Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education Funding Title I Section 31a topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate subcommittee hears that federal Title I and state 31a funding face uncertainty; advocates press for $400M annual boost to Opportunity Index

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Pre K‑12, Michigan Department of Education officials and an education advocate described the scope and uses of federal Title I, Part A and state Section 31a funding, warned that recent federal staffing cuts could complicate distributions after the current fiscal year, and urged lawmakers to add $400 million per year to the state’s Opportunity Index.

At a meeting of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Pre K‑12, Michigan Department of Education (MDE) officials and an education advocate described how federal Title I, Part A and state Section 31a (at‑risk) funds are used in Michigan schools, warned that recent federal staffing cuts could delay or complicate distributions after the current fiscal year, and urged the Legislature to increase funding for the state’s Opportunity Index by $400 million per year.

The subcommittee chair, Senator Camilleri, told members that Michigan public schools currently receive about $509,000,000 in Title I funds and roughly $460,000,000 in IDEA federal funding in the 2024–25 school year. Michael Powell, assistant director in MDE’s Office of Educational Supports, summarized Title I’s purpose and history and said the program dates to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and its 2015 reauthorization under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

Nut graf: Members heard that Title I and Section 31a support similar populations and programs — intervention teachers, paraprofessionals, tutoring, social‑emotional supports and after‑school programs — but use different allocation rules; MDE staff said the state’s Section 31a allocation for 2024–25 is about $1,035,000,000, and an outside advocate said the Opportunity Index remains underfunded and needs continued state investment to reach statutory weights.

MDE staff described program mechanics and scope. Olivia Ponti, legislative liaison, introduced MDE witnesses. Michael Powell provided an overview of Title I, Part A and its alignment with Michigan’s strategic education goals. A financial unit manager at MDE said Michigan has 822 open and active local education agencies (LEAs); 808 (98.3%) are eligible for Title I and that Michigan distributed approximately $509,000,000 in Title I funds for 2024–25. The same presenter said all 822 LEAs are eligible for Section 31a and that Section 31a’s total allocation for 2024–25 is approximately $1,035,000,000.

MDE witnesses emphasized common uses of Title I and Section 31a funds: "intensive multi‑tiered systems of supports," Title I intervention teachers and paraprofessionals, social workers and counselors, professional learning and instructional coaching, and supports for students experiencing homelessness or foster care. Powell explained the Title I options to run either schoolwide programs (with a 40% low‑income threshold) or targeted assistance models for highest‑need students.

The subcommittee asked about risks to funding after recent federal staff reductions. In response, an MDE official said, "we should have access to funds through this current fiscal year," and that staffing assurances had been received for operations through June 30, 2025, but the department could not guarantee distribution procedures after a new federal fiscal year begins on July 1.

Advocates and requested increases. Jeff Cobb, director of government affairs at Ed Trust Midwest, said the Opportunity Index — the state formula enacted in 2023 that weights funding based on district poverty bands — directs more dollars to higher‑poverty districts. "The higher the amount of poverty in the local school district, the higher the weighted amount they receive," Cobb said. He and coalition partners asked lawmakers to add $400,000,000 per year to fully fund statutory weights over a five‑year period and proposed better transparency, including tracking spending to the building level and stronger parental notification.

Cobb presented district examples and a public website where districts can be queried for current and modeled funding; committee members cited large Title I recipients (districts listed by a committee member included Detroit Public Schools at about $123,000,000; Flint at about $14,000,000; Dearborn at about $13.4 million; Grand Rapids about $10.1 million; Saginaw about $10,000,000; Lansing about $8.1 million; Hamtramck about $7.3 million; Pontiac about $6.9 million; Wayne‑Westland about $5.1 million; and Kalamazoo about $5.1 million) and MDE staff said those districts are among the largest recipients but that the department did not have the precise top‑10 figures at the table.

Committee members probed program impacts and scale. Senators asked whether staff positions (reading specialists, paraprofessionals, social workers, counselors) would be cut under hypothetical reductions in Title I or Section 31a funding; MDE replied it could not provide a single statewide headcount because districts budget and use funds differently and that local districts would need to reexamine their school improvement plans and service levels if funding declined. Several senators urged the Legislature to prioritize at‑risk funding in the state budget to mitigate federal uncertainty.

Formal actions: The subcommittee approved draft meeting minutes for March 6, 2025, by motion and support; the minutes were adopted "without objection." Later, the chair moved to adjourn the subcommittee and, with support from Senator Kleinfeld and no objection, the meeting was adjourned.

Ending: MDE staff and the committee agreed to continue the conversation; MDE noted additional details and impacts would be addressed in a session scheduled with Dr. Rice the following day. Advocates left the committee with a formal request for a phased increase to the Opportunity Index and for stronger tracking and reporting of at‑risk dollars.