For more than a quarter century, Michigan public schools have been financed under a structure commonly known as Proposal A. Policymakers designed the system, ratified by Michigan voters in 1994, to reduce large funding discrepancies between school districts. Proposal A’s greater dependence on using state revenue to finance an enrollment-based funding formula has led to greater parity over time and fueled more publicly supported schooling options for parents. A student-based funding model rewards school officials and leaders when they pay attention to and serve the particular needs of students because parents can vote with their feet. Yet, today, school districts still rely significantly on other funding sources and structures that change the incentives of school officials who want to best serve their students. Too much focus remains on funding the preservation of institutions and infrastructure that may not effectively serve today’s parents nor fulfill the mission of public education.
The current education funding system is not maximized to support a broad range of options for students to achieve their potential, a need that was only heightened by the frustrating experiences of students, parents and educators during the COVID-19 pandemic. Michigan needs a nimbler funding system, one that prioritizes directing dollars to meet individual learning needs so that decisions are based as closely on the unique and diverse needs of students as possible. Embracing this vision of a dynamic upgrade to Proposal A would expand the reach of educational opportunities by distributing dollars more broadly and fairly, and by making those dollars substantially more portable and flexible. In so doing, it would confront both immediate and long-term challenges facing Michigan’s public education providers.
Schools and districts exist as institutions to serve children. Article VIII of the Michigan Constitution recognizes that a district’s purpose is to “provide for the education of its pupils.”[1] Importantly, the state’s governing document does not suggest that this responsibility should be limited to public schools, as it makes a clear distinction between schools and other “means of education.”[2] The constitution requires that both “shall forever be encouraged” to foster the necessities of “good government.”[3] Though it lacks the same binding authority, state statute observes that the state’s public schools “serve the needs of the pupils by cooperating with the pupil’s parents and legal guardians,” who are recognized as owning the fundamental right to “determine and direct” their children’s education.[4]
To the greatest extent possible, state policymakers should allocate K-12 education resources based on the needs of students, recognizing that schools have an important, but not exclusive, role to play. Adopting this approach would ease the stress placed on the system’s current structures by underlying negative trends and a recent pandemic-induced shock. For most of this century, Michigan’s school-aged population has steadily declined. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic and response pushed even more families to choose schooling outside publicly funded options. Regardless of how many students return to conventional districts and charter schools after the pandemic is officially over, declining birth rates predict the larger trend to continue into the foreseeable future.[5]
The unique shock of COVID-19 has amplified the pressure on rigidly designed school systems to adapt effectively to serve students with increasingly varying and diverse needs. Extended school building closures reshaped the day-to-day and familiar activities of faculty and staff in the short run, while business closures and private sector layoffs threatened key sources of school tax revenue. Yet federal relief funds arrived in multiple waves, not only ensuring the status quo level of funding but also providing an unprecedented injection of new cash into the state’s K-12 system.[6] Looking to the future, Michigan should focus on tying education dollars more directly to student needs and choices and on empowering educator flexibility to meet changing local needs.
This combined challenge compels a close look at the state’s approach to funding and delivering K-12 education. If the primary focus of policymakers shifts from preserving institutional structures and prerogatives to meeting the needs of students and their families, the challenge may well prove fruitful. The time is right to reform Michigan’s bureaucratic infrastructure and develop a funding model that better adapts to personal learning needs. This should apply broadly to an array of education revenue streams. Put simply, student aid should take precedence over school aid.