Running head: PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 1

Proposal A Position Paper

Julie Eldridge

Oakland University
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 2

Proposal A Position Paper

Introduction

In the 1994-1995 school year, Michigan voted Proposal A into law in hopes the proposal

would solve major school funding issues faced by school districts in Michigan. Well over 20

years since it’s implementation, there are still arguments surrounding Proposal A as to whether it

is an appropriate solution to Michigan’s school funding system. Bolman and Deal (2017) suggest

in an effort to effectively analyze a program, such as Proposal A, for benefits and drawbacks, it

is important to have a system of organization, a specific mind-set, or a frame to make sense of

the facts (p. 11). Therefore, to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of Proposal A, Bolman and

Deal’s Four-Frame Model will be utilized and therefore determine that Michigan must update the

current system for funding our schools.

Structural Frame

The Structural Frame assumes “Organizations increase efficiency and enhance

performance through specialization and appropriate division of labor” (p. 48). Proposal A

dramatically changed the sources of school funding. Prior to Proposal A, “local property

taxpayers provided approximately 63 percent of the costs of Michigan K-12 education with the

state and federal government providing approximately 37 percent” (Price, 2017, p. 51). Proposal

A brought the “state and federal aid to approximately 80 percent of the funding and local

property tax providing approximately 20 percent” (Price, 2017, p. 51). This shift in funding

helped to make progress in the equity gap by increasing the revenue of districts who were

previously below the minimum foundation, allowing them to “catch-up” to the annual targeted

basic minimum foundation (Price, 2017, p. 51-52).

PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 3

The drawback of this shift in funding also created a shift in control. Another assumption

of the Structural Frame is “suitable forms of coordination and control ensure that diverse efforts

of individuals and units mesh” (p. 48). Price points out that Proposal A’s shift in funding also

created a “state run system of Michigan education, rather than a system featuring local control of

schools” (p. 51). Years ago, communities were highly involved in their schools. Taking care of

the building, property, staff, and students without requiring special permissions. With states now

having greater control, the local community involvement is strictly limited.

Human Resource Frame and Symbolic Frame

As previously stated, shifting the source of school funding from local to more state

control greatly helped to make progress in the equity gap by increasing the revenue of districts

who were previously below the minimum foundation, allowing them to “catch-up” to the annual

targeted basic minimum foundation (Price, 2017, p. 51-52). This correlates with one of the

assumptions of the Human Resource Frame that, “Organizations exist to serve human needs

rather than the converse” (p. 118). The Urban Institute (2017) explains that “rather than ensuring

a minimum overall funding level, the state instead commits to providing a minimum amount for

each percentage of property tax regardless of how much district tax revenue is actually raised by

that tax.” The state showed an understanding of this human need by putting an effort in to reduce

the funding gap and ensure that there is a healthier fund balance across the Michigan districts.

Understanding that regardless of the population or home value, students all over Michigan

deserve an equal and quality education and resources to supplement that education.

On the other hand, putting a per-pupil value on each student creates competition between

school districts. “When the fit between individual and system is poor, one or both suffer.
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 4

Individuals are exploited or exploit the organization – or both become victims” (Bolman and

Deal, 2017, p. 118). When families choose to relocate their child to a different school district, the

per-pupil funding follows them to their new school district. School districts then develop

innovative ways to attract families to their district. Furthermore, Bolman and Deal’s (2017)

Symbolic Frame states that “Culture forms the superglue that bonds an organization, unites

people, and helps an enterprise to accomplish desired ends” (p. 242). This innovative thinking

across Michigan districts could be used to collaborate with other districts effective ways to

educate children and help each child reach their academic achievement goals. After all, students,

should be the priority.

Political Frame

Bolman and Deal (2017) describe the Political Frame as having a balance of power

between competing interest groups in an effort to come to a fair compromise. Prior to Proposal

A, there were many court cases arguing that the state was not as involved in school funding as

the local government was. Local governments were struggling to fund schools adequately, until

Proposal A shifted the funding responsibilities. While this is a positive attempt to involve the

state more the shift in funds does not provide an equal balance of control between the local

government and the state government. Because the state provides more funding it inevitably has

greater control over curriculum guidelines and assessments.

Conclusion

Proposal A was certainly a solution to many issues surrounding school funding in the

early 1990’s. However, after over 20 years and now currently in a rapidly changing world, it is

time to update our school funding policies. Districts boast about community involvement but
PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 5

gone are the days where the community has much say about the district operations and decisions.

Community members can vote on millage and bonds but cannot have a direct involvement on the

wellbeing of the district they live in. Local communities should be able to have a direct influence

on the schools their children and neighbors attend beyond voting on two items. Per-pupil funding

should be reevaluated to account for the differential needs of students. The number of students

who have additional needs is rapidly increasing making it difficult to use trends to predict future

enrolment categories. There needs to be a new way of considering the financing behind student

needs for academic achievement. School funding issues should not be utilized as political

leverage rather politicians should come together to make students’ needs and academic

achievments the priority of policy making decisions.

PROPOSAL A POSITION PAPER 6

References

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership 6th

edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Price, William J. (2017). Michigan School Finance: A Handbook for Understanding State

Funding Policy for Michigan Public School Districts. NCPEA Press.

Urban Institute. (2017, November 29). How do school funding formulas work? Elevate the

Debate. https://apps.urban.org/features/funding-

formulas/#:~:text=This%20approach%2C%20sometimes%20called%20power,money%2

0for%20their%20tax%20effort.