Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 24, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 school aid budget. This would appropriate $13.132 billion, compared to $13.378 billion, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. The House version includes $220 million in federal "stimulus" money. It makes no change to annual per-pupil foundation grants to schools

The vote was 107 in favor, 3 opposed and 0 not voting

(House Roll Call 156 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Clark-Coleman, Cherry and Gleason, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4447 and moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s statement is as follows:

I will be voting “no” on this budget because I believe the cuts in this budget will be devastating to public education in Michigan; more importantly, devastating to our children. I know that the budget before us, like all of the budgets before us today, were developed to comply with targets that were set by the majority caucus and their leadership, not targets that had been agreed upon by the Senate, House, and administration.

I understand that this is one step in the process. If this budget is an expression of our priorities and our strategy for moving Michigan forward, I believe that it falls far short. I offered amendments to restore what I believe are vital investments in our future. If we can agree that these things are important, we can agree to close the loopholes and end or reduce some special interest tax treatments to do the right thing for all of our children.

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

We have already cut millions of dollars from early childhood programs in the Department of Human Services budget. Now we have gutted these programs again, but this time in the K-12 budget. Eighty-five percent of a child’s brain is formed by the age of three. That is before the child even enters the public school system. Sixty percent of children entering kindergarten in Michigan lack the appropriate social and emotional skills to succeed, putting a burden not only on the teachers working with them, but on the other children in classroom who show up prepared to learn. Investment in early childhood programs helps our children emotionally and socially and prepares them for future academic success.

In addition to hurting the children, these cuts will hurt Michigan’s economy. The benefits of early childhood programs greatly outweigh the costs, with a range of $2 to $7 in economic benefits for every $1 invested. Like I have said over and over the past few days, we can’t balance the budget on the backs of our children. We can’t afford to take opportunities away from the next generation of students who are the foundation we must build on for the future success of our state.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

Special education and vocational ed—one seems to have a bright and promising future and the other seems to have a continuation of struggles, both for individuals and families. I’ve been down here six and a half years. I don’t know if we’ve had a more discompassionate cut than cutting special education. There is little chance and an equal amount of hope when we cut special education in this state. We should be standing up for the most fragile, but we cut them just like we cut everything else that we feel like cutting, but these are real people with real concerns. These families probably have the most difficult obligations of any family in Michigan, and yet, we cut the services provided to them. There’s an old saying: You can tell the strength of person by who enemies are. Today, we’ve made special education children and their families trying to support them our enemies by not providing the appropriate funding for special ed programs.

I’ll talk again about our chance of funding this program. For too long, we’ve given tax credits to special interest groups at the cost of individuals, just like special education but not nearly as important or needed as special education. How can we turn our backs on these people not only as Senators, but many of us in this room as parents, understanding full well the day-to-day tasks of taking care of children who are holistic both physically and mentally? Yet, we just discard this constituency altogether.

I would like to publicly thank the Senator from the 34th District, who spent a great deal of his working life in academia, and he understands, as some do in this chamber, that we cannot leave these special education students behind. We’ve seen in the past when we’ve given chances to those who are different great hope and a furthering of vitality. Would we dare cut the efforts? I don’t know if there’s a person in this chamber who would not say that Special Olympics is a worthwhile effort in our state. And yet, we’ll say we will give full attention to recreational opportunities by adding our voices and other contributions to Special Olympics but won’t help these same individuals with an opportunity for academic achievement. You really can’t separate the Special Olympics from special education. More than not, you’re talking about the same person. If we would turn our backs on those young boys and girls getting off those buses at different destinations around this state who are engaged in Special Olympics, you’re different than I am. I think we ought to fund this. We say that, we can’t afford it. I say that we can’t afford the special treatment they’re giving people who have tax credits. Let’s revert some of the tax credits into special education funding. That’s the responsible thing to do, and I think that’s the most humane thing to do. I ask that my remarks be added as my “no” vote explanation, and I hope that we reconsider this, folks, about the young folks whom we’re really talking about here today.

 

Senator Jelinek’s first statement is as follows:

The subject of this amendment, as well as many of the other subsequent amendments to come, have been covered by placeholders in this budget. This amendment without a revenue source is a budget breaker. If we adopt this and the following amendments, we will be breaking the bank. We won’t be able to balance our budget as required by the Michigan Constitution. Placeholders will allow discussions to continue without this and further amendments.

I urge the defeat of this and all subsequent amendments.

 

Senator Clark-Coleman’s first statement is as follows:

This budget includes a $110 per pupil reduction in the foundation allowance. My amendment would maintain the foundation payments at the current year level. We owe it to our children. We all recognize that some reductions would be made to this budget, and those reductions will affect our schools. We should keep this primary source of funding intact and give our schools some predictability.

Costs continue to increase, and the net result is that these dollars probably won’t go as far as they did last year. Districts simply cannot absorb the drastic reductions that this budget proposes. All of our children will suffer.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s second statement is as follows:

We’ll try this one. Since we have decided to cut the $110 to schools to allow them to operate. we will now move to declining enrollment. We know that many of our districts are suffering with declining enrollment, and this certainly affects their budget. It affects the schools’ ability to do business. This budget eliminates funding for that declining enrollment assistance.

With funding for schools based on student population, the loss of students represent a significant loss of funding. This amendment provides some assistance to those districts that are experiencing the loss of students by using a three-year averaging of membership to make their foundation payments, and funds this at 90 percent of the current year level.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s third statement is as follows:

We all know how important early childhood development is. We know that the greatest learning begins 0 to 5 years of age. We also know that if we provide our students with this early childhood education that they will do much better; that they will get off on a good foot. In many instances, they won’t dropout, and they won’t drop through the cracks. If we eliminate this, many of our children will just simply drop out and not make it.

This budget proposes complete elimination of much of the early childhood funding. Our children cannot survive without this early childhood funding. We all know that pre-school education is critical to the success of some of our most at-risk children. While the budget proposes reduction in many lines, the complete elimination school readiness funds is absolutely unacceptable. My amendment restores funding in those lines to 90 percent of the current year.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s fourth statement is as follows:

We all know what the health science middle colleges have accomplished since they started. This is a program where children can start in the 9th grade and go all the way through and get an associate’s degree. They don’t have to get a high school diploma. They can begin in the 9th grade and go all the way through.

These programs have been very successful, very successful. We’ve got high schools that are partnering with community colleges, and these are some of the schools that have been recognized nationally by the Gates Foundation and encouraged. If we really want our children to go through school and get that associate’s degree in partnership with many of our businesses, we really ought to give this some thought.

Now you know that the early middle college high schools are generally five-year high schools—five years—from 9th grade on, not four more years to get your high school diploma, but in five years they can get an associates degree. These schools are located on state public universities or community college campuses where students may attend as early as the 9th grade. These schools provide students with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree or up to six college credits which are transferable to most state colleges and universities. You can’t ask for anything better than that.

These programs also enable students to graduate with employable skills that make them immediately qualified to go into health care fields that are in great need of workers. Instead of us going over to Canada and going outside the country to bring back health care workers, we could train those right here. I know that when I talk to the hospitals in my district, the one thing they keep begging for are trained health care professionals—nurses and all other types of employees—so that they won’t have to go outside the country to fill these jobs.

Michigan is certainly a state that is hemorrhaging jobs, but in the health care field, there are lots of jobs. We who are now a part of the Big Three who serve on the board now because it gave so just don’t have the people trained for them. Now here is a program that, beginning in the 9th grade, students can get into this middle college program and in five years get an associate’s degree. Many of them can get a nursing degree, at least the LPN. They can get that degree and go right into a job. So many of our hospitals are working with these students. They have them doing job shadowing, actually working like they’re in the hospitals. The doctors are very enthusiastic about this program.

My amendment would fund this program at 90 percent of its current year level. I ask that we really think hard, dig deep, and think hard about what we are doing to this magnificent program. I ask that you vote “yes” on funding this at 90 percent of the current level.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s fifth statement is as follows:

I’m sure most of you have sat in on presentations from this wonderful engineering program called DAPSAT. Those also have one in Grand Rapids called GrandSAT. This is a magnificent program. This allows our children to meet those stringent curriculum requirements in math and science. This program is proven. It has been around for years, but is a proven success. They have been up and they have made impressive presentations to us about how they taken students and developed their interest into engineering. They are not asking for a whole lot of money. They are just asking for a very small amount of money to continue this wonderful program.

This amendment restores 90 percent funding for this pre-college engineering program. If we are going to be competitive with other countries, and certainly, if we are going to meet those stringent curriculum requirements we passed a year or so ago, then this is just the kind of program that we need. This program is intended to meet the need for well-trained engineers and scientists in Michigan and to increase the number of historically underrepresented populations in these career fields.

This is a no-brainer. This is a program that works and helps train young people for good, high-paying jobs. I urge your support for this amendment.

 

Senator Scott’s statement is as follows:

I rise to support this amendment. If there was ever a program that has really, really showed promise for our young people it is this DAPSAT program. I attended a reception that had a daylong reception for parents and that started at 9 o’clock. Parents were there at 7 o’clock, and Cobo Hall was just filled because it had done so much for these young people. It has been around some time, so there has been a number of graduates. In fact, there are some DAPSAT graduates much to them; that they give back to these young people.

If we’re ever to move our young people ahead, then we certainly do need to give them the opportunity to continue this program. As the Senator from District No. 3 has indicated, it is not that much money, but yet, it does so much good. As you know, our engineers and a lot of our doctors come from other countries because they understand how important engineering, math, and science are. They go into engineering, doctors, and that. We need to be doing the same for our young people here so that they will be able to compete. Everything is international now, and it is not that costly.

I would hope that we would certainly support this amendment

 

Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows:

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this amendment. I certainly appreciate what the two previous speakers have said about the GrandSAT and DAPSAT programs. They are magnificent programs, have provided wonderful opportunities for those who might not have those opportunities as readily if the program were not existing, and it’s well worth supporting.

But we are also facing an extremely, extremely difficult financial time. Revenues have continued to fall well below even our reduced projections. So I understand that we have to balance the budget. Now there is a point of difference I think between the Senate and House budgets, and I encourage folks to continue to work to find a solution, especially in this particular program. But I will follow the chair on this and oppose this amendment, regrettably, or reluctantly I should say.

 

Senator Clark-Coleman’s sixth statement is as follows:

Now for those who have not voted in support of any of the other amendments, I’m going to give you another chance. This amendment deals with the small high schools. This amendment would restore some of the 21st Century Schools Fund for startup and facility grants for creating our smaller high schools.

As you know, districts are eligible for this program if they have high schools that are not yet meeting AYP—adequate yearly progress. I’ve had the opportunity to make several site visits to small high schools across the country through my involvement with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. These programs are demonstrating great success and have the potential to transform high school education and prepare schools for the new economy.

Schools not making adequate yearly progress must do things differently in order to increase achievement among our students. Now these small high schools are working. There are many schools that may have applications and have been approved for grants for these schools. So after all of that work they have put into not only transforming the school, but they are transforming their image and how they feel about their schools.

So we now have a chance to allow these small high schools to continue. We talked about making promises. Well, this is another promise that was made. You promised them that if they met these requirements that you would give them these grants for these schools.

This is a program which works. I urge your support to restore some of the 21st Century Schools Fund for startups and for those facility grants.

 

Senator Jelinek’s second statement is as follows:

The amendment addressed the 21st Century Schools Fund, which is actually less than a year old. At this point, we really can’t afford new programs when we are trying to justify tested, true, existing programs. We have no proof that the first monies spent on this this year has done anything beneficial. At this point, there is no point in continuing an unproven new program when we’ve got other programs suffering.

So at this point, this would not be a good way to invest another $7.2 million. I would urge that we defeat this amendment.

 

Senator Clark-Coleman’s seventh statement is as follows:

This is my last amendment. This has to do with Dearborn at-risk funding. I am sure everybody knows that Dearborn is in my district. This amendment restores 90 percent of the funding for at-risk payments for the children of the Dearborn Public Schools. This funding helps those students who are at-risk of not being successful in school and are used for programs or staff that provide instruction beyond what is provided in the classroom.

We all know that Dearborn has a significant population of immigrants from the Middle East. These students are in particular need of specialized instructional services. For the sake of diversity, supporting immigrants in this country, I urge you to vote “yes” on this amendment.

 

Senator Whitmer’s statement is as follows:

This amendment tie-bars this bill to House Bill No. 4313, which is a replica of the sinking fund bill I have introduced each of my legislative terms. This is an issue which 32 of us have expressly supported at one juncture or another in our respective careers. In fact, my friends in the majority have even co‑sponsored this same legislation. Which one of us, you’re probably asking. Well, my colleagues from Three Oaks, Saugatuck, Rochester, Fawn River Township, Kalamazoo, Algonac, Troy, Canton, Monroe, Midland, and Muskegon. And four others even voted for this bill in 2001. Traverse City, Novi, Gaines Township, and Holland all had Senators wise enough to support this legislation in 2001. I point this out not to embarrass anyone, but to encourage your support once again; to remind you, to refresh your recollection, to encourage you, and to prevail on your sense of fairness.

Now why did the vast majority of the majority in this chamber support this effort before? Well, I suspect it is because we see the wisdom in giving schools the flexibility of using their sinking funds for the purposes of including busses, bus maintenance, and technology to broaden the purposes for which they can use their sinking fund dollars.

Now this is not more true and necessary than in this time of economic crisis and the need to educate the workers of the future. Technology is undeniably a critical part of our ability to redefine who we are in the state of Michigan; to ensure our future individual and collective success. In this time of economic crisis, we are asking every person, every business, and every public and private entity to pinch pennies and chip in if they can. So I don’t have to tell you that schools throughout our state in many, if not most, of your districts have sinking funds that they are hamstrung from using to educate our kids. Let’s change that.

Just looking at the cuts in this budget bill sickens me. I can’t imagine how we are going to meet the tough curriculum, much less ensure that we are going to turn out competitive workers of tomorrow. But at the very least—the very least—let’s give them a lifeline and permit a broader use of the sinking fund dollars that they have. It’s a measure that the vast majority of us have supported at one time or another in our careers.

Please help me do something meaningful for our schools. When you look at this list of cuts that are in this budget bill, let’s hand them a lifeline. Let’s adopt the sinking fund legislation, and let’s show that we’re serious about doing this by tie-barring the sinking fund legislation that the House sent over here and say we’re going to do this along the measures that we are taking today; we are going to hand them this lifeline so they can stay afloat and educate our kids. I ask for your support.

 

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows:

I just want to echo what the previous speaker said. Once you start tie-barring policy bills to appropriation bills, you are really setting a terrible precedent. I would just urge everyone, as a matter of principle on this one, to turn down this amendment.

 

Senator Jelinek’s third statement is as follows:

Mr. Chairman, this bill lays a foundation for a dependable budget for schools for the next two years. It’s no guarantee, of course, because of revenues, but we hope it does. If additional funds become available, we certainly know where to use them. Let’s give schools some ability to plan ahead, and let’s vote “yes” on this budget. Let’s be real; let’s provide a dependable budget with real funds.

May our revenues stay at least level in the future. We cannot spend more than we have, so I ask you to vote “yes” on this budget.