The Adverse Impact of Proposal A
As of November 2006, it is a great misfortune that the Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS) Board is facing even further building closures after the decision to close other facilities just this past year to save a mere $2.2 million in annual operating funds by 2008. If state funding were equal statewide we wouldn’t even imagine this situation. To avoid this disastrous cycle and upset to hundreds impacted, it is crucial to understand and fix the structural funding problems now—time is running out.
In 1994, due to elimination of most property taxes, Proposal A replaced the loss of school funding mainly with the 2% increase in the sales tax (from 4 to 6%). Implemented in a good economy, it worked—initially. But simultaneously, the State eliminated a separate fund that paid for teachers’ retirement, and handed this responsibility to the school administrations who were to use the Proposal A funds. Since then, the economy has declined, and retirement costs have jumped from 4% to 17%, strangling the schools. Also, Proposal A funding sources like vending machine items and component parts have been reduced by 71 tax exemptions. Individually, these exemptions are considered good policy, but combined they cost the state school fund over $8 billion in revenues in 2002 alone—revenues that are not being replaced.
Inequitable Funding
Unbelievable to most, Proposal A did not resolve the unequal funding per student; it created a minimum of approximately $6,700 per pupil, and limited these districts’ property taxes to 18 mills. But the full amount of millage the schools should be getting, as promised by Proposal A, is hindered by the 1978 Headlee Amendment and 1994 General Tax Law changes that restrict cities from capturing taxes from new growth.
Why There are Higher Funded Districts
However, 52 other districts, referred to in Section 20 J of the School Aid Act as “hold harmless districts,” are allowed to continue to levy a higher millage. Moreover, due to political agreements made when Proposal A was passed, they also receive more state funding per pupil. The House Fiscal Committee’s website lists the State’s school foundation grants per district, and many receive $10,000 to $15,000 per pupil. The State gave these “hold harmless districts” an extra $54 million in 2002 alone. If GRPS had even an extra $1,000 per student, like some of its neighbors, it would have an additional $20 million per year—more than the $18 million GRPS had to cut from its budget this past year.
Is it right that the State values certain children more just because their cities were able to levy a higher operating millage before Proposal A passed? How many at-risk, special education, or second language students are these districts serving? Can charter schools fulfill all these missions, and do they even want to? And what about adequate funding? The last cost analysis study was done in 1968.
Underfunded Special Education Programs
Finally, over 3000 students county-wide come to GRPS for the special education programming, for which Michigan is one of few to mandate special education from 0-26 vs. 0-21. The State, responsible for 40% of the cost, has been under-funding the program. In 1997, 84 plaintiff districts won the lawsuit(s) in Durant vs. State for funding negligence. But not only are the schools being paid back slowly from the school aid fund itself—their own monies—these programs remain under-funded by 22%: in 2003-2004 by $15 million; and in 2004-2005 by $11 million, even with the recent Kent County special education millage. Because it’s mandated programming, GRPS must pay the balance from its own general fund, causing further hemorrhaging.
Coming from out-of-state, I know GRPS is not the first district realtors promote. Our children started in a fine private school, but we now come to GRPS through “schools of choice.” I am very impressed with the quality of programming/staffing. Have you gone to a neighborhood school to see what’s going on?
Urban school districts are getting a bad deal, and closing and merging schools doesn’t solve these funding problems—regardless of who is the superintendent. June 16, 2005, 10,000 people from all over went to Lansing to impress on legislators this statewide problem, but this is not enough. To change the system, legislators need to feel pressure from whole communities to represent the children they were hired to represent. Don’t let these children and this school district become just another statistic. Jobs are going overseas, and we need our students to be competitive. Anyone invested in Grand Rapids should be concerned with the crater-sized holes in the funding. Kent Intermediate School District’s grass roots effort focuses on this funding problem for the whole county. Please get involved.
By, Anne Marie Bessette