Lansing Testimony

Grosse Pointe Public School System Board of Education Trustee Sean Cotton’s Feb. 4 testimony given before the Michigan House Education and Workforce Development Committee

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Sean Cotton. I am a trustee of the Grosse Pointe Public School System, one of seven elected school board members, but I want to be clear that I am speaking only for myself today and not on behalf of the Board of Education. This legislation surfaced quickly, and to be frank, I do not believe any school boards would have had time to meet and provide formal input. 

I am an elected official representing a community of about 50,000 residents. I strongly believe in local representation and in decisions being made as close to the community as possible. I am also a corporate attorney, a local business owner, and a newspaper owner. I generally lean conservative and support legislators when they make decisions grounded in accountability, local control, respect for the rule of law and representative government, and respect for taxpayers.

I am here to strongly oppose House Bills 5310, 5311, and 5312.

These bills would mandate Schools of Choice statewide, eliminate the ability to opt out, and strip districts of nearly all discretion beyond capacity. This is not a minor policy adjustment. It is a sweeping structural change to public education in Michigan.

What is also troubling is how these bills have been advanced. Based on testimony you received last week, it is clear the sponsors did not meaningfully engage with districts that have opted out of Schools of Choice or with neighboring districts that would be directly affected. No one reached out to the Grosse Pointe Public School System. Districts that have opted out of Schools of Choice educate tens of thousands of students and employ thousands of teachers. Policy of this magnitude should not be built on anecdote rather than data.

For important context, the Grosse Pointe Public School System has voted against participation in Schools of Choice every year since it was created in 1996. It is my understanding that those votes have always been unanimous, across trustees of differing political views and without regard to partisanship. That long-standing local decision would be wiped away by these bills.

A central flaw in this legislation is the concept of capacity. In GPPSS, facilities studies suggest space for approximately 4,000 additional students. That number has nothing to do with staffing. Is that capacity? Michigan already faces a teacher shortage. If students move between districts, where do the additional teachers come from?

More importantly, what happens to the districts that lose students, staff, and funding? What would the impact be on neighboring districts like Eastpointe, Harper Woods, and Detroit if thousands of students were suddenly pulled away? Every district carefully balances its finances, staffing, and programming based on stable enrollment. This legislation would create massive disruptions not just for districts gaining students, but for those losing them as well.

School districts fund school buildings through voter approved bonds and sinking funds. School district boundaries are not arbitrary as stated last week. They are taxpayer boundaries. Those lines determine who pays for long-term obligations and school millages. That is a principle I would expect legislators to respect.

These bills also eliminate district discretion over program type and grade level admissions. Many districts achieve strong outcomes by educating students consistently from kindergarten through graduation. That continuity matters. This legislation does not allow for limited or program-based choice. It forces open enrollment based solely on capacity and disregards educational models built over decades.

Additionally, something that I find troubling is that my constituents have been told by staffers of the bills sponsors that this legislation is about transparency or applies only to districts already participating in Schools of Choice. That is not true based on the bill language. The fact that these misstatements are circulating is deeply concerning.

Finally, what I am struggling with, and what many constituents are asking me, is why this effort is being driven by the Republican Party. I have been asked repeatedly why Republicans are advancing a policy that eliminates local control, disregards taxpayer boundaries, and centralizes decision making at the state level. I do not have a good answer for them, because this approach runs counter to the conservative principles I have always understood.

Taken altogether, it appears that well-funded special interest groups are pushing a policy of disruption for its own sake. The result is chaos and instability imposed on public education systems that are already working to balance budgets, staff shortages, and student needs. That is not reform of public education, it is chaos.

If there are problems with Schools of Choice, I believe they would best be addressed by working with districts that have opted in. Forcing participation statewide is not reform; it is disruption.

I respectfully urge this committee not to advance these bills.

Thank you.