Right before their spring break, the House Education and Workforce Committee “heard testimony on a school safety bill package” made up of HB 4222, which “modifies procedures for school emergency operations plans” and requires school “crisis team[s] by July 1, 2026”; HB 4226, which alters the “number of school fire and security drills”; HB 4227, which mandates “one emergency and safety manager and at least one mental health coordinator in each ISD”; HB 4228, which “requires additional school safety training to certain school personnel”; and HB 4258, which obligates “[Michigan State Police] to provide notification of certain tips related to a school” (MASA 3/31 Monday Memo; Chalkbeat Detroit). In mid-April, “a bipartisan push” got these bills, excluding HB 4228, through the House Education and Workforce Committee and before the Michigan House (Chalkbeat Detroit). Further, towards the end of April, this committee considered without yet advancing HB 4223 to “require schools to have a safety plan by the 2026-2027 school year” and HB 4315, which “mandates that state police develop and host annual training sessions at schools” (Mid-Michigan Now).
Despite progress on these measures, their success is not guaranteed anytime soon. Previously, a collection of bills that “require[d] schools to have a behavior threat assessment and management team, create[d] a new state commission on school safety and mental health, and add[ed] new rules to make sure schools are able to respond effectively to safety threats” had taken “lawmakers more than three years to approve” (Chalkbeat Detroit; Chalkbeat Detroit). Given this recent legislative history, it was not surprising to see debate swirl around the relative merits of this year’s collection of reforms from the Michigan House. While most lawmakers have agreed on the goal of keeping Michigan’s students and teachers safe, there has been disagreement about the best way to achieve that end goal. For instance, concerning the first collection of bills that advanced out of committee, some policymakers have expressed frustrations that the package does “not address firearms and criminal justice” and that it lacks implementation details, including when it comes to how districts that “already struggle to fill open positions” are supposed to find “hundreds of new [required] mental health staff” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Regarding HB 4223 and HB 4315, the parents of a student who was “killed in the Oxford High School shooting, expressed frustration” both “with the [delayed] legislative process,” calling it “very frustrating,” and the bills, saying they “are incomplete…half measures” (Mid-Michigan Now).
To become law, the first set of bills need “a full vote in the Republican-controlled House,” approval “in the Democratically controlled Senate,” and the signature of “Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer” (Chalkbeat Detroit). The other proposals must make it out of the House Education and Workforce Committee before overcoming the same hurdles. Whether such events occur remains to be seen. Five months into 2025, there has been a bit of a logjam in the Michigan Senate, “where the Education Committee has only advanced one bill” (Bridge). More broadly, 2025 has delivered the “least productive session in decades,” with just “two bills passed” by the Michigan Legislature as of April 24th (ABC 13).
Additionally, even if Michigan lawmakers can move beyond this gridlock, they will have to carefully consider where school safety legislation fits in their broader agenda. Concerning bills featured in the March 2025 Capitol Perspectives, in April, HB 4156 “to modernize the state’s merit curriculum system” by “expanding the classes students can take to meet graduation requirements,” HB 4157 to develop “pilot programs for a state-administered assessment system,” HB 4158 to shift “references to M-STEP to include a new state-administered assessment system under the State School Aid Act,” and HB 4159 to create added standards for reading, writing, and math curriculum passed the Michigan House and were sent to the Senate Committee on Education (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update; Michigan Advance; Michigan House Republicans). Previously, in March, the Michigan House also teed up 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” for the Michigan Senate to consider (MASA 3/14 Legislative Update; March 2025 Capitol Perspectives). Lastly, the full Michigan House still needs to take up legislation advanced from the House Committee on Education and Workforce in March, like HB 4155 to create “a list of recommended curricula” (Michigan Advance; March 2025 Capitol Perspectives). Consequently, over the next few weeks, the Michigan Legislature’s actions will likely draw the attention of many educators and administrators eager to learn more about what is expected from them.
Previously, the March 2025 Capitol Perspectives highlighted efforts by Michigan House Republicans to restructure education governance via HJR E, which “proposes a constitutional amendment requiring the State Superintendent [to] be appointed by the governor [rather than the State Board of Education], with Senate approval, beginning January 2027,” and HB 4148, which shifts “the selection process for State Board of Education members to a rotating nomination schedule” based on districts (MASA 3/21 Legislative Update; MASA 3/14 Legislative Update). Additionally, this formerly-introduced resolution concerning the state superintendent would establish “a term of up to four years, as determined by the governor,” whereas currently, this individual is set to “remain…either until they resign or are removed by the state board” (Chalkbeat Detroit). In March, both measures were approved by the House Committee on Education and Workforce (HJR E; HB 4148). This month, the State Board of Education “unanimously” fired back with “a resolution to oppose the proposal to strip it of its power to appoint the state superintendent” (Chalkbeat Detroit).
In discussing the merits of these proposals, supporters have argued that they are a necessary response to a “failing” state education system (Chalkbeat Detroit). In particular, they have said that HJR E would help ensure that the governor can execute their vision for education as “mandate[d] directly from the people” and that HB 4148 would make the State Board of Education more representative (Chalkbeat Detroit). Conversely, critics have commented that restructuring the selection process for the state superintendent could make the position “more partisan” (Chalkbeat Detroit). With that, the Michigan State Board of Education added that the change could excessively consolidate “power” in the hands of “one state executive” and result in “the frequent changing of education policy,” which “would lead to great confusion and frustration at the district, school and classroom level and harm…student learning” (MDE Memo). In reflecting on this back-and-forth, it is notable, given today’s partisan political environment, that it is not just one party calling for reforms to how the state superintendent is selected. While the current effort is being driven by Michigan Republicans, in December 2023, the “bipartisan” Growing Michigan Together Council, which was “appointed by Whitmer,” released a report calling for reforms “allowing governors to appoint superintendents” to “better align the priorities of the Michigan Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and the governor’s office” (Bridge). Looking ahead, the prospects for these changes are uncertain, especially in light of the high bar for this proposal to become law. Specifically, “the resolution would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Republican-controlled House and the Democratically controlled Senate,” and it would need the support of a majority of “voters in the November 2026 election” (Chalkbeat Detroit).
Beyond that, in April, State Superintendent Michael Rice threw a wrench into this debate, announcing that “he is retiring from his position…effective Oct. 3” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Given that these governance reforms have yet to be approved and would not take effect until after Governor Whitmer leaves office, the Michigan State Board of Education, comprised of two Republicans and six Democrats, is still set to lead this effort (Chalkbeat Detroit). In fact, in April, they announced that they would “start a search immediately” for the next Michigan State Superintendent (Bridge). How lawmakers resolve this consideration of whether to shift how the state superintendent and state board are selected and who the Michigan State Board of Education selects to be the state’s next superintendent will have significant effects on education policy priorities down the road for educators, schools, and districts across Michigan.
Over the last few months, the January 2025, February 2025, and March 2025 Capitol Perspectives have featured copious executive actions to reshape the federal education policy landscape and resultant litigation pushing back on President Trump’s vision. In April, the waves of change continued. Centrally, the federal government refocused its attention on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in educational entities. Specifically, the U.S. Department of Education published a letter requiring “State Education Chiefs to certify” that “federal funds are not used for [DEI] programs in K-12 schools” as part of the Trump administration’s reinterpretation of “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded programs” (MASA 4/7 Monday Memo). Relatedly, the federal government directed “State Education Chiefs to gather similar certifications from every local school district” (MASA 4/7 Monday Memo). Concerning the stakes of this shift, the U.S. Department of Education warned that “states that don’t sign will not receive any federal funding” (Chalkbeat Detroit). In particular, the Trump administration threatened districts’ “Title I funding, which is targeted to schools with a high proportion of low income students” (NPR).
Responding to this pressure in the Michigan context, State Superintendent Michael Rice released a memo, positing that “Michigan had previously certified compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” and that “many efforts to promote programs that support diversity and inclusion seek to expand opportunities, not limit them, and therefore do not discriminate” (MASA 4/14 Monday Memo). In many ways, this response from the Michigan Department of Education and Superintendent Rice’s decision to not “sign Trump’s anti-DEI certification” aligns with past actions, including previous comments “that President Donald Trump’s January executive order attempting to ban DEI in schools would not change the state’s efforts to incorporate curriculum that reflects its diverse student body” (Chalkbeat Detroit). It also situates Michigan next to “top education leaders” in “Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois,” who “said they will not sign the certification” (Chalkbeat Detroit).
The other major federal education policy development over the last few weeks concerned waivers tied to the expiration of Congress’ relief funds connected to the COVID-19 pandemic – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) resources. Just a few months ago, “the [U.S. Department of Education] told 41 states and the District of Columbia they had another year to spend down the rest of the $122 billion for schools awarded in the 2021 American Rescue Plan” (ASE Memo). At the end of March, the U.S. Department of Education reversed course on ESSER spending flexibility, announcing that districts’ “additional time to spend COVID relief money had run out” and that the department “would no longer grant any reimbursement requests for planned ESSER expenditures by districts” (MASA 4/7 Monday Memo). In explaining the decision, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said that districts “have had ample time to liquidate [ESSER] obligations” and that the extension of deadlines related to these “taxpayer funds…is not consistent with the Department’s [post-COVID] priorities” (USED). Pushing back, advocates have raised concerns that the move means some districts “will now be forced to stop…programs and contracted services” that they previously received approval to continue and that the shift is an “arbitrary and capricious” one, which risks “confusing” educational entities, service providers, and other stakeholders (ASE Memo). In Michigan, the decision could place “approximately $17.8 million” in jeopardy while furthering already significant uncertainty regarding the federal government’s intention to follow through on its past funding commitments to K-12 institutions (Bridge).
As readers try to keep up with the flurry of education policy activity from D.C., they should keep a few resources in mind. For one, the University Council for Educational Administration shared an Education Executive Action Tracker, which “provide[s] an overview of executive actions and their implications for schools, educators, and students.” Second, Just Security has a Litigation Tracker that covers the extensive lawsuits surrounding President Trump’s executive actions, including those focused on the provision of K-12 education and school districts. As of April 28th, the database includes information about 222 such cases (Just Security). Additionally, individuals can explore the Michigan Association of Superintendents & Administrators’ clearinghouse of “Federal Updates & Resources for School Leaders” (MASA 2/21 Legislative Update). Finally, folks can continue checking in on the latest from the federal government by reviewing 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.