THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 1

The Limitations of Proposal A on Michigan School Finance

Yifang Shi

Education Specialist Program

Oakland University
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 2

Abstract

In 1994, Michigan's school finance Reforms-Proposal A were placed to shift school funding

from the property tax to the sales tax. A significant reduction in property taxes has been led by

Proposal A, while Michigan public schools is facing real loses in their financial resources;

Educators are forced to meet rising academic standards in the face of insufficient funding.

However, if policymakers use the same share of the national economy to support education, as

they did ten years ago, Michigan could provide the school with the dollars it needs.

Keywords: education reform, school finance, education adequacy

THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 3

The Limitations of Proposal A on Michigan School Finance

As a quasi-public product, education will benefit individuals. People can get higher social

status and rich rewards through education. At the same time, education also has a huge social effect.

The improvement of education level is of great significance for accelerating the development of

social economy and improving the fairness of the whole society. Therefore, education should be

valued both from a personal perspective and from a national perspective. Education is the bond of

social politics, economy and culture, and it is also the specific function of the society evolved from

the development of modern civilization. From the perspective of socio-economic development,

education is to meet two needs, namely, educating the needs of society and educating individual

needs.

Public education is the foundation of education, related to the improvement of national

quality and the long-term development of the country. At the same time, the basic rights of the

people and the provision of public education services are the important contents of public services

provided by the government. Although the expenditure on public education keeps growing, and

great achievements have been made in this regard. However, the total amount of funds for

Michigan schools is still insufficient. There is a serious imbalance between urban and rural areas

and between schools, and the burden structure between governments and educatees, between urban

and rural residents, and between governments at all levels, thus the imbalance is affecting the

public education sustainable and relatively balanced development.

Discussion of Proposal A

Prior to 1994, Michigan, in the same way as other different states over the U.S., depended

extremely on income from nearby property tax to subsidize schools. With the section of Proposal

A that year, subsidizing moved toward a state-based adjustment framework. From that point
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 4

forward, neighborhood financing from property imposes in Michigan has been mixed with state

subsidizing gathered through a two percent expansion in the statewide sales charge (from 4% to

the current 6%). The planned results of Proposal A were to: (1) substantially reduce property taxes;

(2) increase the state share of total K-12 revenue; (3) assure all local districts a minimum level of

per-pupil revenue with which to meet state and local student performance standards and (4) achieve

equity for pupils in Michigan public schools (Kearney & Addonizio, 2002). Nonetheless, in recent

years the debate has moved beyond providing equitable funding, toward a focus on educational

adequacy (Mattoon, 2004).

Although there have been some improvements, the equity problem still exists. Until there

is an equal level of foundation allowances across all districts, people will never truly have an

equitable education for all of Michigan’s students.

Economic Cycle Matters.

Initially, Proposal A is attached intensely to the financial cycle of the state. Proposal A was

received when Michigan's monetary viewpoint was promising. At the point when the state is liable

to higher joblessness and less discretionary cash flow, the business charge that was assigned to

help the School Aid Fund endures a noteworthy shot. Furthermore, reserves that have been

appropriated for the School Aid Fund have been reliably taken advantage of by the administration

for different zones that have encountered deficiencies. At long last, Proposal A ought to be

supplanted in light of the fact that an extensive hole still exists between the least fortunate and

wealthiest areas. Particularly since this is one of the essential reasons Proposal A was at first

created.

Generally, economic growth restricts and guides the development of education. The level

of economic development determines the scale, content, organizational form, teaching methods
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 5

and educational methods of education, as well as the quality of labor force and the quality of

education to cultivate talents. Public education, as an activity to cultivate people, is an important

part of social development, and its development is ultimately restricted by the level of economic

development. Proposal A makes education extremely attached to the economics of the state. The

level of economic development determines both the demand and supply of educational investment.

In addition, changes in any of the state income instruments may lessen reserves focused to the

School Aid Fund.

Big Gap Still Exits.

Prop A does not address expenses of teaching understudies with exceptional necessities,

the individuals who are in danger, living in neediness, English Language Learners, or the

staggering expenses of transportation. Michigan’s current school finance system was supposed to

more equitably support schools, yet it does not address the adequate distribution of resources. An

adequacy study would look at factors such as socioeconomic status, the needs of English language

learners (ELL), special education requirements, and specialized needs in both rural and urban

schools (Daniel Quinn, 2015).

In terms of allocation of funds, Michigan may adopt a differentiated allocation system to

combine regional development with personal assistance to students with special needs, so as to

effectively focus poverty alleviation on students with extra needs. The government should allocate

different financial appropriations according to the actual development level of schools in different

regions, conduct accounting according to the needs of students, the region where the school is

located, the size of the school and other factors, and specify the amount of state financial funds for

different types of schools. At the same time, the management of school funds will be delegated to
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 6

the local government, which will allocate funds according to the allocation system stipulated by

the state, so that the allocation of education funds will be more targeted and appropriate.

In order to ensure the effectiveness and feasibility of Proposal A, the competent authorities

need to constantly review and reflect on the proposal after the implementation of the action plan,

make corresponding adjustments and improvements according to the specific situation of the

implementation, and form a dynamic development process. The entrance and exit of schools in

poor areas and students with special needs shall also be reflected in the plan. At the same time, in

order to ensure that the public can obtain sufficient information, management departments need to

publicly release the entire implementation process, effectiveness and reflection of the action plan.

The State should use action plans to manage and ensure that schools fulfill their primary

responsibility for improving the quality of education.

Challenges for Local Districts.

“Michigan is trying to improve schools in a cheap way, with a focus on more accountability

and school choices,” said David Arsen, professor of Michigan State University. Today, the federal

government in Michigan requires less than a third of the special education costs, which means that

the school district provides an average of $500 per student per year to pay for these services. In

addition, students from low-income families now account for half of all students, but each student's

support for them has fallen more severely, by 60%. Educators are forced to meet rising academic

standards in the face of insufficient funding.

Along with the education finance system reforming, the unbalance and unreasonableness

of the structure have not been fundamentally improved, and the average expenditure of public

school students is still low. Hence this is not conducive to the balanced development of education.
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 7

Conclusion

All in all, Proposal A was an extreme shift along with various measurements. It adjusted

spending crosswise over school districts by raising the most minimal spending areas and basically

solidifying the incomes of higher spending regions; it moved subsidizing duties to the state level

and obliged the income raising limit of nearby wards; it diminished and evened out property charge

rates and expanded the business assessment; and it acquainted school decision with Michigan as

sanction schools and open enlistment. Every one of these progressions makes new difficulties and

openings.
THE LIMITATIONS OF PROPOSAL A ON MICHIGAN SCHOOL FINANCE 8

References

Addonizio, M., & Kearney, P. (2002). A Primer on Michigan School Finance.

Arsen, D., & Plank, D. N. (2004). Michigan school finance under Proposal A: State control, local

consequences. State Tax Notes, 31(11).

Mattoon, R. (2004). School funding ten years after Michigan’s Proposal A: Does equity equal

adequacy? Chicago Fed Letter, 203, 1-4.

Quinn, Daniel. (2015). Creating a Better Funding System for Michigan. Mid-Western

Educational Researcher. 23. 264-268.