Search legislation

Vote In Favor Against Not Voting Undecided

Democrat 1% 92% 5% 51 total votes

Republican 91% 8% 0% 58 total votes

Comments

No Vote Explanation  by Admin002 on May 29, 2002 
Reps. Callahan, Kolb, Spade, Basham, Zelenko, Bogardus, Dennis, Woodward, Murphy, Jamnick, Lipsey, Williams, Phillips and Wojno made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on House Bill 4800 (H-4) because charter schools are public schools, funded with public tax dollars. As such it is our responsibility to ensure that students attending them are receiving top quality education.

While this bill improves the oversight requirements for charter schools, the Department does not have the staff to implement these new requirements. Without additional resources, these provisions are useless, and yet the cap on charter schools would be vastly increased just the same.

In addition, a report on the progress of charter schools is expected from the Legislative Auditor General shortly. The information in that report should prove invaluable in determining the policies and standards governing charter schools.

For these reasons, I believe this bill does not include the best policies to ensure the success of our students attending charter schools. Therefore, I voted no on its passage."

No Vote Explanation  by Admin002 on May 29, 2002 
Reps. Waters and Clark, Garza, Hardman, Hale made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on House Bill (H-4) because charter schools are public schools, funded with public tax dollars. As such it is our responsibility to ensure that the students attending them are receiving top quality education.

While this bill improves the oversight requirements for charter schools, the Department does not have the staff to implement these new requirements. Without additional resources, these provisions are useless, and yet the cap on charter schools would be vastly increased just the same.

In addition, a report on the progress of charter schools is expected from the Legislative Auditor General shortly. The information in that report should prove invaluable in determining the policies and standards governing charter schools.

Finally, proponents of this version state that the bill would hold Detroit harmless by limiting the number of new charter schools created within the city limits. Unfortunately, there is nothing to prevent the 15 surrounding communities from establishing 2 charter schools in each of those districts on Detroit's border, pulling valuable resources and targeting pupils from within Detroit.

For these reasons, I believe this bill does not include the best policies to ensure the success of our students attending charter schools. Therefore, I voted no on its passage."

2001 House Bill 4800  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the House on May 22, 2001, to amend the charter school law to incorporate the recommendations of the McPherson Charter School Commission, authorized by the governor to find a "compromise" between opponents and supporters of charter schools regarding raising the existing cap of 150 university-chartered schools. This would allow 55 additional charter schools to be created, five in 2002, and 10 per year through 2007. Only one new charter per year would be allowed in Detroit. An additional 175 "special purpose" charter schools would be allowed by 2017, at least 50 percent of whose students must be considered “at risk.” In return, charter schools would be subject to many more state regulations, would have to adopt the same collective bargaining agreements as intermediate school districts under certain conditions, and would be subject to the same or similar comprehensive reporting requirements as regular public schools regarding management, supervisory, and teaching personnel; curriculum; leases; contracts; management contracts with private educational management companies; budgets; and more. Other new regulations would require open enrollment periods, and outreach efforts to special education pupils. If a charter closed, all property and assets it owned would revert to the state. The ability of Bay Mills Community College to create an unlimited number of charters would end, and it would be covered by the same cap that applies to state universities. (Bay Mills Community College technically serves Indians across the state, so under current law can establish charter schools anywhere in the state)

The vote was 54 in favor, 52 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 642 at House Journal 39)

Click here to view bill details.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.