Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-senate-gop-releases-sweeping-sc
hools-funding-plan/