Michigan is in track to make record investments in the quality of life for children and schools.
My friend Mitchell Robinson, a member of the State board of education, shared the following good news:
The State of Michigan passed a third consecutive historic education budget last night—and did so with bipartisan support, meaning the changes included in this budget can go into effect immediately.
It’s amazing to see what a state education budget can look like when you have pro-education legislators in charge–and teachers chairing the House and Senate Education Committees and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on PreK-12.
The budget includes:
•universal school meals
•foundation allowance increase of 5% — the largest in state history
•fully funded special education programs
•expanded Pre-K programs
•student teacher stipends for K-12
The budget also appropriates $11 million to a K-5 Music Education Pilot Program that provides funding to school districts that currently do not have elementary music instruction to hire certified music teachers.
Budgets are about more than dollars—they are moral documents; and in Michigan we are showing that we value our children, our families, and our future by directing funding to programs and initiatives that strengthen our schools and communities.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
There is a strategy in the candy business. Over time a candy bar, say, is reduced in size, little by little to increase profits. Then in one fell swoop the bar size is increased 25% (or whatever) with a price increase that is commensurate, making the bar much as it was before it is chiseled down in size, but now with a much higher price point. It seems that the educational systems in this country are abused and abused and then, a “massive increase” is offered, but if you move out and look at the big picture, we are still behind where we would have been had the old trend continued.
I pay no attention to such “huge increases” (5% increase in . . .) if the trend line isn’t shown. The old saw from business is that workers had their wages cut in half, but when they threatened to go on strike, they were given a 100% increase in wages. So, where did they end up? Right back where they were. (The 100% increase was based upon the wages cut in half, not the original wages.)
“I pay no attention to such “huge increases” (5% increase in . . .) if the trend line isn’t shown. The old saw from business is that workers had their wages cut in half, but when they threatened to go on strike, they were given a 100% increase in wages. So, where did they end up? Right back where they were. (The 100% increase was based upon the wages cut in half, not the original wages.)”
H-m-m-m.