
Legislative Action on Snow Day Forgiveness and Cell Phone Restrictions
The April 2025 Capitol Perspectives flagged the legislative gridlock that has dominated the Michigan Capitol since Republicans won control of the Michigan House of Representatives, breaking up Michigan Democrats’ trifecta. Through April 24th, the Michigan Legislature had the “least productive session in decades,” with just “two bills passed” (ABC 13). In May, education policy watchers finally saw some agreement between the Republican-controlled state House and the Democratic-controlled state Senate with the 110-0 passage of HB 4345 in the House on May 6th and its approval by the Senate by a vote of 35-2 on May 21st (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). Notably, this legislation was “the first House bill to pass the Senate that was not part of a larger policy negotiation, like agreements over tipped wage and sick time fixes and an extension to the campaign finance filing deadline” (Michigan House Republicans).
This measure’s rare bipartisan support makes a fair amount of sense, given its policy content. It offers “relief for Northern Michigan schools impacted by severe winter storms” by permitting these entities “to receive an exemption from Michigan’s instructional day requirements” (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). Without this measure, Northern Michigan students might have had “to attend mandatory summer school,” potentially impacting district renovations, educators’ other jobs, and students’ summer plans (UpNorthLive; Michigan House Republicans). In celebrating this law’s passage, State Representative Cam Cavitt (R-Cheboygan), who introduced it, praised “Speaker [Matt] Hall, Senate Majority Leader [Winnie] Brinks, and Gov. [Gretchen] Whitmer for embracing bipartisanship and expediting the passage of” this bill (Michigan House Republicans). The looming question with the state budget and contentious education policies on the horizon is whether this progress can create momentum for other considerations.
An early place where this recent bipartisanship will likely be tested concerns contrasting Senate and House frameworks for how to regulate cell phones in schools. At the start of May, the Michigan Senate passed SB 234 by a vote of 28-9 to “require Michigan school districts to implement a plan limiting student cell phone use during class time” with “exemptions for students who use devices as part of an accommodation and a requirement for districts to outline policy enforcement” (MASA 5/9 Legislative Update; Fox 2 Detroit). Shortly thereafter, in the Michigan House, HB 4141, which would prohibit “middle school students…from using phones during instructional time, passing periods, lunch, and recess” and impose similar “restrictions” for “high school students…only during instructional time,” was recommended with substitute by the House Committee on Education and Workforce (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update). The adopted change to the bill exempted “students with medically necessary devices or those with IEPs or 504 Plans” (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update). Concerning sentiment around the House’s reform, after it was amended, “the [Michigan] Department of Education took a neutral stance…, having previously stated it was a ‘one-size-fits-all solution’ that would not work” (The Detroit Regional Chamber). That said, support for it was not uniform, with Representative Brad Paquette (R-Niles) “express[ing] concerns about limiting schools’ ability to teach…tech skills with” this policy (The Detroit Regional Chamber).
Theorizing how the cell phone debate will be resolved, the Detroit Regional Chamber commented that “the [House] bill may face an upward climb in the Senate,” given that the latter body has already expressed interest in passing a less restrictive law. On the flip side, the Senate bill’s prospects are not particularly rosy either, with critics “call[ing] the legislation ‘too permissive’ and urg[ing] legislators to hold out for a bill with stronger language that would force school districts to reduce cellphone use” (Bridge). Going forward, it will be interesting to see whether the Michigan House and Senate embrace a new era of compromise after months of gridlock, following their agreement on HB 4345, or whether partisanship returns. As these debates progress, updates will be in future editions of Capitol Perspectives.
Analyzing FY26 Budget Progress in the Michigan Senate
When Capitol Perspectives last discussed the state budget in March 2025, the Republican-controlled House had just passed HB 4162 to approve “bare bones” education necessities, including increased per-pupil funding, support for 31aa mental health and school safety programs, added special education funding, and $2.1 billion for the Michigan Public School Employees’ Retirement System (MPSERS) (Chalkbeat Detroit; MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). The move left “$5 billion…to be allocated during final budget discussions” and did not cover items like “transportation and school meals” (Chalkbeat Detroit; MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). Instead of being sold as a final budget, it was framed “as a precaution in case budget negotiations stall” (MASA 3/7 Legislative Update). Also relevant for the evolution of the current state of affairs, previously, the January Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference (CREC) had outlined the funds state lawmakers could expect to be able to distribute, Governor Whitmer delivered a State of the State focused on bipartisanship and improved education results via a new Students, Metrics and Results with Transparency (SMART) Plan, and she released a “slimmed-down School Aid [executive] budget” proposal in February (January 2025 and February 2025 Capitol Perspectives; WCMU; Michigan Advance; ABC 12 News; 2025 State of the State).
At the start of May, after a bit of a pause in School Aid Fund debates, “the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on PreK-12 unveil[ed] its…recommendations” (MASA 5/2 Legislative Update). By mid-month, the Michigan Senate had approved SB 166, outlining their budget framework for schools, by a vote of 19-17 (Crain’s Detroit). If this approach were enacted, it “would boost [K-12] funding by $1 billion, or 5%, going $613 million above Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed increase” (Crain’s Detroit). Concerning districts’ per-pupil funding, the Senate would “raise base per-student aid by $400 to $10,008,” which is “similar to the $392, or 4%, boost to $10,000 suggested by the Democratic governor,” and the body would require districts to “use at least half of the increase in base funding…to permanently raise educators’ compensation” (Crain’s Detroit). Simultaneously, the Senate’s proposal breaks from Governor Whitmer’s vision “in several ways,” including by omitting her “request for $150 million to incentivize districts’ consolidation and $232 million in ‘best practice’ incentives for the worst-performing schools” (Crain’s Detroit). In response to this decision, some critics argued that the Senate’s proposal stripped crucial “accountability and transparency ideas” that could have ensured that added funding improves student achievement (Crain’s Detroit). Separately, backers of the plan and detractors debated whether the increased spending is vital to meet long-standing needs and offset anticipated federal cuts or if it represents a “budget…rife with wasteful spending” (The Detroit Regional Chamber).
In addition to the Michigan Senate passing its plan for school funding, the state budget process advanced via the May Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference (CREC) where, somewhat concerningly, state economists “provided updated projections showing downward revisions in expected revenues for the General Fund,” albeit with “slightly higher revenues for the School Aid Fund” (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update). The lower estimate was explained by anticipated “limited growth in the state’s revenue” due to “declines in cash balances consumers built up during the pandemic and uncertainty” tied to federal trade, immigration, manufacturing, tax, and economic policy (The Detroit Regional Chamber). Crucially, state lawmakers “needed” these “final estimates…to complete the FY 25-26 General and School Aid Fund budget,” and their arrival sparked renewed discussions of how to allocate the state’s available revenue (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update). Relatedly, for district leaders curious about how much aid they might receive from the state’s per-pupil foundation allowance in the near term and down the road, the May CREC shared that “student…counts are projected to continue declining over the next few years” (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update). The realization of these enrollment declines could harm schools’ finances even if per-pupil allocations increase as districts are funded based on their number of students.
Zooming out, while the Senate’s actions and May CREC furthered the budget process, the Michigan House is “not as far along,” and “House Speaker Matt Hall has signaled there may not be a budget deal, including for education, by July 1…when school districts’ fiscal year begins” (Crain’s Detroit). In fact, at May’s Mackinac Policy Conference, Speaker Hall “once again refused to commit to finalizing the Fiscal Year 2026 State budget by its legal deadline” and instead “criticized the Democratic-led Senate’s $84.6 billion budget proposal, arguing the budget was not balanced, following reports from the May 16 Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference” (Michigan Advance). This comment about the May CREC aligns with a House-approved resolution (HR 113) from late May, which “said the Senate had advanced a budget that appropriates $986.5 million ‘over projected revenues that the state of Michigan is estimated to collect as determined by the May 16 Consensus Revenue Estimating Conference’” – something that The Detroit News called “inaccurate and mistaken.” Regardless, after passing their budget, the Michigan Senate is left only to encourage “House Republicans to follow suit…with the two chambers seemingly at odds over priorities in the first year of a newly divided state government” (Bridge). From there, the two bodies will need to hammer out any differences. Additionally, they must devise a plan that Governor Whitmer can support. Otherwise, Michigan will face a “government shutdown” or an extremely paired-back emergency budget like the one the Michigan House previously approved (Bridge; WLNS).
Exploring Federal Education Policy Developments
The last few editions of Capitol Perspectives focused on President Trump and the executive branch’s efforts to remake federal education policy (January 2025, February 2025, March 2025, and April 2025 Capitol Perspectives). In May, there was some added policy news for K-12 institutions from the U.S. Congress and the nation’s courts. Concerning the former branch, towards the end of May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its reconciliation package by a single vote (215-214) (ABC News). Of the bill’s wide-ranging provisions (after all, it is broad-reaching enough to have been dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”), K-12 policy analysts have been most interested in its “major overhaul of Medicaid requirements,” which could theoretically impact school budgets by harming overall state finances, and its “federal voucher proposal” (ABC News; MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). With the bill before the U.S. Senate, some individuals, including members of Governor Whitmer’s staff, have worried that the changes to Medicaid, which involve “new cost-sharing” and federal preemption of the states’ ability to increase “taxes to cover the added expense,” could jeopardize Michigan’s ability to “finalize a balanced state budget” that adequately funds its schools (MASA 5/16 Legislative Update; Slate; NEA). Looking ahead, the U.S. Senate needs to approve the measure for it to become law. While there are concerns about some of its merits, the law’s chances are buoyed by the fact that “as a reconciliation measure, it will follow a fast-track process – limiting debate and amendments and allowing passage with a simple majority” (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update).
In terms of the federal courts’ involvement in education policy, May was even more significant. Emblematically, in a 4-4 decision, “with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recusing herself, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that blocked the establishment of…what would have been the first religious charter school in the” United States (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). Notably, “because the Supreme Court did not issue a majority opinion, the ruling does not set a national precedent on whether states can sponsor and fund religious charter schools” (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). It merely prevents one such entity from being established at this point. Still, the result was a notable rare defeat for entities pushing for greater religious choice in schools after years of “religious groups [winning] a series of opinions from the conservative majority…allowing public funding to be spent on religious education and programming” (CNN).
Additionally, the lower federal courts got further involved in the Trump administration’s approach to education. For one, this month, after the Trump administration announced the “dismissal of nearly half the [Department of Education’s] workforce” and issued a “directive to shift oversight of special education and federal student loans to other agencies” in March, “a federal district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction” that prevented “the U.S. Department of Education from proceeding with [these] major staffing and oversight changes” (MASA 5/23 Legislative Update). While “the Education Department posted on its website that it has notified its employees of the court-ordered reversal of the reduction in force,” this entity also “has said it plans to appeal the May 22 court order temporarily blocking” its plans (K-12 Dive). Second, a federal court intervened in the U.S. Department of Education’s March move to tell states “they could no longer spend pandemic relief money, even in cases where the Department had already granted extensions” (MASA 5/9 Legislative Update). Specifically, “a federal judge ruled…that the U.S. Department of Education must honor its previous commitments to give states – including Michigan – more time to spend COVID relief funds” (MASA 5/9 Legislative Update).
In each case, the decisions offered hinder but do not terminate the Trump administration’s effort to shift the federal government’s role in K-12 education. As such, it will be crucial to stay abreast of how other courts rule and how the executive branch adjusts its strategy. To support observers dizzied by the back-and-forth over these efforts, the University Council for Educational Administration has an Education Executive Action Tracker, which “provide[s] an overview of executive actions and their implications,” and Just Security has a Litigation Tracker that covers the extensive lawsuits surrounding President Trump’s actions. Further, there is the Michigan Association of Superintendents & Administrators’ clearinghouse of “Federal Updates & Resources for School Leaders” to help stay on top of what is coming from D.C. (MASA 2/21 Legislative Update).
For questions or more information, please contact Tyler Thur in the Office of K-12 Outreach at thurtyle@msu.edu.