Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 388.1752 (2026)

Reports for determination of allocation of funds; information; reports of educational progress.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE STATE SCHOOL AID ACT OF 1979

Act 94 of 1979

388.1752 Reports for determination of allocation of funds; information; reports of educational progress.

Sec. 152.

Except for reports due on other dates specified in this act, each district and intermediate district shall furnish to the center or the department, as applicable, before the first Monday in November of each year those reports the department considers necessary for the determination of the allocation of funds under this act. In order to receive funds under this act, each district and intermediate district shall also furnish to the center or the department, as applicable, the information the department considers necessary for the administration of this act, including information necessary to determine compliance with article 16, and for the provision of reports of educational progress to the senate and house committees responsible for education, the senate and house appropriations subcommittees responsible for appropriations to school districts, the senate and house fiscal agencies, and the state budget director, as appropriate. This section does not require a district or intermediate district to submit any information to both the center and the department.

History: 1979, Act 94, Eff. Oct. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 320, Imd. Eff. Dec. 10, 1980 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 197, Eff. Oct. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 207, Eff. Oct. 1, 1990 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 118, Imd. Eff. Oct. 11, 1991 ;-- Am. 1993, Act 175, Eff. Oct. 1, 1993 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 297, Imd. Eff. July 26, 2000 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 351, Eff. Oct. 1, 2004

Compiler's Notes:

Enacting section 1 of Act 351 of 2004 provides:

“Enacting section 1. In accordance with section 30 of article IX of the state constitution of 1963, total state spending in this amendatory act from state sources for fiscal year 2004-2005 is estimated at $11,173,900,000.00 and state appropriations to be paid to local units of government for fiscal year 2004-2005 are estimated at $11,113,650,400.00.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 2002–2014 · leading case: Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Adair v. State, 680 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 16× “§ 388.1752 and EO 2000-9 imposed a new or increased mandate, was found by the Court of Appeals not to violate the Headlee Amendment.”

Adair v. State of Michigan, 785 N.W.2d 119 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 14× “Under MCL 388.1752, [4] in order to receive yearly funding, school districts must furnish all data that the state considers necessary for the administration of the State School Aid Act.”

Adair v. State of Michigan, 651 N.W.2d 393 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 20× “[MCL 388.1752, as amended by 1989 PA 197 , § 152.”

Adair v. State, Dept. of Educ., 705 N.W.2d 541 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “This original action returns on remand from our Supreme Court to explore the factual support for plaintiffs’ claim that the record-keeping obligations required of plaintiff school districts by MCL 388.1752 and Executive Order No. 2000-9 (EO) constitute new, unfunded mandates in…”

Adair v. Michigan, 860 N.W.2d 93 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “In the first Adair case decided by this Court, we held that the lack of funding for CEPI reporting requirements presented a “colorable claim under Headlee” because the mandates “require[d] the districts to actively participate in maintaining data that the state requires for its…”

Adair v. State, 760 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “We charged the special master with the task of determining whether the record-keeping obligations imposed on plaintiff school districts as a result of MCL 388.1752 and Executive Order No. 2000-9 constituted either a new activity or service or an increase in the level of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.