Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 3, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 school aid budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1048.) This appropriates $12.468 billion in gross spending (funded from all sources, including the school aid fund, the general fund, federal pass-through dollars, and more), compared to $12.604 billion, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003, not including later “pro-rated” cuts to school districts. The budget sets a minimum per-pupil foundation grant of $6,700 per student, and does not include cuts recommended by the governor to “20j” grants to certain wealthy school districts, or her proposed revision to the pupil-count formula. It has less than the governor proposed for extra at-risk student funding, Intermediate School Districts (ISDs), early childhood programs, and vocational programs. Overall, however, the Senate version authorizes approximately $6.8 million more gross spending than the governor recommended. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964

The vote was 31 in favor, 6 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 186 at Senate Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Birkholz, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Cherry to Senate Bill No. 1069. Senator Birkholz's statement is as follows: My intermediate school districts are using that discretionary money now to support their early childhood programs, and by voting for the amendment, we would have been divvying up the money in smaller pieces. Therefore, they would not have as much money at their discretion to use for early childhood programs.

Senator Emerson's first statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: I rise to oppose the passage of this bill not because I think people did a terrible job. I think the committee did a reasonably decent job of trying to deal with the budget that is short of revenue. However, I object to some of the philosophical statements embodied in this bill, one in which reduces at-risk money, which is money for poor children to help try to ensure they have equal opportunities, while at the same time, we fully restored funding to Section 20j, which provides money to the wealthiest school districts in the state. I think that is philosophically the wrong direction to go to take money from poor children to give to wealthy districts. I think that is a mistake, and I do not want to support that philosophical statement. I have supported funding Section 20j as I have supported funding at-risk. I think it's wrong to cut either one of them, but when you have to take a look at priorities and what your priorities are, it seems to me to be a very easy choice to make to support giving poor children an equal opportunity and not take money from those children to support the wealthiest, highest-spending school districts in this state. I also cannot support removing money from the intermediate school districts for early childhood education because, along the same lines of at-risk funding, I think it is important that we try to ensure that all children have the ability and the opportunity for equality in this country. We know, and I think almost everyone here agrees, that it is only through education that we will ever achieve that equality, and not ensuring that by taking away a program that ensures some children have the ability for early childhood education is not something that I can support. I also have real concerns that this budget, because we still maintain the foundation level at the same level as last year, shifts a considerable cost to local school districts without any consideration of the cuts that will have to be made there because of the increased costs in retirement. I'm told that this year the retirement system is going to be asking school districts to contribute about $100 per student in new additional retirement costs. I think that if we are serious about making education our No. 1 priority, and yesterday we could find a half billion dollars of phony money to pass the Community Health budget, it seems to me that if education is our No. 1 priority, we probably ought to be taking care of those increased costs for retirement. Because of those issues, I will be voting "no" on this bill.

Senator Emerson's second statement, in which Senator Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: I guess if I referred to them as wealthy school districts. Not all of them are wealthy, and I would apologize to those few that he pointed out that are not wealthy. But he forgot to include Farmington, Birmingham, Bloomfield, Troy, Rochester, and some of the other poor school districts. I think in my comments I did try to make clear, and I may not have absolutely made it clear, that these were the highest-spending school districts, not necessarily the wealthiest because there are a few exceptions. We can hide behind those exceptions, but still the point is that we are taking money away from the education of the poorest children in this state and giving it to the highest-spending school districts in this state.

Senator Thomas' statement, in which Senators Scott, Leland and Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: I commend the distinguished chair and vice chair of the committee for their work. Reluctantly, I must oppose the bill for many of the reasons outlined by the Senate Democratic Leader. Obviously, taking away at-risk funds for districts across the state disproportionately impacts my community. I rise particularly in opposition because of the removal of the $15 million for the city of Detroit. Quite simply, in 1999 when the Legislature implemented its reform experiment in the Detroit district, a promise was made that we would offer additional resources to make sure reform succeeds. Every year since then, this community that has been torn apart by this issue has to come back before this Legislature and fight and scrap and beg. I don't think that is an appropriate promise. If we really want reform to benefit the 153,000 kids who are there in Detroit, let them have their money. The money that is being used by the city of Detroit and by that reformed school district funds kindergarten, all-day kindergarten for 400 programs, it provides police protection in schools, and it has reduced class sizes significantly in K-3 education settings. This is appropriate. Reform actually has had some benefits, but it is inappropriate to undermine those reform efforts. Over this entire period while we have fought over this $15 million, the city of Detroit has declined in enrollment by 29,000 kids. That equates to a $210 million reduction in revenues to the district. This, while we are undertaking reform, doesn't provide what the Legislature imposed, what the community is living with, and an adequate opportunity to succeed. It is simply unfair; it's simply unfair. The Legislature did make that promise and it's important that we keep that promise. Regardless of what happens on the vote that will take place in November 2004, reform will last in Detroit for at least another year. Even if the voters go back to an elected school board through the 2005 school year, reform efforts will continue. The current administration will be in place. Don't undermine them. This Legislature put them in place to succeed for the 153,000 kids. Give them the basic tools they need to fight to make that a reality.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I'm asking my colleagues to support this $15 million for Detroit. You know, things change around here every day. In the event that we do not have this election, I would like for this money to be put in the budget. I have indicated that if we have the election, Detroit gets their right to vote again, then we will certainly return the dollars.

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement, in which Senator Leland concurred, is as follows: I wish that I could say something different than our Minority Leader, Bob Emerson, has shared with you, but in addition to that, our Senator from the 4th District also shared with you. I concur with everything that each one of them said. It is important that you keep a promise, and you promised them the $15 million. I voted against it because I didn't support it. I didn't support taking away the rights of people to vote, but you pushed it through anyhow, and you made certain promises of what you were going to do. Now, to say now that, "Well, you get your vote back in November" is misinforming the people because even if that vote is given back to them in November, they still can't elect a school board for another year. So to put Dr. Burnley out there and to say, "We are going to support you if you do all the things we tell you to do," and then all of a sudden, you take away the funding. It's certainly not showing that you are sincere in your efforts. But even more than that, I supported the 20j funding. I didn't fight against that funding, but to protect 20j funding to the wealthy schools and then take away funding to the at-risk schools--the schools who need it the most; the schools where most of them don't have two parents to supplement their education or to help them higher tutors and all those kinds of things. You say you want all kids to measure up; then level the playing field. Let's not keep it continually unleveled. So I will be voting "no" on this budget for all the reasons that my two colleagues previously shared with you.

Rep. Phillips, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on SB 1069 because it strips funding for a promise made to the people of the city of Detroit when the legislature took away their publicly elected school board. No matter what happens in November of this year, the legislature should hold true to its promise until such time that the reform board is no longer in place."

Rep. Acciavatti, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This statement is intended to clarify my NO vote on SB 1069. I agree with all of the concepts that were presented in the Education Budget bill, except for one - the blended count percentage. I believe that the correct public policy is to keep in tact the 80/20 blended count percentage. The change to 75/25 directly penalizes the growing districts and areas. The faster a district grows the bigger the hit that district will take. When cuts need to be made to the school aid fund, I believe the cuts should be across the board to every district. It is not our place as legislators to pick winners and losers. The school districts that I represent are some of the fastest growing districts in the state of Michigan. The blended count issue is not just a budget issue, it is a growth issue and this percentage will shift money away from the growing districts. This vote will effect each and every one of the schools in my district, which will effect each and every child in my district, which will effect each and every family in my district. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support this bill in its current form."

Rep. Ward, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: By moving away from the current 80/20 membership count for calculating per pupil funding for local school district, Michigan will be unfairly hurting growing school districts. I have voted no based on this inequity."

Rep. Hune, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I am taking a negative position on our school aid budget because of the implications that Senate Bill 1069 will have on not only the residents of Livingston County, but the People of the State of Michigan, as well. The change in the blended count from a formula of 80/20 to 75/25 will result in yet another devastating blow to the schools of Livingston County. I believe that a cut of well over two-hundred thousand dollars to the families and students of Livingston County occurring partially through the fiscal year is wrong. Indeed, the blended count will save several million dollars, but the pain of cuts is not shared equally throughout the state. Education has and always been an extreme priority and I will continue to fight for the families of this great state."