After this year's hectic state budget cycle, involving missed deadlines and “stalled negotiations,” kept school funding debates in the headlines through early-October, policy watchers were likely hoping for a respite and a return “to business as usual” (Chalkbeat Detroit; October 2025 Capitol Perspectives; MASA 10/24 Legislative Update). Instead, educators, administrators, and K-12 advocates were greeted in November by a newly-realized dilemma concerning “31aa (School Safety and Mental Health)” funds, namely whether these resources were worth agreeing to “language” from the Michigan Legislature, requiring “any district accepting” them “to comply with an investigation of a ‘mass casualty event’” should one occur and changing how “Michigan’s government immunity laws shield educational institutions from liability in lawsuits” (MASA 10/3 Legislative Update; November 2025 Capitol Perspectives; MASA 11/14 Legislative Update; MLive; Chalkbeat Detroit). Notably, this month did not deliver certainty on this piece, at least as of Thursday, December 18th, as “the Section 31aa lawsuit remains pending” (MASA 12/12 Legislative Update). Though, the concerns districts displayed regarding these funds were somewhat overshadowed by other financial developments in December.
Namely, mid-month, budget disagreements emerged in a new form, with “the Republican-controlled state House budget committee cancel[ing] nearly $645 million in funding for state departments’ projects heading into 2026” via “a relatively obscure provision in state law [the Management and Budget Act of 1984] that allowed them to lapse the funding without buy-in from the state Senate, which is currently controlled by Democrats” (Bridge; MASA 12/12 Legislative Update). Ultimately, “through a party-line vote [in committee] and no discussion,” the body “disapproved requests from the State Budget Office to continue funding on a litany of ongoing work projects” (Bridge). In the K-12 space, these cuts included $12.5 million for Talent Together, nearly $6.8 million to respond to the “drinking water declaration of emergency,” $2.5 million for MI Creative Potential, $2.5 million for a “pilot study for traffic cameras in school zones,” $2.1 million for “education improvements” in the Department of Corrections, almost $2 million for “lottery innovation and modernization to increase efficiencies and revenues that will impact the School Aid Fund,” and approximately $130,000 for a “charter school transparency database” (Bridge; WWMT; HFA Memo; MASA 12/12 Legislative Update). Additionally, there are reports of these cuts harming specific projects in schools, including “a new high school track that’s currently stuck midway through the work” in Lansing (Michigan Public Radio).
In explaining the committee’s thinking, House Speaker Matt Hall (R – Richland Township) defended the cuts as “part of a larger campaign to rein in the size of state government,” “a negotiating tactic for future spending bills,” and a necessary means of forcing “a discussion about...the best way to get value for [Michiganders’] tax dollars” (Bridge). Other Republicans in the Michigan Legislature added that “many of the work projects...are wasteful, fraudulent or abusive, with funds carried over each year into what they described as ‘slush funds’” (WWMT). In response to the move and these justifications, many education officials, Michigan Democrats, and even some state Republicans offered thoughts ranging from concerned to apoplectic. Emblematically, leaders of impacted projects, “which were already underway but not yet paid for,” said that “nobody bothered to notify” them of this “punch in the gut” and that the decision would leave them with the choice to interrupt “multi-year project[s]” or incur impossible costs (Bridge). Further, elected officials warned that the move could “lose people’s trust,” that the decision to claw back unspent funds might establish “a perverse incentive to blow all the dollars you get immediately,” that House Republicans “changed the rules midstream,” and that instead of gutting pork projects, the “reckless budget cuts” harm “vulnerable people” (Bridge; Michigan Public Radio). Notably, even in a polarized political environment, Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D – Grand Rapids) went so far as to say that the move justifies “a special place in hell” for Speaker Hall (MLive).
Beyond offering these disapproving quotes, these individuals also started taking material steps to try to reverse the actions of the House Republicans. For one, “joined by five Republicans, the Democratic-led Senate voted Tuesday evening to restore the canceled funding” after “the Michigan Senate Appropriations Committee heard testimony from leaders of nonprofits and local government entities” concerning the cuts (Bridge; Michigan Advance). As a next step, the Michigan House would need to approve a similar measure by a majority vote to appropriate the otherwise cut funds. Second, Michigan Democrats called on “Attorney General Dana Nessel...to issue an opinion on the legality of [these] actions” (Michigan Senate Democrats). Through this channel, it is possible that litigation could be initiated against House Republicans, and the courts could force the funds to go through. If these events occurred, the resultant case would add another layer of tension between Senate Democrats and House Republicans, who are already embroiled in litigation concerning “the presentation of nine stalled bills from the previous legislative session,” which Speaker Hall appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court this month (The Detroit Free Press; January 2025 Capitol Perspectives).
Down the road, this action is likely to shadow over next year’s budget season, which “starts” next month at the January Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference (CREC) when state economists adopt a “revenue forecast” that serves as “the starting point for the Governor's executive budget,” along with “estimates of K-12 pupil membership” (Michigan Department of the Treasury). Speaking to “the long-term ramifications” of this move concerning “how budget negotiations will play out,” Senator Veronica Klinefelt (D – Eastpointe) commented that “this was such a betrayal” and she doesn’t “know how to negotiate next year” (Michigan Advance). Such a visceral reaction makes sense given the financial stakes of the move and how surprising it was. Put in historical context, this “use of disapproval...was the first in memory for many in the 40 years since the law was written, including during stretches when both chambers of the Legislature and the governor’s executive branch were held by different parties” (Bridge). Independent of these cross-party dynamics, the committee's decision could also cause intra-party tensions that spill over into future budget debates among Republicans. This month, Speaker Hall called Republican senators who expressed concerns about the cuts “Republican budget traitors” (Bridge). Altogether, both to understand what ends up happening with these $645 million in funds and predict what next year’s budget process looks like, observers will want to keep an eye on fiscal news coming from the Michigan Capitol, and possibly the Michigan Department of Attorney General, over the next few weeks.
On top of these budgetary moves, December was a “busy” month, with “the Legislature reconven[ing] following the Thanksgiving holiday and a brief break” (MASA 12/12 Legislative Update). Amid a flurry of activity, a tangible area of legislative progress concerned state testing requirements. Specifically, the Michigan Legislature passed HB 4836 and SB 349 (with substitute H-1 adopted) to “create an opt-out process for the ACT WorkKeys assessment” and no longer require “all 11th grade students...to take the WorkKeys exam” as part of the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress (M-STEP), starting for the 2026-27 school year (MASA 12/12 Legislative Update). To choose not to take the test, “the student would have to have their parent or legal guardian sign and submit a waiver [designed by the Michigan Department of Education]” to their district (HFA Analysis). Notably, in response to some possible concerns with the policy shift, the legislation requires that the MDE “consult[s] with individuals who represent” entities like “business,” “manufacturing,” and “skilled trades” to create “an informational letter about the purpose and benefits of the workforce readiness assessment” (HFA Analysis).
While this development might seem out of the blue, it actually reflects years of work. For instance, back in June 2021, the Michigan House “voted [88-21] to eliminate the WorkKeys” assessment via HB 4538, but the Michigan Senate did not approve the bill (Bridge; March 2022 Capitol Perspectives; Chalkbeat Detroit; November 2022 Capitol Perspectives). At that time, change was blocked by other legislative priorities and backers of the assessment who argued that the “tests help employers evaluate workers and help students discover career pathways” (Chalkbeat Detroit). This time, though, advocates of the opt-out provision were able to garner sufficient support for the legislation – bipartisan backing seen in HB 4836 passing by a margin of 101-0 in the Michigan House and 32-3 in the Michigan Senate. Crucially, advocates of the change who testified about the legislation made the case for it by positing that because this assessment is mostly used “as part of the admissions standards for skilled trades training programs” and “not...all businesses,” it is not necessary for all students, and they noted that “many students are unaware of what their WorkKeys test scores are used for” (HFA Analysis).
Looking ahead, the Michigan Department of Education, WorkKeys stakeholders, and districts have significant work to do before this measure goes into effect for the 2026-27 school year. As they do so, it is also worth policy observers considering how we got here and what this breakthrough could mean for other education policy priorities. The passage of this standardized testing change is notable, in part because of the reform’s substance but also due to the ability of the Democratic-led Michigan Senate and Republican-led Michigan House to come to terms. In fact, the final steps of this effort came through an agreement between both bodies “to move 20 bill packages before the end of the year.” Considering how this effort can be replicated seems especially important given the current gridlock. Through November, Governor Whitmer had signed “a historically low amount” of bills (ABC 13). To the extent that momentum from this collaboration can be seized, these legislative conditions could shift.
Last month, the essential K-12 education policy news featured in the November 2025 Capitol Perspectives concerned “the Trump administration accelerat[ing] its plan to shut down the” U.S. Department of Education by “handing off some of its biggest grant programs to other federal agencies” (AP). In some respects, the updates to share involving this effort are limited, as it is currently tied up in “a court challenge from 20 state attorneys general” (EdWeek). That said, December did bring an initial chance to consider how this move and others could reshape the federal K-12 education policy context. Helpfully, The Hechinger Report published an overview of the 15 “executive orders Trump signed that exclusively address colleges or schools,” 26 “investigations into K-12 transgender policies announced by the Education Department,” and $5.8 billion in “federal research funding cut or frozen” by various executive agencies. With that, specific to the November plans for the U.S. Department of Education, some commentators shared testimony warning of initial signs of “a loss of expertise,” along with “more bureaucracy and weaken[ed] support for students and families” (News from the States).
Outside the Trump administration’s efforts to retool the U.S. Department of Education, there were other federal shifts that impacted K-12 education, especially related to grant funding. First, in a “new round of...cuts,” the “first since the federal government shutdown” was resolved, “more than 10 separate ongoing projects to strengthen instruction and school-based social services in low-income communities” connected to the “Full-Service Community Schools program” were “abruptly canceled...just two weeks before their next round of funding” (EdWeek). As the Trump administration told “more than 200 other federal education grant recipients across close to 20 other programs” previously, the decision is part of a shift away from efforts “related to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion” (EdWeek). Additionally, it reflects an effort to align funding with “President Donald Trump’s policy agenda” (EdSource). Second, as a corollary to these cuts, the U.S. Department of Education awarded “65 new grant[s]...to boost school mental health services” through the hiring, retention, and training of school psychologists, using recaptured funds from earlier this year (EdWeek). While the federal government is constantly awarding new grants, the fact that these stemmed from “reclaimed funds” that Education Secretary Linda McMahon “pledged” to reutilize “by the end of the year” made them unique (EdWeek). Compared to the canceled mental health grants, these funds “focus[ed] only on boosting the numbers of school psychologists rather than the full range of mental health specialists,” eliminated “the Biden-era preference for applicants who focused on boosting the specialists’ diversity,” and barred universities “from this new competition” (EdWeek). As such, the Trump administration furthered its move away from efforts that it has said put “ideology above serving students” (The Hill).
Assessing these developments and others, the last few months have made clear that remaking federal education policy is an important issue for the Trump administration. This sentiment was also on display in President Trump’s nationwide address on Wednesday, December 17th. Then, he noted his achievements, including ones in K-12 education related to breaking “the grip of sinister woke radicals in our schools” and sending “control over those schools...back” to “our great and loving states” (New York Times). With constantly changing federal education policy and the Trump administration’s emphasis on this arena, readers are reminded of various resources that can help to process the constant news, including Just Security’s Litigation Tracker, the Executive Action Tracker from the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), and the Michigan Association of Superintendents & Administrators’ (MASA) clearinghouse of “Federal Updates & Resources for School Leaders.” Additionally, Capitol Perspectives will continue to prioritize reviewing federal education policy developments in 2026.
For questions or more information, please contact Tyler Thur in the Office of K-12 Outreach at thurtyle@msu.edu.