Titled "The Durant Case" - The Underfunding of Special Education Programs.
House Democratic Policy Staff, Greg Steimel
DATED 10-11-96

At the bottom of this page it says "The Governor has disclosed that he
intends to seek the repeal of all state special education mandates, in order
to avoid liability in future years.  The reaction by the special education
community is predictable."

page 11.
"The Court remanded all other issues to the Court of Appeals but gave no
guidance as to how they should be interpreted.  This failure to provide
guidance as to how the other programs with federal / state interaction should
be interpreted left the parties in the Durant case in a quandary as to how
other federally mandated or federally funded programs--school lunch,
bilingual education, special education and special education transportation,
would be treated with respect to sec. 29."

"State defendants felt somewhat certain that either the federal character of
these programs would be considered by the Court of Appeals in deciding the
Durant or, failing that, the Supreme Court would grant leave to address these
programs and to articulate the scope of any retroactive obligation."

"Retroactive application is an especially important issue in this case given
the magnitude of potential liability, the fact that the measurement
methodology was not definitively articulated until 1992, and the final
sentence of the Schmidt opinion indicated this ambiguity:  "We indicate no
opinion regarding whether the method of measurement recognized today should
be applied fully retroactively or fully prospectively, or whether limited
retroactivity is appropriate." 441 Mich 236, at 264."

page 19 is a chart listing program areas that were awarded in the Durant
lawsuit.  Marked "yes" under the column of "on-going liability" is Special
Education, Special Education Transportation, Special Education Recapture and
School Lunch Program."

Memo: from Jan Baxter to Rich Baldwin
Subject:  Summary of Schmidt vs. Department of Education for MAASE
Presentation
Title:  Impact of Schmidt vs. the Department of Education on Special
Education Programs
DATED 10-12-92

page two:
"There is a separate case being litigated dealing with reimbursement of
special education, which is the Durant vs. State Board of Education.  If the
Supreme Court ultimately determines special education is a state rather than
a federal mandate, the state will be obliged to include social security costs
in the reimbursement.  Reimbursement would be based on a percent of costs,
not a percent of added cost."

"Section 29 was designed to bar the state from shifting the cost of
activities or services required by state law to local units of government. 
The statewide-to-statewide interpretation of sec. 29 in no way conflicts with
the purposes of the amendment.  As long as the state is prevented from
shifting its funding responsibilities onto local governments on an overall,
statewide basis, the antishifting goal of sec. 29 is fully realized and
effectuated.  Because plaintiffs have not alleged any aggregate, statewide
shifting, their claim under sec. 29 fails as a matter of law, as does their
claim regarding social security coverage."

Memo:  Office of State Budget, Elaine Madigan Mills
Durant II Court of Appeals Decision, Preliminary Summary
DATED 10-21-99

"Upon initial review, it appears that technical changes to the state school
aid act may be required to comply with the Court's decision."

Memo from Durant Liason Committee To Board of Education
DATED 8-4-00

3rd paragraph:
"As before, this is an exercise in smoke and mirrors.  The plain fact is that
the reason no additional funding is being provided for special education
funding purposes under this new law is because the State's Headlee Amendment
funding obligation is being paid for, dollar for dollar, out of each school
district's foundation allowance funding.  In other words, we, the local
school districts, are paying for the State's funding obligation under the
Headlee Amendment out of foundation allowance revenues guaranteed to our
clients for other purposes under Proposal A.  It does not matter how large or
small our special education costs may be, under this legislation we will have
to absorb every cent of that cost out of our foundation allowance revenues."

Governor's Office Memo