Senate subcommittee hears Title I, Section 31a briefing; advocates urge $400M boost to Opportunity Index

Chairman Senator Camilleri convened the Michigan Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on PreK-12 for a briefing on federal Title I, Part A and state Section 31a at‑risk funding, hearing testimony that both federal uncertainty and underfunding at the state level could threaten services for students in high‑poverty districts.

The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) told the subcommittee that Michigan districts received about $509,000,000 in Title I, Part A formula funding and about $460,000,000 through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for the current school year; state Section 31a at‑risk funds total roughly $1,035,000,000. Olivia Ponti, MDE legislative liaison, introduced MDE staff who described program rules, allowable uses and how allocations differ between the federal and state programs.

"Title I, Part A was created along with a bundle of other federal formula grants to help address a wide array of student needs to ultimately improve student academic achievement gaps in reading, writing and math," Michael Powell, assistant director in MDE's Office of Educational Supports, told the committee. He outlined that Title I can fund schoolwide or targeted programs, intervention teachers, paraprofessionals, counselors, tutoring, and services for students experiencing homelessness or foster care.

Nut graf: Committee members pressed MDE on how recent personnel reductions and broader federal uncertainty could affect Michigan districts that rely on these funds, while advocates urged the Legislature to accelerate funding of the Opportunity Index within Section 31a to target more aid to high‑poverty districts.

MDE witnesses said staff at the U.S. Department of Education had assured states they expected allocations and access to funds through the current federal fiscal year ending June 30, 2025, but the department's recent large layoffs and forced departures create uncertainty about processing and oversight beyond that date. MDE staff said they could not yet quantify how many local positions depend directly on federal Title I dollars because districts use the money in a variety of ways, including staffing, contracted services and programmatic supports, and that districts decide locally how to use funds.

Jeff Cobb, director of government affairs for Ed Trust Midwest, testified for a statewide coalition that created Michigan's Opportunity Index in 2023. He said the index groups districts into six bands by concentration of poverty and weights allocations to direct more resources to higher‑poverty districts. Cobb urged adding $400,000,000 to the Opportunity Index in this year's budget and noted the index remains underfunded by about $2,000,000,000 to reach statutory weights. "We are asking you to prioritize underserved students by putting an additional $400,000,000 into the Opportunity Index in this year's budget," Cobb said.

Cobb and committee members discussed examples of district allocations and compared Michigan's approach to models used in Massachusetts and California, which Cobb cited as evidence that targeted, sustained funding can improve reading and math outcomes and reduce grade retention and disciplinary actions. He also urged stronger transparency: tracking school‑level spending of Opportunity Index dollars and requiring a high share of funds be spent at the buildings attended by eligible students.

Several senators raised procedural and political questions. Senator Albert and others said there is currently no definitive federal notice that appropriations will be eliminated for the next fiscal year, and urged caution about prematurely alarming districts. Senator Camilleri and other senators said the headlines and reported federal staff reductions create a real planning risk for districts and pressed MDE for contingency information, noting the state budget calendar could affect how districts respond if federal funds change after July 1.

Committee staff and witnesses identified sample high‑recipient districts but did not provide exhaustive, building‑level lists during the hearing. The MDE committed to providing additional documentation, including the top Title I recipient districts and more detailed impacts, in follow‑up.

Ending: The subcommittee did not take policy action on funding levels at the hearing; members debated priorities and next steps as budget negotiations continue. The panel approved the March 6 meeting minutes at the start of the session and adjourned without further votes on funding measures.