Michigan has its education funding system backwards

One of the persistently enraging things about the workings of government is how often we see multiple disconnects between what we all know and what it does. Now that it’s back to school time, we can see these disconnects plainly.

Example No. 1: It is beyond dispute that children learn the quickest and best from birth to age 5. When do we start spending most public money on educating our children? At age 5, when they enter kindergarten. 

Example No. 2: In Michigan, we do spend (a very little) state money on pre-kindergarten programs. The Great Start Readiness Program, aimed at 4-year-olds from poor families, gets $109 million a year from the state. By contrast, we spend $13.4 billion on kindergarten through 12^th grade in our public schools. The $109 million is little more than a rounding error. 

On the face of it, this is absurd.

We all know that pre-kindergarten programs prepare young children to succeed once they get into K-12 school. Without them, kids simply won’t make the third grade reading benchmark that predicts future success. And recent research by the High Scope Educational Research Foundation shows children who participate in GSRP are 20 percent more likely to graduate from high school than those who don’t. 

So what explains the imbalance between state funding for K-12 schools and preschool programs? Many early childhood experts sayMichiganhas its funding formulas exactly backwards.

Our state constitution guarantees free public education for every K-12 student inMichigan. For every child enrolled in school, the district gets a “foundation grant” (currently $6,966) from the state. This system incentivizes school districts to maximize enrollment -- state money is guaranteed for every student the schools attract.

But it’s just the reverse when it comes to preschool. There, the state arbitrarily declares how much money it has allocated to preschool programs (currently $109 million per year) and divvies it in slots (at $3,400 each) out to regional intermediate school districts and other GSRP providers. So many dollars allocated, so many slots available. And when the slots are full, the remaining eligible kids go on a waiting list.

And there could be thousands of such children across the state.

In other words, there’s a profound disconnect between what we know about preschool and what we do. The governor, the state school superintendent, school officials, teachers and learning experts all testify that preschool and other early childhood are fundamental keys to K-12 student success. But in practice, the state’s funding formula for preschool programs considers the GSRP program as a last priority. 

Early Childhood Investment Corporation CEO Judy Samelson concurs: “It’s about formulas, not meeting goals.”

The working of the formula for preschool practically guarantees there will be many thousands of eligible kids who never get enrolled.

How come we treat kids under age 5 so differently from those age 5 and older? I’d guess it goes back to 1979, when the School Aid Act was originally passed. At that time, most experts didn’t pay much attention to how rapidly young kids learn and how essential preschool programs are to success in school. “They’re just little kids,” I can hear policy-makers saying.

But we now know better. Fortunately, an effort is now under way to rewrite the School Aid act, led by Richard McClellan, one of Lansing’s smartest and most experienced insiders. Both Gov. Rick Snyder and Superintendent Mike Flanagan have said that it makes no sense to arbitrarily divide up money for educating all our kids, young or old, into different pots. In his special message on education earlier last year,Snyder called for a seamless P-20 (preschool through community college) system for investing in human capital. 

Early childhood programs available to all could be an absolute game-changer for Michigan children – and for Michigan employers, who are complaining loudly about not being able to find skilled employees. Putting young kids on the same funding formula basis as older ones would be a big step at eliminating this silly and unacceptable disconnect between what we all know and what Michigan government does.

Editor’s note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics. He is also the founder and chairman of the Center for Michigan, a nonprofit, bipartisan centrist think–and–do tank, designed to cure Michigan’s dysfunctional political culture; the Center also publishes Bridge Magazine. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of the Center. He welcomes your comments via email.