A number of other grants are made by the state to conventional and intermediate school districts. These are discussed below.
Durant-related payments refer to state expenditures that resulted from the Michigan Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Durant v. State of Michigan. The court held that state government had mandated certain special education programs, but failed to finance adequately districts’ compliance with these mandates, thereby violating the Headlee amendment to the Michigan Constitution. As a settlement, the court awarded $212 million in damages to the school districts that had joined in the lawsuit (for more on Durant and related court decisions, see “Appendix 2: Summary of ‘Durant’ Court Decisions”).
A number of school districts, however, did not join the Durant v. State of Michigan lawsuit. These “nonplaintiff” districts receive two forms of payment in return for forgoing any legal claims related to the Durant decision.[clxix] We discuss both payments below.
Durant Nonplaintiff Payment 1: 10 Years of Cash Payments
The first type of payment is a series of cash payments made annually for 10 years to each of the 509 nonparticipant local and intermediate school districts. The cumulative total paid to the districts comprises one-half of their total nonplaintiff settlement.
The state began making these cash payments — $32 million annually — in fiscal 1999, and the state will continue to make the payments through Sept. 30, 2008. The amount received in each year by any one of the 509 districts is equal to one-twentieth of the settlement amount listed for that particular district in a state law passed in 1997. For instance, the amount listed for the Munising Public Schools is $185,461, so the district receives an annual payment of one‑twentieth of $185,461, or $9,273.05, each year through 2008.
Districts may use the revenue from such payments only for the following: “textbooks, electronic instructional material, software, technology, infrastructure or infrastructure improvements, school buses, school security, training for technology, an early intervening program … or to pay debt service on voter-approved bonds issued by the district or intermediate district before the effective date of this section.”
Durant Nonplaintiff Payment 2: Bond Payments or 15 Years of Cash Payments
The second payment to the 509 nonplaintiff local and intermediate school districts can be received by the districts in one of two forms: as 15 years of additional annual cash payments, or as bonds for which the state reimburses the districts’ principal, interest and other bond costs. Each district had chosen one of the two forms of payment by June 30, 1998.
The final 15 year cash payment is due to the districts by Sept. 30, 2013. The annual payments made to districts receiving the cash settlement are one-thirtieth of the total settlement amount listed in state law, so that the total payment over 15 years will be exactly one-half the total nonplaintiff settlement.
Districts receiving only the annual cash payment must use the money in the following order of priority: “to pay debt service on voter-approved bonds” issued before November 1997; to “pay debt service on other limited tax obligations”; and to “deposit into a sinking fund. ...”
The payment made to districts issuing bonds instead is the amount of the bond plus the interest and cost of selling the bond. According to the Michigan Department of Treasury, any bond sold on behalf of the districts under this provision had a term of 15 years and was issued through the state’s Michigan Municipal Bond Authority. The districts are required to use the bond proceeds for capital purposes, such as purchasing, building or remodeling school buildings and other school facilities.
The total state appropriation for the cash payments and bond costs described here was $34,961,000 in fiscal 2007.
Payment for Districts With Foundation Allowances Under $7,360
In fiscal 2007, the state made an “equity payment” to conventional local school districts and charter schools whose foundation allowance was less than $7,360. This payment was equal to the lesser of $23 per pupil and a per-pupil payment of the difference between $7,360 and the district’s fiscal 2007 foundation allowance (including any foundation allowance adjustment under former section 32e).[clxx]
Four hundred and seventy-five conventional public school districts and charter schools are receiving money under this provision in fiscal 2007. For example, the Oxford Area Community School District, which has a foundation allowance of $7,343 in fiscal 2007, receives a $17 per-pupil payment under this subsection, since $17 — the difference between $7,360 and $7,343 — is less than $23. Thus, Oxford’s total payment, based on its total state aid membership of 4274.00, is $72,658. In total, the state is spending $20 million on these payments in fiscal 2007.
Payment for Two Years of Declining Membership
In fiscal 2007, the state made an additional payment to conventional local school districts whose state aid membership (the blended count) declined for the previous two fiscal years, although the district qualifies for the payment only if the district is not already receiving a total foundation allowance payment based on a three-year average or on a “geographically isolated” district payment.[clxxi] The payment is equal to the district’s foundation allowance multiplied by the difference between the district’s current-year state aid membership and the district’s three-year average[clxxii] membership count over the current year and the previous two years.
The state Legislature appropriated $20 million for this payment in fiscal 2007. If the total payment does not match the declining membership monies the various districts would be entitled to under this statute, the districts are to receive a prorated payment that is proportional to the money they would have received if the total state appropriation for this payment had been larger. Charter schools and intermediate school districts did not receive this payment in fiscal 2007.
In addition to a foundation allowance, conventional school districts and charter schools receive a payment based on the number of students who qualified for free breakfast, milk or lunch under federal law as of Oct. 31 of the previous fiscal year. This money must be spent on “at-risk” students, defined as those who exhibit at least two of the following characteristics: “... [The child] is a victim of child abuse or neglect; is below grade level in English language and communication skills or mathematics; is a pregnant teenager or teenage parent; is eligible for a federal free or reduced-price lunch subsidy; has atypical behavior or attendance patterns; or has a family history of school failure, incarceration, or substance abuse.” Other, similar criteria are also listed in state law.[clxxiii]
The “at-risk” payment is technically equal to 11.5 percent of the district’s or the charter school’s foundation allowance[clxxiv] multiplied by the number of students qualifying for free breakfast, milk or lunch. The qualifier “technically” is necessary in that definition, however, because the total amount appropriated by the Legislature for the total at-risk payment does not usually cover the sum of every eligible district’s calculated at-risk payment. Consequently, the state Department of Education adjusts the calculation so that the total “at-risk” payments to the districts do not exceed the money appropriated.
The department begins this adjustment by calculating the total amount that would be required to pay 11.5 percent of a district’s foundation allowance for every eligible student. From this sum, the total amount appropriated by the Legislature is subtracted, and the remainder is divided by the number of eligible pupils. The resulting quotient provides the amount per-pupil that the department will need to subtract from each district’s calculated share so that the total payments do not exceed the money appropriated.
In fiscal 2007, $310,457,000 is allocated for at-risk students.[clxxv] According to the Michigan Department of Education, 714 local districts and charter schools receive this at-risk payment in fiscal 2007.
For 2007, the state Legislature allocated $8 million to local and intermediate school districts to educate students placed in that district “by a court or the department of human services to reside in or to attend a juvenile detention facility or child caring institution. ...” This total allocation is divided into two parts. Of the total allocation, 20 percent, or $1.6 million, is used to help pay the districts’ “added cost,” which is defined as the cost of educating such students minus any other payment the districts receive to educate these students. With the remaining 80 percent of the allocation, $6.4 million, the state pays districts the lesser of two per-pupil amounts: the district’s “added cost” per pupil and $6.4 million divided by the total (statewide) number of court-placed students.
As with the payments for at-risk students discussed above, the Legislature typically does not appropriate money to cover all of the claims the school districts can make for educating court-placed students. The state Department of Education therefore makes a correction here, as well, but this correction is more complex than the simple prorating used for at-risk payments.[clxxvi]
The percentages discussed above — 80 percent and 20 percent — will change each year. In fiscal 2008, the percentages will shift to 90 percent and 10 percent, while in fiscal 2009, 100 percent of the money allocated for court-placed students is scheduled to finance a per-pupil payment that is the lesser of a district’s added cost per pupil and the amount appropriated divided by the total number of court-placed students.
The state distributes money to charter schools and conventional local school districts to pay for breakfast programs and for lunch programs for students who meet certain family income criteria.[clxxvii]
The school lunch program appropriation is made up of both state and federal components, but the state distributes both payments. The two amounts are based on different formulas.
The state payment is equal to 6.0127 percent of a district’s costs for school lunch programs, and it is calculated based on a formula found in a Durant decision. The federal payment, which is calculated under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, is computed for most districts by multiplying the number of lunches served by the “national average lunch payment.” This national average lunch payment is a per-lunch figure that is determined by the federal government and that varies based on two criteria: whether the lunch is free, of reduced price, or of regular price to students; and the percentage of the state’s students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunches. Free and reduced-price lunches receive higher federal funding than regularly priced lunches, and in geographical areas where the percentage of the students eligible for lunch price reductions is higher, the national average lunch payment made to the states is higher.
State and federal monies are also disbursed to schools for the school breakfast program. The federal government distributes monies to states based on the number of school breakfasts served in a state multiplied by the “national average breakfast payment.” This payment, like the national average payment for lunches described directly above, is a per-breakfast figure determined by the federal government, and the amount, while different from the figure for lunches, varies in the same way as the national average lunch payment. The per-breakfast figure, however, is calculated somewhat differently in “severe need” schools.[clxxix]
The state also distributes state revenues to school districts for the school breakfast program; in fiscal 2007, the total amount is $9,625,000. The amount is disbursed only to school districts that participate in the federal breakfast program, and distribution of the money is prorated by the cost of breakfasts[clxxx] minus federal breakfast money, student payments and any other relevant state reimbursement. According to preliminary figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Michigan received $46,846,021 for breakfast programs in 2006.
Michigan government makes a number of payments related to early education, typically for preprimary programs. Since preprimary programs fall outside the immediate scope of this primer, we will summarize these payments only briefly.[clxxxi]
Early education payments include $1 million in fiscal 2007 for grants made to intermediate school districts for programs accepted by the “early childhood investment corporation;”[clxxxii] $1.75 million for programs to teach parenting skills;[clxxxiii] $5 million for programs teaching early math and reading to preschool-age children;[clxxxiv] $500,000 for the monthly distribution of books to children from birth to 5 years old; and $400,000 for an “early intervening” pilot program that instructs teachers on how to “monitor individual pupil learning and how to ... reduce the need for special education placement.”
The state is also financing “comprehensive compensatory programs” commonly referred to as the “school readiness program.” In fiscal 2007, the state provided school readiness monies of with $78.8 million[clxxxv] to conventional local school districts, intermediate school districts and charter schools, and of $12.25 million to nonprofit organizations. The amount of money sent to districts is based on half of the percentage of students eligible to receive free lunch in first through fifth grade in the school year two years before the current year multiplied by the average kindergarten enrollment on count day in the two immediately previous years.[clxxxvi] This eligibility estimation is multiplied by $3,300, and the money is distributed in a prioritized list beginning with districts that have the highest number of eligible children. This distribution continues until the appropriation is exhausted.
The grants for school readiness programs are intended to be spent for preschool, “parenting education programs,” and/or 4-year-old students who have at least two risk factors as defined by the State Board of Education in 1988.[clxxxvii] For private or public nonprofit organizations, the monies are given as competitive grants to applicants who meet certain criteria[clxxxviii] for providing programs that prepare “children for success in school, including language, early literacy, and early mathematics.”
In 2007, $30 million of state money was allocated to reimburse conventional school districts, ISDs and “secondary area vocational-technical centers” (usually associated with a particular region) for “added costs” for vocational-technical education programs. Districts and vocational-technical centers must apply for the grants. The added cost reimbursement determined by the Michigan Department of Education is based on the number of students served by such programs and the programs’ length. The amount paid to districts cannot be more than 75 percent of the amount that the department has determined as a program’s added cost.[clxxxix]
Bilingual Instruction Programs
School districts offering language instruction for students with limited English abilities can qualify for both state and federal grants[cxc] based on the number of district students who are in need of such programs. Districts can receive state bilingual education grants for a particular student for no more than three years.
The state makes a number of other payments to districts for instructional programs with specific purposes. These include payments in fiscal 2007 as follows:
A total of $20 million — approximately $54 for each sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grader — “to achieve the middle school mathematics standards and benchmarks adopted by the state board”;[cxci]
$285,000 for intermediate school districts’ summer programs for “advanced and accelerated students”;
$250,000 to provide five schools with $50,000 grants for starting international baccalaureate programs (the grant is competitive);[cxcii]
a $250,000 grant to Michigan State University to test the effectiveness of “conductive learning” for students with cerebral palsy;
grants to intermediate school districts and the Detroit Public Schools totaling $2 million to establish programs that allow students to graduate from high school with both a high school diploma and a certificate or degree from a community college or public university in a “health sciences” field;
$3,416,000 to 33 “mathematics and science centers” (cooperative programs among higher education institutions, school districts, science museums and professional organizations) meant to aid math and science education,[cxciii] including $1 million to facilities that could provide curricular and professional development assistance to school districts;
$1 million for up to 240,000 sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grade students to participate in a remediation program that includes Web-based testing in reading, mathematics, science and social studies;
$6 million for the “Michigan Virtual High School,” which is intended to provide various Web-based educational and test-preparation programs;[cxciv]
$1.5 million in federal money for grants that facilitate the integration of wireless technology in the classroom under a program called “Freedom to Learn”;[cxcv]
$150,000 for districts that match 50 percent of the state’s grant for students who participate in a particular robotics competition.
The state also allocated $27,925,200 in fiscal 2007 to districts for the cost of administering the Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests and the Michigan Merit Examination in compliance with state and federal laws that require standardized student testing.[cxcvi]
‘Youth Challenge Program’
In fiscal 2007, the state appropriated $1,253,100.00 to pay the Battle Creek Public Schools for students enrolled in a “nationally administered community-based education and youth mentoring program” overseen by the Michigan Department of Military and Veterans Affairs.
Children of Incarcerated Parents
The state provides selective grants to conventional public school districts to finance programs for students whose parents are currently incarcerated.[cxcvii] A district must apply to the Michigan Department of Education to receive the grant, and a district is eligible in fiscal 2007 only if 60 percent or more of the district’s 2005 student population qualified for free breakfast, milk, or lunch under the federal school lunch program. In fiscal 2007, the state appropriated $1,875,000.00, which was to be disbursed in $75,000 amounts, unless the district was a “district of the first class,”[cxcviii] in which case, the district was to receive a grant of $150,000.
Local Property Tax Revenue Adjustments
The state makes payments to certain conventional and intermediate school districts to make up for certain decreases in local property tax revenues.
The state is allocating $50.2 million to conventional and intermediate school districts in fiscal 2007[cxcix] to compensate the districts for properties within the districts’ borders that would have produced local property tax revenue, but were tax-exempt as part of a “renaissance zone” established in the area to spur local economic development (see “Renaissance Zone” under “Property.”)
The state allocated $2.4 million to community colleges and conventional and intermediate school districts for land that is the property of the Department of Natural Resources and therefore does not generate local property tax revenue.[cc] These grants are commonly referred to as “Payments in Lieu of Taxes.”[cci]
Intermediate school districts that operate vocational-technical education programs and that have an ISD taxable value of less than $160,500 per student are eligible for state payments so that the ISD receives revenues as if the district’s taxable value were $160,500 per student. As much as $9 million was available for this purpose in fiscal 2007, though the payments had to be used for the same purpose as ISD vocational-technical education property taxes would be.
“Geographically Isolated” Districts
To qualify for this grant, districts must offer kindergarten through twelfth grade, have fewer than 250 students and have school buildings that are at least 30 miles from another public school in the Upper Peninsula or that are located on an island not connected to the mainland by a bridge. The amount that districts receive under this provision is developed by ISD superintendents and ultimately approved by the state superintendent of public instruction. Five districts qualify, and the highest per-student payment is $3,285 (Whitefish), while the lowest is $869 (Detour Area). The other three districts receiving the grant are Burt Township ($1,781 per student), Beaver Island ($1,575 per student) and Mackinac Island ($1,105 per student).
Certain Transportation Programs
Up to 75 percent of the cost of bus driver safety instruction courses, driver tests and driver compensation for required training time is to be paid by the state to public colleges and universities and intermediate school districts providing such courses and assessments. In addition, the state pays the cost of transportation of private school general education students for auxiliary programs provided by conventional school districts. As much as $1.34 million of the total amount distributed under this section reimburses districts for the cost of state police inspections of school bus and transport vehicles. The total appropriation under this section in fiscal 2007 is $2,965,000.
Compensation for Reduced Foundation Allowance
This grant was provided to a district that had its foundation allowance prorated because it had an emergency financial manager, that experienced FTE student growth of at least 20 percent between 2005 and 2006, had at least 60 percent of its students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch and that had a 10 mill debt-service property tax. The state provided one such grant in fiscal 2007: a payment of $125,000 to the Inkster City School District.
School Building Mapping Pilot Project
In fiscal 2007, certain conventional and intermediate school districts were provided state grants to generate maps to be used in emergency situations, including “the release of hazardous material, the presence of an armed individual on or near the premises, an act of terrorism, or a related emergency.” Districts compete for the grants and must meet several criteria, including having experienced an emergency in or around school buildings in the last five years or being judged to be a likely future emergency site by the state Education Department and state police. Districts could receive up to three such grants, and in total, $350,000 worth of the grants are being distributed in fiscal 2007.
School-Based Crisis Intervention Project
In fiscal 2007, a district is eligible for a payment under the “school-based crisis intervention project” if it has more than 9,000 FTE students, a student population at least 60 percent of which are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and a foundation allowance of less than $7,310. The grant was awarded competitively to the Pontiac City School District, which received $300,000.[ccii]
Library for Special Education Assessments
This $250,000 grant is to support Central Michigan University’s lending library, which loans special education assessment materials to intermediate and conventional school districts.
Automated External Defibrillator Purchases
The Legislature appropriated $100,000 in fiscal 2007 for schools to purchase defibrillators, devices used to establish a normal heart rhythm in instances of cardiac arrest. Districts must provide local matching money that is at least half the amount granted to them by the state under this section.
[clxix] By March 2, 1998, a district that wished to receive a “nonparticipant payment” had to submit to the state treasurer a resolution stating that the district’s board “desires to settle and compromise, in their entirety, any claim or claims that the district (or intermediate district) has or had for violations of section 29 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963” (MCL § 388.1611f(7)).
[clxx] For a discussion of the former section 32e payment, see “The Foundation Allowance: General Education cont....”
[clxxi] “Geographically isolated” districts are discussed later in this section.
[clxxii] The average referred to in the statute is the mean.
[clxxiii] MCL § 388.1631a(18). The law states, “For pupils for whom the results of at least the applicable Michigan education assessment program (MEAP) test have been received, at-risk pupil also includes a pupil who does not meet the other criteria under this subsection but who did not achieve at least a score of level 2 on the most recent MEAP English language arts, mathematics, or science test for which results for the pupil have been received. For pupils for whom the results of the Michigan merit examination have been received, at-risk pupil also includes a pupil who does not meet the other criteria under this subsection but who did not achieve proficiency on the reading component of the most recent Michigan merit examination for which results for the pupil have been received, did not achieve proficiency on the mathematics component of the most recent Michigan merit examination for which results for the pupil have been received, or did not achieve basic competency on the science component of the most recent Michigan merit examination for which results for the pupil have been received. For pupils in grades K-3, at-risk pupil also includes a pupil who is at risk of not meeting the district’s core academic curricular objectives in English language arts or mathematics.”
[clxxiv] The foundation allowance includes any section 20j adjustment for hold-harmless school districts (see “The ‘20j Supplement’ for Hold-Harmless Districts,” under "The Foundation Allowance: General Education cont...").
[clxxv] Note that section 388.1631a(1) appropriates $319,450,000, but certain amounts of funding under this section (388.1631a(5)-(8)) are to be used for other purposes, such as health facilities for children and adolescents. Once money for these programs is removed from the total, $310,457,000 remains for at-risk students. At-risk monies can be used for such programs as adult education, including preparation for the general education development (“GED”) test and for English language classes (see MCL § 388.1631a(12)).
[clxxvii] These meal programs include nonpublic schools, so in states like Michigan, where the state is constitutionally prohibited from distributing money to private schools, the federal government distributes it. (42 U.S.C.A. § 1774(b)).
[clxxviii] This $322,506,000 figure is actually the sum of two figures: $320 million for the national school lunch program, and $2,506,000 for the emergency food assistance program.
[clxxix] Schools “in severe need” are defined as those in which 40 percent of the lunches served in the “most recent second preceding school year” were free and reduced-price, or in which the department estimates that a school would have qualified if the school had served lunches in that year. (42 U.S.C.A. § 1773(d)(1)(A)).
[clxxx] According to MCL § 388.1631f(3), the cost of breakfasts is “equal to the lesser of the district’s actual cost or 100% of the cost of a breakfast served by an efficiently operated breakfast program as determined by the [Michigan] [D]epartment [of Education]. ...”
[clxxxi] Also outside the scope of this primer are adult education programs, which receive a total of $24,000,000 in fiscal 2007 (MCL § 388.1707). For a summary, see “School Aid Act Compiled and Appendices,” B-18.
[clxxxii] According to the governor’s office, the “Early Childhood Investment Corporation … will establish standards and guidelines for early childhood development activities that will be implemented throughout the state by the ECIC in partnership with local [and] intermediate school districts (ISDs).” See Office of the Governor, “Granholm Administration Launches Statewide Early Childhood Development Program,” Feb. 22, 2005, www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-23442_21974-111022--,00.html (accessed April 30, 2007).
[clxxxiii] MCL § 388.1632c: $1,750,000 for “community-based collaborative prevention services designed to promote marriage and foster positive parenting skills; improve parent/child interaction, especially for children 0-3 years of age; promote access to needed community services; increase local capacity to serve families at risk; improve school readiness; and support healthy family environments that discourage alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use” (MCL § 388.1632c(1)).
[clxxxiv] MCL § 388.1632j: These monies are distributed to intermediate school districts that offer programs meeting certain criteria (MCL § 1632j(2), (3), which include a local public or private funding match of at least 20 percent of the projected budget) and are based on a 150.33 percent increase of 2006 funding (MCL § 1632j(5)(a)).
[clxxxv] MCL § 388.1632d(1): This is comprised of $78,600,000 from the school aid fund and $200,000 from the general fund. The general fund amount is to be used to study the program’s effectiveness (388.1632d(3)).
[clxxxvi] MCL § 388.1638. Districts with more than 315 students eligible receive an amount based on 65 percent of the total number of eligible students (388.1639(4)). For some districts, the number used to calculate funding may be based on the number of students that district officials report they are able to serve if that number is less than the total number of eligible students (388.1639(1)). Districts that use this lower “able-to-serve” number may increase their grants by offering a full-day program, rather than the traditional part-day program. Offering this full-day program allows the district to double the number of students counted under this section (388.1639(1), (9)).
[clxxxvii] These risk factors are “low birth weight,” “developmentally immature,” “physical and/or sexual abuse and neglect,” “nutritionally deficient,” “long-term or chronic illness,” “diagnosed handicapping condition (main streamed),” “lack of stable support system of residence,” “destructive or violent temperament,” “substance abuse or addiction,” “language deficiency or immaturity,” “non-English or limited English speaking household,” “family history of low school achievement or dropout,” “family history of delinquency,” “family history of diagnosed family problems,” “low parent/sibling educational attainment or illiteracy,” “single parent,” “unemployed parent/parents,” “low family income,” “family density,” “parental/sibling loss by death or parental loss by divorce,” “teenage parent,” “chronically ill parent/sibling (physical, mental or emotional),” “incarcerated parent,” “housing in rural or segregated area,” and “other.” See www.michigan.gov/documents/MSRP_Risk_Factors_11372_7.PDF.
[clxxxviii] According to the Michigan Department of Education’s Web site, children in candidate programs must have two risk factors among 25 identified, and more than 50 percent of the students must be defined as low-income. (See Michigan Department of Education Web site under “Resources and Related Information,” available on the Web at www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-5234_6809-20509--,00.html (accessed Jan. 2, 2007).)
[clxxxix] For exceptions, see MCL §§ 388.1661a(2), 388.1661a(3).
[cxc] In fiscal 2007, these state grants are composed of $2,800,000 of state money (MCL § 388.1641) and $1,232,100 of federal money (MCL § 388.1641a).
[cxci] According to MCL § 388.1699c(4): “It is the intent of the [L]egislature to continue to allocate funds under this section for subsequent fiscal years based on improved pupil performance. It is also the intent of the [L]egislature to develop standards for determining improvement in pupil performance by March 1, 2007.”
[cxcii] MCL § 388.1657a(1), (2)(b): These are limited to international baccalaureate programs that would enroll 75 or more students in each program grade or 200 students total (1657a(2)(e)).
[cxciii] MCL § 388.1699; for a listing of the facilities, see “2002 Master Plan for Michigan’s Mathematics and Science Centers,” (Michigan Department of Education, 2002), 11-14, www.mscenters.org/documents/MASTER121004.pdf (accessed Feb. 22, 2007). The centers are not schools.
[cxciv] For a breakdown of the allocation and a description of the component programs, see MCL § 388.1698. In 2007, the school aid fund appropriation for this program is $500,000; the federal appropriation is $3,250,000; and the state general fund amount is $2,250,000.
[cxcv] MCL § 388.1698b(1), (2). The federal funds are those appropriated in MCL § 388.1611(1) and are programmed to be spent as Title II “education technology grants funds” (388.1698b(1)).
[cxcvi] MCL § 388.1704. For the relevant state laws, see MCL §§ 388.1704a, 388.1704b, 380.1279, 380.1279g and 380.1280b. For federal laws, see 20 U.S.C. § 7301. The state portion is $19,500,000, while the federal portion is $8,425,200.
[cxcvii] MCL § 388.1631c. The program provides, among other things, “video conferencing or audio conferencing opportunities, or both, between a district pupil and his or her incarcerated parent or parents on a regular basis” (MCL § 388.1631c(2)(a)).
[cxcviii] The only “district of the first class” in Michigan is the Detroit City School District.
[cxcix] MCL § 388.1626a. In fiscal 2007, $37,650,000 is being appropriated from the state school aid fund and $12,550,000 is being appropriated from the state’s general fund.
[cc] For information on the assessment of these properties, see MCL § 324.2154.
[cci] For a report on the DNR’s property and payments under this section, see “Payment in Lieu of Taxes Report, Taxation Year 2005,” (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 2006), www.michigan.gov/documents/2005PILTReportCover_163934_7.pdf (accessed Feb. 22, 2007).
[ccii] Pontiac’s approved grant application can be viewed at www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_O_179650_7.pdf (accessed April 30, 2007).