HB 4082 amends the State School Aid Act to change how Michigan schools count certain pupils for membership and funding purposes, with a particular focus on students participating in work-based learning. The bill adds a new definition for work-based learning experiences and work-based learning experiences tied to state-approved career and technical education programs, and it allows those pupils to be counted as up to 0.75 of a full-time equivalent membership, while capping total membership at 1.0 FTE when combined with other enrollment. It also specifies that in-district work-based learning placements may not displace existing permanent positions.
The bill further creates a new section allocating $2 million from the state school aid fund for competitive grants to districts to help cover extra costs associated with students in these work-based learning placements. Districts would have to apply to the Department of Education in order to receive funding. The bill also makes a small technical change to the fiscal year 2024-2025 school aid appropriation in section 11, increasing the state school aid fund appropriation by $2 million to reflect the new grant program.
Impact
HB 4082 would amend MCL 388.1606 and MCL 388.1611 by adding work-based learning to the list of pupil accounting rules used to determine district membership and state aid. In practical terms, it changes how districts may count students who split time between classroom instruction and approved work-based learning or CTE-related placements, which can affect foundation allowance payments and other school aid calculations. It also adds a new grant program in section 61e, funded through the state school aid fund, to reimburse districts for extra costs tied to these programs.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally supportive of career and technical education and work-based learning, with the structure of the proposal suggesting an effort to encourage districts to expand such opportunities without losing state aid. Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, but the bill text itself reflects a positive policy direction toward workforce preparation and school-to-career pathways. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials suggests no clearly documented public controversy in the available record.
Contention
The main policy issue embedded in the bill is how to balance expanded work-based learning opportunities with school funding and staffing protections. Districts may welcome the ability to count these students for membership and to seek grant support, while some stakeholders could be concerned about the administrative burden of documenting eligible placements and the requirement that in-district placements not replace permanent jobs. Another possible point of contention is whether the 0.75 FTE cap and the grant funding level are sufficient to cover the costs of supervising and coordinating these experiences.