Livingston County Daily Slams Hold Harmless Provision

The issue of fairness and equity in funding came up recently in a Livingston County Daily editorial. The piece is highly critical of the "hold harmless" provisions in the school code.

While I firmly believe that the issue of fairness and equity in funding needs to be raised, the timing on this one and the tone of the editorial simply pits the poorer districts against the well to do, kind of like the dogs at King Henry VIII's tables fighting over the table scraps. Instead, education (K-12, community colleges, and universities) should be saying we need a place at the table.

I am not sure the answer for I am a proponent of equity. However, equity means different things to different people. Some, like me, would make a case that those districts which have higher needs (e.g., higher than average free/reduced lunch, bilingual, other at risk, or special needs students) should receive greater funding than districts with lower than average enrollments in these categories. The at-risk categorical is intended to make up some of the problems associated with high incidences of these students. One could argue whether or not at-risk is adequately funded, however.

For full disclosure, my current district has lower than average enrollments in special needs, bilingual, free/reduced lunch, and other at risk categories. However, I started my education career in Grand Rapids so I have an acute soft spot for those urban and rural districts with higher than average needs.

Still, I do not think the editorial in the Daily is helpful at this time. I would have preferred that the editorial address the issue of equity in the context of reform of the state's funding for schools combined with reasoned/prudent discussions about means to control costs in areas such as health care, salaries, curriculum development, administration, and support services.

The Livingston County Daily article can be read by clicking on the heading to this post.