State Superintendent Michael Rice says the Michigan House and Senate’s failure to pass a budget is more than a political standoff — it’s a looming disruption for classrooms, cafeterias, and communities. More than 40 days have passed since the July 1 deadline required by state law, which carries no penalty for lawmakers. Rice says the lack of consequences is part of the problem and is urging legislative leaders to resolve their differences before the start of the new school year, calling the delay “unacceptable” and a direct threat to the state’s progress on school funding equity.
“It’s unacceptable that the state Legislature can flout state law because it’s the state Legislature and presumably there are no consequences,” Rice said. “Local school leaders are going to be risk averse, they’re going to be especially cautious, and that will lead to staffing on the margins. So the Legislature needs to pass a budget. The budget needs to be a reasonable budget that continues our progress towards adequate and equitable school funding.”
The impasse between the Republican-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate has left districts across Michigan unsure how much funding they’ll have when classes begin. In the absence of a budget, school leaders are weighing difficult decisions on hiring, programming, and student support services. The uncertainty is already altering plans for the year ahead — in some places, before students have even stepped into the building.
One of the biggest flashpoints is the state’s universal school meals program. Michigan began funding free breakfast and lunch for all public school students, regardless of family income, during the 2023-24 school year. The program is supplemented by federal dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Community Eligibility Provision, but the state portion of the funding runs out Sept. 30. The Democratic-led Senate passed an education budget in May that preserves the free meals program. The House budget, advanced by Republicans, omits it entirely.
Republicans argue their plan supports schools by increasing the per-pupil foundation allowance by $400, from $9,608 to $10,008, while giving local districts the flexibility to decide whether to fund meals or other programs. Their budget also calls for cuts to transportation funding for rural districts, mental health services, and school safety programs — changes they say will help control costs. Democrats counter that removing dedicated funding for these programs will harm children, particularly in low-income and rural communities.
The uncertainty has already triggered changes in at least one district. Okemos Public Schools notified parents last week that it will no longer provide free meals to all students, reverting to the previous income-based eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches. Students who don’t meet the federal guidelines will be required to pay for their meals.
Rice says that decision was premature because the program is fully funded through Oct. 1, and he’s urging other districts not to follow suit. In a memo to school leaders last week, he wrote that “MDE strongly recommends that local districts offer free meals at the beginning of this school year to take advantage of the student health, attendance, and performance benefits of school meals.”
He also emphasized that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has made it clear districts cannot reverse a decision to opt out of the program midyear. “The department cautions districts from making too quick a decision regarding participation in the meals program because the Agriculture Department has made it clear that if a district changes its participation, those changes cannot be reversed within the same school year,” Rice wrote.
The Okemos decision has fueled more political finger-pointing, with Republicans blaming Democrats for insisting on program-specific spending and Democrats accusing Republicans of jeopardizing students’ nutrition. But Rice’s focus is on keeping the program intact until lawmakers finalize a budget. “The budget needs to be a reasonable budget that continues our progress towards adequate and equitable school funding,” he reiterated.
Beyond school meals, Rice says the lack of a budget creates ripple effects that touch nearly every part of school operations. Hiring decisions are the most immediate concern. Salaries and staffing represent the largest portion of school budgets, and without knowing how much money they’ll have, district leaders tend to hold off on filling positions. That hesitation, Rice warns, will likely lead to fewer teachers in classrooms, larger class sizes, and reduced access to specialized staff like counselors, reading specialists, and paraprofessionals.
“When you don’t know what your revenues are going to be, you’re not going to be as aggressive in hiring as you otherwise would,” he said. “And that’s going to have an impact.”
The uncertainty also affects contracts for curriculum, extracurricular activities, and student support services. Many districts finalize these agreements during the summer to be ready for the first day of school. Without a clear budget, those plans are delayed or scaled back, leaving students and families without clarity on what the school year will offer.
The political divide in Lansing is part of a larger struggle over the role of state funding in public education. While both chambers say they want to support Michigan schools, their visions differ on how to allocate resources. Democrats have pushed for targeted investments in programs they say level the playing field for disadvantaged students, including universal meals, transportation aid for rural communities, and mental health resources. Republicans have argued for more flexibility at the local level, paired with across-the-board increases to per-pupil funding.
For school leaders, the debate in Lansing is less about ideology and more about predictability. Without a budget in place, they can’t lock in staffing, launch programs, or assure families that key supports will be available. The free meals program is a prime example: districts that drop it now, only to see it restored in the final budget, will have lost months of participation and disrupted a service that many families rely on daily.
Rice has been clear that feeding students should not be treated as a bargaining chip.
The delay comes at a time when Michigan schools are still working to recover from pandemic-era disruptions and the expiration of federal COVID-relief funds. Those one-time dollars allowed districts to expand tutoring, hire additional support staff, and invest in technology upgrades. With that funding winding down, state dollars will be critical to sustaining many of those efforts.
For districts already facing declining enrollment or rising operational costs, the uncertainty compounds existing challenges. Some administrators are concerned that if the budget stalemate drags into the fall, they may have to make cuts that will be difficult to reverse later in the school year.
Rice’s warning is blunt: the longer Lansing waits, the more harm is done to Michigan’s students.
Whether lawmakers can reach an agreement before students return to class remains uncertain. But as the first day of school approaches, the stakes are clear — without a budget, Michigan’s classrooms and cafeterias will start the year under a cloud of uncertainty, and students will bear the weight of decisions made far from their desks.
About Post Author
