Michigan Votes Forum

 What, exactly, will a psychologist have to add to a lesson plan for a child who is blind or deaf or paraplegic?  Additionally, how many psychologists would be necessary for lesson planning for special education students?  Seems like a significant cost to the schools and eventually the retirement system.

This is a classic example of an unfunded mandate.  The intent, misguided or not, may be good, but there is no provision to actually pay for this expense. In the long run it would only create another avenue for argument. It might just as well mandate that an attorney must be present for each special education student lesson planning session. 

Senators Whitmer, Cherry, Clark-Coleman, Jacobs, Scott and Brater, under their constitutional right of protest

(Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1421.

Senator Whitmer's statement, in which Senators Cherry, Clark-Coleman, Jacobs, Scott and Brater concurred, is as

follows:

I agree that it could be valuable to have a school psychologist participate in the development of educational

development plans for students who receive special education services. I mean it would be valuable to have a school

psychologist involved in all decisions for all the children. Unfortunately, not every school has a school psychologist.

I understand the sponsor's argument that this is language that was inadvertently repealed earlier this session.

Nonetheless, it was repealed, and inserting it now represents a new unfunded mandate, even if you want to call it

"may lite."

The Legislative Commission on Statutory Mandates specifically pointed to statutory increases in services to

special education students as a violation of the Headlee Amendment. The state has already lost two court cases, the

Durant case and the Adair case, pertaining to unfunded mandates on school districts. I don't believe it's prudent to

go down that path again, and thus, I voted "no" on Senate Bill No. 1421.