Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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