Senate Bill 377 would revise Michigan’s Revised School Code to change high school graduation requirements and to add new state-level curriculum and teacher-training mandates. The bill updates the Michigan Merit Standard by refining the required credits in mathematics, science, social studies, health/physical education, arts, and world language, while preserving multiple pathways for students to satisfy those requirements through career and technical education, online learning, dual enrollment, and other alternative instructional methods. It also continues and expands the “personal curriculum” framework, which allows certain students, including students with disabilities and transfer students, to modify some graduation requirements under specified conditions.
The bill also adds new obligations for the Department of Education and school districts. By June 30, 2027, the department would have to develop or adopt model programs of instruction for the courses tied to the graduation requirements, and it would have to publish model professional-development programs in the science of reading. Beginning in the 2027-28 school year, districts would be required to use those science-of-reading training models for K-5 teachers. In addition, the bill tightens approval standards for teacher preparation and alternative teaching programs, requiring instruction in dyslexia, structured literacy, MTSS, and science-of-reading methods, and adding consultation requirements for math and science preparation programs.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant because it amends multiple sections of the school code that govern when districts may issue diplomas, what credits students must earn, how credits may be satisfied, and what flexibility schools have in designing local curricula. It would also create new state guidance and compliance expectations for schools, teacher-preparation providers, and the Department of Education, while leaving local districts some discretion over how to deliver the required content. Schools would need to ensure access to the required courses, technology for online learning, and notice to families about personal curricula and support services.
Overall, the bill appears to reflect a generally pro-education-reform and pro-literacy sentiment, with an emphasis on stronger academic standards, career pathways, and structured support for struggling students. The text itself is highly prescriptive and suggests a policy preference for uniform statewide expectations paired with alternative routes for students who need them. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill indicates likely support from advocates of literacy reform, career and technical education, and clearer graduation pathways.
The main points of contention likely involve the balance between rigor and flexibility. Potential concerns include whether the expanded graduation requirements and mandatory teacher training could burden districts, whether the personal curriculum provisions are sufficiently flexible for students with disabilities or transfer students, and whether the state should mandate model instructional programs and teacher-preparation content. Another possible issue is the treatment of computer science, career and technical education, and arts courses as substitutes for traditional requirements, which may draw differing views from educators, parents, and policymakers.
SB 377 would amend the Revised School Code to change Michigan Merit Standard graduation requirements, expand alternative ways to earn required credits, and impose new state guidance and training requirements on schools and teacher-preparation programs. It would affect school districts, public school academies, intermediate school districts, the Department of Education, teacher-preparation providers, K-5 teachers, and students seeking diplomas under the Michigan Merit Standard, especially students using personal curricula, CTE pathways, online learning, or special education accommodations.
Based on the bill text alone, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger academic expectations and literacy-focused reforms, while also preserving multiple student pathways and exemptions. The bill is framed as a standards-and-support measure rather than a punitive one, with repeated references to alternative instructional delivery, personal curricula, and access for special populations. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislative debate in the supplied materials.
Likely areas of contention include the increased state control over curriculum and teacher preparation, the requirement that K-5 teachers receive science-of-reading training through state-approved models, and the new approval standards for teacher-preparation programs. Another likely debate point is whether the revised graduation requirements are too rigid or whether the personal curriculum and CTE provisions provide enough flexibility for students with disabilities, transfer students, and students pursuing nontraditional pathways. District capacity, staffing, and implementation costs may also be disputed.