Speak Up

Speak Up!
Contact your local legislators

This site, maintained by the Michigan Association of School Boards provides up-to-date information about legislation that WILL impact our students. 

You can sign-up to receive updates and "Calls to Action".

To sign-up scroll to the bottom of the page, click "join", and register your email. You will receive your legislature's contact information, current legislation under review, and talking points for phone calls or emails.

Mr. Jim Marleau, State Senator
U.S. Mail: P.O. Box 30036, Lansing, Michigan  48909-7536
Phone: 248.724.2442
Fax: 517.373.2694
Email Address: jimmarleau@senate.michigan.gov
Website: http://www.senatorjimmarleau.com/

Mr. Marty Knollenberg, State Senator, District 13
U.S. Mail: 201 Townsend Street, Suite #3100, Lansing, MI  48933
U.S. Mail 2:  P.O. Box 30036, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7536
Phone: 517.373.2523
Fax: 517.373.5669
Email: martyknollenberg@senate.michigan.gov

Mr. Tim Greimel, State Representative, House District 29
U.S. Mail: P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909-7514
Phone: 517.373.0475 or 855.473.4635
Email: timgreimel@house.mi.gov
Website: http://www.housedems.com/state-rep-tim-greimel

Mr. Martin Howrylak, State Representative, House District 41
U.S. Mail: P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, Michigan 48909
Phone: 517.373.1783 or 877.248.0001
Email: martinhowrylak@house.mi.gov
Website: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/howrylak/ 

Mr. Mike McCready, State Representative, House District 40
U.S. Mail: P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517.373.8670 or 855.373.8670
Fax: 517.373.5868
Email: mikemccready@house.mi.gov

Mr. Michael Webber, State Representative, House District 45
U.S. Mail P.O. Box 30014, Lansing, MI  48909
Phone: 517.373.1773
Email: michaelwebber@house.mi.gov
Website: http://gophouse.org/representatives/southeast/webber/

Legislative Update
Information about legislation impacting Public Education

UPDATE: Senator Pavlov’s Bill Introduced to Repeal of State School Reform Law
Senator Pavlov introduced the bill he announced last week to repeal theState School Reform law. The bill number is SB 27
- Oakland Schools supports the bill.

State of the State Included Nothing Substantial on Education
Governor Snyder didn’t mention the State Reform Office or education much in his State of the State (SoS) speech though he did note the work done last year on Detroit Schools including addressing the legacy costs and returning to a locally controlled school board.

The Governor did state he intends to create a work group to look at the gap in which schools offer what in the area of computer science, computer education and cyber security education and other STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programs in our schools and how to encourage work in those areas. He also referenced the First Robotics
program in his speech.

Finally, he mentioned the 21st Century Commission on Education that was created last year; he looks forward to their report and recommendations for education. 
- NOTE: There are several rumors regarding what this may include: a) substantial changes to the makeup
and selection of the State Board of Education and the State
Superintendent; b) changes to ISDs in limiting their role specifically to service work and not regulatory work; c) addressing issues that hinder school choice including transportation and new school locations; and d) recommendations regarding per pupil funding. These are all rumors at this point.
One step to provide some funding relief for schools in Oakland County would be a Regional Enhancement Millage. Interested citizens can attend Oakland County Board of Commissioners' meetings to express their support of such a millage.

Board of Commissioners meet at 1200 N. Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Michigan

Upcoming meeting dates are
  • 3/15/17 @ 9:30 am
  • 4/26/17 @ 7 pm
  • 5/10/17 @ 7 pm
  • 5/25/17 @ 9:30 am

Why there are Differences in Michigan Public School Funding
Author: Alicia Urbain, VP of Government and Legal Affairs, MAPSA

In Michigan, there is a range of public funding from school to school. There are both Historical and Political reasons for disparities found across the state.


First, let's start with a brief explanation of where Michigan schools get their funds. There is a mix of federal, state,and local dollars depending on the school district. Prior to 1994, all schools' basic operating funds were primarily funded with local money, and the variances from school to school were vast. In 1994 when Proposal A passed, local property taxes were frozen cut and capped, and sales tax was increased and directed to the state School Aid Fund to pay schools on a per student basis with the intent to get all pupils to equitable funding. Federal funding still exists, but that is typically allocated based on specialized populations of students and programs. Those funds are in addition to the state per pupil foundation allowance.

Per Pupil Foundation Allowance

When Proposal A passed, it created a basic, per-pupil operating allocation for each school, commonly referred to as the "foundation allowance". The amount of a district's foundation allowance was based on how much that district received from the state and federal sources immediately prior to Proposal A's passage. Because there was wide variance across the state, an "equity gap" between the richest and poorest districts existed. Initially, the equity gap in the per pupil foundation allowance from the lowest funded schools to the highest funded schools that received school aid funds was $2,300. Some schools are funded completely from local revenue still today and not included in the equity gap. Today, the gap is down to $718. All charter schools and many other school districts will receive $7,511 from the School Aid Fund as their per pupil foundation allowance. Schools at the state maximum will receive $8,229.

What about the lottery?

The lottery money does go into the School Aid Fund, but that amount of money is just a small amount of the Fund at about $800 million of the $12 billion put into the Fund each year.

Why do I still see local school funding elections?

Proposal A prohibits schools from seeking local millage funds for school operating expenses. Charter schools were never allowed to levy local millages. Traditional school districts can, however, seek voter approval for bond issues, sinking fund millages, and the Intermediate School Districts can ask for a regional enhancement millage. These types of local millages are put to all voters in a district or an Intermediate School District (ISD), and if a majority of voters approve the millage, all residents are taxed on their property values. However, only traditional school district can access the revenue and charter schools are by law prohibited from sharing any of the millage. Bond issues and sinking funds are largely for facilities. Most traditional school districts pay for their facilities, construction, upgrades, and even some upkeep out of these two pots of money. Charter schools must pay for their facilities 100% out of their per pupil foundation allowance.

Regional Enhancement Millage

Recently, ISDs have begun to ask for what is know as a regional enhancement millage. All voters in an ISD are asked to approve the millage. Like the other local millages, if a majority of voters approve the millage, all residents of the ISD, regardless of how they voted, are taxed based on the value of their property. The funds go to the ISD where they are aggregated and then distributed on a per pupil basis to only the traditional school districts. There is no limitation on how schools in the ISD can spend these funds, and they can supplement their operating funds to cover things like technology, security, and even salaries. Charter schools, again, are prohibited by law from receiving any of this revenue, and must pay for all of their needs out of their per pupil foundation allowance (or a small portion of federal funds they qualify).