Bridges4Kids Logo

 
About Us Breaking News Find Help in Michigan Find Help in the USA Find Help in Canada Inspiration
IEP Goals Help4Parents Disability Info Homeschooling College/Financial Aid Summer Camp
IEP Topics Help4Teachers Homework Help Charter/Private Insurance Nutrition
Ask the Attorney Become an Advocate Children "At-Risk" Bullying Legal Research Lead Poisoning
 
Bridges4Kids is now on Facebook. Follow us today!
 

 

Article of Interest - Education

Printer-friendly Version

Bridges4Kids Logo

Go Figure - Two Sides To Education Numbers Game
MIRS, September 1, 2005
For more articles like this visit https://www.bridges4kids.org

 

The old saying, "there's two sides to every coin" appears to be holding true in the numbers debate over the K-16 guaranteed school funding debate.

A memo put out this week by the Anderson Economic Group suggests that schools, through a combination of local revenue growth, and state funding increases, have already seen the type of annual funding increases they're asking for in the K-16 proposal.

"The big picture is that schools have been well-funded since Proposal A passed in 1994," said Scott Watkins, with the Anderson Economic Group. "That includes both the operating side and the debt side."

According to the study Watkins completed, recently released school finance data shows that from 2003 to 2004, average school revenues and expenditures in Michigan increased at rates above inflation and consumer prices.

>From both state and local sources, between 2003 and 2004, per pupil resources increased by 4.4 percent while inflation only increased 2.6 percent. Recall that the K-16 coalition's guaranteed funding initiative calls for yearly funding increases of 5 percent, or the rate of inflation, whichever is less. While the K-16 coalition argues that state funding needs to climb at that rate, Watkins argues that over the past 10 years, schools have done pretty well.

"I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of the amount of funding that schools are getting," Watkins said. "There's a lot of misinformation being put out there by the school lobbying groups."

He goes on to point out that: "If you look at the operating revenue and compare that to inflation the per pupil, operating revenues are up 55 percent and inflation has only been 21 percent during that period. That excludes the 217 percent explosion in property tax revenue for debt sinking funds and millages."

Tom White, with the Michigan School Business Officials, said that while Watkins numbers appear "factual" to him, there are always different ways to look at numbers.

"There are so many different ways to look at the numbers," he said. "I looked at January 1995, at what the low end (minimum foundation allowance) was and what it was in January 2005. In Jan. 1995, it was $5,000. In 2005 January, it was $6,700. That was an increase of 34 percent."

White then went on to point out that if you look at the maximum foundation allowance for the same period, it went from $6,500 in January 1995 to $8,000, an increase of 23 percent. After you consider inflation, he argues, schools relying on the minimum foundation grant saw revenue climb by 0.72 percent per year. On the maximum side, funding actually fell by 0.37 percent after inflation.

"696,000 students are in districts that haven't received inflationary increases over those years," said White.

He argues that if Watkins' argument is that if schools have been receiving more than the rate of inflation per year, what's the problem?

"How can we be greedy if what we're asking for is less than what we've gotten the last 10 years?" he asks.

     

back to the top     ~     back to Breaking News     ~     back to What's New

 

Thank you for visiting https://www.bridges4kids.org/.
 

bridges4kids does not necessarily agree with the content or subject matter of all articles nor do we endorse any specific argument.  Direct any comments on articles to deb@bridges4kids.org.

© 2002-2021 Bridges4Kids

 

NOTE: (ALL RESOURCES PRE-IDEA 2004 ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL/HISTORICAL RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY)