushing property tax burden, which is the second highest in the nation.1 On average, nearly three-fifths of local property tax collections in Illinois go to school districts as of 2019.2

While left-leaning groups such as the Illinois Economic Policy Institute have argued increasing state funding for education would alleviate the need for local funding and help lower property taxes,3 this historically has not worked. During the past 20 years, Illinois property taxes have increased by 106% despite a 70% increase in state spending on education.

There is little evidence that spending more at the state level will encourage local governments to raise less in property taxes at the local level. A better strategy is to cut spending that is wasteful or nonproductive, and return the savings to overburdened property taxpayers.

A key reason Illinois spends more than other states yet lags behind in student outcomes is much of the spending never makes it to classrooms, where it can directly benefit students and teachers. Excessive layers of district bureaucracy result in an inefficient allocation of public education dollars and deprive taxpayers of a good return for their money.

Illinois has 852 school districts, the fourth most among U.S. states.4 Its spending on “general administrative costs” per pupil is the second highest among states.5 General administrative costs refer only to district-level costs such as the office of the superintendent, school board and other district-wide spending, such as marketing. The category does not include the cost of administration within schools, such as principals and guidance counselors.

The reason for Illinois’ overspending on district-level costs is clear from the data – Illinois has too many districts serving too few students. If Illinois were to match the national average of districts per student, it would have 208 fewer districts, or a reduction of about 25%. If it were to match the proportions of peer states with similar or larger total student enrollment, it would have between 324 and 800 fewer districts.

Florida, the state with the most streamlined district administration among large states, has only one school district per county. A 2009 report from Illinois State University found six other states use a one-district-per-county model while Hawaii has just one statewide school district.6

Data shows states with larger districts on average also spend less on general administration, an intuitive result because larger districts are able to achieve greater economies of scale, meaning costs per student go down as the number of students per district goes up. Among large states, there is a strong correlation between students per district and general administration spending. Each large state that serves more students per district also spends less per pupil on district costs compared to states with smaller districts. This statistical relationship is also moderately strong (r = -0.32) among all 50 states using standard conventions in political science and similar social sciences.7

Similarly, there is a strong statistical relationship between higher spending on general administration and higher property taxes (r = 0.61). In other words, states with less district overhead also tend to put less of a burden on local taxpayers overall.

Illinois was the only state to spend more than $1 billion on general district-level administration in 2018,8 underscoring it is an extreme national outlier. Total general administrative spending was $1.19 billion. California, which has more than three times as many students, spent one-third less on general administrative costs at $780.5 million. California joined Illinois in spending more than $1 billion on general administration in 2019, but Illinois still spent more.

Illinois’ $631 per pupil spending on district administration is more than double the national average as of 2019.

If Illinois reduced its general administrative spending to the national average per student, it would save nearly $732 million in unnecessary costs that could be reinvested in the classroom to improve student outcomes or returned to overburdened property taxpayers.9 A bill currently receiving bipartisan support in the Illinois General Assembly, the Classroom First Act, presents the best opportunity for Illinois to achieve this goal.

The Classrooms First Act was first introduced by state Rep. Rita Mayfield, D-Waukegan, in 2019. Illinois House of Representatives members unanimously passed it.10 It never received a full vote in the Senate, but has been reintroduced by Mayfield and a bipartisan group of more than a dozen co-sponsors.11

The Classrooms First Act would create the Efficient School District Commission, tasked with making recommendations for consolidating districts. Each consolidation recommendation would go to local voters for approval. The Commission includes representation from all key stakeholders, including teachers unions, organizations representing school boards and superintendents, regional representation from each of the state’s education support districts, and parents. It is tasked with developing specific recommendations for a minimum 25% reduction in bureaucracy, roughly the amount needed to bring Illinois in line with the national average. A larger reduction in districts would likely result in larger benefits.

The bill would require all newly formed districts to be unit districts, meaning they’d serve both high schools and elementary schools. Unit districts spend money more efficiently on average in Illinois, spending $12,704 per student compared to $17,368 for high-school-only districts and $14,001 for elementary-only districts.12

Consolidation of districts, particularly among the smallest districts, is a commonsense and proven strategy to reduce the cost of administration while improving student outcomes. Giving Illinois voters the opportunity to exercise that option would yield major benefits for public education.

Research shows student outcomes depend more on how money is spent than merely on how much is spent

The fact that Illinois’ high spending on K-12 education has not helped it outperform lower-spending states in terms of education quality may seem surprising. However, evidence from the expert literature on education demonstrates more resources do not always mean higher student achievement.

The efficient allocation of resources with a focus on the direct benefits to students may ultimately be more important than the overall amount of spending. Of course, there is a minimum level of money required to meet students’ needs, and higher spending within an efficient system may still yield improvements. But, overall, the evidence suggests policymakers seeking to improve education should pay at least as much attention to how money is spent as they do to how much is spent.

Original data and research from the Illinois Policy Institute adds further to the existing evidence, showing a strong statistical link between student outcomes and spending on instruction, but no relationship between education quality and spending on general administration.

Taken together, the evidence is clear that consolidation of school districts offers Illinois a path to reducing waste in education spending while improving student outcomes.

Academic debate over whether ‘money matters’ for student achievement offers lessons for Illinois

Researchers have fiercely debated the relationship between student outcomes and public education spending since the Coleman Report, named for lead author James S. Coleman, first found in 1966 that “money doesn’t matter.”13

Formally titled Equality of Educational Opportunity, the Coleman Report was a first-of-its-kind study commissioned by the U.S. government as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its purpose was to study inequality in K-12 education. The 746-page report includes a variety of statistical findings and for its time contained a breathtaking amount of data. But the most long-lasting impact of the report stemmed from its findings related to what really drives different levels of student achievement:

“Taking all these results together, one implication stands out above all: That schools bring little influence to bear on a child’s achievement that is independent of his background and general social context; and that this very lack of an independent effect means that the inequalities imposed on children by their home, neighborhood, and peer environment are carried along to become the inequalities with which they confront adult life at the end of school.”14

According to the Coleman Report, socioeconomic and home life factors were the strongest determinants of student achievement. Variations in resources between schools explained next to nothing about divergent student outcomes in this view. If true, it would have been a major blow to education advocates who saw school finance reforms as an effective way to improve education quality.

Research for the next several decades sought to settle the debate between the “money matters” and “money doesn’t matter” camps of experts.

In 1997, a study published in Sociology of Education opened by saying, “Because of the prestige of the Coleman Report, few sociologists of education assert that school spending is associated with student’s achievement.”15 The 1997 study found spending increases, if used to reduce class sizes, were actually associated with statistically significant increases in NAEP 8th grade math scores. The fact that it explicitly contrasted these findings with Coleman’s, released more than 30 years earlier, speaks to the extended debate sparked by the 1966 report. And this contrary finding was far from universally accepted for many years.

Eric A. Hanushek, an economist who focuses on education policy, concluded in his comprehensive 2003 review of academic literature on the topic, “there is very weak support for the notion that simply providing higher teacher salaries or greater overall spending will lead to improved student performance.”16 However, Hanushek also cautioned the results do not “mean that money and resources never matter…it is just that no good description of when and where,” resources can lead to higher student performance was available.

In other words, statistical evidence about the impact of higher spending on education was mixed up to that point. No one had been able to explain why some studies found a positive relationship, some found a negative relationship, and many others failed to find any statistically significant impact of money on student achievement.

More recent research has provided stronger evidence increased spending on education can cause student outcomes to improve. Advancements in research techniques combined with exogenous, or externally driven, increases in K-12 spending that only impacted certain districts allowed education researchers to more closely match true scientific experiments. Previous studies had only been able to compare pre-existing statistical associations without anything like the outside “intervention” of an experiment. School finance reforms over several decades essentially created test groups and control groups out of school districts by providing more resources to some and not others.

From 1971 to 2010, state supreme courts overturned school finance systems in 28 states for overreliance on local property wealth to fund education and the disparities this caused.17 Other pseudo-experimental studies were made possible by voter-initiated school finance reforms.

For example, a 2017 study looked at Michigan’s Proposal A, approved by voters in 1994 to equalize funding across districts.18 It found that a 10% increase in spending per pupil was linked with a 7% increase in college enrollment and made students 11% more likely to earn a college degree. A 2020 study in the Journal of Public Economics looked at more than 3,000 local referendums to increase education funding across seven states and found similarly positive results for graduation rates, as well as a significant and positive effect of higher spending on NAEP test scores.19

That multi-state study also found there were likely diminishing returns to increased spending and improvements were concentrated in districts that were poorest and lowest-spending before reform. Other studies have come to similar conclusions. An analysis of all 26 states that enacted school finance reforms from 1990 to 2012 also found the benefits of higher funding were concentrated in low-income districts.20

These findings suggest spending increases in the districts previously farthest from adequate funding will improve results, but leaves open questions about when and how money matters for high-spending districts or those closer to average.21 In other words, it’s possible there’s a minimum level of sufficient spending, but spending increases beyond that level will not yield improvements in student achievement.

C. Kirabo Jackson, a Northwestern University economist, in 2018 published a comprehensive overview of both older statistical association studies as well as more recent quasi-experimental studies. He concluded, “By and large, the question of whether money matters is essentially settled. Researchers should now focus on understanding what kinds of spending increases matter the most, and also in what contexts school spending increases are most likely to improve student outcomes.”22

More research needs to be done to more accurately determine what types of spending increases work and which do not. But the lessons researchers have already learned provide valuable insights to Illinois lawmakers seeking to improve the state’s education system.

On the 50th anniversary of the Coleman Report in 2016, education economist Eric Hanushek – who in 2003 wrote about the “failure of input-based schooling policies” – reflected back on the enduring impact of Coleman’s research and the debate it sparked. “There now appears to be a general consensus that how money is spent is much more important than how much is spent,” he concluded.23

Illinoisans should keep this consensus in mind when considering that the Prairie State spends more than any other state on district administration overall. Redirecting resources to classrooms, where it can directly benefit students and teachers, would be a much better use of these funds.

Original research shows higher spending on instruction benefits students, while more spending on district administration does not

While research on the value of increased school spending has been hotly debated until recently, research on the benefits of school district consolidation consistently gives more clear-cut answers. Consolidation of districts, but not schools, generally results in improved student outcomes as well as taxpayer savings.

Consolidation can boost outcomes by increasing resources available for instruction, such as hiring additional teachers to reduce class sizes or boosting teacher pay to attract better talent. Another key benefit is larger districts are able to offer more expansive curriculum and better coordinate curriculum between high schools and elementary schools, if they serve both.

As far back as 1975, a study of Colorado school districts found less administrative overhead was associated with higher student test scores in math and reading.24 Increased teacher qualifications, such as obtaining a master’s degree, also had positive impacts.

Recent research confirms and expands on this evidence. For example, an Indiana-based study in 2018 found increasing the size of a district to 1,000 students improves the average SAT score by 48 points; increasing the size again to 2,000 students can increase the average SAT score by an additional 14 points.25 As school districts approached 4,000 students, they also saw significant increases in the number of honors student graduates and performance on algebra assessments.

Related to the cost savings and efficiency, a study of a decade worth of consolidations in New York found consolidation reduced per pupil operating expenses by close to 50% in districts with 1,500 students and by about 62% in 300-pupil districts.26 Many other studies also find the benefits of consolidation are greatest in small districts.27

Illinois-specific studies have likewise found larger districts spend less to get more.

Research from the Illinois Policy Institute shows increasing the size of small districts in Illinois has a statistically significant impact on ACT scores. In Illinois, a 10% increase in student enrollment is associated with a 0.04 to 0.06-point higher composite ACT score on average. The results are more extreme for smaller school districts. For districts with fewer than 1,000 students, a 10% increase in district size is associated with up to a 0.09-point higher average composite ACT score.28

An Illinois State University dissertation provides additional state-specific evidence. A statistical analysis of Illinois school districts found larger districts spend less per pupil and achieve better results.29 “Based on the findings of this study, for many districts, in order to save costs and increase student achievement simultaneously, consolidation seems like a viable option,” the author concluded.

To integrate these findings with related research on the effects of student spending and outcomes, researchers should focus future work on determining which types of spending provide the most benefits to students. An important question is whether spending on instruction improves education outcomes more than spending on general administration because reallocating resources from district overhead to classroom costs is a common goal of consolidation.

Unfortunately, few existing studies differentiate between types of spending when examining the impact on student outcomes. A minor exception is a number of studies have attempted to determine whether school infrastructure spending improves student outcomes, with inconclusive results.30

However, while researchers have yet to conclusively determine which types of spending matter most, some research offers insights into when districts will increase one type of spending versus another.

For example, a 2016 study in The Quarterly Journal of Economics found spending increases caused by externally driven school finance reforms resulting from court orders or voter initiatives led to larger increases in instructional spending and school support service spending compared with spending increases occurring through more typical processes.31 “How the money is spent matters a lot,” the report found, and “exogenous increases in school spending are more closely tied to productive inputs than endogenous increases in school spending.”

This helps explain why statistical association studies based on existing funding differences failed to find positive impacts, while studies based on externally initiated school finance reforms found larger effects. The statistical association studies were lumping all types of spending increases together, regardless of whether districts used their resources efficiently, obscuring statistical relationships.

If the theory that instructional spending is more productive is correct, then states that spend a larger share of their pupil expenditures in classrooms should have better student outcomes on average than states that spend more on general administration.

The Illinois Policy Institute collected and analyzed spending and outcome data for all 50 states from 2003 to 2019. Spending data comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual survey of school system finances, while outcomes were measured by 8th grade NAEP test scores, as is common in the peer-reviewed research. The data provides strong evidence that instructional spending benefits students while district-level administrative spending does not.

States that spend a larger share of education resources on instruction compared to the national average tend to have higher than average NAEP reading scores. Specifically, all states that spend 60% or more of their education budgets on instruction outperform the U.S average. The statistical relationship is strong and significant (r = .51). Meanwhile, spending on general administration is unrelated to NAEP reading scores.

The picture is even more stark when looking at how different types of spending relate to NAEP math scores. While the relationship between instructional spending and math scores is almost as strong as with reading scores (r = .46), the correlation between administrative spending and math scores is actually negative, though not statistically significant. In other words, states that spend more on school district costs tend to have slightly worse mathematics outcomes than those that spend less than the national average.

Combined with existing research on K-12 education spending and district consolidation, this new data leaves virtually no doubt consolidating school districts provides Illinois lawmakers with a path to improving student outcomes and giving taxpayers a better return on investment. Redirecting resources to classrooms from district bureaucracy is a commonsense way to benefit virtually every Illinoisan.

Illinois lags behind in consolidation efforts because politicians caved to special interest opposition

School district consolidation was one of the most widespread and impactful education policies of the past 100 years in the U.S. From 1939 to 2019, the total number of school districts in the U.S. fell to 13,452 from 117,108, an 88.5% reduction.32

Illinois has lagged behind in accessing the benefits of the national consolidation movement because state politicians historically caved to special interest opposition from those involved in district administration. To turn things around, Springfield lawmakers must be willing to put the needs of students, teachers, parents and taxpayers above the needs of those seeking to protect their interest in the status quo.

Illinois politicians passed, then reversed, an earlier consolidation effort

In the 19th century and early 20th century, it made more sense for states to have a large number of small single-school districts, particularly in rural areas where the superintendent would have had to travel large distances to visit each individual school in a multi-school district. However, new communication technologies such as email and cell phones have made it much easier to manage multiple schools and a larger number of students across a larger geographic area.

In 1845, Illinois created the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the first statewide education authority and the precursor to the current Illinois State Board of Education.33 Among other things, the enabling state law said the statewide superintendent, “shall use his influence to reduce to a system of practical operation the means of common schools in the state.” This demonstrates reorganizing and consolidation of education bodies was one of the first statewide duties given to the state of Illinois regarding education.

Illinois voters were first given the option to vote on district consolidations in some circumstances in 1909. For most of the 20th century, the state achieved significant amounts of district consolidation. The number of districts fell from more than 12,000 in the 1940s to 5,000 by 1950.34 By 1984, the state had just 1,008 districts.35

In 1985, the ISBE commissioned a study to consider further consolidation. It found additional consolidation was needed to ensure adequate education opportunities for all students, and reported on minimum and optimal sizes for school districts in the state.36 It also found unit districts, those that serve both high schools and elementary schools, were preferable to grade-separated districts. The intent was to maximize student achievement by ensuring all districts were large enough to provide comprehensive K-12 course offerings and equality of educational opportunity.

Legislation stemming from that study created a mandatory process for consolidation, but the committees charged with recommending specific consolidation measures were appointed by local school boards. Those school boards had an inherent conflict of interest – the desire to preserve the existing system and thus their own jobs. As a group of Midwest education consultants wrote, “With few exceptions, these members were sympathetic to the current district structure and most of these committees resisted ISBE efforts to impose reorganization.”37

Within nine months of the consolidation bill’s enactment, the Illinois General Assembly and then-Gov. Jim Thompson passed legislation that effectively removed any requirement to consolidate.38 In other words, state politicians caved to special interests, choosing to preserve wasteful layers of administration at the expense of parents, students, taxpayers and the education outcomes of the entire state of Illinois. They did so in defiance of the findings of ISBE.

Instead of statewide consolidation efforts, Illinois’ district consolidation since the 1980s has followed a process that puts district administrators with a clear conflict of interest in charge of determining how much bureaucracy local communities must pay for. While voters are allowed to circulate petitions to initiate consolidation referendums, school boards and administrators retain ultimate control under current law.

In order to even file a petition for consolidation, local residents must receive approval of the school boards in each district that would be affected by the consolidation. In other words, school board members must agree to reforms that might eliminate their positions. Even if the school boards agree, both the regional superintendent and state superintendent can block the consolidation. This “administrators’ veto” of consolidation petitions means mergers only occur if local government officials with a conflict of interest agree to them.

Payments intended to incentivize administrators to approve consolidation measures began in 1983.39 Initially, these payments were designed to cover any operating deficits held by an affected district for three years, provide money to equalize salaries to the highest level from prior to consolidation, and make up any gap in state aid payments if the consolidated district qualified for less money than the separated districts had.

But in 1985, a new incentive payment was added that gave districts a $4,000 stipend per full-time staff member,40 regardless of need, for up to three years.41

From 1986 to 2019, Illinois paid out a total of $178.6 million in consolidation incentives. More than 57% of that total, or $102.1 million, was for the $4,000 per staff stipend, which has no clear connection to covering transition costs resulting from consolidation.

Illinois and any states with districts that would benefit from consolidation should avoid incentive payments that are unrelated to maintaining prior funding levels or covering transition costs.

The New York consolidation study referenced earlier discussed the impact of that state’s incentive payments on the benefits of consolidation, which require the state to cover a 30% increase in capital expenditures for 10 years after consolidation.42 It found these infrastructure incentives encourage potentially unnecessary construction projects and reduced the near-term operational savings of consolidation from 61.7% to 31.5% per student in small districts and from 49.6% to 14.4% in larger districts. Over a 30-year period, consolidation made back some of the lost savings, with data showing 43.7% net savings for small districts and 29.6% savings after accounting for the decade of higher capital spending.

Much as with education spending overall, state incentive payments should be targeted for the benefit of students and not designed to bribe administrators into accepting consolidation they might otherwise oppose.

Illinois’ administrator-led process for district consolidation has been a failure. From 1983 to 2018, the number of school districts in the state has fallen from 1,008 to 852. But those results came from just 63 consolidations, along with 96 other reorganizations such as deactivation and annexation that typically involve closing individual schools.

Additionally, the pace of consolidations has slowed over the years since the incentive payments were created.43 From 1983 to 2000, there were 41 district consolidations that reduced the number of districts by 113. That accounts for 72.4% of the reduction in districts since 1983. From 2000 to 2018, there were just 22 consolidations that reduced the number of districts by only 43.

In 2012, former Gov. Pat Quinn championed legislation that created the Classrooms First Commission to study consolidation and make recommendations for how Illinois could catch up. Among their recommendations were the state “gut and replace” the current incentive payment system in favor of one that is “affordable to the state and tailored to its reorganization targets.”44

While fixing the state’s costly and ineffective incentive payments is a good suggestion, lawmakers should also take another look at statewide consolidation efforts similar to what they abandoned in 1985.

Illinois needs significant district consolidation, but financially conflicted special interest groups still stand in the way

Illinois has a lot of catching up to do and requires significant amounts of consolidation to maximize students’ educational achievement and reduce wasteful spending on district administration.

A 25% reduction in the number of districts would bring Illinois close to the national average of students served per district. But matching the proportions of a peer state such as California would mean about 57% fewer districts. A scattered and unorganized process for consolidation, even with better incentive payment structures, is unlikely to yield those results any time soon.

In many areas of the state, the make-up of Illinois school districts still resembles the small single school districts that proliferated in the 1800s.

Nearly half of Illinois school districts currently manage just one or two schools. However, the rest are comfortably overseeing three or more and 12% manage at least seven. This demonstrates both significant opportunities for consolidation exist and larger multi-school districts are already a successful model operating in many areas of the state.

Importantly, consolidation across the state can be accomplished in a way that empowers local communities to make decisions about the make-up of their school districts, as is the case with Mayfield’s Classrooms First Act.

In an endorsement of the Classrooms First Act, the News-Gazette editorial board called the sponsorship list a “fascinating mix” and noted it includes “conservative downstate Republicans, liberal Chicago Democrats and both Democratic and Republican suburbanites.”45 The editorial board further stated while consolidation is often all talk and no action in Springfield:

“Mayfield’s House Bill 7 may be the exception. It has the potential to make Illinois government more efficient while improving educational opportunities for all students. It ensures a thorough review of opportunities for school [district] consolidation by a commission that includes representatives of school boards; teacher unions; rural, suburban and Chicago schools; parents; and members of the Legislature. Finally, it gives residents of affected districts the final say on any consolidation proposal.”

But these facts about the Classrooms First Act have not prevented financially conflicted administrators from opposing it. Worse, rather than arguing against the policy on the merits, opponents have instead resorted to spreading misinformation about what the bill actually does.

The chief opposition to the Classrooms First Act comes from those with a financial interest in preserving the lucrative bureaucratic positions required to staff Illinois’ 852 school districts. The average salary of Illinois superintendents was more than $161,000 in the 2019 to 2020 school year while assistant superintendents averaged $156,000.46

As of March 22, 2021, there were 113 school administrators who earned at least $100,000 a year who filed legislative notices opposing HB 7.47 Other opponents include professional and lobbying associations such as the Illinois Association of School Boards and Illinois Association of School Administrators, which represent those involved in district administration.48

Opponents have falsely argued the Classrooms First Act creates a process for “forced consolidation,” ignoring the reality of the locally controlled process the bill would create.49 The statewide study commission the bill creates has no power itself to consolidate districts. It can only make recommendations which require approval from a majority of voters in each affected district to take effect.

Additionally, opponents appear to be intentionally stoking confusion about the difference between district consolidation and school consolidation. District consolidation involves only merging administrative bodies while school consolidation involves physically closing schools.

For example, the Illinois Association of School Boards has circulated a misinformation sheet in opposition to the bill with the fraudulent title, “Forced School Consolidation.”50 That document also wrongly claims the Classrooms First Act fails to account for local considerations such as “time spent on busses each day.” Longer bus routes and increased transportation costs are potential outcomes of closing schools, but the argument has nothing to do with district-only consolidation.

In fact, a 2010 report for the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University found, “Consolidations (of districts) often result in more efficient transportation operations by maximizing use of buses and scheduling of school operations.” Reductions in transportation costs were the largest savings found in that study at 18%, larger even that 15% savings it found for central office costs.51

Even researchers sometimes fail to appropriately differentiate between district consolidation and school consolidation. For example, a 2013 report from the left-leaning Center for American Progress mistakenly claimed district consolidation often leads to higher transportation costs.52 However, the citation for this claim was a study of district consolidation in West Virginia that “closed scores of small, locally-based schools” alongside the merger of administrative entities.53

Moreover, the few published studies that fail to find school district consolidation improves student outcomes generally do not differentiate between consolidations that close schools and those that do not.54 Those that do make the distinction tend to find positive benefits of district-only consolidation, but also find these benefits are at least partially eroded if school consolidation accompanies the merger of districts.55 A key reason is school closures can lead to larger class sizes and higher pupil-teacher ratios.

The Classrooms First Act creates a process for district-only consolidation. Amended versions of the bill specifically state the Efficient School District Commission is not authorized to recommend school consolidation.

Virtually all of the opposition to the Classrooms First Act comes from financially conflicted special interest groups. The arguments against it are rooted in misinformation.

Not all administrators oppose consolidation. The most recent consolidation to occur in Illinois was the merger of Cherry School District 92 and Dimmick District 175 in 2017.56 Results included more than $230,000 in reduced bond debt and a tax rate that is less than half of either the area average or the pre-consolidation rate.57 Members of the merged Dimmick school board filed witness slips, or legislative notices, in support of Mayfield’s House Bill 7.58

However, the Dimmick consolidation only occurred because declining enrollment in the Cherry school district made it a prime candidate for school closure.59 While residents and students still saw significant benefits, this underscores that consolidations under existing Illinois law only occur when administrators approve of them, which tends to be when school consolidation is inevitable.

Illinois desperately needs a process that allows communities to decide whether to consolidate for themselves, without sign-off from potentially conflicted government administrators.

Opposing the Classrooms First Act means opposing local control over the make-up of school district administration and opposing the efficient use of education dollars for the benefit of students. Illinois politicians in 1985 sided with those special interests over the best interests of students, parents and taxpayers. They did so in defiance of peer-reviewed studies and evidence from the state’s own board of education.

Conclusion: Illinois must put classrooms first to deliver for students and taxpayers

Illinois’ high spending on education has failed to result in similarly high levels of student achievement, compared to lower spending states. Overspending on needless layers of district bureaucracy deprives students of the resources they need to succeed while driving up costs for taxpayers.

Nearly three-fifths of Illinois property tax collections go to school districts. The state’s exorbitant spending on general administrative costs also helps explain why its property taxes are second-highest in the nation.

The Classrooms First Act provides the best solution to these problems. By creating a locally controlled and expert-informed process for district consolidation, the bill promises a mix of both higher student achievement and lower property taxes, depending on how savings are used at the local level.

Historically, special interest opposition helps explain why Illinois is such an extreme outlier in district-level spending. Prior attempts to bring Illinois in line with peer states and the national average have been successfully blocked by those with a financial self-interest that runs contrary to the interests of the general public.

If Illinois is to live up to its responsibility to support a high-quality education system that maximizes each student’s individual potential, it must finally put classrooms first.


1John S. Kiernan, “2021’s Property Taxes by State,” WalletHub, Feb. 23, 2021.

2Illinois Department of Revenue, Property Tax Statistics 2019, Table 03 – Property Taxes Extensions by Type Of District, 2018 and 2019.

3Frank Manzo and Robert Bruno, “Assessing Potential Options to Provide Property Tax Relief in Illinois,” Illinois Economic Policy Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal, Dec. 19, 2019.

4National Education Association, 2020 Rankings and Estimates Report, July 2020.

5U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of School System Finances, 2018.

6Center for the Study of Education Policy, “County School Districts: Research and Policy Considerations,” Illinois State University, April 2009.

7See for Example: Haldun Akoglu, “User’s guide to correlation coefficients,” Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine 18.3: 91-93, September 2018; Jacob Cohen, “Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,” (2nd Edition) Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.

8U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of School System Finances, 2018.

9Adam Schuster, “Illinois Forward 2022: Covid-19 Makes Pension Reform Imperative to Protecting Taxpayers, Services for Vulnerable Illinoisans,” Illinois Policy Institute, March 2021.

10Illinois 101st General Assembly, Bill Status of House Bill 3053.

11Illinois 102nd General Assembly, Bill Status of House Bill 7.

12Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois State Report Card 2020.

13Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D. and York, R.L, “Equality of Educational Opportunity,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

14Ibid, p. 325.

15Harold Wenglinsky, “How Money Matters: The Effect of School District Spending on Academic Achievement,” Sociology of Education, 70(3): 221-237, 1997.

16Eric A. Hanushek, “The Failure of Input‐based Schooling Policies,” The Economic Journal, 113.485 (2003).

17C. Kirabo Jackson, “Does School Spending Matter? The New Literature on an Old Question,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 25368, December 2018.

18Joshua Hyman, “Does Money Matter in the Long Run? Effects of School Spending on Educational Attainment,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9 (4): 256-80, 2017.

19Carolyn Abott, Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, Zachary Peskowitz, “School district operational spending and student outcomes: Evidence from tax elections in seven states,” Journal of Public Economics, 183, 2020.

20Lafortune, Julien, Jesse Rothstein, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, “School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10.2: 1-26, 2018.

21C. Kirabo Jackson, Rucker C. Johnson, Claudia Persico, “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131.1: 157–218, February 2016.

22C. Kirabo Jackson, “Does School Spending Matter? The New Literature on an Old Question,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 25368, December 2018.

23Eric A. Hanushek, “What Matters for Student Achievement,” Education Next, 16.2, January 13, 2016.

24Bidwell, Charles E., and John D. Kasarda, “School district organization and student achievement,” American Sociological Review: 55-70, 1975.

25Srikant Devaraj, Dagney Faulk, and Michael Hicks, “School District Size and Student Performance,” Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy 48.4 (2018): 25-37, Nov. 9, 2018.

26William Duncombe and John Yinger, “Does School District Consolidation Cut Costs?” Education Finance and Policy, 2.4: 341-375, 2007.

27See for example: Mathew Andrews, William Duncombe, and John Yinger, “Revisiting economies of size in American education: are we any closer to a consensus?,” Economics of Education Review 21.3 (2002): 245-262;  Charles Jacques, B. Wade Brorsen, and Francisca G. C. Richter, “Consolidating Rural School Districts: Potential Savings and Effects on Student Achievement,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32.3: 573-583, 2000;

28Orphe Divounguy, Adam Schuster and Bryce Hill, “Bureaucrats Over Classrooms: Illinois Wastes Millions Of Education Dollars On Unnecessary Layers of Administration,” Illinois Policy Institute, September 2019.

29James L. Hayes III, “Realizing The Ideal School District Size: How District Size Affects Achievement And Expenditure,” Illinois State University, Theses and Dissertations 827, 2018.

30See for example: Baron, E. Jason, “School Spending and Student Outcomes: Evidence from Revenue Limit Elections in Wisconsin,” SSRN, 2020;

31C. Kirabo Jackson, Rucker C. Johnson, Claudia Persico, “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131.1: 157–218, February 2016.

32National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: Table 214.10, February 2020.

33William H. Phillips, Scott L. Day, and Leonard R. Bogle, “Reorganization Feasibility Study for Washington Community HSD #308, Central ESD #51, District $50 ESD, Washington ESD #52,” Midwest School Consultants, Spring 2006.

34Ibid, p. 9.

35Illinois State Board of Education, “School District Reorganizations,” Sept. 22, 2010.

36William H. Phillips, Scott L. Day, and Leonard R. Bogle, “Reorganization Feasibility Study for Washington Community HSD #308, Central ESD #51, District $50 ESD, Washington ESD #52.”

37Ibid, p. 10.

38Ibid, p. 12.

39Ibid, p. 9.

40Ibid, p. 26.

41Illinois State Board of Education, $4,000 Per Certified Staff Incentive.

42William Duncombe and John Yinger, “Does School District Consolidation Cut Costs?” Education Finance and Policy, 2.4: 341-375, 2007.

43Illinois State Board of Education, “School District Reorganizations: 1983-84 to 2020-21,” July 2020.

44Illinois Classrooms First Commission, A Guide to P-12 Efficiency and Opportunity, July 2012

45The Editorial Board, “More school consolidation a worthwhile endeavor,” News Gazette, March 31, 2021.

46Illinois State Board of Education, 2020 Annual Report.

47Patrick Andriesen, “113 Six-Figure School District Administrators Oppose Classrooms First Act,” Illinois Policy Institute, March 22, 2021.

48Illinois 102nd General Assembly, Bill Status of House Bill 7.

49Adam Schuster, “Three Myths About District Consolidation Under the Classrooms First Act,” Illinois Policy Institute, March 24, 2021.


51Sharif M. Shakrani, “Is District Consolidation Cost Effective? What is the Alternative to Consolidation?,” the Education Policy Center at Michigan State University, Aug. 10, 2010.

52Ulrich Boser, “Size Matters: A Look at School-District Consolidation,” Center for American Progress, August 2013.

53Lorna Jimerson, “Slow Motion: Traveling by School Bus in Consolidated Districts in West Virginia,” Rural School and Community Trust, March 2007.

54See for example: Josh B. McGee, Jonathan N. Mills, and Jessica S. Goldstein, “The Effect of School District Consolidation on Student Achievement: Evidence from Arkansas,” Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications, 2021; Nora Gordon and Brian Knight, “The Effects of School District Consolidation on Educational Cost and Quality,” Public Finance Review 36.4: 408-430, 2008.

55See for example: Andrews, Matthew, William Duncombe, and John Yinger, “Revisiting economies of size in American education: are we any closer to a consensus?,” Economics of Education Review 21.3 (2002): 245-262; Christopher R. Berry and Martin R. West, “Growing Pains: The School Consolidation Movement and Student Outcomes,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 26.1 (2010): 1-29.

56Illinois State Board of Education, “School District Reorganizations: 1983-84 to 2020-21,” July 2020.

57Craig Sterrett, “Dimmick school tax rate keeps falling,” News Tribune, March 11, 2019.

58Illinois 102nd General Assembly, Bill Status of House Bill 7.

59Craig Sterrett, “Dimmick school tax rate keeps falling,” News Tribune, March 11, 2019.

Source link

15 best debt consolidation loans for fair credit Sun, 10 Oct 2021 06:56:00 +0000 Our goal here at Credible Operations, Inc., NMLS Number 1681276, referred to as “Credible” below, is to give you the tools and confidence you need to improve your finances. Although we do promote products from our partner lenders who compensate us for our services, all opinions are our own. The best debt consolidation loans for […]]]>

Our goal here at Credible Operations, Inc., NMLS Number 1681276, referred to as “Credible” below, is to give you the tools and confidence you need to improve your finances. Although we do promote products from our partner lenders who compensate us for our services, all opinions are our own.

The best debt consolidation loans for fair credit have low interest rates and no fees. (iStock)

If you’re digging out from under a stack of credit card bills, you might consider a debt consolidation loan. With these loans, you can take out one new loan to pay off all your other personal debt — potentially at a lower interest rate.

With fair credit, you’ll likely have multiple options when it comes to shopping for a debt consolidation loan. But depending on your specific credit score, the interest rate and loan terms you’re offered can vary. The better your score, the better deal you’re likely to get. 

Each lender has different guidelines for its debt consolidation loans, so be sure to shop around and compare several options before settling on the best loan for your financial situation. 

What’s a debt consolidation loan and how does it work?

A debt consolidation loan is a type of personal loan that you can use to pay off your current debts and replace them with a new, single payment. 

Personal loans have the advantage of fixed rates, meaning your monthly payment won’t change for the life of the loan. They’re also generally unsecured, so you don’t have to use your house or car as collateral for the loan. You won’t risk either if you fail to make your payments, unlike with a mortgage or auto loan.

You can use a debt consolidation loan to pay off many different kinds of debt, from medical bills to other personal loans. But they’re especially useful for consolidating credit card debt because they typically have lower interest rates than most credit cards. Using a debt consolidation loan to pay off your high-interest credit card balances can leave you with a lower monthly payment. 

A debt consolidation loan for people with fair credit can come with fees and other costs that you won’t face if you have good credit. But you’ll have more (and better) options than people with bad credit.

What’s a fair credit score?

A credit score is a gauge of how likely you are to pay back your loan, expressed as a number calculated by one of the three main U.S. credit bureaus. FICO scores can range from 300 to 850, and the higher your score, the better.

A number of factors determine your score. The most important is your payment history on accounts you’ve opened, especially how often you make your payments on time. Other factors include:

  • Your current amount of debt
  • How many loans you have
  • How long you’ve had your accounts
  • How much of your credit you’re using
  • When you’ve applied for new credit
  • Any recent bankruptcies, foreclosures or debt collection actions

A fair credit score typically falls between 650 and 699. Below this range is bad credit, which can make it harder to qualify for a loan. Once you reach a score of 700, you’re considered to have good credit, and a score of 750 or higher is considered excellent.

Credible lets you compare personal loans to see what rates you may qualify for.

Best debt consolidation loans for fair credit: 15 lenders to consider

While qualification requirements can vary based on your credit score, here are 15 lenders you might consider for a debt consolidation loan with fair credit. The following 13 lenders are Credible partners.


Avant has a relatively low minimum credit score requirement, so you may still qualify with a score on the lower end of the “fair” range.

Minimum credit score: 550

Loan terms: Two to five years

Loan amounts: $2,000 to $35,000

Fees: Administration fee of up to 4.75%

Good for: People with lower credit scores

Best Egg

Best Egg says that roughly half of its borrowers receive their loan funds by the next business day.

Minimum credit score: 600

Loan terms: Two to five years

Loan amounts: $5,000 to $50,000

Fees: Origination fee of 0.99% to 5.99%; $15 late payment fee

Good for: People who want to get their money quickly


Discover offers you the chance to return the money you borrow within 30 days with no interest charged, so if you change your mind, you’re in luck.

Minimum credit score: 660

Loan terms: Three to seven years

Loan amounts: $2,500 to $35,000

Fees: None, though a late payment fee of $39 may apply

Good for: People who aren’t sure if they’ll need a loan


Even with fair credit, you might still get multiple offers from LendingClub investors who want to fund your loan.

Minimum credit score: 600

Loan terms: Three or five years

Loan amounts: $1,000 to $40,000

Fees: Origination fee of 3% to 6%; late payment fee of $15 or 5% of the overdue monthly payment

Good for: People who want to evaluate multiple lenders in one place

Compare personal loan rates from these and other lenders using Credible.


LendingPoint says it can decide whether to approve you for a loan within just a few seconds.

Minimum credit score: 580

Loan terms: Two to five years

Loan amounts: $2,000 to $25,000

Fees: Origination fees from 3% to 6%

Good for: People who want to know quickly if they qualify


LightStream could be a good option if you need a large loan and a long time to repay it.

Minimum credit score: 660

Loan terms: Two to 12 years for home improvement loans; two to seven years for all other loans

Loan amounts: $5,000 to $100,000

Fees: None

Good for: People who need to borrow a large amount of money

Marcus by Goldman Sachs

Marcus allows you to defer a monthly payment after a year’s worth of on-time payments. While you’ll still pay interest during this month, this feature can give you some breathing room when you need it.

Minimum credit score: 660

Loan terms: Three to six years

Loan amounts: $3,500 to $40,000

Fees: None

Good for: People who want to defer a payment 


Payoff specializes in debt consolidation, and even offers in-house experts to talk you through paying off your debt.

Minimum credit score: 640

Loan terms: Two to five years

Loan amounts: $5,000 to $40,000

Fees: Origination fee of 0% to 5%

Good for: People who want help paying off their debt

OneMain Financial

If you’re just starting out and don’t have a long credit history, OneMain’s offer to lend to people without a minimum credit score can help you qualify.

Minimum credit score: None

Loan terms: Two to five years

Loan amounts: $1,500 to $20,000

Fees: Origination fees apply. These can be flat fees between $25 and $500 or a fee of 1% to 10% of the loan amount.

Good for: People with a limited credit history

PenFed Credit Union

PenFed’s minimum loan amount of $600 might be the smallest you’ll find.

Minimum credit score: 670

Loan terms: One to five years

Loan amounts: $600 to $35,000

Fees: None

Good for: People who need a small loan


Prosper matches you with investors who are interested in funding your loan. If you have a special circumstance, you might have a better chance of qualifying.

Minimum credit score: 640

Loan terms: Three or five years

Loan amounts: $2,000 to $40,000

Fees: Origination fee of 2.4% to 5%; late payment fee of $15 or 5% of the unpaid monthly payment

Good for: People who have a unique financial situation 


Upgrade considers people with lower credit scores, and loan funds may be available in as little as one business day.

Minimum credit score: 580

Loan terms: Three or five years

Loan amounts: $1,000 to $50,000

Fees: Origination fee of 2.9% to 8%

Good for: People who are building credit 


Upstart doesn’t just look at your credit score — the lender also takes your education and job history into account. With a fair score and a solid history at work and school, you might get a better deal.

Minimum credit score: 580

Loan terms: Three to five years

Loan amounts: $1,000 to $50,000

Fees: Origination fee of 0% to 8%; late fee of $15 or 5% of the past due balance (whichever is greater); ACH return or check refund fee of $15

Good for: People who have a stellar job or education history

Other lenders to consider

The following lenders are not Credible partners, so you won’t be able to easily compare your rates with them on the Credible platform. But they may also be worth considering if you’re looking for a debt consolidation loan with fair credit. 


Earnest is an online platform that matches you with different lenders. But take note that its loans aren’t available in AL, DE, KY, NV or RI. 

Minimum credit score: 680

Loan terms: Three to five years

Loan amounts: $5,000 to $75,000

Fees: Does not disclose

Good for: People who want to comparison shop before applying for a loan

Laurel Road

Laurel Road doesn’t charge any fees on its personal loans and offers an autopay discount. 

Minimum credit score: 660

Loan terms: Three to five years

Loan amounts: $5,000 to $45,000 (depending on loan type)

Fees: None

Good for: People who want to borrow money without paying fees

Methodology: How Credible evaluated lenders

Credible evaluated debt consolidation lenders based on a variety of categories, including the minimum fixed rate, customer experience, time to fund, maximum loan amount, term length and fees. Credible’s team of experts gathered information from each lender’s website, customer service department and via email support. Each data point was verified to make sure it was up to date.

How to get a debt consolidation loan for fair credit

If you’re interested in getting a debt consolidation loan for fair credit, here are the steps you should take.

  • Check your credit score. Your score dictates what loans you qualify for, and what interest rates and loan terms you’re offered. You should know your score going into the process. Checking your credit report also gives you the chance to correct any errors on your report that might be holding your score down. Each credit bureau is required by law to give you a free copy of your report once per year. Use a site like to get your copies, and scour them for mistaken account balances or any other errors.
  • Shop around. Lenders often post information on their websites about the interest rates and loan terms they offer. You can look at the interest rate ranges and terms and see if the lender might be a good fit.
  • Prequalify. When you’ve found a few lenders that might fit the bill, you can use each company’s online form to request a rate quote or prequalify for a loan. Most of the time, this will only use a “soft credit inquiry” on your credit, so your score won’t be affected. To get a rate quote, you’ll typically need to give the lender your Social Security number and a little information about your finances and the type of loan you’re looking for. These rate quotes will give you a good indication of what rates and terms you’d be able to receive, so you can use this information to compare loans and find the best one for you.
  • Apply. Once you’ve found the quote that works best for you, it’s time to formally apply for the loan. You’ll need to submit more information to the lender, which they’ll use to make a final decision on your loan. The lender may also run a hard credit check, which can temporarily lower your score by a few points.
  • Accept your loan. If you’re approved for the loan, your lender will tell you what you need to do to receive your loan funds. This could take a day or two, and the money can usually be deposited directly into your bank account.

Comparing fair credit debt consolidation loans and lenders

Every personal loan you evaluate will look a little different, but there are a few variables it always pays to look at. Here are the most important elements to compare when shopping for a debt consolidation loan for fair credit.

  • APR: This is the annual percentage rate, or the total cost of the loan each year as a percentage of the loan amount. The APR on a loan includes the interest rate and all fees charged. Using the APR to compare loans instead of just the interest rate gives you a better apples-to-apples comparison, as it includes all the costs of borrowing money.
  • Fees: Fees can vary widely from lender to lender. Some debt consolidation lenders don’t charge any, while others may charge application fees, origination fees or late fees. Few lenders charge an application fee, and you’re bound to find one that doesn’t. But be sure to check the origination fee, if one applies. Some lenders don’t charge them, while others charge a percentage of the loan that’s typically deducted from the amount you receive.
  • Repayment terms: This generally refers to the length of time you have to pay back the loan. The longer the term, the lower your monthly payment — but the more you’ll pay in interest. Lenders typically offer terms that can be as short as one year or as long as 12.

If you’re ready to start comparing personal loan rates, Credible makes the process easy.

Pros and cons of debt consolidation loans for fair credit

All financial products have advantages and disadvantages. It’s important to weigh the benefits against the costs when deciding if a debt consolidation loan is right for your situation.

Pros of debt consolidation loans for fair credit

  • Single, fixed monthly payment — When you take out a debt consolidation loan, you pay off all of your credit card and other personal debt and replace it with a single new loan. Some lenders will even pay creditors directly with a debt consolidation loan. Debt consolidation loans typically have fixed interest rates, so the amount you pay each month won’t change for the life of your loan.
  • Lower interest rates — A personal loan used for debt consolidation generally has a lower interest rate than credit cards, so you may save money by consolidating your debt.
  • Lower risk — Debt consolidation loans are typically unsecured, meaning you don’t have to stake your home or other property as collateral for the loan. Other options, like home equity loans, do require collateral, meaning you may risk foreclosure if you’re not able to keep up with your payments.

Cons of debt consolidation loans for fair credit

  • Harder to qualify for good terms — With fair credit, you may have fewer choices for a debt consolidation loan, depending on your specific credit score. You may not be offered the interest rate and loan terms you’re hoping for.
  • Higher interest costs — Debt consolidation loans are cheaper than credit cards, but they do often have higher rates than secured loans, like a home equity loan or HELOC. You may have debts at lower interest rates that wouldn’t make sense to consolidate.
  • High fees — Debt consolidation loans for fair credit may come with fees that reduce the amount of money you receive after taking out the loan. You might be able to avoid these fees if you can improve your credit.

Alternatives to debt consolidation loans with fair credit

If you want to consolidate debt, a debt consolidation loan isn’t your only option. Here are a few others to consider.

  • Balance transfer credit card: With a balance transfer credit card, you can transfer the amounts you owe on several different cards, leaving you with a single payment. Many of these cards have a low introductory interest rate — sometimes even 0% — for a short period of time. But watch out for fees — balance transfer cards typically come with a fee of 3% to 5% of the amount you transfer. And if you aren’t able to pay off your full balance by the time the introductory period expires, you’ll start accruing interest at the card’s regular rate.
  • Home equity loan or home equity line of credit (HELOC): If you own a home, you might be able to borrow against the equity in your property in order to pay off debt. Your equity is the difference between what you owe on your mortgage and what your home is worth. Interest rates on these loans tend to be lower, but they’re secured loans — and your home is the collateral. So if you fall behind on your payments, you could risk losing your home.
  • 401(k) loan: Your employer-sponsored retirement plan may allow you to borrow from the amount you’ve socked away. These loans tend to have low interest rates, and you won’t need a certain credit score to qualify. But you lose out on investment gains, and you might have to pay all the money back quickly if you lose your job.

Ways to boost your credit

You can likely save a lot of money in interest if you’re able to boost your credit from the “fair” range up to “good” — or even “excellent.” Start by requesting your credit report. Make sure there are no errors on it and identify any areas you see that can be improved.

Commit to paying all of your bills on time, every time. Your payment history is the No. 1 factor in determining your credit score, and if you’ve missed payments in the past, it’ll take time to rebuild that history. 

You can also boost your credit score by paying down credit card balances and avoiding applying for new credit.

Source link

Bill Consolidation in digital audio: now and after Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:38:51 +0000 In this feature article, ExchangeWire examines investments in the digital audio space over the past nine months, how programming is fueling funding initiatives, and the effect of consolidation on the industry. The consolidation of digital audio is booming. At the start of the fourth quarter of 2021, ExchangeWire followed US $ 10.84 billion (£ 7.97 […]]]>

In this feature article, ExchangeWire examines investments in the digital audio space over the past nine months, how programming is fueling funding initiatives, and the effect of consolidation on the industry.

The consolidation of digital audio is booming. At the start of the fourth quarter of 2021, ExchangeWire followed US $ 10.84 billion (£ 7.97 billion) of investments in companies offering Bill Consolidation digital audio products. This is balanced between pure-play audio companies, such as Triton Digital, Tidal, Art19 and 99% Invisible, and companies offering audio as part of a larger product suite, such as Nielsen Holdings and Verizon Media. This level of funding split between specialists and generalists is indicative of the maturing of the audio industry, with many companies recognizing the benefits of owning audio assets. By a crude comparison measure, the digital out-of-home (DOOH) ’emerging channel’ audio colleague only raked in just US $ 574.5 million (£ 422.9 million) in the same period , although both have been heavily affected by the coronavirus pandemic Bill Consolidation"}” data-sheets-userformat=”{"2":8705,"3":{"1":0},"12":0,"16":10}”>Bill Consolidation

The benefits of programmatic were cited by Tilly Sheppard, Product Manager, Xaxis, as fueling this investment activity. Sheppard writes: “The concern at the start of the pandemic that there would be a drop in consumption by audio users has not been confirmed. In fact, the growth in podcast listening in particular proves that users have continued to enjoy the high quality screenless entertainment that digital audio provides. Combined with the growth in programmatic capabilities in podcasts, this user demand has attracted a large number of brands to the channel over the past year or so.

“Programmatic has opened up exciting new ways to make digital audio ads relevant to users. Creation can be dynamically personalized using behavioral data; site; age; kind; time of the day; and the weather, to ensure that ads really capture users’ attention and build brand awareness.

“These superior capabilities open up opportunities to combine audio with other formats, such as video, with the same data points used to deliver consistent personalization and increase the relevance and effectiveness of a campaign. We’re also seeing how audio personalization can work in the fast-growing field of voice-enabled devices, with advertisements tailored to both the device and what the user is interested in.

A worrying caveat to the promise of audio is the relative ease with which large antitrust-screened tech companies, such as Apple and Amazon, have been able to take hold of audio companies without even a hiccup. Apple’s recent purchase of the classical music platform Primephonic, which was later scrapped with vague promises to relaunch next year, hardly means that it is overly concerned about regulatory forces.

Financing of digital audio

Content is king – not everyone wears a crown

While the fervent state of broad mergers and acquisitions and public procurement cannot be ignored, the groundwork for this year’s increase in audio investment has been laid by a steady stream of acquisitions, especially in the area of ​​audio. podcasting, before 2021. Examples from recent years include:

  • Gimlet Media (Spotify) – US $ 200 million (£ 147 million)
  • Anchor (Spotify) – US $ 140 million (£ 103 million)
  • Megaphone (Spotify) – US $ 235 million (£ 173 million)
  • Stitcher (SiriusXM) – US $ 325 million (£ 239 million)
  • Pocket Casts (automatic) – undisclosed
  • Podnods (Depthsounder) – undisclosed
  • Wondery (Amazon) – US $ 300 million (£ 221 million)

Other purchases in the space have moved away from business acquisitions towards content-driven growth, with growing multi-million dollar license deals. The big players dominated here again. A prime example includes Spotify which picked up The Ringer from Bill Simmons for up to € 180million (£ 154million), while securing a license deal for US $ 100million (£ 73.6million). sterling) for The Joe Rogan Experience.

Chirs Shuptrine, VP Marketing at Kevel, believes this level of consolidation could hurt the prospects for podcast advertising in the long run, writing, “There is no denying that podcasting has grown in popularity. And innovation in advertising technology invariably follows audience shifts. Having said that, I think podcast advertising is a very different beast from traditional digital advertising and the space will be dominated by a few gamers, compared to the thriving swathe of display providers.

“On the one hand, the creativity of ad units is limited. Along with the display you have of course standard programmatic banners, but also skin ads, native ads, rich media, sponsored listings, and more, each with its own set of facilitators. With podcasts, you have pre-recorded messages (whether read by the sponsor or the host) and… an audio advertisement. Is there a lot of room for technological differentiation here?

“Second, podcasting is not as open as the Internet; a few platforms have a monopoly on distribution, and we can expect consolidation and a walled advertising garden approach. This further limits the space for ad technology providers.

“Finally, the audio targeting leaves a lot to be desired. Although you are given an IP address (allowing some data augmentation), this is an imperfect approach. And are the genre, content, and episode names complex enough to justify the growth of many competing DSPs / SSPs? I think there will still be a lot of innovation here, but the podcasting ad technology is unlikely to be fertile ground for new vendors, and I expect a few gamers to own the space.

Source link

Warren Introduces Bill to Protect Bank Customers and Small Banks From Bill Consolidation Mon, 04 Oct 2021 16:59:58 +0000 On Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) introduced a Bill Consolidation that would reform the way the government authorizes bank mergers. The proposal is an effort to stop the endless “stamping” of bank consolidation, which Warren says comes at the expense of customers and smaller banks. The Bank Merger Review Modernization Act, introduced with Representative Jesús […]]]>

On Thursday, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) introduced a Bill Consolidation that would reform the way the government authorizes bank mergers. The proposal is an effort to stop the endless “stamping” of bank consolidation, which Warren says comes at the expense of customers and smaller banks.

The Bank Merger Review Modernization Act, introduced with Representative Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Illinois), would strengthen the rules of the bank merger authorization process, in hopes of ensuring that future mergers serve the public. The law creates protections to make the process more transparent and to assess the financial risks that may arise from a merger Bill Consolidation"}” data-sheets-userformat=”{"2":8705,"3":{"1":0},"12":0,"16":10}”>Bill Consolidation

“In recent years, our banking industry has become increasingly dominated by the biggest banks. Community banks are swallowed up by larger competitors or forced to close because they cannot compete on a level playing field, ”Warren explained. in a report. “This translates into greater concentration, higher costs to consumers and increased systemic risk to our financial system.”

The bill “would ensure that regulators do their job in stopping mergers that rob communities of the banking services they need and help prevent another financial crisis,” Warren continued.

As lawmakers point out, between 2006 and 2017, the Federal Reserve approved 3,819 bank mergers, without rejecting a single request. The the last time the Justice Department challenged a bank merger was in 1985, and regulators have not formally denied a merger for 15 years. Due to the lax application of the Fed and other federal regulators of merger guidelines, the number of banks has declined rapidly over the past decades, from more than 18,000 banks from the mid to late 20th century to less than 5,000 today.

The bill, which García and Warren previously introduced in 2019, is part of a larger Democratic effort to crack down on big banks and anti-competitive business practices across the country. Indeed, the bill would require federal regulators to examine the potential anti-competitive effects of a bank merger on banking services such as mortgages and business loans.

During a hearing in August, Warren stressed that regulators at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are not required to reject a merger if it creates a bank larger than what the government can regulate. Regulators are also not required to reject mergers if they would reduce competitiveness and result in higher costs for consumers, or if banks attempting to merge have not scored high for their service to the community.

“Merger review has become the definition of a rubber stamp” she said. “Regulators have no credibility on mergers.”

She and García are particularly concerned about how bank mergers affect the public. Research suggests that bank mergers are often increase costs for consumers while simultaneously reducing the availability of banking services. Mergers can also cause financial instability for the country as a whole, and lawmakers say the current era of deregulation is reminiscent of the ‘Too Big to Fail’ mentality that led to the Great Recession of 2008.

The bill seeks to ensure that future bank mergers will have positive effects for the communities they serve. It would only allow high-ranking bank mergers through the Community Reinvestment Act, which was adopted in the 1970s to assess how banks serve low- and middle-income communities.

“This bill is a long overdue step in ensuring that bank mergers are good for the public,” said Jesse Van Tol, chairman of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. “For decades, federal bank merger law has recognized that there must be a public benefit in terms of increased access to affordable credit. This bill finally sets out what banks must do to meet this requirement. Mergers should not be approved by regulators if the only benefit is a bigger, more profitable bank. “

Source link

Best Bill Consolidation Loans for October 2021 Fri, 01 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 Reached Ideal for bad credit and quick financing Bill Consolidation 4.37 – 35.99% The full range of rates available vary by state. The average 3 year loan offered by all lenders using]]>


Ideal for bad credit and quick financing Bill Consolidation

4.37 – 35.99%

The full range of rates available vary by state. The average 3 year loan offered by all lenders using Bill Consolidation"}” data-sheets-userformat=”{"2":8705,"3":{"1":0},"12":0,"16":10}”>Bill Consolidation the Upstart platform will have an APR of 21.97% and 36 monthly payments of $ 35 per $ 1,000 borrowed. For example, the total cost of a loan of $ 10,000 would be $ 12,646, including the origination fee of $ 626. The APR is calculated based on the 3-year rates offered in the last month. There is no deposit or early repayment penalty. Your APR will be determined based on your credit, income, and certain other information provided in your loan application. Not all applicants will be approved.

$ 1,000 – $ 50,000


To pay

To pay

Best for Fair Credit and Credit Card Debt Repayment

5.99 – 24.99%

This does not constitute an actual commitment to lend or an offer to extend credit. When submitting a loan application, you may be asked to provide additional documents to enable us to verify your income, assets and financial situation. Your interest rate and the terms for which you are approved will be shown to you as part of the online application process. Most applicants will receive a variety of loan offers to choose from, with varying loan amounts and interest rates. Borrower subject to a loan origination fee, which is deducted from the loan proceeds. Refer to the entire borrower agreement for all terms, conditions and requirements.

$ 5,000 – $ 40,000




Best for Good credit and low rates

4.49 – 20.49%

The terms of your loan, including the APR, may differ depending on the purpose of the loan, amount, term, and your credit profile. AutoPay 0.50% points discount is only available if selected prior to loan funding. Rates without AutoPay will be 0.50% higher. To get a loan, you must complete an application on which may affect your credit score. Subject to credit approval. Conditions and limitations apply. The advertised rates and conditions are subject to change without notice. Example Payment: Monthly loan payments of $ 10,000 at 6.14% APR with a term of 3 years would result in 36 monthly payments of $ 304.85. Truist Bank is an equal housing lender. © 2021 Truist Financial Corporation. SunTrust, Truist, LightStream, the LightStream logo, and the SunTrust logo are service marks of Truist Financial Corporation. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Loan services provided by Truist Bank.

$ 5,000 – $ 100,000


Marcus by Goldman Sachs

Marcus by Goldman Sachs

on the Goldman Sachs website

Best for Good credit and no fees

6.99 – 19.99%

Your loan terms are not guaranteed and are subject to our verification of your identity and credit information. To get a loan, you need to submit additional documents including an application that may affect your credit score. The availability of a loan offer and the terms of your actual offer will vary due to a number of factors, including the purpose of your loan and our assessment of your creditworthiness. Rates will vary depending on many factors, such as your creditworthiness (for example, your credit rating and credit history) and the length of your loan (for example, 36-month loan rates are usually lower than loan rates. 72 month loans). The maximum loan amount may vary depending on the purpose of your loan, your income and your creditworthiness. Your verifiable income should support your ability to repay your loan. Marcus by Goldman Sachs is a trademark of Goldman Sachs Bank USA and all loans are issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Applications are subject to additional general conditions. Receive a 0.25% APR discount when you sign up for AutoPay. This reduction will not be applied if AutoPay is not in effect. Once enrolled, more of your monthly payment will go toward your principal loan amount and less interest will accrue on your loan, which can result in a smaller final payment. See the loan agreement for more details.

$ 3,500 – $ 40,000


600 minimum VantageScore® 3.0 and 660 minimum FICO® 9.0.

To improve

To improve

Best for Fair credit and direct payment to creditors

5.94 – 35.47%

Personal loans granted through Upgrade have APRs of 5.94% to 35.47%. All personal loans have an origination fee of 2.9% to 8%, which is deducted from the loan proceeds. The lower rates require automatic payment and direct repayment of part of the existing debt. For example, if you received a loan of $ 10,000 with a term of 36 months and an APR of 17.98% (which includes an annual interest rate of 14.32% and a one-time setup fee of 5%) , you will receive $ 9,500 in your account and have a required monthly payment of $ 343.33. Over the life of the loan, your payments would total $ 12,359.97. Your loan’s APR may be higher or lower, and your loan offers may not have multiple terms available. The actual rate depends on credit rating, credit history, length of loan, and other factors. Late payments or subsequent charges and fees can increase the cost of your fixed rate loan. There are no fees or penalties for early repayment of a loan. Personal loans issued by Upgrade lending partners. Information on Upgrade Lending Partners is available at Accept your loan offer and your funds will be sent to your bank or designated account within one (1) business day after completing the necessary verifications. The availability of funds depends on how quickly your bank processes the transaction. From the time of approval, funds should be available within four (4) business days. Funds sent directly to pay off your creditors can take up to 2 weeks to clear, depending on the creditor.

$ 1,000 – $ 50,000




Best for Good Joint Loan and Credit Option

7.95 – 35.99%

For example, a personal loan of $ 10,000 over three years would have an interest rate of 11.74% and a origination charge of 5.00% for an Annual Percentage Rate (APR) of 15.34% APR. You will receive $ 9,500 and make 36 scheduled monthly payments of $ 330.90. A personal loan of $ 10,000 over five years would have an interest rate of 11.99% and a origination charge of 5.00% with an APR of 14.27%. You would receive $ 9,500 and make 60 scheduled monthly payments of $ 222.39. The origination fees vary between 2.41% and 5%. Personal loan APRs through Prosper range from 7.95% to 35.99%, with the lowest rates for the most creditworthy borrowers. Eligibility for personal loans up to $ 40,000 depends on the information provided by the applicant in the application form. Eligibility for personal loans is not guaranteed and requires that a sufficient number of investors commit funds to your account and that you meet credit and other requirements. Refer to the Borrower’s Registration Agreement for more details and full terms and conditions. All personal loans made by WebBank, FDIC member.

$ 2,000 – $ 40,000



Discover® Personal loans

Ideal for Excellent credit and flexible payment options

6.99 – 24.99%

It is not a commitment to lend with Discover Personal Loans. Your approval for a loan is determined after you apply and is based on your application information and your credit history. Your APR will be between 6.99% and 24.99% depending on creditworthiness at the time of application for loan terms of 36 to 84 months. For example, if you get approved for a loan of $ 15,000 at 6.99% APR for 72 months, you will only pay $ 256 per month. Our lowest rates are offered to consumers with the best credit. There are many factors that are used to determine your rate, such as your credit history, application information, and the term you select. Not all applications will be approved.

$ 2,500 – $ 35,000


Source link

Bill Consolidation Loan Rates For October 2021 Fri, 01 Oct 2021 07:00:00 +0000 Bill Consolidation with a personal loan can simplify your debt repayment process, and it can also save you money if you get an interest rate that is lower than the rates on your existing debts. Typical interest rates on debt consolidation loans range from around 6% to 36%. To get a rate at the bottom […]]]>

Bill Consolidation with a personal loan can simplify your debt repayment process, and it can also save you money if you get an interest rate that is lower than the rates on your existing debts.

Typical interest rates on debt consolidation loans range from around 6% to 36%. To get a rate at the bottom of this range, you will need an excellent credit score (720 to 850 FICO). But even a good credit score (690 to 719 FICO) could help you get a better rate than you currently have Bill Consolidation"}” data-sheets-userformat=”{"2":8705,"3":{"1":0},"12":0,"16":10}”>Bill Consolidation

Borrowers with fair credit (630 to 689 FICO) and bad credit (300 to 629 FICO) may not be able to qualify for a lower rate than their current debts. may improve your chances of qualifying in the future.

Interest rates and terms may vary depending on your credit score, and other factors.

Source: Average rates are based on aggregated and anonymized supply data of users who prequalified in the NerdWallet lender market from July 1, 2020 through July 31, 2021. Rates are estimates only and are not intended for use. specific to any lender.

If you have more than one debt – for example, if you have balances on several different credit cards – you can to pay them all at once. Then you make a payment for the new loan.

But how does it save you money? The main thing is to choose a personal loan with a it is less than your existing debts.

Let’s say you have $ 9,000 in total credit card debt with a combined 22% APR and a combined monthly payment of $ 450. It will take a little over two years to be debt free and will cost $ 2,250 in interest.

But if you consolidate the cards into a loan with 14% APR and a two-year repayment term, you’ll save $ 879 in interest. Your new monthly payment would be $ 432, and you could apply the additional monthly savings to the loan to pay off the debt even faster.

Use our to plug in your current balances, interest rates and monthly payments. Then see how much you could save with a debt consolidation loan and compare the options based on your credit score.

A good first step is to compare what each lender can offer you. Online lenders allow you to see what rates, repayment terms and loan amounts you may be entitled to. Pre-qualifying with multiple lenders can help you compare rates and terms, and it won’t hurt your credit score.

It is a good rule of thumb to choose the lender that offers the lowest rate, but you should also pay attention to the repayment term. Longer terms mean more interest, even if your monthly payment is more affordable.

You can also look for lenders who specialize in debt consolidation. These lenders will offer benefits such as sending loan funds directly to your creditors and free financial education to help you manage your debts.

NerdWallet has reviewed over 30 lenders to help you choose the right one for you. While borrowers with higher credit scores will likely receive the lowest rates, there are still some .

Source link

HPHS-DHS Bill Consolidation among options to address costs and deficits Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:10:56 +0000 HIGHLAND PARK, IL – Warning that a structural budget deficit and unmet facility needs would burn the district’s finances, officials at Township High School District 113 on Tuesday pitched the idea of ​​Bill Consolidation the district to two schools. District officials also announced plans for a pair of town hall-style meetings next month to discuss […]]]>

HIGHLAND PARK, IL – Warning that a structural budget deficit and unmet facility needs would burn the district’s finances, officials at Township High School District 113 on Tuesday pitched the idea of ​​Bill Consolidation the district to two schools.

District officials also announced plans for a pair of town hall-style meetings next month to discuss the district’s long-term financial sustainability Bill Consolidation

The district has a fund balance of $ 50 million this year, but if it stays on its current budget path, its annual deficit will rise from $ 1.1 million to over $ 5 million and consume more than half of the balance over the next decade, according to a neighborhood forecast. Letting the balance run out exposes the district to higher borrowing costs and challenges with unforeseen expenses.

The district also faces significant infrastructure and construction costs at high schools in Deerfield and Highland Park.

Superintendent Bruce Law said there were major issues with the DHS auditorium, which has had at least one extended shutdown due to safety concerns and requires regular inspections to ensure it meets standards minimum security.

“There are problems. There are ADA problems. There are problems in the fly loft,” Law said. “There are a lot of problems in the auditorium. I think everyone knows it’s a space that maybe it’s not too far to say it’s inoperative because people can’t not be there. ”

A slide presented at a Township High School District 113 board meeting on September 28, 2021, shows the Deerfield High School auditorium and the Highland Park High School library. (district 113)

Likewise, the HPHS library needs a significant investment, the superintendent said.

“The roof is failing. The HVAC is failing,” he told the board. “You can see these stairs. Now there is a way for a person in a wheelchair or a walker to access the library, but in terms of accessibility, it fails for our students and staff if they are in a wheelchair. rolling or on a walker.

The infrastructure alone will cost approximately $ 76.1 million. Repairing the auditorium would cost around $ 34 million, while the library needs nearly $ 8 million in work, according to district estimates.

The estimated bill for necessary infrastructure, priority capital spending and patches for the Deerfield High School Auditorium and Highland Park High School Library is over $ 177 million and is close to $ 228 million. dollars with lower priority spending.

Without a referendum, the district can only raise about $ 88 million in construction funding over the next decade, according to administrators.

Administrators said more than $ 78 million of the district’s roughly $ 104 million annual budget goes to salaries and benefits which are growing at a faster rate than the district’s property tax revenues, which are tied to l ‘inflation.

At the same time, the district faces a decline in enrollments without a proportional decrease in the number of staff needed to provide the same services, according to district officials.

Estimates from a demographer hired by the district as part of its general planning process revealed that the population of 3,300 students is expected to decline by about 10% to about 2,900 students by the end of the year. the decade.

“Food for thought doesn’t even begin to describe the scale of the problem,” said board member Jaime Barraza, who said it was important for the board to confront him publicly. “I think it’s a very responsible thing to do not to bury that and – we keep saying, ‘kick the can’ – keep kicking the can.”

District 113 administrators and board members have identified at least three possible avenues to meet the forecast.

It could maintain two campuses – “knowing that we will repair and replace infrastructure or attempt to push through a major property tax increase through referendum” – while drastically cutting spending, including spending on student programs if necessary.

Alternatively, the district could use a high school for a freshman campus that feeds another campus for sophomores, juniors, and seniors, which could reduce necessary construction costs while requiring annual budget cuts and a near referendum. also important on property tax.

Or the district could gradually combine the two schools into one campus over a period of several years, which would limit overhead and infrastructure costs and require a smaller referendum to pay for the construction of a consolidated school.

This option would save the board of directors approximately $ 4.3 million during the consolidation exercise, not including transition costs, according to a presentation on the state of the district’s finances and facilities. Consolidation would cut about 25 percent in salaries and 50 percent in non-personnel expenses and allow the board to run a surplus for four years before the deficit returns.

“No option was selected,” Law said. “There are more options. These are the three. Nothing has been decided.”

Council secretary Gayle Byck said the district would not be able to continue providing the same services as it does today due to structural deficits, declining enrollment and spending on facilities.

“Nothing will be painless. It just doesn’t work like that,” Byck said. “And believe me, after the last 18 months that we’ve all had, it’s very tempting to kick the box around but that’s what we got elected for, that’s to deal with this. kind of tough decisions, to have the fiduciary accountable to the taxpayers. ”

Guided tours of the buildings and town hall-style meetings are scheduled for October 5 at Highland Park High School and October 19 at Deerfield High School. Tours of the building are scheduled to start at 6 p.m. with listening sessions to follow from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Board chairman Jodi Shapira said district officials would seek to ensure community members can participate remotely. She said the board is committed to seeking feedback from residents and taking action to answer difficult long-term questions regarding the future of the district.

“We are here and we are here to listen and we are here to learn. And find a solution and I will give your name to a school,” Shapira said. “Just kidding – but I could.”

Watch the September 28, 2021 discussion, Township High School District 113 School Board Meeting:

More information should be added to the “Future 113” section of the district’s website, focusing on its long-term planning and sustainability. Questions, comments, and ideas can also be emailed to

Source link