The limits of serving on my local school board

Brendan Walsh served on the Grosse Pointe Public School System Board of Trustees from 2005 to 2013.

Is it a surprise that school boards often struggle to find willing entrants to the arenas of local politics? A good look at how Michigan funds public schools and the mechanics of local school district budgets can help diagnose the problem.

Before the passage of Proposal A in the mid-1990s, local school boards held full control of almost all operating and economic issues. They could go to voters at any time to seek millage increases. If finances became tight, or employee contracts expanded, school boards put it to the voters.

Property-tax levy proposals were common and mostly approved. That was the good news. The bad news was that Michigan property taxes exceeded the national average by 34 percent. Aside from a tax climate that was proving non-competitive, spending disparities among school districts worsened. Wealthy districts’ per-pupil spending exceeded poor districts’ by as much as three-to-one.

What would happen in a poor community when voters had enough? We found out in 1993 in Kalkaska. That district-wide shutdown in the middle of the school year set Proposal A’s passage into motion. Prop A aimed to solve these problems.

Prop A took away the option of raising taxes locally. The state now sets per-pupil funding. This allowed it to, over time, address spending disparities. We see evidence even in this year’s School Aid Fund proposal; it raises per-pupil revenue for lower-revenue districts by $120, and $60 for higher-revenue districts.

The shift to state control of local finances was dramatic. By and large, the state governs district general-fund revenues.

Enrollment is one of the last bastions of local control since Prop A linked funding to head counts. Local school boards played their best card by adopting school of choice policies to blur district border lines. All but a handful of Michigan districts have opted for school of choice. But in the big picture, as the state continues to lose school-aged population, aggregate enrollment is down and, with it, local revenues.

The expense side offers more flexibility, but almost all options are unpopular. About 85 percent of any district’s budget goes to pay staff and fund pensions. Since the vast majority of employees are compensated based on collective bargaining agreements, reducing costs is a practical problem and a far greater political problem.

If a locally elected board is not eager to call for wage and benefit reduction, they have some moderately less toxic options, including outsourcing or cutting staff, which results in fewer course options, fewer buildings or larger class sizes.

RELATED: Building a better school board

So let’s review. The state dictates revenue on a per-pupil basis. Enrollment in most districts is decreasing. Local school boards cannot increase operating millages, and scrap with bordering districts for students. Structural cost reduction solutions are almost invariably unpopular.

Ready to sign up to fund your own campaign and face angry neighbors in an election?

What are the options to make things better?

Education and training of school board members might be a start, particularly with an emphasis on how Michigan school finances work. Trustees need to know the mechanics to make good decisions.

Multi-year state budgets, with two- to three-year fixed per-pupil revenue commitments would also help. If 85 percent of school budgets are largely defined by three- and four-year (on average) collective bargaining agreements, state-level commitments on revenue would provide firmer ground for negotiations.

A more radical, yet reasonable solution would be for the state itself to establish compensation scales for various employee categories, including teachers. Since the state sets nearly every other financial parameter, particularly on the revenue side, why not end the charade of local financial control and take on the biggest aspect of the expense side? Doing so would dramatically simplify local operations and administration.

Like all real change, this one would be hard to make, but if we seek real change the odds of a state-level success are greater than that of 550 individual districts.

If you’re considering serving on your local school board, don’t let this scare you. Knowing the terrain helps. Study these issues and you can make change happen. If we truly believe this endeavor is about our state’s children, the change that can take place is worth it and rewarding.