We are currently still in a lawsuit with the state to get the real interest from the 3% that was held from us. Mark Cousens seems to think that we have a good chance at winning.
Education Week (3/22) reports the bill preserves $2 billion in funding for Title II teacher development programs “despite President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate the program entirely.” The Trump administration argued that the program is ineffective, but “the proposal to eliminate Title II sparked backlash among the education community,” with advocates saying “state and district leaders are working to improve professional development, in large part due to the Every Student Succeeds Act, which calls for PD Programs to be evidence-based.”
Hope you can join us tonight for our General Membership Meeting. The meeting will be held at William Ford, starting at 4:00 pm
A Panel Discussion featuring
This discussion will focus on –
Can we reverse the academic decline in Michigan’s schools
without addressing the funding issue?
A recent report released by the US Department of Education notes
that Michigan increased spending on prisons more than five times
faster than it did on public education from 1979-2013. Meanwhile,
Michigan school performance continues to fall further behind. At the
current rate of decline, our state will rank 48th by 2030.
Panelists will discuss the report’s implications for Michigan’s
children. After a presentation from the panelists, the audience will
have an opportunity to pose questions to the panelists.
The Panel moderator will be Alicia Nails, Director of the Journalism
Institute for Media Diversity at Wayne State University.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Wayne State University
Student Center Building
Hilberry Rooms (2nd Floor)
5221 Gullen Mall
Registration & Reception
5:00 – 6:00 p.m.
An opportunity to network with
Panel Members and fellow
Refreshments will be served.
6:00 – 7:45 p.m.
Free parking details will be
provided upon RSVP.
For additional information
about this event, contact
Carla Harting at
or (313) 577-1675
Leonard Kaplan Education
Collaborative for Critical
Urban Studies and
The Metro Bureau
You may be getting calls and emails from legislators concerning House Bill 5355. Below is the content of a memo that several education groups will be circulating to legislators.
MASA opposes House Bill 5355 and its impact on school budgets. The legislation would change the MPSERS system payment method from a level percentage of payroll to a level dollar method while also reducing the payroll growth assumption built into the MPSERS system. In theory this is a good practice, however when coupled with several other changes to the retirement system dating back to Public Act 92 of 2017, costs will increase significantly on school districts and the state.
MASA urges the consideration of the following issues when debating this bill:
- When factoring in all contributions to the retirement system, Michigan already spends as a percentage of payroll more than any other state in the nation on retirement costs.
- PA 92 of 2017 changed the way districts pay retirement costs going forward from percent of payroll to growth in current operating expenditures (COE). This could increase districts cost above the established 20.96%. Their unfunded liability payments will potentially increase.
- ORS has implemented a Dedicated Gains Policy where any market returns above the assumed rate of return (now 7.75%) will be reinvested in the system to lower the Assumed Rate of Return (AROR). Reducing the AROR will cause UAAL and normal costs to increase for districts.
- This legislation would reduce the assumed payroll growth over time from 3.5% to 0%. It will cause UAAL and normal costs to increase for districts.
- PA 92 of 2017 and HB 5355 implement a floor policy that ensures the state will not spend any less on the retirement system than the prior year. This floor provision along with the other provisions listed above will make it so retirement costs will only increase going forward. As an example, the additional $200 million that was put towards the retirement system last year flows through to school districts and thus with the COE provision will be included in all future payments.
There is merit to the level dollar concept being put forward in House Bill 5355, however when coupled with all the changes listed above that are not yet implemented, school districts will see a significant increase in their costs impacting the dollars available for the classroom. This bill is reforming reforms this Legislature just put into place last year that have not yet taken effect.
MASA strongly encourages a no vote on House Bill 5355 and oppose the cost increases to local districts. Before making further and potentially unnecessary changes to the MPSERS system, it should be allowed to adjust for the changes already made.
If you have any questions, please contact MASA.
Associate Executive Director, Government Relations
Michigan Association of School Administrators
Thank you for your hard work, dedication, and all that you do.
You make our schools great!
The Senate Education Committee kicked off the week with a hearing Tuesday on legislation that would expand the scope of Michigan’s current education savings account (ESA) program (which currently covers only higher education) to include education-related expenses for K-12 students (e.g. pay-to-play fees, tutoring, field trip costs, and similar supplementary education services). Michigan’s constitutional prohibition against vouchers also protects against giving tax credits for non-public school tuition, so dollars in the proposed ESA program couldn’t be used for non-public school tuition, but concerning comments were made by committee members during the hearing about this proposal being an “innovative” way to bring additional money into the K-12 education system…comments that should be concerning for educators and parents alike since many of the costs incurred by K-12 students exist because of cuts to public education spending. The House Education Committee took testimony Thursday on legislation that would allow Michigan students in border communities to dual-enroll across state lines in out-of-state colleges or universities that are within 20 miles of the state border. The bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Aaron Miller (R-Sturgis), drew a fair amount of criticism from committee members who had a variety of concerns with the legislation, mainly focused around the idea of sending taxpayer dollars out of Michigan. Meanwhile, the rumors are flying (though facts are scarce) about what might eventually be included in a planned K-12 budget supplemental that legislators are working on behind the scenes and which is expected to be revealed later this month.
Submitted by Bob Kefgen on Fri, 09/15/2017 – 3:54pm
On Thursday (last week), the Michigan Department of Education released guidance documents for school districts on implementing the new laws governing the emergency use of seclusion and physical restraint.
We’ve subdivided the information below into four sections:
- General Parameters,
- Law Enforcement,
- Training Requirements, and
- Reporting Requirements.
The following three items clarify key questions MASSP has received from Principals about the parameters of the new restrictions.
If school personnel evacuate a room with the exception of one pupil and an employee of the school, is it considered seclusion?
If the pupil is not physically prevented from leaving the room, it is not considered seclusion.
When does separating a pupil from others constitute seclusion or emergency seclusion?
When a pupil is confined in a room and physically prevented from leaving, that constitutes seclusion. The only exception is when that confinement is an integral part of an emergency lockdown drill…or of another emergency security procedure that is necessary to protect the safety of pupils.
Is the emergency use of seclusion and physical restraint allowed to protect property?
No. The emergency use of seclusion and physical restraint is meant to protect pupils and staff. If the act of destructing property causes imminent risk to the safety of a pupil or staff member, emergency use of seclusion and physical restraint is permissible.”
These two items provide important clarification about the role of law enforcement as it relates to the new law.
Are school personnel allowed to call for law enforcement to deal with pupils who refuse to cease disruptive behavior?
First responders (emergency medical services, the police, or others) may need to be called by school personnel. This should be part of a school’s crisis management plan.
Are school resource officers (SROs) considered school personnel?
Law enforcement officers who are sworn, meet state training and licensing standards, and are acting in their capacity as law enforcement officers are not bound by [the new laws]. Law enforcement officers are bound by limits on police use of force. Other individuals designated as “school resource officers” who are not sworn law enforcement officers are bound by [the new laws]. Who fits within that category is a matter of state law and not school district discretion.
The new law requires two types of additional training. Principals are likely already aware of the awareness training requirement, but this item bears reviewing because of its scope. A full list of the required components of awareness training is included on page 11 of the FAQ. As a member service, MASSP has developed a full suite of MDE-approved resources that districts can use to fulfill this requirement. Click here for more information.
Who is required to receive awareness training?
All school personnel who have regular contact with pupils or who regularly and continuously work under contract, are required to receive awareness training. This may include: teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, support staff, bus drivers, security personnel, cafeteria staff, substitute teachers, public school employees providing services at a non-public school, school volunteers, school board members, coaches, and pre-service and intern teachers.
The new laws impose several new reporting and documentation requirements should an incident occur. These items clarify some key points around data collection and debriefing parents.
Does a school need to collect data regarding seclusion and restraint?
Yes. All uses of restraint and seclusion must be documented, not just emergency seclusion or emergency physical restraint.
Are districts required to use a Michigan Department of Education (MDE) form for documenting instances of seclusion and/or restraint?
No. The statute requires documentation of all instances of seclusion and restraint, but it does not require documentation on an MDE form. However, a copy of the written report shall be provided to the parent or guardian within the earlier of one school day (if school is in session the next day) or seven calendar days (if incident occurs the day prior to an extended break). The MDE has a model form districts may elect to use or modify for documentation of seclusion and restraint.
When must a debriefing and consultation take place with a parent/guardian?
After each use of seclusion and/or restraint, school personnel must make reasonable efforts to debrief and consult with the parent or guardian, or with the parent or guardian and the pupil, as appropriate, regarding the event, and determination of future actions. Ideally this occurs within one to three school days of the incident.
Must a district use the MDE debriefing form for documenting the debrief and consultation?
Yes. The debriefing and consultation shall be documented on the MDE form or within their existing information systems in accordance with department guidelines.
Below is the full text of MDE Memo #086-17. Click here to access the original document on MDE’s website.
Emergency Use of Seclusion and Physical Restraint
In December 2016, the State of Michigan adopted Public Act 394 of 2016 restricting the use of seclusion and restraint in schools. On March 14, 2017, the State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the “Policy for the Emergency Use of Seclusion and Restraint” as required by MCL 380.1307. An update to the Policy was issued in July 2017.
The statute also required the MDE to develop guidance documents to assist school districts in implementing the new law. Those documents are listed below:
- Emergency Use of Seclusion and Physical Restraint Frequently Asked Questions
- Seclusion and Restraint Documentation Form
- Seclusion and Restraint Debriefing Form
It is the intent of the MDE to periodically update the guidance documents to reflect new changes and answer questions that are not addressed in the policy.
Tonight, Monday, December 19, 2016
5:00 pm ADSA meeting
5:40 pm Dinner
La Pita in Dearborn
Hommous and Baba Ghannouge
Herb Roasted Potatoes and Almond Rice
Halal Shish Kabob
Portebello Mushroom Sautee with Chicken
Soft Drinks, Coffee, Tea
Hope to see you there!