Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2005 House Bill 4129: Establish certain “at-risk” school teacher grants
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R) on February 1, 2005, to establish a state program to give certain teachers in "at risk" schools (ones with a high proportion of students from lower income families) a grant each year equal to 10 percent of their student loan debt. If the teacher stayed in an at risk school for 10 years, he or she would have all his debt paid by the state.
- Referred to the House Higher Education Committee on February 1, 2005.
- Reported in the House on November 2, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on November 10, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that also makes teachers at "at risk" non-public schools eligible for the program. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on November 10, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R) on November 10, 2005, to clarify details of the grant procedures, and references in the bill to other programs. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on November 10, 2005.
- Referred to the House Higher Education Committee on February 1, 2005.
- Passed 92 to 13 in the House on November 29, 2005, to establish a state program to give certain teachers in "at risk" public or non-public schools (ones with half or more students from lower income families) a grant each year equal to 10 percent of their student loan debt. If the teacher stayed in an at risk school for 10 years, he or she would have all his debt paid by the state.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on November 30, 2005.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on November 30, 2005.
Most Recent Comments
1) Good idea! by Anonymous Citizen on April 29, 2006Good idea!
Reply
I appreciate the introduction of a bill which provides an indirect recruitment source. Yes, the commitment level of such individuals may come into question, but at least they have an opportunity to appreciate the unique qualities of an urban education experience (I hope many of the new teachers choose Detroit!). Being an urban educator is challenging, but rewarding in ways that one could not completely explain in a quick post such as this. Additionally, it indicates a level of value for the educators'contributions in Title I school settings. Thanks.
Reply
Somebody wrote:
>Could it be that these "at risk" schools are at risk is because the teachers are incompotent?
>
>Once again money is NOT the solution, accountability is.<
The way “at risk school” is defined has a lot more to do with family circumstances predominant among its students than it does with the competency of teachers. And that probably has it right. Here’s a summary of HB 4129, which passed in te state House of Reps on Nov. 29:
“to establish a state program to give certain teachers in ‘at risk’ public or non-public schools (ones with half or more students from lower income families) a grant each year equal to 10 percent of their student loan debt. If the teacher stayed in an at risk school for 10 years, he or she would have all his debt paid by the state.”
One of the most vexing problems in education today is that people who provide the primary influences in childrens’ lives -- members of their immediate families -- have absolutely no accountability for delivering “primed to learn” kids to the schoolhouse door. By “primed to learn” I mean kids who are motivated to learn, and are adequately fed, adequately rested, and otherwise adequately prepared to tackle the hard work of learning. Good teachers who will hang in there to grapple with kids whose families have failed to motivate, clothe, feed, rest and otherwise support them properly are a rare and precious resource. HB 4129 recognizes that fact by providing incentive for those teachers to stay in the battle. It is prospectively a sound piece of legislation that received solid bipartisan support.
The only real flaw in HB 4129 MAY lie in an amendment that expanded its coverage to teachers in non-public schools, which some legislators argue is a violation of Michigan’s Constitution. As Reps. Gonzales and Law said, “As a result of the expansion of this bill to include nonpublic schools, the bill's original purpose, which was admirable, may be jeopardized."
Reply
View Full Conversation
