Constitutional amendments: state; state board of education; eliminate. Amends secs. 3 & 7, art. VIII of the state constitution.
Summary
House Joint Resolution G proposes a constitutional amendment to restructure Michigan’s education governance by eliminating the state board of education, the superintendent of public instruction, and the state board for public community and junior colleges. The resolution amends Article VIII, sections 3 and 7, to remove the existing constitutional language that vests general supervision of public education in a state board and that creates a separate board for community and junior colleges. It would submit these changes to voters at the next general election.
As drafted, the resolution would shift the constitutional framework away from statewide education boards and toward a system in which the state department of education is headed by a director, with powers and duties set by law, rather than by constitutionally established boards and officers. It also preserves the constitutional authority of higher education governing boards over their own institutions and finances, while removing the specific constitutional provisions governing the state board’s role in community and junior college oversight and planning.
Impact
If adopted, the amendment would remove from the Michigan Constitution the provisions establishing the state board of education, the superintendent of public instruction as a constitutional office tied to that board, and the state board for public community and junior colleges. This would materially alter Article VIII by eliminating those statewide governance structures and leaving the legislature greater discretion to define education administration by statute. The change would affect the organization of public K-12 education oversight, state-level coordination of education policy, and the advisory structure for community and junior colleges, while not changing the constitutional autonomy of boards of higher education institutions granting baccalaureate degrees.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the resolution appears to reflect a reform-oriented approach favoring consolidation or simplification of education governance. Because it is a constitutional amendment, the ultimate decision would rest with voters rather than being implemented solely by the legislature.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether eliminating constitutionally created education boards would improve accountability and efficiency or instead weaken independent oversight and public representation in education policy. Supporters would likely argue that the legislature should have more flexibility to organize education administration, while opponents may argue that removing the state board of education and related offices could politicize or destabilize statewide education governance. Another likely issue is the future role of community and junior colleges, since the resolution removes the constitutional board that currently advises on their planning and appropriations.