June 9, 2019

Dear Representative Hornberger,

I am writing you as a concerned educator in the State of Michigan. Funding for public schools in
Michigan needs to increase. I am trying to remain up to date with the Senate and Subcommittee
meetings in regards to SB 146 and HB 4242, and know the Senate has approved SB 146, and the
House Subcommittee has made their recommendations with HB 4242. The recommendation to
increase State funding per-pupil from a minimum $7,871 to $8,051 is a step in the right
direction. However, I believe more can be done to help our students and school districts. With
many districts allowing school of choice, districts are faced with fluctuating student enrollment
on a yearly basis. Responsibility of funding falls more on per-pupil allowance and State funding,
and less on individual cities or communities. Because of this, districts are reliant on student
enrollment. In the district I teach, we are projecting a loss of 50 students for next school year.
When you hear a loss of 50 students in a district of over 16,000, it doesn’t seem like much. But
with per-pupil funding at $7,871 in my district, that 50 student loss equates to $393,550.
Through interviews and research, I have been able to become more informed regarding the
Michigan School Aid Fund. While reading an article titled, “A brief history of Proposal A, or
how we got here”, the author makes the point, after losing small percentages of students, schools
find it difficult to quickly cut budgets or staff because when a district loses a small percentage of
students (and the revenue they bring), that doesn’t mean costs to run the district decline (The
Center for Michigan, 2014). The quick fix results in teacher lay-offs and school closings.

In addition to receiving less funding due to lower amounts of students enrolled, districts are
responsible for capital needs, thanks to Proposal A. My solution to this is to allow more freedom
for districts to spend their funding on capital needs. In the book, “Education reform and the
limits of policy: lessons from Michigan”, the authors claim capital needs were the one area not
addressed in Proposal A. Local school districts are obliged to fund their capital needs from cash
reserves, building and sinking funds, or the sale of bonds (Addonizio & Kearney, 2012, p. 61).
Thankfully we have recently approved a bond in my school district. Unfortunately, even with
the approved bond, we are unable to use any of that money for staffing or curriculum. Another
solution to this could be more freedom to use bond funding to help fund staffing, salaries, and
curriculum.

Through my Finance class taken for my Masters of Ed. Leadership at Oakland University, I
found authors Dr. Arsen and Dr. Plank’s paper titled, “Michigan School Finance through
Proposal A”. Their idea is to increase statewide property tax. Increasing the statewide property
tax on homestead and non-homestead property from six to eight mills, for example, would
generate approximately $600 million per year (Arsen & Plank, 2003, p. 35). I believe this would
help offset the losses districts endure through school of choice. Dr. Arsen and Dr. Plank went on
to write that this would help make education funding less vulnerable to cyclical changes in
Michigan’s economy, making revenues for schools more predictable over time. Second, it would
support growth in the SAF, because the current state education property tax has been more
responsive to long term growth in state economic activity than other taxes earmarked for the
SAF. Third, it could be structured to eliminate the General Fund “gap” in the SAF, replacing
annual appropriations from the Legislature with earmarked revenues (Arsen & Plank, 2003, pp.
35-36).

With all this being said, I do believe school districts should be held responsible for determining
the most cost-effective way to keep schools operating. However, when students choose to not
attend a school district, the cost to operate that school does not lessen at a constant rate. When
interviewing Chippewa Valley’s Director of Business Services, Mrs. Danielle Jacobs, I asked her
about our funding priorities and how the state priorities impacted funding allocations? Her
response was similar to the strategy a family living paycheck-to-paycheck would use. We
establish our needs vs. wants, create building budgets based on enrollment and create some
earmarks for buildings. We wait for the House, Senate, and Governor to balance the budget.
We’re basically at the mercy of the State. And this funding isn’t finalized until fall of the school
year (D. Jacobs, personal communication, May 28, 2019). When speaking about how
instructional staff has been affected by state funding, Mrs. Jacobs said it’s a direct impact. It
impacts our contract negotiations, how we determine class size, the number of teachers we can
employ, the steps our teachers receive and potential pay freezes (D. Jacobs, personal
communication, May 28, 2019).

I know you are working tirelessly to fund schools in our state, and have to think of the fairest
way to do so, while appeasing your constituents. I am asking for your support in helping
increase State funding, as well as help make it a manageable task for all school districts to
accomplish through economic freedom in regards to bond and School Aid Funds use.

Thank you for your time,

Mr. Brandon Altadonna

4th Grade Teacher
Chippewa Valley Schools