Michigan lawmakers, education officials flag risks to Title I and Section 31a funding; Opportunity Index remains underfunded

Chairman John Camilleri convened the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on PreK‑12 to hear from Michigan Department of Education officials and advocacy groups about the state’s reliance on federal Title I funds and the state’s Section 31a at‑risk allocation. The hearing focused on how potential federal staffing reductions and proposed state budget changes could affect services for students from low‑income households.

The hearing matters because Michigan school districts use both federal Title I, Part A dollars and state Section 31a funds to pay for intervention teachers, paraprofessionals, counseling, tutoring and other services targeted at students in high‑poverty schools. Witnesses said interruptions or reductions in those streams could force districts to revise improvement plans, reduce services or change staffing.

Olivia Ponti, legislative liaison for the Michigan Department of Education, introduced officials who outlined how the funding works and how it is allocated. Michael Powell, assistant director in the MDE Office of Educational Supports, said the department’s presentation aimed to explain “what it is, why it is important to Michigan school districts, review which school districts and or local education agencies receive Title I A funds, how it is used and distributed in Michigan, and its relationship to state level Section 31a at‑risk funds.”

MDE officials gave the committee several key figures: Michigan distributed approximately $509,000,000 in Title I, Part A for the 2024–25 school year and receives about $460,000,000 in federal IDEA dollars for special education services. The department reported 822 open and active local education agencies (LEAs) in the state; 808 (98.3%) are eligible for and receive Title I funding, leaving 14 LEAs ineligible. The department said the total Section 31a allocation for 2024–25 is approximately $1,035,000,000 and that all 822 LEAs are eligible for Section 31a.

Jeff Cobb, director of government affairs at Ed Trust Midwest, urged the committee to increase funding for Michigan’s Opportunity Index, the statute‑based formula adopted in 2023 that weights Section 31a dollars toward higher‑poverty districts. Cobb said the index’s statutory weights range from about 35% to 47% and that current appropriations leave the index roughly $2,000,000,000 short of fully funding those weights. He recommended a phased approach that would add about $400,000,000 per year over five years to reach the statutory targets and proposed stronger transparency and building‑level tracking so families can see how dollars are spent.

Cobb described how districts use the funds: “they’re investing in one‑on‑one tutoring, paraprofessionals, multi‑tier systems of support, mental health services, after‑school programs,” and in some districts to reduce elementary class sizes. He said the Opportunity Index is intended to direct more resources to students living in higher concentrations of poverty and argued that states that invested and targeted funding — he cited Massachusetts and California studies — saw measurable improvements in reading, math and graduation outcomes over multiple years.

Committee members pressed MDE staff on near‑term risks. Powell said MDE had received assurances that access to federal funds would continue through the current federal fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, but said “after the new fiscal year” there is uncertainty. Powell told the panel the department had not had direct communications with the U.S. Department of Education about long‑term staffing plans but had heard via partner agencies that funds should be available through June 30. He said it would be difficult at the hearing to quantify how many individual educators or support staff statewide depend directly on Title I and Section 31a pay lines because local districts decide how to use their allocations.

Several senators raised state budget concerns. Chairman Camilleri and other Democratic senators criticized a recent House Republican budget proposal that, they said, would remove Section 31a funding from the baseline; Democrats called that a “non‑starter.” Senator Albert and others urged caution about alarmist predictions and highlighted existing state resources and the complexity of the budget process. Senator Theis emphasized the need to focus on “successful spending” and accountability, noting prior large one‑time COVID‑era spending and asking how districts track effectiveness.

Ed Trust Midwest also asked the Legislature to strengthen guardrails: require improved building‑level tracking (currently Section 31a is tracked at the district level), consider a requirement that at least 75% of opportunity‑index dollars be spent at the building where funded students attend, and enhance parental notification and oversight so elected officials and families can see how the money is used.

MDE staff and the Ed Trust witness noted additional details including lists of high‑recipients of Title I funds: Detroit Public Schools (about $123,000,000), Flint City School District (about $14,000,000), Dearborn (about $13.4 million), Grand Rapids (about $10.1 million) and several other districts. MDE said it would provide precise district‑level validations after the hearing.

Formal committee business during the meeting included adoption of draft minutes for the March 6 meeting by unanimous consent on a motion from Senator Polhinke supported by Senator Hertel, and adjournment by unanimous consent on a motion moved by Chairman Camilleri and supported by Senator Kleinfeld.

For lawmakers, the next steps flagged at the hearing were to: (1) monitor federal decisions that could affect post‑June 30 access to Title I funds; (2) consider whether to increase state support for the Opportunity Index to approach statutory weights; and (3) consider legislative changes to improve building‑level transparency and parental notification about how Opportunity Index dollars are spent. Camilleri told the panel the subcommittee would continue deliberations during the upcoming budget process.