Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on October 20, 2009, to authorize “transition payments” to school districts where “schools of excellence” charter schools proposed by Senate Bill 925 were established to replace failing schools and enrolled at least 2 percent of the students. The school district would get 80 percent of the money it would have got for those students in the first year, 60 percent in the second year, and 40 percent in the third year. The bill would also create a system to match teachers with student performance data

The vote was 23 in favor, 13 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 646 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 926.

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

Senate Bill No. 926, the (S-6) version, in its intent provides state aid funding for schools of excellence. I concur with this intent; however, reinsertion of section 29 in the (S-6) version, that was removed in committee yesterday, sends a seriously flawed and blatantly wrong message by continuing payments to schools of failure. More than 2 percent of district students make their exodus out. In other words, the state would reaffirm a school district continuing to fail its students for three more years up to seven years, not just the four in statute. Should it take more than four years to turn around a school that is failing its students? I think not.

The cost to maintain transitional funding is not only staggering, but in this school funding crisis is both blatantly unfair and inequitable. Significantly, rewarding failing schools takes away funding for those schools which are achieving. The Senate Fiscal Agency’s warning of the costs is chilling, and I quote: “The bill will impose a fairly substantial cost to the state. In one scenario, it is up to $66 million.” The last time I read an analysis like this one was in reference to the 40 to 42 percent subsidized grants or rebates to Hollywood producers—currently, at least $100 million—which is one of the reasons why dollars for classrooms are being cut. I’m glad I voted “no” then and that I voted “no” again today.

As a former educator, I see absolutely no reason or rationale to reward failure. What incentive is there to improve when you protect these schools, their administration, and their teachers from making educationally-sound outcome changes? Again, the bottom line is the state fails our kids, especially those in schools of failure. Let me add, in my opinion, this undermines courageous leaders like Robert Bobb and others in their reform efforts. Keeping additional funding for failure schools after students leave these schools, rewards failure and will help to defeat Michigan’s application for Race to the Top—an important, valid reform effort that is so badly needed right now.