Michigan is in a financial bind. Gary Olsen, director of the Senate Fiscal Agency, just released information that the state's deficit stands at $819 million - $442 million from the general fund and $337 million from the school aid fund. By law, the state cannot run a deficit budget. The governor gave her State of the State address February 6 and on February 8 will give an address on the state budget, at which time there will be official recognition that the state has less revenues than anticipated. From that point, she and the legislature will have 30 days to balance the budget, either by cutting programs or raising taxes.

For perspective, the current deficit in the school aid fund amounts to $224 per student. At the beginning of the current school year, the student foundation allowance was increased by $210. Our budget and plans were based on receiving these revenues.

History of free

public education

The concept of the right to a free education for all children is a relatively new concept. Previous to the formation of the USA, formal educational opportunity was available only to those born into royalty or wealth. Our founding fathers realized that if our country were to survive the experiment of self governance, we would need a population that was responsible and educated.

The U.S. Constitution placed the responsibility for education in the hands of the individual states. In Michigan, each township was given one section of land to be put aside for education of the public. By the early 1920's in Michigan, there were more than 7,000 individual school districts. Improved transportation and communication made it possible to consolidate districts. Consolidations provided an economy of scale that lowered costs to taxpayers, while at the same time improved educational opportunities to students. Today, the number of individual public school districts stands at 552.

Funding public schools

prior to Proposal A

Originally, funding schools was a local concern. This was accomplished by a mandated property tax levy on district residents. Millage elections to consider additional taxes beyond the mandated amount occurred when requested by the local school boards. Communities supported these requests for additional funds, so long as they were affordable to their voters and the voters felt the school was doing a good job. This system of funding schools worked fairly well for the first half of the 20th century.

In the 1960's, gaps in the financial abilities of school districts began to widen. A district with a huge industrial or commercial base - one that had Ford Motors in its boundary lines, for example - may easily have 10 times the tax base on a per-pupil basis of a district that had no industrial or commercial base. One mill in that district would raise 10 times more per pupil than one mill in a district with no industrial base. To lesson this disparity, the state began to assist local districts with state aid. Despite state assistance, financial gaps between schools continued to grow. Districts with the lowest amount of taxable values were often taxing themselves at rates that were many times that of the more affluent districts. Boards of education were forced yearly to ask their voters to choose between tax increases or cuts in programs. Wealthy districts with lower tax rates had per-pupil funding levels that were much higher. By 1994, Michigan voters were ready to make a change in how schools were funded.

Proposal A

The goals of Proposal A were to reduce the reliance of education on the property tax, to provide a more reliable method of funding our public schools, and to bring equality in funding students, no matter what district they attended.

Passage of Proposal A shifted most of the responsibility for funding schools from the local district to the entire state. Local property taxes were reduced, and homestead property taxes for school support that were once 30 or more mills were reduced to a maximum of six mills. This six mills was sent to the state for redistribution equally to all school districts on a per-pupil basis. To make up for the lost revenue, the sales tax was increased by two percent. Not all property taxes were sent to the state for redistribution. Non-homestead property taxes were limited to a maximum of 18 mills. These 18 mills were kept in the local district. Districts with a huge industrial or commercial base were able to keep the revenue from those taxes. The state set a per-pupil foundation allowance for each district. These amounts were different for every district and were based in part on how much the district had been raising per pupil prior to the passage of Proposal A. A part of the goal was to narrow the differences, eventually funding all students equally.

For the poorer/lower funded districts, this was initially a boon. Property owners received immediate tax relief. The prospect of yearly millage requests was eliminated. While the state's economy was healthy, the new system worked well for public schools. The state made attempts to narrow the funding gap between the poor and the rich districts. When the state's economy slowed, Proposal A made funding public schools more difficult.

The state's economy has suffered in the past five years and the growth in sales tax revenues has declined. Because much of the state's school aid fund is based on sales tax revenues, as they have slowed or declined the school aid fund has shrunk and has not kept pace with the overall cost of living increases. The state's overall poor economic climate has forced the legislature to make difficult decisions in regard to what programs receive funding and at what level to fund them. School aid funding has suffered. For three consecutive years, the state did not increase the funding levels for public schools. On two occasions, after the state set the funding levels, midway through the year the state decreased the funding level. In these cases, it was after school budgets had been set and school programs put in place. In the past four years, the overall Consumer Price Index has risen 9.1 percent. During that time period, the state's spending increased by 7.9 percent. Over that same period of time, the state increased revenue to the school aid fund by only 3.1 percent.

To further see an example of the effects of Proposal A, consider the following two school districts for comparison purposes: Birmingham City Schools and St. Ignace Area Schools. In 1995, the state legislature set funding levels for students in the Birmingham City Schools at $10,337, while funding levels for St. Ignace students were $4,490. The difference was $5,847. In 2006, funding levels for Birmingham students are set at $12,262, and $7,085 for St. Ignace students. The legislature established a $5,847 difference in the funding levels for the students in each district 11 years ago. Today, the difference is still more than $5,000. Huge inequities existed before Proposal A, and continue to exist today.

There will be no change

until citizens demand change.

Our public schools are extremely important. They are the place that every one of our children, whether rich or poor, should have an equal opportunity. They are the vehicle that our children ride to a successful future. Funding them has evolved from a local responsibility to a state responsibility. We have two issues that must be addressed if we are to move forward. They are: 1) Equal funding. There is no justifiable excuse for unequal funding. 2) Adequate funding. In years when the state's economy doesn't keep pace with the consumer price index, school funding needs to at a minimum keep pace with overall state spending. From 2002 to date, state spending increased by 7.9 percent, yet the school aid fund increased by only 3.1 percent.

There is not an easy solution to this issue. The state has an obligation to treat each student equally and fund each student equally. It is not doing that, but there will be no change until the citizens demand a change. There is no defense for why we, as taxpayers, fund students in one district at $12,000 each, while students in another school district receive $7,000 each. Call or write your legislator if you want to see change, and keep the pressure on until it happens.

Happenings

around the school

Despite dire financial woes, life goes on in the schools for our students. We have half of the school year completed. Fall MEAP scores in grades three through eight are now online at the Michigan Department of Education Web site. Teachers have been aligning and adopting the new curriculum standards. This year's positive test scores are showing the results of that work. Student mathematics scores were clearly superior to the state scores, and our English/language arts scores were all either statistically at or above the state scores.

The month of February will be a busy month, as a full athletic schedule keeps the gyms and students busy daily from 6:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. School-wide, more than 50 percent of students in grades seven through 12 participate in athletic programs. Other activities scheduled for February include the grades five through eight spelling bee, elementary group pictures, K- 7 Winter Snow Daze and Chili Dinner, parent teacher conferences, and District Court at the school. In addition, the school is used for a variety of other reasons including EMT classes, Bus Driver Training classes, Cub Scout classes, and youth archery classes.

We are focused on aligning the curriculum and trying to ensure that we are doing everything possible to raise student test scores. In that process, however, we are focused on something more important and something that takes longer to measure. We want to be number one in education, and in so doing, we want our final outcomes to produce responsible and successful citizens. It is something that requires the support of the home and community, is more important than a test score, and won't be fully measured until years after graduation. It has been a focus in St. Ignace and rural America for many years, and I hope it is something that we are able to keep as a focus.