Michigan Senate Bill SB0166

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Report Pass: 5/8/25
• Refer: 5/8/25
• Report Pass: 5/13/25
• Engrossed: 5/14/25
• Refer: 5/14/25

Caption

Appropriations: school aid; fiscal year 2025-2026 appropriations for k-12 school aid; provide for. Amends secs. 11 & 17b of 1979 PA 94 (MCL 388.1611 & 388.1617b).

Impact

The proposed changes will solidify financial support for educational institutions, particularly in areas serving economically disadvantaged populations. This funding is structured to ensure that schools not only provide academic education but also cater to the physical and mental health needs of the students. By introducing earmarked funds for health screenings and behavioral health provider integration, SB 166 aims to support a comprehensive educational approach that acknowledges the link between a student’s health and their academic success.

Summary

Senate Bill 166 aims to amend the state school aid act of 1979, specifically regarding appropriations for K-12 education for the fiscal years 2024-2026. The bill outlines funding allocations that include significant amounts earmarked for health services for children and adolescents, particularly targeting primary health care initiatives. This initiative is essential for addressing the physical and mental health needs of students, potentially leading to better educational outcomes as healthier students tend to perform better academically. The bill suggests a structured approach to enhancing the quality of health services within educational environments across the state.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 166 is generally supportive, particularly from advocates of child health and education who view the bill as a much-needed response to the increasing mental health challenges faced by students. However, discussions may also reflect skepticism or opposition from those concerned about the adequacy of funding and its distribution across public school settings, especially in a climate of budget constraints. Legislators supporting the bill argue it promotes educational equity and essential health services, while detractors may point to potential inefficiencies in the implementation of funded programs.

Contention

While the bill appears to garner support, there are notable points of contention regarding how the funds will be managed and distributed. Questions remain about ensuring that every district can effectively access these funds, particularly in rural or economically depressed areas that may struggle with infrastructure to support health initiatives. Additionally, the accountability and outcomes measurement of these health expenditure programs could become a focal point for debate as stakeholders seek assurance that the investments in student health will translate into tangible academic improvements.