Michigan Senate Democrats put forward a plan to add more than $1B to education budget
Sen. Darrin Camilleri (D-Trenton) speaks at the Michigan Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on PreK-12. April 29, 2025 | Screenshot
Michigan Senate Democrats put forward a more than $1 billion funding increase for the state's public schools Tuesday, with an emphasis on lowering elementary schools' class sizes.
The plan, introduced by state Sen. Darrin Camilleri , would raise per-pupil funding by $400, from $9,608 to $10,008, with districts required to use 50% of that increase to boost teacher pay. It would also include $2.5 billion in investments for student mental health, a continuation of the program providing free breakfast and lunch for every Michigan public school student, and upgrades for school building infrastructure, including 'clean and functional' HVAC systems.
Camilleri, a former teacher and chair of the Senate PreK-12 Appropriations Subcommittee, said the budget proposal reflects their responsibility to provide students with a safe and supportive high-quality education.
'By investing in mental health resources, modernizing our school facilities, and helping students focus in school through free school meals, we are setting up every child for success. We're also making critical investments to ensure teachers are paid fairly and classrooms remain small, so that every student gets the attention and support they need to thrive,' Camilleri (D-Trenton) said in a press release.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The plan would increase the School Aid Fund budget by 5%, from the nearly $20.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2025, which ends on Sept. 30, to just over $21.8 billion for the FY26 budget.
Among the new provisions is $400 million for districts to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through third grade classrooms, which would be paired with a $65 million competitive grant program to do the same.
The budget proposal passed the appropriations subcommittee Tuesday on a party-line 6-1 vote, with majority Democrats in favor. The lone no vote was from the only Republican present, Sen. Thomas Albert who asked why $232 million in incentives for implementation of best practices at low performing schools that had been proposed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in her executive budget recommendation was missing from this plan.
'I actually took that as a positive step to trying to right some of the ways we've been approaching education in the state,' Albert (R-Lowell) said.
Camilleri said Democrats remained open to that in budget negotiations, but they believe there is a greater priority for those funds to assist at-risk students.
'We know that many of these school districts that do need additional supports, they need it because they're dealing with high concentrations of poverty for their student population,' Camilleri responded. 'And so investing an additional $258 million in those programs gives school districts the flexibility that they need to lower class sizes, to pay teachers better, and to hopefully invest in those interventions with at-risk funding that we do think can fix some of these systemic educational challenges that our kids face.'
That focus was cheered by Peter Spadafore, executive director of the Michigan Alliance for Student Opportunity, which called the Senate education budget proposal a 'significant step forward' in serving at-risk students.
'We are especially encouraged by the proposed 25% increase in the Opportunity Index, which would direct an additional $250 million to schools serving students with the greatest needs. Building upon previous investments, this targeted support will help ensure more equitable opportunities for students across Michigan,' Spadafore said.
The Senate education budget plan sets up a confrontation with the GOP-controlled state House, which has proposed a road funding plan removing the 6% sales tax on gas and instead increasing the motor fuel tax by 20 cents which would be wholly dedicated to funding road upkeep. Currently the motor fuel tax is 31 cents per gallon.
Because more than $700 million a year derived from the gas sales tax goes to the School Aid Fund, House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) proposed to replace that lost revenue from the state's general fund, an idea House Minority Leader Rep. Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton) likened to 'robbing Peter to pay Paul.'
While Democrats hope to have a state budget plan for schools in place by July 1, which is the start of the fiscal year for most school districts, House Republicans have already passed a $20 billion stopgap spending plan to maintain government services in the event of a government shutdown. That would occur if a state budget is not in place by Oct. 1, the start of the state's fiscal year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
21 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
California Lawmaker Leads Voter ID Ballot Initiative Signature Campaign
A California lawmaker is leading an attempt to place an initiative on the 2026 ballot to require voter ID as a statewide constitutional amendment. Republican Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego is seeking volunteers to help gather signatures and raise funds to let voters decide on two issues: whether citizenship should be verified at the time of voter registration and whether IDs should be required when casting a ballot. The
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The sequel to Trump's so-called travel ban is not an improvement on the original
Ahead of the Republican presidential nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2016, Donald Trump was looking to solidify his position as the likely GOP nominee. To that end, the future president came up with a stunning proposal: As 2015 neared its end, Trump declared his support for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States' until such time that he was satisfied that U.S. officials understood 'what the hell is going on.' As regular readers know, it was a bigoted applause line — which his base eagerly embraced. It also turned into a campaign promise the Republican was eager to keep. On only his seventh day in the White House, Trump signed a policy that became known as the 'travel ban,' sparking outrage, bureaucratic chaos, family hardships and a series of messy legal fights. On the first day of Joe Biden's term, the then-Democratic president undid his predecessor's policy, signing a proclamation titled 'Ending Discriminatory Bans on Entry to The United States.' More than four years later, Trump is not only restoring his old policy, he's also adding to it. NBC News reported: In a return of one of the most controversial policies of his first term, President Donald Trump signed a proclamation Wednesday banning nationals from a dozen countries. ... Nationals of 12 countries will be barred from entering the United States: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It's difficult to summarize all of the granular details of the White House's latest move in a blog post — Team Trump published relatively detailed overviews online overnight, and NBC News' report is thorough — but in addition to the aforementioned 12 countries, seven other countries (Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela) will face partial travel restrictions. There will apparently be some exceptions for athletes competing in international events, as well as those who've qualified for Afghan special immigrant visas. The administration's policy is scheduled to take effect shortly after midnight on Monday, but whether the White House will change, overhaul or worsen the strategy between now and then remains to be seen. As the world begins assessing the practical, geopolitical and moral implications of Trump's new — but not improved — policy, let no one say this is surprising. On the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 election, the Republican boasted about blocking Muslims from entering the country during his first term, telling voters, 'We didn't want people coming into our country who really love the idea of blowing our country up.' Months later, Trump assured the electorate that he intended to restore and expand his original policy. (He vowed this would happen on the first day of his second term, though he missed his own deadline by 135 days.) But the fact that the incumbent president is following through on a misguided promise does not make a bad idea good. Indeed, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons described the White House's gambit as 'new Muslim ban' in a written statement. 'President Trump's own statement makes it clear exactly what this new executive order is: the latest attempt to institute his unpopular and immoral Muslim ban which was thrown out time and again by the courts in his first term,' the Delaware senator said. 'Improving our national security should be a bipartisan goal, but fear and bigotry do not keep Americans safe. What this will do instead is cause chaos, inflict pain, and break apart families, just as his prior attempts did. This order should be reversed, and Congress needs to reassert our role by passing laws that make our immigration system secure, effective and humane.' To be sure, some of the countries affected by the president's directive have Muslim populations, but some do not. That said, the White House's official 'fact sheet' on the policy specifically included this quote from Trump: 'We will restore the travel ban, some people call it the Trump travel ban, and keep the radical Islamic terrorists out of our country that was upheld by the Supreme Court.' There were already some indications that some Muslim-American voters were feeling buyers' remorse after having backed Trump last fall. The Republican's latest move probably won't help on this front. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court makes 'reverse' discrimination suits easier
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court made it easier on Thursday for people from majority backgrounds such as white or straight individuals to pursue claims alleging workplace "reverse" discrimination, reviving an Ohio woman's lawsuit claiming she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices, in a 9-0 ruling authored by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, threw out a lower court's decision rejecting a civil rights lawsuit by the plaintiff, Marlean Ames, against her employer, Ohio's Department of Youth Services. Ames said she had a gay supervisor when she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a gay woman and demoted, with a pay cut, in favor of a gay man. The dispute centered on how plaintiffs like Ames must try to prove a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex - including sexual orientation. Ames challenged a requirement used by some U.S. courts that plaintiffs from majority groups must provide more evidence than minority plaintiffs to make an initial - or "prima facie" - claim of discrimination under a 1973 Supreme Court ruling that governs the multi-step process employed to resolve such cases. These courts include the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled against Ames. They require majority-group plaintiffs to show "background circumstances" indicating that a defendant accused of workplace bias is "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court, said that both the language of Title VII and the court's precedents make clear that there can be no distinctions between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' - without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group - Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson wrote. Ames, 61, sued in 2020 seeking monetary damages. She argued that she was discriminated against in her department's 2019 employment decisions because she is heterosexual in violation of Title VII and that she was more qualified than the two gay people given the job positions instead of her. "I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames told Reuters in February. The 6th Circuit said Ames could not satisfy the "background circumstances" requirement by showing that a gay person made the employment decisions in favor of gay people. The two people who had authority in those personnel decisions, the 6th Circuit noted, were straight. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost's office in court papers defended the employment actions concerning Ames as part of a Department of Youth Services restructuring and said department leaders felt she lacked the vision and leadership skills needed for the newly created job for which she applied. On his first day back in office in January, Republican President Donald Trump ordered the dismantling of diversity, equity and inclusion policies in federal agencies and encouraged private companies to follow suit. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund and other civil rights groups told the Supreme Court in a legal filing that Ames was asking the justices "to interpret Title VII in a way that ignores the realities of this country's persisting legacy of discrimination in evaluating disparate-treatment claims." These groups said the "background circumstances" inquiry lets courts account for the reality of historical and present-day discrimination "against certain minority groups like Black and/or LGBTQ people, and the virtual absence of widespread discrimination targeting certain majority groups like white people and straight people." The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on February 26.
