Michigan’s
current school -funding system was established a quarter century ago with the passage
of a major reform commonly known as Proposal A. The new system accomplished what it set out to do —it lowered property
taxes and narrowed, but did not eliminate, revenue inequalities across districts. Proposal A also sharply
restricted the ability of Michigan
citizens to determine the level of funding for their local public schools.
Although the state controls most operating
revenue available to Michigan’s public schools, it has never calibrated funding levels to the resources needed for students to meet outcome standards, even as the federal No Child Left Behind act
and the Michigan Merit Curriculum dramatically
increased achievement expectations. Michigan’s
public school system is at a crossroads. It is not performing well. In contrast to 1993, Michigan’s tax rates and student performance now fall well below
the national average . …
•
After adjusting for
inflation, total K -12 education funding declined by 30 percent between 200 2 and 2015. Seventy -four percent of th is decline was due
to declining state support for schools. Per -pupil revenue declined by 22
percent during this same period.
•
Michigan ranks dead
last among states in total education revenue growth since the passage of
Proposal A. After adjusting for inflation, Michigan’s education revenue in 2015
was only 82 percent of the state’s 1995 revenue. No other state is close to a Michigan
School Finance at the Crossroads decline of this magnitude. In 48 states, 2015
education revenue was higher, often much higher, than in 1995. M chigan’s real
per -pupil revenues declined by 15 percent over th is same period , ranking 48 th among the 50 states. This represents a net decline
of over $1.2 billion annually in state revenues devoted to K -12 education between
1995 and 2015 (more than $850 per pupil ),
or a decline of $1.6 billion w hen adjusted for inflation.
•
If Michigan devoted
the same fraction of its economy to state and local taxes as the national
average, it would generate an additional $3 billion in revenues per year, an
amount nearly sufficient to lift school
funding to the level that prevailed in 1994. Among states, Michigan’s funding
of special education services is unusually stingy, and this hurt s both special
education and regular education students.
•
Federal law grants
students with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate education, but
allows states to decide how to pay for those services. Michigan has placed most
of the funding respons ibility on the
local and county levels. Proposal A, however, precludes local districts from
levying taxes to cover additional special education costs and intermediate
school districts have very unequal
ability to raise revenues for special education services.
•
Under Michigan’s
funding arrangements, students with disabilities almost always represent a
financial loss to districts and charter schools, and the more serious a student’s
disabilities, the larger the financial loss.
•
Because revenues from
other levels of government fall short of required special education costs,
Michigan districts on average devote over $500 per student of regular education
funds to pay for special education services. In some districts this diversion
of funds exceeds $1, 200 per pupil. Consequently, the state’s inequitable and
inadequate special education funding impacts both special education and regular education
students. Michigan’s approach to school facility finance guarantees unequal
opportunities for students and unequal
burde ns for taxpayers.
•
Michigan is one of 13
states that provide no state aid for facilities. The state’s only role has been
to lower local district borrowing costs under certain circumstances through the
state School Bond Loan Fund. In recent years lawmakers have curtailed even this
meager state supports.
No comments:
Post a Comment