Increased School Funding Did Not Slow Districts In Deficit

But 10 districts expected to exit deficit status this year

State Supt. Flanagan

Media outlets across the state have pounced on a comment by State Superintendent Mike Flanagan, who said this week there are a record 55 school districts now in deficit.

But downplayed in much of the reporting is that 10 school districts are projected to come out of deficit, which if confirmed in November by audits, would mean there actually are four fewer districts in deficit in 2012-13 than the previous year.

Michigan had 49 districts in deficit in 2011-12.

Michigan Department of Education Spokeswoman Jan Ellis said this was the first year that the state did forecasts on deficits.

"The reality is we won't know the bottom line until Nov. 15 when we get all the audited information in," Ellis said. "These numbers continue to evolve."

The number of school districts in deficit increased the most under then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm. During Gov. Granholm's tenure, the state foundation allowance increased six consecutive years from 2002-03 to 2008-09, but the number of schools in deficit increased from 10 in 2002-03 to 41 in 2008-09.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!


See also:

School Districts With Continual Deficits Still Handing Out Raises

Loss of Funding Not To Blame For School District Failures

Slight Reducation In Education Funding Did Not Lead To Doomsday Predictions

Survey Says ... School Union Contracts Contribute To Deficits

Teacher Layoffs Not Caused By Lack of Cash

Reality Check: Who Is To Blame For School Deficits?

Michigan School Districts In 'Perpetual' Funding Crisis

Related Articles:

Panic Over: Number of School Districts in Deficit Plummets

Fewer School Districts Borrowing to Cover Expenses, But Pension Debt Rising

A Forced Marriage to Intermediate School Districts

More School Districts Paying Their Bills Without Debt

The False Claim That Won’t Die: School ‘Funding Cuts’ By The State

School District Thwarts Transparency With Unnecessary Costs

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


There aren’t many policies that get near unanimous support from economists, but free trade is one of them. Despite this, a central theme of the 2016 presidential campaign, heard from both political parties, was that free trade was somehow harmful to the United States and corrective action was needed. Mark Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint and scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, makes the case for why President Trump’s assessment of free trade is misguided.

Related Sites