Michigan lawmakers approved a $13.9 billion education budget Wednesday, touting more equitable funding for school districts across the state. But northern Michigan school leaders say the promised increase of $70-$140 in per pupil funding doesn’t tell the whole story – with wealthier downstate districts still coming out ahead.

Traverse City Area Public Schools (TCAPS) Superintendent Paul Soma calls the state’s education budget “insincere and disingenuous.” While TCAPS’ foundation allowance is set to increase $140 next year – from $7,251 to $7,391 per student – the district still faces a $350,000 shortfall and remains thousands of dollars behind Michigan’s highest-funded districts.

“We’re going to have a balanced budget next year, but we’re squeezing the rock to do that,” says Soma. He says the district plans to make transportation cuts and use increased revenues from early childhood and international exchange programs to offset the shortfall. “What I had hoped, however, is we could have used those dollars to build up the general fund…or reinstate some of our (cut) services,” he says.

With the state eliminating $126 million in categorical payments, like those paid to districts meeting performance standards, Soma says many school systems won’t receive the full per-pupil increase advertised in the budget. TCAPS’ foundation increase, for instance, amounts to only $90 after factoring in categorical cuts. Even after adding in dollars for at-risk students – restricted funds that were bulked up this year – the district’s net increase totals $131, not $140.

Soma reserves his strongest criticism for $893 million set aside in the state budget to cover employee retirement costs. Though intended to aid schools, Soma says significant disparities in how those funds are allocated from district to district ultimately serves to widen – not narrow – the overall funding gap between school systems.

“It’s a disproportionate benefit to the richest districts in the state,” says Soma. “That’s not an opinion; it’s a fact. They’re closing a gap in one column, but creating a bigger gap in another column. It’s discrimination…and it’s not fair to our students or staff.”

Other area superintendents agree. “It’s a way to make it look like there’s this decent sized increase, while on the back end you lose other things,” says Suttons Bay Public Schools Superintendent Christopher Nelson. “Every little bit helps…and it’s always good to get general fund increases. But if that ends up impacting other funding sources, it becomes a trade-off.”

Kingsley Area Schools Superintendent Keith Smith says his school district – slated to receive a per-pupil increase of just $79 – faces an unbalanced budget next year. “It would be nice if we all got the same amount per student,” he acknowledges. “But (disparity) hasn’t occurred for one year, so it’s probably not going to be fixed in one year.” Smith says he’s trying to focus on the positive. “It’s a step in the right direction, even if they haven’t acknowledged the full equity of northern Michigan,” he says of the budget. “Honestly, after years of cuts, I’m thankful to be getting anything.”

For Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District (TBAISD) Superintendent Mike Hill, the state’s decision to once again keep general operations funding for the ISD the same “is a concern” going forward. “As an ISD, we’re being asked to do more and more…and the legislature is not increasing state support,” he says. As far as the local districts TBAISD represents are concerned, Hill seconds Smith’s comments that efforts to equalize per-pupil funding are a “step in the right direction” – even if work remains to be done.