Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 13, 2008, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 school aid budget. This would appropriate $13.381 billion, compared to $13.006 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount appropriated in 2007 (which includes supplemental budgets and executive order changes adopted in addition to the previous year’s budget). It would raise the minimum per-pupil foundation grant by $71 per pupil at higher-spending schools, and $142 at lower spending ones. Unlike the executive budget recommendation proposed by Gov. Granholm, (Senate Bill 1149), the Senate version does not include money for more full day kindergarten programs, or for a program to use borrowed money to give subsidies to certain lower income school districts so they can close existing high schools and replace them with smaller high schools. The Senate would spread the money that would have gone for debt service on that to all districts for infrastructure spending

The vote was 36 in favor, 2 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 211 at Senate Journal 32)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Patterson’s statement is as follows: My “no” vote explanation is predicated on my understanding of a pesky little provision—that which could be called a constitutional duty, one which has not been fulfilled. This duty is clearly set forth in Article 8, Section 3 under the title “Education.” In pertinent part, our Michigan Constitution, one to which we all took a sworn oath of office, places a burden on the State Board of Education to advise the Legislature as to the financial requirements for public education. I’m advised that that was not done.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s first statement is as follows: I stand before you today to request your support for a program which is the foundation upon which the success of all of our K-12 programs depends. It is the Early Childhood Initiative. The benefit of such programs is based on simple facts about early human development. We all know that the first five years of a child’s life are the most critical. If a child is encouraged in language growth, motor skills, social, and emotional development, that child is clearly more likely to succeed in school as well as later in life. That is a marvelous benefit in and of itself. While studies have clearly demonstrated the value of such programs, I would like to remind you of the economic benefits of such initiatives without the support of early childhood programs. That same child is more likely to leave school before graduation, rely on social welfare programs, and possibly even resort to crime. All of these risks impose a dollar cost on society. An actual cost-benefit analysis of several renown preschool programs project returns ranging from $3-$17 for every $1 invested. This is an investment that not only benefits the quality of life of each and every young child who participates, but provides economic benefits to society. You say we can’t afford it; I say how can we not afford it?

Senator Schauer’s statement is as follows: I rise in support of amendment No. 3. It is an amendment to make an investment in Michigan’s future by investing in early childhood education. Dedicating these resources to our young people, colleagues, is a top priority of our caucus and should be for the entire Legislature. We spend day after day, debate after debate discussing how we can improve Michigan’s economy and become a job magnet. Well, investing in our young people must be part of our economic strategy in Michigan Overwhelmingly, science has proven that children who have access to quality, early childhood education programs are better prepared to succeed in later life. This gives them a better chance to compete with students from around the world and saves us tax dollars in the long run; dollars that otherwise would be spent in Corrections and other social services. For instance, research shows that children not enrolled in preschool programs can be up to five times more likely to commit serious crimes as adults. Every dollar invested in high-quality, early childhood programs saves somewhere between $2 and $17 on every $1 invested, and yet, right now, only about 20 percent of children are being served by the current Michigan preschool programs. This amendment, colleagues, would help by providing a $5 million increase for the expansion of Great Start Collaboratives. It would allow for an additional 11 collaborative to add to the 21 already in existence and assure that all intermediate school districts under the program and that all $650 children under the age of 5 and their families would be connected to a Great Start community. The amendment also proposes, colleagues, a $2.5 million increase for innovation grants to help provide children from birth to age 5 with quality, early learning environments that promote school readiness. As my colleague just said, some will undoubtedly agree that it is a great idea; we just can’t afford it right now. We can’t afford not to invest in our children right now. This is the closest option we have to a silver bullet to improve our economy, strengthen our workforce, and reduce state funding for other programs down the road. I hope you will join me in recognizing the value of this initiative and support this amendment.

Senator Jelinek’s statement is as follows: Certainly, we have all demonstrated our support of early childhood programs, and we continue to do so, but we cannot afford to increase those dollars today. I hope that we can reject this amendment and continue our support for early childhood development.

Senator Clark-Coleman’s second statement is as follows: Well, if you didn’t support me on the early childhood, I’m going to try something else on you. I am rising to speak in support of improving education opportunities for Michigan children, specifically through the 21st Century Schools Fund. I believe all of us in this room share a vision for Michigan’s children and their potential for success in Michigan’s future. We are continually striving to improve and enhance their opportunities. To further those efforts, the Governor has proposed the 21st Century Schools Fund. This fund will help Michigan school districts replace huge, overwhelming and impersonal high schools that have low academic achievements. Those schools that for two straight years cannot meet AYP and high dropout rates, they want to replace these with these smaller high schools. These schools will emphasize strong personal relationships, consistent discipline, and real-world relevance to help at-risk students to achieve high academic goals. This is yet another example of tending to the individual needs of every child while investing in their futures and the future of our state. The returns are educated, happy, and productive citizens upon whom the future of this state depends. This seems like a pretty sound investment to me, how about you?

Senator Cassis’ first statement is as follows: Obviously, the success of all young people is critical and especially to ensure that they have the greatest opportunity to graduate from high school. So many are being lost and dropping out early. As a former educator, I was confronted with this very concern years ago. I worked in the high schools and it pained me to see any young person considering dropping out because his or her needs were not being met. It is with my professional background that I suggest there are different answers and that small high school size is not the be-all and end-all whatsoever in helping young students finish high school. What has to happen is changes or accompanying changes in the curriculum to meet their needs, otherwise small size does nothing. There are some models out there that I hope we will be looking at; not this year but in the next couple of years. They are called specialty high schools and they meet distinct needs because one size does not fit all. We should also be exploring and encouraging specialty charter high schools. Specialty schools are not an unknown entity, and I ask you to just take a look at the models complete in New York. And, finally, I’d say this: The failure doesn’t start in high school, my friends; the failure starts earlier in middle school and even dating back to early elementary school. That is why early intervention and prevention of learning failure—early on, catch them young; catch them early—is really essential. Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows: Where I know that I didn’t’ seem to get the support under General Orders for this amendment, I feel so strongly about it that I am hoping I can give us an opportunity to do the right thing. By putting in a $100 placeholder, we can at least go to conference and try to get some money available to do an adequacy study to figure out what kind of adequate funding levels we need in this state to fund education. We spent 20 to 25 minutes debating the Olshove amendment, and every year we are going to keep coming back to this chamber to discuss what level of funding we’re going to have. Is it going to be the top funding, the middle funding, or the bottom funding? We can’t continue to have this debate year after year without knowing what our future goals are for this state and for the future students in this state. I think we really missed an opportunity months ago when we repealed the SBT and got the new MBT and got a service charge. It really would have been a time for us to look at our entire tax structure in the state of Michigan. I think that the debate we have heard today as we have gone through these many long amendments is that we have to figure out what works in this state. It might be that Proposal A is working great, but is it maybe that Proposal A has reached its time in the state of Michigan, and we are not going know unless we do a real study. I think we ought to be a data-driven chamber so that we make the right decisions based on the right kind of data. I am asking us again to please put a placeholder in the budget so that we can try to work this out as we move forward with our budgeting.

Senator Pappageorge’s statement is as follows: This amendment is giving everybody a chance to reconsider their vote on the Olshove amendment. I want to tell you again, folks, think about whether or not you want to change Proposal A through precedent by saying no matter what, we are going to do two for one. We did it last year; we’ll do it this year; one or two more years and we just beat Proposal A. That is not a good idea. If this proposal had come in at 1.9 or 1.7 or even 2.1, and it had some rational explanation behind it, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. The fact is, we are not paying attention to the middle. And by doing so, we’re getting involved in a big issue over rich guys/poor guys. Please reconsider, look again at the numbers for your district, and understand what this amendment tries to do. I hope you will vote with me.

Senator Cassis’ second statement is as follows: I rise to respectfully request that we amend the budget to allow for FIRST Robotics funding in the amount $300,000. I requested $1 million, but that doesn’t seem feasible or likely in this economy. All of you probably have a robotics team in one of your school districts. It is supported by public and private dollars. Both of these sources of funding are drying up due to the extreme nature of our economy. They are holding a regional competition this weekend in Ypsilanti, and for these students who compete, it is incredible how it is preparing them for careers in high-tech industries. It is a known winner, and, in fact, two of Michigan’s outstanding teams, one from Novi High School, was a national championship winner and the other one from Huron Valley Schools, the Heroes of Tomorrow, the HOT Team won a national award, the Chairman’s Award. This is a program that works and because of our dedication to math and science, future leaders in science and technology, it’s a program that works. I am cognizant that resources are scarce, but I hope that in the future it can be funded and that we won’t forget these young people. But at this time, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Senator Cassis’ third statement is as follows: This amendment, as we all know, provides $142 per pupil to all but the hold-harmless schools. The hold-harmless schools receive 35 percent less or only 65 percent of that $142 at $92. The $92 per student schools are the donors. They are the donors whose taxpayers provide all other students the ability to receive $142. For the hold-harmless or 2J schools to take another cut of $21, bringing them down to $71 per student, is not only blatantly unfair, but truly undermines the whole tradition of this Legislature which has consistently supported the hold-harmless schools. It would be a departure today of significant magnitude. So I do urge all of you, along with my colleague from Troy, to adopt this amendment.

Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows: I rise to oppose this amendment. While I have great respect for the maker of this amendment and the previous speaker, I have to point out that what is unfair is the fact there is a large gap between those schools that receive funding—a foundation allowance at the bottom of the ladder and those who receive the highest amount at the top. That difference is approximately $12,029. If we defeat this amendment, the difference in this year’s budget is $70 which means at that rate, it will take us 17 1/2 years to close the gap. If we adopt this amendment, it will take us 24 1/2 years to close the gap. The question that many of my parents, teachers, and school officials in my district ask: Is it fair for one student who lives in one county or one area to receive less than another who lives in another area? I understand Proposal A and I understand that we can’t close the gap immediately. I understand that Proposal A did move to closing that gap, and, in fact, in the year 2000, we did support a closing of the gap and we have attempted to in the last couple of years. So I urge members to defeat this amendment and help us close the gap.

Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows: I rise to strongly oppose this amendment. I certainly have great respect for the sponsor of the amendment, but I do believe that this moves us further away from the goal of Proposal A. Part of that goal was to narrow the gap of funding between school districts. Now it’s been said that we should look out for those in the middle. I believe that the substitute that’s before us does that. Also I believe that the substitute that’s before us works toward the goal of Proposal A in narrowing the gap. I have spoken to parents in my district, and they’ve asked, “Why is my child’s schooling not worth as much as those in other districts?” I’ve tried to explain it by explaining Proposal A. It hasn’t worked that well, but now we have an opportunity to do something about it. This 2X formula and the substitute help to move us toward equity. Who can argue with equity? It’s been said that in certain communities and certain districts that they’re donor districts. I have donors in my district, but the fact is that we still want a certain level of funding for all children, and we want to move toward equity. I strongly oppose this amendment. I ask you to support the substitute that is before us and defeat this amendment.

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows: You know, this marks the seventh of eight budget bills that we are going to do in this chamber, originating in this chamber. I would like to thank the Senate for the rapidity with which we have moved these bills. You know, yesterday and today we had good debates about some fundamental issues on bills, but we had good, respectful debates. We had honest and open exchange of views and we came to a conclusion. We’ve received agreement on these bills. I think I’d like to thank the members for the way that they’ve conducted themselves on some things that are pretty hard issues and some have pretty strong feelings about them. I think what we’ve done stands in contrast to last year. I think it’s a message to the people of Michigan that it’s a new day, and we’ve demonstrated by our actions far better than any words that things are different. Michigan has turned a corner and we are ahead of schedule. I think we’re looking at we’ll finish our business before the 1st of July. I think that’s a great goal, and it will show the people of Michigan that this Legislature is working together to solve problems. Now we do have differences on the form and the size of equity payments in this and the need for early childhood and for small high schools, but overall, this budget accomplishes many worthwhile goals. There is a foundation increase almost double the size of what we had last year, and it provides additional dollars for declining enrollments, school-based health centers, credit recovery for students who failed algebra, and hold harmless funding of $4.7 million for school readiness. The infrastructure grants provide almost $20 per pupil to districts, and the health care and pension contributions for school districts have gone done for the second year in a row. That is almost unheard of. Everywhere else, we’re worried about double-digit increases in health care. That is a very significant savings statistic. So these are important improvements from where we stood a year ago, Mr. President. You remember, we were down $1.75 billion in the hole. We really had no hopes of getting a budget done. It took us until October to get finished. We had about this time of the year, we had just passed a budget bill that had cut $300 million out of the School Aid Fund and zeroed out a proposed 2.5 percent increase. We ended up giving a percent last year and now nearly 2 percent this year. So I think this bill today validates the actions we took last fall, and I think it’s an honest budget. It’s free of any gimmicks, one-time spending, or smoke or mirrors. We’ve got something that we all can be proud of. So while it’s not a perfect bill, this K-12 budget is one that I’m proud to support. It doesn’t mean I didn’t think the 2X-plus would have been better, but on balance, this is a good budget. I hope all members will support it.

Rep. Agema, 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: This budget takes money from other school districts and gives it to Detroit. It’s a 23% increase in GF funds and 4% over all in a declining economy. The small schools concept is ridiculous. This budget also educates 4 years olds and it has not been proven it will work, especially when we can’t afford our present expenditures. We should not be adding new programs. This is not a balanced budget and is $32 million over budget. That’s not constitutional.”

Rep. Meekhof, 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 can note for this budget at this time. The current projected spending shows this budget is under funded, or in the red to the tune of 32 million dollars. Mr. Speaker I want to vote for budgets that helps the state of Michigan live within its means Also Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the language change that allows a change in the definition in the ‘class 1’ description of schools. This change will take away foundation grant money for schools for can perform and graduate educated children.”

Senator Jelinek asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Jelinek’s statement is as follows: This budget increases K-12 spending $34,379,900 over the Senate recommendations which are $52 million over the May revenue estimates. That makes a total shortfall of over $86 million. I like and I support K-12 education, but let’s be honest Are each one of you in this chamber willing to cut an additional $86 million out of the other General Fund budgets to make this happen? Are you willing to fund less State Police, less DCH, less DHS, less higher education, and less revenue sharing to make this happen? In that case, you must vote not to concur with this budget, and send it to conference.

more money for government schools that are broken great way to spend michigan tax dollars.....give me my tax dollars back...I'll spend it where I see fit...

Rep. Marleau, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: Times are tough and this is no time for all the pork barrel extra spending in the school aid bill. The smaller high school initiative is but one example of a slippery slope. Detroit, for example, already receives about $11,000 per pupil from local, state, and federal sources and Grand Rapids is about the same if you think I’m picking on Detroit. Taking more money away from the other 700 districts in the state will do nothing to improve schooling in the state’s largest districts. Any extra funds should have gone into the foundation which would have benefited Detroit kids, Grand Rapids kids, and every other child in the state. Some of the schools in my area have seen only a 3% total increase in funding over the past five years; that includes this budget. This is crazy. How can our schools be expected to maintain there standard? Yes, times are tough, but it’s not tough to vote NO on a school aid bill which takes funds from the many for political pork for the few. The few extra dollars available this year should have gone into the foundation.”

Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: This bill pushes the concept of all day kindergarten, extra money for small schools - all of which take money from existing schools. We have not enough money for schools as it is. Detroit already receives $11,000 per pupil. Any extra funds should be deposited into the foundation that benefits every child, in every district, not just Detroit.”

Rep. Robertson, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: While I support the increases in the foundation grant for our public schools, I nevertheless must oppose this conference committee report. This budget adds millions in new spending on education bureaucracy at the state and local level, monies that would have been better placed in the classroom through the foundation grant. It also continues to fund the waste, inefficiency and wholesale dysfunction in the Detroit Public Schools. I simply could not support this conference report under these circumstances.”

more money for a system that is broken....give the citizens of michigan their tax dollars back and we'll send our kids where we want to....there is no amount of money that is going to fix this mess....wake up