City PTSA - Welcome

It has recently been announced that if a solution to the State's budget crisis is not found by May 1, then cuts will be made to the per-pupil state funding. What sounds like a minimal reduction per student is now becoming crucial to the survival of urban schools such as Grand Rapids Public Schools (GRPS). These monies will be taken out of this current school year's budget. The significance? There is no money left. The disastrous funding cycle for schools has existed for some time now and it is important to understand the whole picture as to why urban schools like GRPS are in dire straights, for it is a structural deficit as well.

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 in the bad economy of recent years, and one that is not rebounding, we need to encourage our legislators to ensure stable funding even during downturns in the economy.

Unbelievable to most people, 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. The question begs, why can't all local districts be allowed to declare their own school tax overrides if they see the need? This would simply require a straight forward proposition.

Even more surprising, 52 other districts, referred to in Section 20 J of the School Aid Act as 'hold harmless districts', were allowed to continue to levy a higher millage because they happened to have one before Proposal A passed. Due to political agreements made when Proposal A was passed, these districts 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 two years ago. Whatever the formula is, all schools should be worthy of the same formula from the State - it shouldn't matter what side of the state a student is born on, nor in what neighborhood he or she lived. Is it right that the State helps certain children more just because their cities were able to levy a higher operating millage before Proposal A passed? Don't we need all of Michigan to be successful?

How many at-risk, special education, or second language students are these wealthier districts serving? Over 3000 students county-wide come to GRPS for the special education programming, on top of that, Michigan is one of only a few states to mandate special education from 0-26 vs. only 0-21 years of age. The State is responsible for 40% of the cost, but has consistently under-funded the special education programming. 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 - monies already allotted the schools - these programs remain under-funded by 22%: in 2003-2004 this meant a $15 million deficit. And even with the recent Kent County special education millage there is still an annual $11 million deficit. Because special education is mandated, GRPS must pay the balance from its own general fund, causing further hemorrhaging. This doesn't even include the at-risk or second language students that have additional educational needs. Urban schools should not be trapped and abandoned with carrying this community-wide obligation alone, especially given the challenges they already face providing all their children what they need to succeed. It should also be noted that charter schools don't have the same mandates and requirements as district-based public schools, yet they get state funding. In turn the public schools are further weakened.

Another quiet but significant example of the crumbling of Proposal A's effectiveness was the elimination of tax revenues from sources like sales from vending machine and many other items. There have been 71 tax exemptions on different items since Proposal A was enacted. Individually, these exemptions have been considered good policy, but combined they cost the state school fund over $8 billion in revenues in 2002 alone - revenues that have not being replaced.

Simultaneously, along with Proposal A, the State eliminated a separate fund that paid for teachers' retirement, and handed this responsibility to the school administrators who were to use the Proposal A funds which at the time equaled 4% of the cost per student. Since then, the economy has declined, and retirement costs have jumped from 4% to 17%, strangling schools further yet. It is very unfortunate that retirement has been mixed in with trying to educate our students. Many administrators have voiced the fact that the retirement benefits need to be restructured so that, for example, a new teacher doesn't walk in and receive the same benefits as one who has been around for twenty years. The only problem is that teacher benefits are not controlled by the schools, but by the State. This would be another issue to ask our legislators to address quickly, for everyone blames the schools for this issue and it complicates the real issue at hand - educating successful community members for our workforce.

All schools in Michigan may be having trouble, but urban school districts are truly suffering with no way out. We have witnessed GRPS make two rounds of school closures and merges in just four years alone, and with much disruption to families and our community, and still funding problems have not been resolved. June 16, 2005, 10,000 people from all over this state went to Lansing to impress on legislators of the seriousness of this statewide problem, but that had no obvious effect. To change the system, legislators need to feel pressure from whole communities - every one of us, and they need to be reminded of their duty to advocate for the children they were elected to represent. And we have obligations too: we must communicate to our leaders that we will not accept a system that favors certain geographical areas. GRPS students deserve a 17:1 student teacher ratio just like the '20j' districts rather than ratios as high as 31:1. We must at the very least stop the erosion of our funding sources. If more cuts are made to student funding we will continue spiral down. If the millage is not renewed on May 8 we will lose approximately $30 million that makes up part of the states school aid fund. And the state won't be making it up for us. We need all of Michigan's students to have equal opportunity to be successful, and, therefore competitive. Here are some ideas: talk to local school administrators and teachers to learn first hand about the issues; get together with friends to discuss concerns; write a letter to the Press, contact your legislators; get involved with Kent Intermediate School District's grass roots county-wide efforts; and, above all, vote 'yes' to maintain our current base funding on May 8.