by Bryan Charles Vish

MICHIGAN (Dec. 24, 2024)—Michigan’s “money follows the student” funding model, introduced to increase school choice and empower families, has sparked ongoing debate about its impact on the state’s education system. Proponents say the policy provides flexibility for parents and fosters competition among schools, but critics argue it destabilizes public schools and exacerbates educational inequities.

The funding model that allocates state dollars based on enrollment has reshaped Michigan’s education landscape. With declining enrollment, public schools struggle to maintain resources. Charter schools, often viewed as the beneficiaries of this system, present a mixed record of success, while public schools, particularly in low-income areas, face closures and significant financial strain.

The stakes are high in a state with pronounced economic disparities. As public schools lose funding and resources to competing institutions, communities across Michigan are left questioning whether the policy serves the best interests of all students or only a select few.

A Model Under Pressure

The “money follows the student” funding model, established through Michigan’s Proposal A in 1994, ties school funding directly to student enrollment. Designed to address disparities by replacing local property taxes with state taxes, the model allocates a set amount of funding per student to their chosen public, charter, or private school.

While intended to promote equity, the model has left districts with declining enrollment struggling to maintain resources and staff. Unlike states like Massachusetts and California, which prioritize equity by directing additional funds to underserved schools, Michigan’s approach lacks provisions for high-need populations. This competition for students has destabilized many public schools, leaving them vulnerable to closures and resource shortages.

Charter schools, especially for-profit ones, benefit most from Michigan’s “money follows the student” model, drawing funding from public schools by enrolling students in specialized programs. Detroit charters receive 29% less funding than public schools but often serve fewer high-need students, maintaining similar results.

The Human Cost of Inequity

Public schools, however, face shrinking budgets as enrollment declines, forcing cuts to resources, teacher pay, and infrastructure. High-poverty and rural districts face the worst challenges, deepening socioeconomic disparities​. The model’s impact has pushed many public schools toward closure, while reforms in states like Massachusetts show how targeted funding can address these issues.

In Michigan, districts with high poverty rates, like Burt Township School District, illustrate the challenges posed by the “money follows the student” model. For instance, declining enrollment has left schools struggling to maintain essential services and programs, such as after-school tutoring and extracurricular activities, amplifying district resource gaps.

Educators and parents often feel the strain firsthand. Public school teachers report dwindling classroom supplies and increasing workloads as budgets tighten. Meanwhile, parents face difficult choices between underfunded local schools and charter options that may not meet their expectations.

These stories underline the human cost of a system prioritizing enrollment over equity, putting families and schools in challenging positions while exacerbating systemic disparities.

Data from Detroitpeer.org

Reforming the System

Reforming Michigan’s school funding model is essential to addressing the disparities caused by the “money follows the student” system. Policymakers are exploring equity-based funding, similar to Massachusetts’s, which allocates more resources to high-need districts. This approach could provide critical support for underserved schools regardless of enrollment shifts.

Enhancing public school curriculums and resource allocation is another strategy. Investing in STEM programs, teacher development, and infrastructure could make public schools more competitive and improve academic outcomes.

Improved accountability measures, modeled after Oregon, are also under consideration. These measures could include stricter oversight of charter schools, mainly for-profit models, through regular performance evaluations and financial audits, ensuring better performance and equity while protecting public funds.

These reforms aim to balance school choice with equity, creating a fairer system that benefits all Michigan students. If successful, they could lead to improved academic outcomes, more competitive public schools, and a more equitable distribution of resources.

Michigan’s education system stands at a critical juncture. The “money follows the student” model, intended to empower families, has left public schools struggling with funding gaps and resource depletion, while charter schools often benefit without sufficient oversight.

A Call for Action

Reforms must prioritize equity and transparency. Equity-based funding, as seen in Massachusetts, and investments in public school curriculums can level the playing field. Stricter accountability for charter schools is essential to ensure fair resource distribution and performance.

Michigan’s students deserve a system that works for all, not just a privileged few. It’s time to demand reforms that prioritize equity and opportunity in education.

At the time of publication, the Michigan Department of Education and State Board of Education members had not responded to requests for comment on the “money follows the student” funding model and its impact on Michigan schools.

Eyes open. Voices loud.