School aid: membership; requirements concerning counting pupils in membership; modify for pupils enrolled in certain work-based learning experiences. Amend secs. 6 & 11 of 1979 PA 94 (MCL 388.1606 & 388.1611) & adds sec. 61e.
SB 59 amends Michigan’s State School Aid Act to change how pupil membership is counted for school funding purposes, with a particular focus on students participating in work-based learning and career and technical education (CTE) experiences. The bill adds a new definition for work-based learning experiences and work-based learning experiences tied to state-approved CTE programs, allowing eligible pupils to be counted as up to 0.75 of a full-time equivalent in addition to concurrent high school coursework, so long as the total does not exceed 1.0 FTE. It also sets out detailed conditions for what qualifies as work-based learning, including employer-based training agreements and in-district placements, and prohibits the department from requiring a lower FTE count than 0.75 for those students.
The bill also creates a new section 61e that allocates $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 and CTE-related placements. Districts would have to apply to the Department of Education in a prescribed form and manner to receive the grants. In addition, the bill makes a small change to the overall school aid appropriation for fiscal year 2024-2025, increasing the state school aid fund appropriation by $2 million to reflect the new grant program.
Beyond the new grant program, SB 59 largely restates and reorganizes the extensive membership-counting rules in section 6 of the school aid act. Those rules govern when students are counted for foundation allowance purposes, including students in public school academies, cyber schools, virtual courses, special education programs, alternative education, dropout recovery, middle college, nonpublic part-time enrollment, and various out-of-district or cross-border arrangements. The practical effect of the bill is to preserve and clarify funding eligibility for a wide range of student placements while specifically expanding recognition of work-based learning participation in the pupil accounting system.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is neutral to supportive, though no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided. The bill’s structure suggests an emphasis on supporting career pathways and reimbursing districts for added costs rather than reducing funding. Because there is no recorded debate in the supplied materials, there is no evidence of formal opposition or amendment controversy in the available context.
The main point of potential contention is the funding and accounting treatment of work-based learning students. Districts, auditors, and policymakers may differ on how to document qualifying placements, how much FTE should be credited, and whether the 0.75 cap appropriately reflects instructional value versus on-the-job training time. There may also be broader policy questions about whether the new grant funding is sufficient and how the new rules interact with existing membership-count provisions for concurrent enrollment, CTE, and alternative education students.
SB 59 amends MCL 388.1606 and MCL 388.1611 of the State School Aid Act and adds a new MCL 388.1661e section. Its legal effect is to revise pupil membership accounting rules for school aid purposes, specifically adding work-based learning and CTE-related placements to the categories of students that can generate state aid, and to authorize a $2 million competitive grant program for districts with added costs tied to those placements. The bill affects school districts, public school academies, intermediate districts, and students participating in career and technical education, internships, apprenticeships, and other work-based learning experiences, while leaving the broader school funding framework intact.
The available materials show no recorded committee testimony or vote history, so there is no documented opposition or support from named stakeholders. Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally favorable toward districts and students engaged in career pathways, with a policy emphasis on funding support and recognition of work-based learning as part of pupil membership. Overall sentiment is best characterized as neutral-to-supportive, with the bill framed as a technical and funding adjustment rather than a controversial overhaul.
The most likely area of contention is how work-based learning should be counted for funding and whether the bill’s 0.75 FTE ceiling appropriately balances classroom instruction with off-campus learning. Districts may also have concerns about administrative burden, documentation standards, and whether the competitive grant pool is adequate to cover added costs. More broadly, any debate would likely center on fairness in school finance, the risk of over- or under-counting students in hybrid programs, and how the new rules interact with existing membership provisions for CTE, concurrent enrollment, and alternative education.