Running head: PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 1

Proposal A Position Paper

Craig Rizzi

Oakland University
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 2

Proposal A, legislation introduced in 1994 to reform Michigan’s school funding mechanism, has

been divisive ever since it was first proposed. Prior to Proposal A’s passage, the primary method for

funding schools was through the passage of local millages which resulted in higher property taxes. These

millages were voted on by individual communities, which caused a large discrepancy in funding between

individual school districts. For example, during the 1993-94 school year, Onaway received the equivalent

of $3,277 per pupil, while Bloomfield Hills was funded at a level of $10,358 per pupil (Kearney &

Addonizio, 2002, p. 19). Clearly, this discrepancy raised the concern of many lawmakers, who recognized

this situation as a civil rights issue. They believed that students across Michigan should receive a much

more equitable source of funding. Proposal A took control of school funding away from local

communities and placed it in the hands of the state legislature, with the ultimate goal of equalizing the

funding by raising the per pupil allowance for districts being funded below a certain amount.

In order to best analyze the benefits and drawbacks of Proposal A, it is helpful to examine the

issue from four different perspectives, as outlined by Bolman and Deal (2008). The first frame of

reference is the human resource perspective. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the human resource

frame emphasizes the human aspect of a situation and focuses on people’s needs and overall morale.

From a human resource perspective, Proposal A has been devastating. By putting a per pupil value on

every student, the state of Michigan has created competition between districts, whether or not this was

their original intention. When a student decides to shift their enrollment from one district to another,

their per pupil foundation allowance follows them, which has opened the door for charter schools to

open up and compete with local school districts. This competition creates unnecessary stress among

district leaders and teachers and effectively eliminates true collaboration between many districts. In

fact, Arsen and Ni (2011) found “no evidence to support the usual prediction that charter school

competition on its own will induce school district personnel to shift resources to classroom instruction”
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 3

(p. 34). Thus, the stress on educators created by Proposal A has not served to improve teaching and

learning in Michigan’s schools.

The second frame of reference is the structural frame. According to Bolman and Deal (2008), the

structural frame focuses on the interrelationship between structural elements within an organization. In

the case of Proposal A, the biggest structural change was a shift in funding control from local

communities to the Michigan State government. Proponents of Proposal A will argue that this shift

allows for more equity, since the government will be able to raise the funding level of poorer districts. In

fact, the legislature has made progress toward this goal. During the 1994-95 school year, 40 districts

were funded at the minimum level of $4,200 per pupil, while during the 2017-18 school year, 405

districts are now funded at the minimum level of $7,631 per pupil (Summers, 2017). This significant raise

in funding for these districts is due to the structural shift in funding that has occurred because of

Proposal A. However, opponents of the law will argue that this structural shift has eliminated much of

the local control that school communities enjoyed, which has begun to remove the identity and

autonomy of local school districts. Communities that value education have more difficulty funding their

schools than they had in the past, as they only left with the option of passing a limited bond or millage

that can only be used for specific school enhancements. Overall, it is clear that the structural shift

created by Proposal A has shifted the dynamic from local control to state control of Michigan’s schools.

Bolman and Deal’s (2008) third frame of reference is the political frame. Since Proposal A was

created by the legislature, it is, by nature, a political issue. According to Bolman and Deal, the political

frame emphasizes balancing the power between competing interest groups in order to come to a fair

compromise. One of the major concerns from Michigan’s lawmakers before the passage of Proposal A

was that the state did not have a large share of the school funding equation. Proposal A served to

increase the state’s share of political funding from “31 percent in 1993-94 to 75 percent in 2000-01”

(Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 38). This gave the state much more control over the level of school
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 4

funding, which allows them to balance funding inequities that had been created by varying tax bases

across the state. The conversion, however, also added another level of political control to the equation.

Since the state government now controls the majority of the funding, they are able to dictate curriculum

and assessment decisions more directly. On a more macro level, school funding has become a bipartisan

issue, pitting liberals against conservatives instead of placing the focus where it should be: on the

students. Additionally, the change in control from local communities to the state has limited the ability

of school boards to be prescriptive to their district’s unique, individual needs. Each community has a

unique set of priorities based on their population, but the blanket per pupil funding from the state does

not allow for communities to elect to raise the revenue necessary to support trade and vocational

programs as easily. Overall, Proposal A has served to turn school funding into a political game, shifting

the focus away from true school improvement through local control and community engagement.

Finally, Bolman and Deal (2008) identify the fourth frame of perspective as the symbolic frame.

This frame references symbolism and tradition from a leadership perspective. Perhaps in the case of

Proposal A, the most significant symbol is an unfortunate one: the dollar amount at which we value each

student in the state of Michigan. By placing a blanket dollar amount on each student, currently valued at

$7,631, we ignore the unique needs that each students brings to school every day (Summers, 2017). We

are valuing each student the same, but in this case, equal is not fair. We know from a recent study by

the School Finance Research Collaborative that the “base per-pupil cost to educate a regular education

K-12 student in Michigan is $9,590,” which is well above the minimum $7,631 that 84% of Michigan

school districts are currently receiving (School Finance Research Collaborative, 2018). Additionally, the

results of the study indicate that students with special needs, such as ELL or economically disadvantaged

backgrounds, should receive a multiplier of the base funding in order to allow the district to provide

necessary services for these individuals. The symbolism in this message is much different than the one

perpetuated by the State of Michigan. In fact, the findings from this study echo the idea of Kearney and
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 5

Addonizio (2002) regarding vertical equity: that we need to find a way to provide for pupils with special

needs. In other words, we need to be okay with “unequal treatment of unequals” in order to ensure that

all students are given an opportunity to find success (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 42).

Even after considering many of the benefits of Proposal A, most specifically the narrowing of the

gap between the lowest and highest funded school districts, we can identify more issues that it has

created after being in place for more than twenty years.

First, sales tax accounts for approximately 44% of the total school aid fund (Summers, 2017).

This is an issue because of the elasticity of sales tax. If the economy performs well, then the school aid

fund will benefit. However, the recession that Michigan experienced in the mid- to late 2000s created a

relatively large issue for school funding because Michigan residents were not purchasing goods at the

same rate as they had previously. A suitable revisal to Proposal A would look at shifting fund priorities at

the state level or more inelastic tax bases for generating revenue.

Second, Proposal A has caused some problems for many districts around the state, especially

the “hold harmless” districts that were above the minimum threshold. For example, Bloomfield Hills’

foundation allowance in 1994-95 was $10,518 (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002, p. 29). It is surprising, then,

that their foundation allowance in 2018 will be $12,124. This is a 15% increase over a twenty-four year

period, while Onaway saw an 81% increase over the same time period. Obviously, Onaway had much

more ground to make up. However, when considering that the rate of inflation was 72% over the same

time period, coupled with rising retiree pension and healthcare costs, Bloomfield Hills seems to be

fighting a losing battle (CPI Inflation Calculator).

In fact, many of the “hold harmless” districts are beginning to experience financial difficulties

due to very modest increases in funding levels when inflation, pension costs, health care costs for

retirees, and decreasing levels of student enrollment are considered. Parents and community members
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 6

in these districts expect constant improvements in services, which they had certainly experienced in the

past. However, these districts are increasingly unable to keep up with technology, infrastructure,

competitive salaries, and increased program offerings when their revenue is not growing at a steady and

predictable rate. Proposal A is preventing these districts from providing services expected by their

community members and has stripped the community from almost any means to have a say in the way

their local school district is funded.

In my opinion, Proposal A has served its purpose in raising awareness for and promoting equity

for all students. For its time, it was a revolutionary funding mechanism that began to provide poorer

districts with adequate funding for properly educating children. Now that these districts have seen

substantial increases in funding, I believe it is time to revisit Proposal A. We need to revise this funding

formula so that we do not stifle the growth of Michigan schools. Communities should have the ability to

increase funding levels in their districts in order to pay teachers a competitive wage, provide funding for

the arts, purchase desired technology upgrades more freely, and more.

The solution, I believe, is relatively simple. The foundation allowance provided by the State of

Michigan should remain in place. In this way, Proposal A still provides a substantial minimum per pupil

funding to each district. However, I believe we also need to re-incorporate local control and decision

making into the school funding mechanism. Local communities should be allowed to vote on millages to

increase property taxes to raise school funding above and beyond the current limitations placed on

bonds and sinking funds. This way, communities can provide adequate fiscal growth for their district to

cover retiree pension and healthcare costs, competitive teacher salary schedules, proper auxiliary

services, and extracurricular programs for students. All of these aspects would allow for local community

members to create a stronger vision and hold a higher stake in their school district.
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 7

In short, a healthier balance of state and local funding would provide school districts with the

opportunity to grow, innovate, and attract talent to their region. Proposal A currently forces districts to

compete with each other for students in order to increase their overall funding level. We know that

competition is not healthy in the world of education because it reduces our ability to collaborate and

innovate together. By providing more local control to communities, we will encourage them to take

ownership of their districts and fund them at a level appropriate to their expectations for their local

school district.
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 8

References

Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2011). The Effects of Charter School Competition on School District Resource

Allocation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 3-38. doi:10.1177/0013161x11419654

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley &

Sons.

CPI Inflation Calculator. (n.d.). Retrieved February 03, 2018, from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Kearney, C. P., & Addonizio, M. (2002). A primer on Michigan school finance. Detroit, MI: Wayne State

University Press.

School finance research collaborative announces findings of comprehensive school funding study. (2018,

January 17). Retrieved February 02, 2018, from http://www.fundmischools.org/press-release-

school-finance-research-collaborative-announces-findings-comprehensive-school-funding-

study/

Summers, K. (2017, July). Overview of K-12/school aid. Retrieved February 02, 2018, from

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/DataCharts/DCk12_SchoolFundingCompreh

ensive.pdf