Twenty-five years after Michigan voters approved Proposal A, Michigan ranks last among the 50 states in funding growth for public education, according to a new analysis by Michigan State University.

While many schools saw their per-pupil revenues increase during the 1990s, total revenue for Michigan schools has declined by 30 percent since 2002 when adjusted for inflation, the study shows.

Factoring inflation, Michigan’s spending on K-12 education in 2015 was 82 percent of 1995 spending — worse than any other state, the analysis found.

“If Michigan devoted the same fraction of its economy to state and local taxes as the national average,” the study said, the state would be spending about $3 billion more on K-12 students, or about $2,000 per student.

Meanwhile Michigan ranks at the bottom for growth in math and reading proficiency, notes a MSU press release about the study, titled “Michigan School Finances At The Crossroads: A Quarter Century of State Control.”

“Michigan has tried to improve schools on the cheap, focusing on more accountability and school choice,” David Arsen, MSU professor of education policy and lead author of the study, said in the press release. “To make those policies effective, they have to be matched with adequate funding. We have been kidding ourselves to think we can move forward while cutting funding for schools."

Proposal A was approved by voters in 1994. Previously, schools were largely funded through local property taxes. Under Proposal A, most tax revenues for schools went to the state and schools received a per-pupil foundation grant to fund operations. The minimum grant this school year is $7,871 compared to $5,153 in 1995-96 -- which equates to $8,665 in today’s dollars.

Among highlights of the report:

While Proposal A created more equity between school districts, it did not address the additional costs faced by districts with high numbers of low-income children or other students with added needs.

The funding decline has largely occurred because of changes in revenue flow in and out of the School Aid Fund. In the initial years after Proposal A, the SAF was supplemented by transfers from the state’s General Fund. But in recent years, the School Aid Fund has been tapped to finance programs, which as higher education. that formerly got their monies from the General Fund.

Michigan’s funding of special education services is “unusually stingy,” and this hurts both special education and regular education students. That’s because districts must divert operating funds to special education, leaving less money for regular education students.

Michigan’s approach to school facility finance “guarantees unequal opportunities for students and unequal burdens for taxpayers.” Proposal A only affects operating revenues; district funding for new schools or major renovations or repairs still come from local property taxes -- and there’s huge variation in district tax bases and the millage required to support capital projects.

Michigan’s school choice policies have increased the schooling options for many students, but create fiscal inefficiency. Charter schools tend to lack economy of scale, which means higher overhead costs. Meanwhile, the state’s funding structure creates “perverse incentives” for districts and charters to recruit “low-cost students (regular versus special education) or focus on low-cost services (online instruction versus high school science labs).”

The report endorses the 2018 study by the Michigan School Finance Research Collaborative, which proposes spending $9,590 to educate a typical student plus radditional funding for students living in poverty, English language learners and special education students.

The authors of the MSU study -- which includes Arsen, Tanner Delpier and Jesse Nagel -- say lawmakers must find new revenue for education, possibly through changes in sales, property or income taxes; “stricter scrutiny of tax expenditures” and/or by allowing local districts to levy voter-approved enhancement millages.

“Citizens will support providing additional funding to schools if they know how themoney will be spent, and they believe the revenues have been raised fairly,” Arsen said in the press release. “Providing those resources to schools is well within reach of the state in our current economy. This is what’s necessary to establish the foundation for the important work of teaching and learning.”