Kaddis 1

Alex Kaddis
Professor Fowler
PS 1010
17 March 2016
Detroit Public Schools Infrastructure Policy
After decades of overlooking school property, the Detroit Public School System is now
facing many challenges regarding its ability to finance the repair of its deteriorating
infrastructure. The visible rotting of schools has prompted teachers, students, and parents to
speak out against the unhealthy and unsafe environment. This quote from Lakia Wilson, a
counselor at Spain elementary school in Detroit, expresses the discontent of residents with the
state and local government: Every child and school employee in Detroit for that matter,
anywhere in America deserves to be treated with respect. It is disrespectful when we bring these
environmental and learning conditions to the attention of state officials and are ignored (Wilson,
pg. 1). Today, we can see that the State Government has failed in its efforts to save the
infrastructure of the Detroit Public School system. However, it would be unfair to say that the
State Government was not a contributor to extending the life of schools buildings. The
governments effort to extend the life of schools was mainly through allowing poorer districts to
receive additional funds to operate. Although it turned out that the price of maintaining this
infrastructure was more than the funds available to schools, the State Government displayed that
they were aware poor districts would collapse if not given the proper funding. Nearly two
decades ago, schools were funded primarily by residential property taxes. This system would
allow for a large discrepancy in the amount of funding that each school districts would attain.
Unlike the houses in wealthy districts, the property value of houses in some parts of Detroit were
far less. This means that Detroit, which has a large population as compared to other cities in

Kaddis 2

Michigan, was receiving a small portion of what schools in areas were funded. Detroit schools
were not receiving the necessary amount of funds to operate, causing board members to cut
programs and accept the deteriorating infrastructure. Had the State continued this program, we
would have seen a much more rapid collapse in infrastructure than the rotting we see today in the
Detroit Public Schools District. Accompanying, these problems were many complaints about the
states high property tax rate. As state officials searched for a solution, they eventually came up
with a policy: Proposal A. The policy would set a limit on property taxes, adopted additional
sales tax, and provided for a per pupil allowance to more uniformly fund schools. While it
contained many structural barriers and eventually was not able to save the infrastructure of the
Detroit Public School system, Proposal A was one way that the State Government was successful
in providing for more equal funding to struggling districts and prolonging the life of their
infrastructure.
Lets take a look at how high property taxes before Proposal A has shaped the problems
that have led to the deterioration of infrastructure of Detroits Public Schools. Over many years,
students and teachers in Detroits school districts were neglected by the local governments which
used property taxes to fund their schools. The lack of funding left students and parents desperate
as it seemed that there education could be in jeopardy. Along with them, home owners were
feeling the pressure to pay taxes that were extremely high as compared to other parts of the
country. By the early 1990s, taxpayers cries for property tax relief reached a fever pitch. A
dozen ballot proposals to improve the system had failed over the years, the result was a lose-lose
proposition for Michigan: residents were frustrated by high property taxes, and funding for local
school districts varied enormously across Michigan based on each districts location and level of
affluence (Dawsey, pg.1). In 1994, the State government responded to the calls from residents
for property tax relief and more equal funding of education in lower state districts. The State

Kaddis 3

government and Governor Engler allowed voters to select Proposal A. Proposal A shifted the
funding of schools from high local property taxes to a system that gave a minimum per pupil
allowance to schools and increased state sales taxes such as the cigarette tax to help fund
schools. The minimum allowance was set to provide districts with less funding the ability to pay
for the services they provided, and to allow them to maintain a standard closer to that of the
schools in wealthy districts. In order to account for the lesser amount of overall funding to
schools part of Proposal A also established a state education tax. Concurrently, Proposal A also
ended local discretion over school spending. Based on spending by individual districts in 1993
94, the last year before the program, the state now decided the amount by which each district
could raise its subsequent expenditures (Chakrabarti, pg. 110). Proposal A also helped ease the
pain of home owners. Between fiscal years 1993 and 1999, Michigans property tax burden fell
from 7th highest among the 50 U.S. states to 22nd (Michigan.gov, pg. 6). The State Government
was on the right track when they decided to enact Proposal A, but the unique circumstance
regarding Detroits declining population among many other financial problems such as paying
the citys debt has hurt the school district. First, lets look at the how the population decline has
hurt the district. Because funding by Proposal A corresponds with the amount of students,
Detroits decreasing population has meant decreased funding. Proposal A fails to account for the
fact that while families may leave a district, the size of the building and the operating cost does
not shrink. Similarly, Detroits debt has meant that more of the citys taxes are being put to
paying of investors and less taxes can be taken out from other public services to compensate for
the school funding. These challenges do not mean that officials must now throw away Proposal
A, on the other hand, officials should adapt the policy to address the more pressing needs of
schools districts such as addressing the destruction of schools property. They should also take

Kaddis 4

into account that the proposal is tied closely with other economic factors and that throwing away
policy that helps to produce a more equal schools system throughout the state may not be in the
interest of parents who cannot afford to live in expensive districts. Rather, the State Government
should work with the local government in order to generate additional funding to schools to
allow for an acceptable learning environment. Overall, Proposal A has been a three-stepsforward-two-steps-back experience (LaFaive, pg. 2).
In an effort to pass Proposal A the State Government certainly did face enormous
structural barriers. The one obvious structure was that they needed to convince parents that
Proposal A was in the interest of their children. Among the many concerns that most people have,
the one that usually tops the list is the protection of our families. Parents wanted to ensure that
the method provided for funding schools given in Proposal A would be sufficient enough to
maintain the resources provided to the students. In an effort to pass the policy, officials would
need to break the barrier and convince parents that they could trust the government to improve
the education of their children. Another barrier that the State Government faced when enacting
Proposal A was that the policy was intervened with many other aspects of the economy. For
example, if there was a downtrend in the economy then consumers would be less likely to spend
their money. This hurts schools because a critical part of Proposal A requires funding by way of
sales tax. Another barrier that the State needed to overcome was deciding to side with schools
and taxpayers, who were for the Proposal, or to side with businesses who may have felt that a
sales tax increase would cause them to have lower sales. By allowing Michigan voters to decide
whether Proposal A would pass, the government was able to escape facing these structures and
relinquish responsibility to the citizens. Along with overcoming structures Proposal A has also
been effective in dissembling structures. An example of this is the way that is it allowed school

Kaddis 5

districts with lower property values, lower populations, and more poverty to have access to
resources that they would otherwise not have been able to attain. This is one reason that Proposal
A can be considered a successful policy.
What is critical is that after 22 years we recognize what parts of Proposal A have helped
the school system and what parts of the policy must be adapted to account for changes over the
last two decades. As we make predictions on what is to become of the public school system we
need to ensure that we are making cost effective, problem solving, and fair decisions on where to
go from here regarding public policy affecting the public school system. As with other forms of
policy analysis, it is always necessary to look at the assumptions behind the forecasts to judge
the validity (Kraft and Furlong, pg. 129). Taking that into account, as my group and I decide
what we will do to improve the infrastructure of the public schools in Detroit. Because of the
limited monetary resources available to aid in this reform, one of the most impactful ways to
make a change is to either protest along with teachers in their Sickout or to form our own
policy and submit it to scrutiny by the State and Local Government. Aspects of Proposal A that
our group can emulate are its inclusiveness and fairness towards different socioeconomic
districts. On the other hand, there are parts of the Proposal A that we need to be careful of when
we try to solve this problem. Examples of this are how it fails to identify the way that funding
education is effected by many other parts of society. We cannot afford to have education be
vulnerable to economic downtrend and other factors. Although the effects of policy on education
are usually long term and cannot be immediately evaluated, that does not mean that we cannot
find solutions to the problems that schools face today. Another thing that our group may want to
consider is the role that the market sphere plays in education. Often, education is considered to
be between the people and the government. If we can find a way that companies can contribute it
would take stress off the residents of these districts and improve the overall education system. If

Kaddis 6

we accompany this with funding from the civic sphere it would allow for larger operating
budgets for schools. If funding from Proposal A and funding from the market sphere are both
used then we can solve the problem of deteriorating infrastructure in Detroit Public Schools.

Works Cited

Kaddis 7

Chakrabarti, Rajashri. "Housing Markets and Residential Segregation: Impacts of the

Michigan School Finance Reform on Inter- and Intra-district Sorting." Wayne State University
Libraries. N.p., Feb. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016.
Dawsey, Chastity. "BridgeA Brief History of Proposal A, or How We Got Here." Bridge
Michigan. N.p., 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2016.
Kraft, Michael E., & Furlong, Scott R. 2010. Public policy: Politics, analysis, and
alternatives (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press, Chapter 5 (120-144). Web. 17 Mar. 2016
LaFaive, Michael. "Happy Anniversary Proposal A." Proposal A 20 Years Later
[Mackinac Center]. Michigan Center for Public Policy, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2016
Office of Revenue And Tax Analysis, Michigan Department Of Treasury, and December
200. "The Michigan Property Tax Real And Personal." SCHOOL FINANCE REFORM IN
MICHIGAN PROPOSAL A: RETROSPECTIVE (n.d.): n. pag. Michigan.gov. Michigan
Department of Treasury Office of Revenue and Tax Analysis, May 2002. Web. 14 Mar. 2016.
Wilson, Lakia. "Detroit Teacher: How Can You Teach or Learn in Conditions like
These?." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.