Last month, the October 2025 Capitol Perspectives discussed the generally jovial tone surrounding the Michigan Legislature’s passage of SB 166 to finalize the FY 2026 School Aid Fund after months of “stalled negotiations” (MASA 10/3 Legislative Update; Chalkbeat Detroit). One generally celebrated item was the inclusion of $321 million in the budget framework for “31aa (School Safety and Mental Health)” funds to be allocated on a “one-time” basis for districts to use “over two years” (MASA 10/3 Legislative Update). In November, further review of this line item raised some concerns as analysts flagged a decision by the Michigan Legislature to include “new language tied to” this allocation, where “any district accepting 31aa funds must agree to comply with an investigation of a ‘mass casualty event’” should one occur (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update; MLive). Concretely, the shift would change the extent to which “Michigan’s government immunity laws shield educational institutions from liability in lawsuits” (currently, they are only subject to proceedings if “a high threshold of gross negligence can be proven”) and mean that “school employees could be held legally and financially liable for failing to prevent deaths” during such an incident at their institution (Chalkbeat Detroit).
Making their case against this language, school districts have raised concerns that there is definitional “ambiguity” around what constitutes a “mass casualty event,” that they should not have to “waiv[e] immunity,” and that the new language risks “expanding liability exposure” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). Additionally, a letter from various education associations to lawmakers explained that language to “‘waive any privilege’...could extend to attorney–client, investigator–client, and work product protections,” that because the condition “has no time limit,” it “could expose past or unrelated communications, reducing candor in legal and safety discussions,” and that due to uncertainty about what is obligated of them, “the waiver could prevent districts from entering closed sessions under the Open Meetings Act or shielding sensitive records under FOIA.” This point about “a ‘predictable’ chilling effect, leading to fewer frank legal consultations and, ultimately, weaker prevention planning to maintain school safety” was especially top-of-mind given lawmakers’ stated goals for the language (MLive). Finally, there were also frustrations that this language did not receive more scrutiny during the budget process, with Don Wotruba, Michigan Association of School Boards Executive Director, commenting, “rarely do you have good policy written when you’re writing at the last minute with not much input from stakeholders” (Bridge). On the other hand, advocates of the budget language have argued that in cases of “deadly emergencies, such as school shootings,” it ensures that districts will “disclose information that would otherwise be legally protected” and participate in “comprehensive state investigations” – something that did not entirely occur after the 2021 Oxford High School shooting (Chalkbeat Detroit). Furthermore, observers have noted that “mass casualty events are extremely rare,” and they feel that “the school groups’ response has been ‘an overaction by the lawyers of the ed community’” (Bridge).
Following reflection on this conditional funding offer from the Michigan Legislature, various school districts took different actions to respond to this dilemma. Some educational entities, including the Detroit Public Schools Community District and the Lansing School District, “voted...to share privileged information with the state if a mass casualty event occurs in order to receive...state [31aa] funding” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Representatively of the thought process of administrators making this decision, Detroit Superintendent Nikolai Vitti commented that the district could not risk the funding that “assist[s] in funding...contracted nurses and mental health for students...and full time security employees” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Conversely, some district leaders worried that the funding-for-transparency “trade...could cost them more than the state safety funding they’d stand to receive” (MLive). In these cases, some school boards, such as the one for the Anchor Bay School District, voted to reject the conditional funds (Citizen Portal AI). Representing a third approach, “several school districts filed two lawsuits in state and federal court...to challenge the new Section 31aa language in the FY 2025-26 School Aid Fund” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). On the federal level, these districts have said that the new funding language “raises constitutional questions under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, arguing that the law was improperly enacted” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). With that, they have noted that it “imposes an unconstitutional condition by leveraging essential public funds in exchange for the waiver of fundamental individual rights” and that even if the general idea is acceptable, this budget’s specific form “is unconstitutional – both because it is vague as to exactly what legal privileges school officials would have to waive, under what circumstances and for how long, and because it would require the disclosure of personal information” (Chalkbeat Detroit; Michigan Advance).
In terms of what comes next for this debate on 31aa funds, Michigan districts have an extended deadline of 11:59 p.m. on December 4th to accept these conditional resources or reject them (MASA 11/21 Litigation Update). While there could be some added extensions to this date, the Michigan Department of Education is limited by “state law,” which “requires the funds to be distributed by December 31[st]” (MASA 10/31 Legislative Update). In the meantime, administrators’ eyes will be on the litigation before state and federal courts, as well as any response from the Michigan Legislature. Concerning the former, the state trial over this conditional funding is set for December 1st, with an “expected decision” coming “on or about December 3[rd]” (MASA 11/21 Litigation Update). From there, “if an injunction is granted...the 31aa funds will be held until a decision is made on the merits of the case. If no injunction is issued...the state will need to determine whether the funds are included in the...state aid payment” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). Regarding the legislative option to resolve this dilemma, various education leaders have asked state lawmakers to amend the language “to limit investigations to catastrophic school safety incidents defined by scale and severity; require districts to cooperate fully while preserving legal privileges; and maintain compliance with existing privacy and transparency laws, including FERPA, FOIA, and OMA” (Letter from Michigan Associations). Though, some commentators have estimated that “despite ongoing conversations with lawmakers, a legislative fix remains unlikely” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). After all, beyond having already passed this language, the rest of November should be quiet in the Michigan Legislature with proceedings “paus[ed]...for the Thanksgiving break” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update).
The other school budget piece covered in the October 2025 Capitol Perspectives involved a consideration of how the federal government’s shutdown was impacting K-12 education by causing disruptions to “Impact Aid and Head Start services,” resulting in the Trump administration “immediately furloughing more than 2,000 agency employees [at the U.S. Department of Education]...and pausing almost all activity around federal grants and civil rights enforcement,” and interrupting essential food assistance programs for students in poverty (September 2025 Capitol Perspectives; MASA 9/26 Legislative Update; EdWeek). In November, “a handful of Democrats” voted with U.S. House and Senate Republicans (222-209 and 60-40, respectively) to pass “a continuing resolution that keeps most agencies funded...until January 30, with select departments receiving full-year funding through FY 2026,” thereby ending “the longest government shutdown in U.S. history” (MASA 11/14 Legislative Update). While the agreement did not come before significant uncertainty about various federal programs related to K-12 education, it does mean that educators and administrators have one less funding question to worry about, if only for a few weeks (MASA 10/31 Legislative Update).
Less stabilizing news this month came in the form of “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). Following November’s announcement, the U.S. Department of Labor will oversee “Title I money for schools serving low-income communities,” “Health and Human Services [will be] in charge of a grant program for parents who are attending college” and the “management of foreign medical school accreditation,” “the State Department will take on foreign language programs,” and the Department of the “Interior will oversee programs for Native American education” (AP). Notably, the U.S. Department of Education will continue to oversee its “$1.6 trillion student loan portfolio and its funding for students with disabilities,” and changes have not been announced to the “Office for Civil Rights, which works with students and families who bring allegations of discrimination” (AP). Of interest for policy watchers hoping to better understand what might happen next, the Trump administration is reportedly “using non-disclosure agreements to shield official discussions with” impacted parties (Reuters). While the breadth and depth of these changes to the U.S. Department of Education were surprising, they hardly came out of the blue. Previously, President Trump “called for [the] elimination [of this department] with an executive action in March” and significantly reduced staffing at the department (AP; March 2025 Capitol Perspectives). Further, the move is seen as an effort by the Trump administration to fulfill its campaign promise “to dismantle the Education Department” in a manner that does not “require congressional action” (Reuters).
Even with this foreshadowing, debate around the maneuvers was intense. Justifying their actions, the Trump administration argued that it is a necessary shake-up, given “the nation’s lagging academics,” and that the new organizational structure comes with precedent – e.g., currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is responsible for school meals (Fortune). Further, President Trump and Secretary of Education McMahon have posited that, to the extent that this reorganization undermines the federal government’s significance in K-12 education policy, the states should play a greater role and that a “hard reset” is essential to improve student outcomes (Fortune). Unpersuaded by the White House’s case, opponents of the change have said that the process of the reform is faulty, with “Congress...being left out of the loop” and that its logic is either short-sighted or designed to “sabotage” the U.S. Department of Education (Reuters). On the initiative's purported merits, critics have argued that it “appears to add more bureaucracy” with educational entities now having to navigate various “other federal departments” instead of “a single agency,” and they have posited that any decreased federal role in education could “complicate [states’] role as intermediaries between local schools and the federal government” (Fortune). They have also said that the transition could involve “moving programs to agencies without policy expertise” or “capacity” and distract from “a national education crisis” (Fortune).
At almost every stage of President Trump’s second term, he has made clear that he is committed to “dramatically reshaping education” (PBS News). This month continues this unblemished trend. Interestingly, though, the Trump administration’s steadfastness has been similarly matched by the initiative of his opponents to challenge his vision of K-12 education through litigation that is visible in Just Security’s Litigation Tracker. Over the next few weeks, the extent to which these reforms to the U.S. Department of Education are implemented will likely depend on how much districts, states, education advocates, and the U.S. Congress agree with their wisdom and legality, whether these entities initiate additional lawsuits against the Trump administration, and who the federal courts concur with.
Hopefully, newsletter readers had the chance to vote in the local and state elections on Tuesday, November 4th. Writ large, media coverage was dominated by the election of Zohran Mamdani as New York City’s “first Muslim mayor,” the victory of Democratic gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia, and California’s passage of a proposition “to allow the state’s Democratic lawmakers to redraw the congressional map” (Al Jazeera). Also on the federal level, a significant amount of post-race coverage debated the extent to which these results show “signs of hope for Democrats and red flags for Republicans,” along with whether President Donald Trump carries the same political sway he did back in 2024 when he defeated Vice President Kamala Harris to become the 47th President of the United States (PBS News; Newsweek). That said, as important as these races and considerations are, November’s elections were also important for K-12 education on the local and state level for Michiganders.
For one, this month saw various bond requests from school leaders who argued that “they need[ed] funds to repair aging buildings, modernize classrooms and expand academic offerings” (Bridge). As with any election cycle, the results of these votes were “mixed” (WILX 10). However, in the aggregate, “Michigan voters approved school bond requests at a higher rate in [this]...election compared to recent years with a passing rate of 64.6%” (MASA 11/7 Legislative Update). One notable victory for funding advocates was “a tax increase to add a new funding stream for” the provision of “career and technical education programs in Washtenaw County” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Further, other districts benefited, as is visible in Bridge’s summary of the votes. Looking to 2026 and future local, state, and federal funding debates, some analysts noted that “the results [in these bond votes] showed a promising rebound in support for local school funding, but there’s still more work to do to sustain these approval rates and reduce schools’ reliance on millages and bonds to fund essential capital projects” (MASA 11/7 Legislative Update).
Additionally, November’s elections included races for offices that have indirect but important implications for K-12 education. For instance, “Detroit City Council President Mary Sheffield” was in the headlines for “becoming [Detroit's] first female mayor” (Chalkbeat Detroit). As is true in many communities, “the mayor...doesn’t have any control over the operation of schools in the city but can still have an influence” in city-wide transportation efforts and “after-school programs and wraparound services” that support K-12 schools, students, educators, and administrators (Chalkbeat Detroit). Previously, Mayor-Elect Sheffield said, “I am willing to commit significant resources towards improving the areas impacting education that the City of Detroit oversees: Infrastructure, quality of life for students and families, safety, and in some cases, funding advocacy. I will do this in collaboration with residents and with DPSCD partners” (Chalkbeat Detroit). Elsewhere, similar dynamics were at play.
Going forward, with the 2026 election just a year away and so much at stake, it will be important to keep track of what education policy developments catch the public’s eye. This month, many local, state, and national outlets were following the Michigan State Board of Education’s approval of the “state’s Health Education Standards for the first time since 2007” (Michigan Public Radio; Chalkbeat Detroit). Previously, the October 2025 Capitol Perspectives flagged the intense debate surrounding this topic, with critics of the updated guidance afraid that the standards are based on “ideology” instead of “biology” and cover threads “that belong in [students'] homes guided by parents’ faith and values” and supporters holding that this document “does not mandate all the specifics to local schools” but is vital “to the health and safety of Michigan students” in areas concerning sex but also “mental health, technology, [and] vaping” (Chalkbeat Detroit). In the future, the public’s focus could turn to Mayor Duggan’s accountability plan for Michigan schools if he’s elected governor, early childhood opportunities, or various pieces of legislation initially considered by the Michigan Legislature over the last three months. Alternatively, some yet-to-be-discovered education headlines could capture the public’s attention. Regardless, whatever the developments are, they will be 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.