Bridges4Kids Logo

 

What's New? | Early Childhood |  Positive Behavior Support | Wrightslaw

Lead Poisoning | NCLB | LDA of Michigan| Family 2 Family Health Center

 

Home Page Contact Us About Us State & National Links Search Contact Your Legislators Book & Video Reviews Download/Order Publications Disabilities & Disorders IDEA Reauthorization Special Education SSI/Medicaid/Medicare/FSS Child Care & Respite Information Wraparound Services Insurance Information PAC Information General Ed Reform Literacy Community Schools Children At-Risk Section 504 School Climate & Bullying in Schools Cultural Issues Professional Development Parenting & Adoption Support/Information Home Schooling Community Living Health & Safety Summer Camp Kids & Teens College & Financial Aid Charter, Private & Alternative Schools Legal Research Recent Court Cases Juvenile Justice Advocacy Child Protective Services Statistics New Legislation Ask the Attorney Bridges4Kids Main Menu

 
 Where to find help for a child in Michigan, Anywhere in the U.S., or Canada
 
Last Updated: 01/07/2009
 
www

Bridges4Kids

Subscribe to the Bridges4Kids NewsDigest!                          Add Bridges4Kids to my favorites!

 

Articles of Interest - Michigan News

Printer-friendly Version

Bridges4Kids LogoDebate on K-12 Increase Bubbles as Panel OKs Budget
Gongwer News Service, June 15, 2005
For more articles like this visit http://www.bridges4kids.org

 

A bill containing spending for several K-12 school programs cleared a House committee Wednesday, but the real debate on the bill never surfaced at the meeting.

Some House Republicans plan to propose a major amendment to the bill that would dramatically alter how a per pupil increase to school districts would be distributed. As approved by the House and Senate Appropriations committees and recommended by Governor Jennifer Granholm, all 550 districts would receive a $175 per pupil increase.

But Rep. Tim Moore (R-Farwell), with support from Rep. Chris Ward (R-Brighton), the House majority floor leader, is circulating an amendment he might propose on the House floor to provide a bigger increase to lower-funded districts and a smaller increase to higher-funded ones.

Under Mr. Moore's plan, every district would receive an $88 per pupil increase. Districts whose foundation grant for basic school operations would be below $7,200 would receive additional funding of up to $155 per pupil, but only enough to get them to the $7,200 level. About 130 of the 550 districts would receive the minimum $88 increase and would be ineligible for the additional money.

The current minimum foundation grant is $6,700.

Mr. Moore could not be reached for comment late Wednesday, but Mr. Ward said he is hopeful that a vote will be held. No decision has been made on whether to allow the proposal to receive a vote when the bill comes up sometime next week, Mr. Ward said.

Mr. Ward said, on paper, supporters of the proposal would have enough legislators whose school districts would benefit to pass it. "I'm not sure if it would pass or not, but I think at the very least we want to see the discussion and dialogue about greater equity move forward," he said.

The lawmaker noted that the Brighton Area Schools recently decided to discontinue all bus service. Although the wealthier districts also face issues, they are much less severe, he said.

"Since we have new money on the table this year, it seems to be an appropriate time to talk about creating more equity in how our schools are funded, closing the gap between the highest-funded and lowest-funded districts in the state," he said.

Mr. Ward said Rep. Matt Gillard (D-Alpena) is trying to find votes in his party's caucus for the plan.

Whether the proposal can pass the House is unclear. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Midland), chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on K-12 School Aid, said he opposes it, preferring an equal increase for all districts.

"As soon as you start trying to divide one district vs. another district, those kind of proposals lose support very quickly," he said.

But it could be expected to garner significant support from legislators outside of the three major Metro Detroit counties of Macomb, Oakland and Wayne, whose legislators would largely oppose the concept.

The three counties have the bulk of the school districts that would receive only the $88 per pupil increase, but just 45 of the House's 110 districts are in these three counties.

Greg Bird, spokesperson for the State Budget Office, said he could not comment on the proposal without having more detail.

As for the activity that did take place Wednesday on the K-12 bill, the House Appropriations Committee swiftly dumped a subcommittee proposal to penalize school districts that count illegal immigrants in their student population. Shortly after the subcommittee approved the bill Tuesday with the language on illegal immigrants, word spread that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1982 that such efforts to block education for children of illegal immigrants violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution that promises "equal protection."

Rep. Glenn Steil Jr. (R-Cascade), the proposal's sponsor, ruminated at the committee meeting in offering an amendment to strike his idea from the bill, "Because of the wimpy Supreme Court, we can't do this."

That drew chuckles from some in the room. But Democrats were still fuming over the proposal, and Mr. Steil's comment only agitated them.

"To discriminate against kids and to express such disdain for our judiciary, I have no respect for that," said Rep. Gretchen Whitmer (D-East Lansing).

Rep. Jim Plakas (D-Garden City), who said he is a first-generation U.S. citizen, was still reeling from the proposal surfacing at all. "I hope to God I never see anything like this again," he said. "I could vomit."

Mr. Steil reiterated that the state simply lacks the funds to educate children here illegally.

The committee then approved the overall bill with no other major changes from what was in the subcommittee version (See Gongwer Michigan Report, June 14, 2005).

For 2005-06, the budget contains $12.783 billion ($96.4 million general fund). These numbers include funding for basic K-12 operations placed into the omnibus budget bill. The 2005-06 figures would be a 2.6 percent increase from the current year (41.7 percent reduction general fund).

Ms. Granholm proposed spending $12.789 billion ($20.2 million general fund).

Vote Planned This Month on Student Safety Bills
Gongwer News Service, June 15, 2005

House Education Committee Chair Brian Palmer (R-Romeo) said Wednesday he plans to vote before the end of the month on bills that are part of a Republican package designed to keep sex offenders and other offenders out of and away from schools and day care centers. The comments came at the end of a hearing on seven of the 14 bills in the package.

The package tightens reporting requirements so education officials are made aware of criminal behavior by teachers and other employees, imposes a self-reporting requirement on teachers and surrounds schools with a 1,000-foot zone in which sexual offenders are barred from living and loitering. Current law requires prosecutors to notify the Department of Education of the conviction of teachers of sexual offenses and other crimes.

The package, some of which will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee, requires notification at the time criminal charges are filed.

Among the issues the committee was asked to consider:

· Does the package require an offender to move out of the safety zone following conviction;
· The impact on teens convicted of having sex with underaged persons when they later seek involvement as parents in school functions;

· The potential damage to spouses in contentious child custody proceedings who are falsely accused of molesting their children; and

· The absence of designated officials to contact when a teacher is required to report being charged with an offense that would affect his or her employment.

The approach was criticized as "lazy legislation" by George Kleinert of Detroit who said his son as a registered sex offender as a result of having sex as a teen and who would be unjustly affected. Asking legislators to target the legislation to those who are truly dangerous, he said, "Don't take away the rights of people who have already paid their debt to society."

The bills before the Education Committee are HB 4928, HB 4929, HB 4930, HB 4931, HB 4932 and HB 4933.

S&P Stumping to Expand School Benchmarking
Gongwer News Service, June 13, 2005

The State Board of Education will get its chance Tuesday to hear about a program linking poor-performing schools with their better-performing counterparts, one that Standard & Poor's hopes will become annual.

The Michigan Benchmarking Institute, part of the school data analysis contract between S&P and that state, teaches principals and teachers at the state's struggling schools how to accurately compare themselves with other schools and then how to work with better-performing schools to find programs that will help them improve.

Michael Stewart, director of S&P's Performance Evaluation Services, told Gongwer News Service on Monday that the company has used the state's data to point out both those schools that would benefit from the program as well as those that could serve as mentors.

Only about two dozen schools have been through the institutes so far, but Mr. Stewart said that was in part because there was only time this spring for the two planned pilots. S&P conducted programs for the Wayne Regional Educational Service Agency and Saginaw Intermediate School District, but did not have time to put together two additional programs requested by the Department of Education before school began winding down for the year.

But those schools have choices of as many as 88 others, depending on the subject and grade, from which to seek assistance as benchmark schools.

The key to the program, Mr. Stewart said, was to match schools with others that were demographically similar to ensure the programs would be targeted to the population in the struggling school. "We didn't want schools in Detroit and Flint to match up with schools in the Upper Peninsula," he said.

Mr. Stewart said the program also is designed to make it comfortable for teachers and principals from the struggling schools to contact their better-performing peers to seek assistance. "It's very much a teacher-to-teacher model," he said. "It isn't about pitting one school against another."

The schools that went through the institutes this spring are expected to begin calling the three benchmark schools by this fall to ask about the programs at those schools. "As they get answers to questions, they begin to uncover promising practices," Mr. Stewart said.

S&P plans to post those "promising practices" to a website that would be accessible to all school leaders.

And in the long run, Mr. Stewart said the company hopes to see the full program open to more schools. The plan for the fall is to conduct several regional institutes, but how many would depend on the funding available for the program, he said. "We would like this to become an annual exchange," he said.

And he said that exchange would not necessarily have to involve S&P. Education department officials attended the two pilot institutes, and he said S&P was willing to train them how to conduct the programs.

But whoever runs the programs, Mr. Stewart said there would have to be some financial commitment by the state. In addition to paying S&P for the program, one part of a $500,000 contract for school evaluation services, the Department of Education also provided grants to the schools attending the institutes to cover the costs of substitute teachers and other needs so school staff could attend.

The state now needs to pay attention to those schools singled out for high performance. "We've talked to the Department of Education about an incentive for the higher performing districts," he said. "If they get a lot of calls, they may have to designate someone to handle it." He said state grants could help districts cover the costs related to helping their peers improve.

S&P could still be looking at ongoing revenue from the program by expanding it to additional states. Mr. Stewart said officials with the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Pennsylvania Superintendents Association had asked for a presentation on the Benchmarking Institute that will also be attended by officials from Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Ohio.

Pennsylvania was also the second state for which S&P set up the School Evaluation Services website with analysis of school district performance.

    

back to the top     ~     back to Breaking News     ~     back to What's New

 

Thank you for visiting http://www.bridges4kids.org/.
 

bridges4kids does not necessarily agree with the content or subject matter of all articles nor do we endorse any specific argument.  Direct any comments on articles to deb@bridges4kids.org.

 

© 2002-2009 Bridges4Kids - Report a Bad Link - Website by