Digging Into the Michigan House’s March Budget Surprise
The January 2025 and February 2025 Capitol Perspectives highlighted some of the initial dominoes that fell to set off the FY 26 appropriations process, including the January Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference’s “rosier…picture” regarding the resources that policymakers have to allocate, the February release of Governor Whitmer’s “slimmed-down School Aid budget” proposal, and her State of the State, which focused on bipartisanship and improved education “results” via a new Students, Metrics and Results with Transparency (SMART) Plan (WDET; WCMU; Michigan Advance; ABC 12 News; 2025 State of the State). Additionally, these editions of Capitol Perspectives summarized some unique political developments that might have informed Governor Whitmer’s approach to these budget process benchmarks. Specifically, this November, voters ended Michigan Democrats’ two-year governing trifecta, granting Michigan Republicans “a majority in the state House” and spurring some calls for the party to “work with [its] Republican colleagues in a bipartisan manner” (AP). Concerning the ongoing budget process, instead of relying on party-line votes, Governor Whitmer and Michigan Democrats will need to craft a framework that Michigan Republicans will greenlight in the state House (Chalkbeat Detroit).
In March, Michigan Republicans responded to this shift in political power and advanced the budget process “in a surprise move” involving the Michigan House of Representatives passing its version of at least a part of the FY 26 budget, HB 4162, by a vote of 59-49 (MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). Rather than presenting a complete vision for how the Michigan House would spend all available FY 26 funds, the “bare bones” measure includes $15.6 billion in education funding, and it leaves “$5 billion…to be allocated during final budget discussions” (Chalkbeat Detroit; MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). Summarizing the bill’s “key…details,” the MASA 3/7 Legislative Update noted its increase in per-pupil funds from $9,608 per student to $10,025 (and from $9,150 to $10,025 for cyber students), allocation of $350 million for 31aa mental health and school safety programs (an increase of $50 million), provision of $2.7 billion for special education (an increase of $127 million), and inclusion of $2.1 billion for the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System (MPSERS) (a decrease of $232 million). Notably, though, the legislation excludes “everything else, including transportation and school meals” (Chalkbeat Detroit).
Reportedly, this bill was passed “as a precaution in case budget negotiations stall” between the Democratic-led state Senate and the Republican-led state House (MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). In fact, in speaking about the legislation, House Appropriations Chairwoman Ann Bollin (R – Brighton) was careful to say that it is “not a budget bill” but rather “the beginning of the process” and “a prevention plan” (The Detroit News). Irrespectively, this messaging did not stop criticism. Emblematically, a Michigan Education Association news alert cited State Representative Regina Weiss (D – Oak Park), who said that substantively, “this is bad policy” that “is going to hurt our kids” (MEA ICYMI). Furthermore, many Michigan Democrats called the House’s actions “a ploy to get an advantage in budget negotiations” and denounced Republican leaders’ choice to vote on the measure “within an hour of [the bill’s] unveiling and [with] no prior notice” (Chalkbeat Detroit; MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). Perhaps given these fears and frustration, HB 4162 has remained stalled in the Senate Committee on Appropriations since the House’s approval of it, and commentators have predicted that “Democrats in the Senate will likely reject the House’s proposal” (Michigan Legislature; Chalkbeat Detroit).
In the shadow of this emergency plan for state funding, more traditional steps in the state budget process have continued. For instance, throughout March, “both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on education met…to hear presentations from key stakeholders” on budget considerations, including funding levels for charter and cyber schools, MDE priorities, Federal Title I funding, at-risk funding, and the Opportunity Index (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update; MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). Looking ahead, the Michigan House and Senate are expected to develop complete proposed budget frameworks to negotiate around before taking floor votes on the measures (Senate Fiscal Agency; House Fiscal Agency). Technically, there is a July 1 deadline for the Michigan government to finalize the budget (WILX 10). Though, “there are no penalties if [state leaders] fail to meet that goal” (Michigan Advance). Carefully observing the process, school and district leaders needing to plan and finalize their districts’ budgets are surely hoping for a speedy resolution to these already contentious debates taking place in the context of a divided government.
Checking on Federal Education Policy Developments
There was no shortage of federal education policy changes to feature in the January 2025 and February 2025 Capitol Perspectives. These included President Trump’s funding threat to districts that “recogniz[e] transgender identities or [teach] about concepts such as structural racism, ‘white privilege’ and ‘unconscious bias’”; an executive order telling “federal agencies to look for ways to expand access to private school vouchers”; a reversal of the ban on immigration enforcement at schools; a “federal funding freeze” that remains ensnared in litigation; an executive order “prohibiting transgender women from competing in women’s sports and using women’s restrooms” and announcing the “enforce[ment of] Title IX based on biological sex”’; and “DEI-related Title VI guidance warning institutions, including schools, of potential federal funding loss for ‘treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve…diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity’” (The New York Times; AP; The Hill; MASA 2/7 Legislative Update; MASA 2/21 Legislative Update; K-12 Dive). Broadly speaking, President Trump’s use of executive actions to reshape the federal government’s role in education and other areas has been “at a pace that’s unprecedented in modern U.S. history” (CBS News).
This month, the “dizzying changes” continued (Oregon Public Broadcasting). Though, they were primarily concerned with the existence of the U.S. Department of Education in general rather than how this agency might be used to achieve specific policy goals. First, just days after the U.S. Senate confirmed Linda McMahon as the Secretary of Education, the Trump Administration “cut 1,300 jobs from the U.S. Department of Education” in “a move widely seen as an effort to scale back the federal government’s role in education” (USED; NPR; MASA 3/14 Legislative Update; Al Jazeera). Unsurprisingly given similar reactions to other Trump efforts, the staff reductions triggered lawsuits by “more than 20 states – including Michigan” (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update; Chalkbeat Detroit). Then, still awaiting a court ruling on the legitimacy of this employment cut, President Trump released an “Executive Order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education” (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). Concretely, this measure directs “the Secretary of Education to ‘take all necessary steps to facilitate the [Department’s] closure…and return authority over education to the States and local communities’” (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). While symbolically significant, the order’s implications “remain unclear to many, given that it does not purport to eliminate any Federal funding” and “that a vote from Congress would still be needed to truly dismantle the Department” (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update).
During the last few weeks, there have been a variety of efforts in Michigan, on top of ongoing litigation related to “many of [President] Trump’s executive orders,” to challenge the current redesign of federal education policy (Bridge). For one, the Michigan Senate passed Senate Resolution 18 in a party-line vote to “encourage schools and other institutions to adopt and uphold the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Supporters of the measure have connected it to many of President Trump’s recent education-related executive orders and the U.S. Department of Education’s warning that they would be investigating “schools taking steps to enroll more students of color and hire more diverse staff” (Chalkbeat Detroit). While such measures “are not laws,” they historically have been “used in the Michigan legislature to call attention to issues” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Similarly, the Michigan State Board of Education “passed [on a 5-2 vote] a resolution ‘defending public education, civil rights, and democracy against executive orders and directives that threaten children and communities’” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Finally, State Superintendent Michael Rice released a memo, saying that the Michigan Department of Education holds that “educators must provide an education to every student, regardless of race, religion, or national origin” based on “the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act” (Chalkbeat Detroit).
Despite these examples of resistance to the federal government’s actions, Michiganders’ reactions to President Trump’s education agenda have not been universally negative. For example, Michigan House Republicans passed a resolution that “endorsed” the effort to “downsize the [U.S. Department of Education] and reduce its mission,” hoping the move would reverse alleged trends of “Washington… exerting too much control over schools” and inefficiently using resources (Bridge). As education stakeholders observe this back-and-forth and wait for court cases related to these actions to play out, folks have been caught between preemptively complying with the federal government’s new approach and pursuing priorities exalted by state leaders. With that, they have had to ponder the extent to which the U.S. Congress will follow President Trump’s lead and entrench executive priorities of “cutting spending and shrinking the government” (Bridge). As such, “districts nationwide are already bracing for cuts to federal funding” on top of adjusting to changing federal guidance on the culture wars, school choice, and curriculum (Chalkbeat Detroit).
Unpacking Action on New House Education Bills
At the start of March, Michigan House Republicans “introduced an education reform plan” that “adopts a pilot program to” adjust standardized testing, adds “more flexibility” to graduation requirements, “expands dual enrollment to include vocational schools,” “enhances reading and mathematics curriculum requirements,” “creates more data transparency for parents,” “simplifies the Department of Education,” “requires subject area expertise input for math and science teacher preparation programs,” “makes State Board of Education elections regional,” has the Department of Education offer “recommended curriculum and assessment companies as an option for schools,” “allows local experts…to teach classes on those subjects,” and “waives fees for teacher license applications and renewals” (Michigan House Republicans). In presenting the package, Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R – Richland Township) said the efforts seek to improve education conditions by “improv[ing] our curriculum,” “consolidating services to put more money in the classroom,” and boosting “transparency and accountability” (Michigan Public Radio). Conversely, many Michigan Democrats have said the bills “are ‘regurgitations’ of things already done” and that they “are not well thought out” (Michigan Public Radio). This month, policy watchers saw some of this rhetoric translated into action.
Concerning the subset of these bills “that could significantly impact student assessments” in an effort “to reduce state assessment testing for students and incorporate science of reading standards into the curriculum, following the passage of last year’s Dyslexia bills,” the House Committee on Education and Workforce considered a few pieces of legislation (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). Precisely, they reviewed HB 4155, which “requires [the] MDE to provide recommendations for curriculum companies and assessment companies”; HB 4156, which “modifies merit curriculum”; HB 4157, which “creates pilot programs for a state-administered assessment system”; HB 4158, which “updates references to M-STEP to include a new state-administered assessment system under the State School Aid Act”; and HB 4159, which “modifies core academic curriculum requirements” (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). In response to supporters noting the need for this legislation, critics raised concerns about “increase[d] credit requirements and limit[ed] student pathway options” if the reforms are adopted (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). Prospectively speaking, to impact Michigan’s schools, each of these bills still needs to advance beyond the House Committee on Education and Workforce. Then, they would need to be passed via a floor vote in the Michigan House and one in the Michigan Senate.
Second, the Michigan House saw action on some bills revolving around the structure of education governance. In particular, the House Committee on Education and Workforce reviewed and “voted to advance HJR E (Schuette) (with an adopted substitute),” which “proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the State Superintendent be appointed by the governor, with Senate approval, beginning January 2027” (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update). Similarly in the governance bucket, the House Committee on Education and Workforce advanced HB 4148, which would alter “the selection process for State Board of Education members to a rotating nomination schedule” based on districts, by a vote of 7-4 (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update). Currently, “the State Board of Education selects the State Superintendent” (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update). Supporters of this effort have suggested it “would bring additional accountability,” while detractors worry the move “could make the position more partisan and less consistent” as Michigan “go[es] back and forth between Democratic and Republican governors” (Michigan Advance). In terms of the change’s probability of passing, it faces significant hurdles. It would need “approval from two thirds of both the House and the Senate, before being placed on the ballot where Michigan voters would have the final say” (Michigan Advance).
Finally, March included some House efforts related to teacher certification. “In a somewhat bi-partisan fashion,” the Michigan House passed HB 4150 to end “all fees for teaching certificate applications, endorsements, and permits,” HB 4151 to have the “MDE…issue an additional subject area endorsement to a teaching certificate if the holder passes that subject on the Michigan Test for Teacher Certification,” and HB 4153 to allow “public schools to issue local teaching certificates for up to five years” (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update). Justification-wise, the “bills were introduced in an effort to address the state’s ongoing teacher shortage” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Though, they faced some criticism from state leaders saying that “when you weaken and cheapen the process of being a certified teacher, you are only putting our kids in danger of having unqualified people in the classroom” (WWMT). While the House’s approval of these bills places them ahead of the other discussed measures, they still have a way to go. They will need to be considered and approved by the Michigan Senate and signed by Governor Whitmer (Chalkbeat Detroit). Over the next few weeks, as related actions occur on these bills, and perhaps others, updates will be included in future editions of Capitol Perspectives.
For questions or more information, please contact Tyler Thur in the Office of K-12 Outreach at thurtyle@msu.edu.