Over the course of time, funding for schools has been an issue that has plagued not only

school districts in Michigan, but it has impacted other states as well. Prior to the passage of

Proposal A, funding for schools came mainly from property taxes. There were huge

discrepancies in funding for the more affluent districts and less funding for the more urban and

smaller districts. It is time that Proposal A is revamped to ensure all students are getting the same

funding throughout the state of Michigan.

Leading up to the early 1990s, Michigan legislatures did not do much for funding of

Michigan schools. It was a confusing topic, and it was left up to the local level to monitor.

Funding came from property taxes to the local school districts. According to The Center For

Michigan (2014), “Michigan had a long tradition of local control of education, relying on local

elections to set millage rates for property taxes which in turn provided most of the funding for

local school districts” (p. 1). This seemed like a good idea at the time; however, it was creating a

gap in funding between rich and poor schools. Fast forward to the early 1990s, and people began

to speak out about their property taxes being too high. People also began to speak out about

underfunding of school districts compared to other districts. Initiatives were offered up, but each

time they would fail during voting.

In 1993, during legislation talks, as a joke, it was proposed to cut property taxes out of

how schools are funded. While it was meant to be a joke, it turned out to be the start of talks to a

new funding system for schools, Proposal A. The plan had massive impacts on school funding.

The Center for Michigan (2014) says that “It cut 64% of the $10 billion statewide school budget”

(p. 1). Now legislatures had to decide on how schools were going to be funded. Again, it came
down to back and forth and gaps still remained. Finally, in 1994, there was a solution. Proposal

A was voted on and passed.

Proposal A said that there would be homestead and nonhomestead millage, up to six mills

for homestead property and up to eighteen additional mills for nonhomestead properties, such as

businesses. As well, property taxes were completely eliminated as a funding source, and sales tax

became a way of funding for schools, with sixty percent of the first four cents going to schools

and one hundred percent of the second two cents going to schools. Along these lines, schools

began receiving per-pupil funding. In the 95-96 school year, a sliding scale was put into place for

per-pupil funding based off of previous school year funding. The purpose was to close the gap in

funding between affluent areas and urban schools.

While Proposal A does need to be adjusted for the ever-changing school systems, we

must take note of the successes that have come from it. Property taxes have dropped over

twenty-five percent since its implementation. The gap between the highest and lowest funded

schools has shrunk. Disadvantaged schools have been awarded more money due to their need.

The homestead and nonhomestead split has also helped with millage and raising money. Finally,

the state has seen its share in education increase from thirty-one percent to seventy-five percent.

These successes have made Proposal A what it is, and it has helped close the gap, to an

extent, but there are many challenges that must be addressed to meet the needs of all schools in

today’s society. With declining enrollments, school of choice and charter schools emerging, and

the vast learning spectrum of students, schools and the state must find new ways to fund schools

to ensure all students are being given equal access to funding and resources they need to boost

student achievement and prepare students for the real world.

 The first change that should be made is Michigan, and other states, need to fund schools

based off of student needs. While higher affluent areas like Bloomfield Hills, Troy, and others

have proficiency rates through the roof and are consistent year to year, schools like Detroit and

Flint need funding to ensure that quality teachers want to teach there and that students are given

adequate resources to be successful, and also the funding should be centered around the needs of

the students. In order to address this, I would raise per-pupil funding for the lower income

schools in higher poverty-stricken areas. The taxes and economic reliance for the surrounding

community is going to differ in Detroit and Flint compared to more affluent areas in Oakland

County. Cynthia Brown (2013) notes “New Jersey and Ohio’s differences in property wealth do

not dictate differences in per-pupil funding, and districts with greater educational needs receive

additional needs” (p. 25).

Another change that should be made to Proposal A is that the per-pupil goes to a

consistent number of dollars with additional dollars being given to the higher needs areas and

schools. Washington State is attempting to copy what Massachusetts has done to implement this

plan. Along those same lines, funding like this would be able to reach students regardless of the

area they come from. It would also boost funding for higher needs areas. This proposed change

would not only boost student achievement, but it would promote the school and make the school

more marketable to other teachers. While we look at per-pupil funding, we must also look at the

implementation on teacher salary. Funding is often centered around students, but in order to get

the highly effective teachers we want, we must work together to use the funding to fund our

teachers, to ensure that they are making a livable wage that brings them to work every day to

teach the students to excel in all they do. This money could be used for this purpose as well.
 A final change that should be made to Proposal A is one that addresses retirement and

fringe benefits. It is important for schools to offer competitive benefits to schools along with pay,

but in order to draw in the most effective teachers, there must be a way to address these benefits

that are continuously being cut. One way that this could be addressed is by putting retirement

into more privatized systems, such as a 401k and matching program through the employer. While

this may not be popular by all, the system would eliminate a big chunk of retirement costs for

districts. Districts would pay while the employee is employed, but it would not have the extra

costs once the teacher retires. Along these lines, the extra money could then be put toward

teacher salary, benefits, and student funding. When this happens, schools would be able to close

the gap in student spending between affluent and less affluent schools.

Over the course of the past twenty to twenty-five years, the idea of funding for equity has

continued to change. It is important that Proposal A continues funding schools to ensure students

are given the resources they need to be prepared for the real world; however, we must adjust the

plan to ensure that students with the highest needs are being given the same opportunities as

those in more affluent communities and schools. Many successes have come from Proposal A,

but there have been many failures that raise the question of just how equitable is funding under

the current system. In order to ensure that funding is equitable across all districts and schools, we

must find a way to fund schools based around student need. Another option is to have a new per-

pupil solution, or thirdly, there could be a revamping of retirement and benefits offered by the

state and/or school districts. These proposed changes would generate more funds through

Proposal A, and in the end, would gain more dollars for schools to utilize.
 References

Brown, C. G. (2018). How to Make School Funding Fair. Retrieved March 02,

2018, https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/05/22/32brown.h32.html

The Center for Michigan | Bridge Magazine. (2014). A brief history of Proposal A, or

how we got here. Retrieved March 02, 2018,

http://www.mlive.com/education/index.ssf/2014/04/a_brief_history_of_proposal_a.html

O’Sullivan, J. (2017). McCleary fix? Senate GOP wants to change teacher pay, how schools are

funded. Retrieved March 02, 2018,

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-senate-gop-releases-sweeping-sc

hools-funding-plan/