(Ed. Note: This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news organization. Visit the newsroom online: bridgemi.com.)
By Kim Kozlowski
Bridge Michigan
When Michigan officials this year lauded a record-high 82.8 percent high school graduation rate in 2024, special education advocates pointed out a vastly different outcome: only 61 percent of students with disabilities graduated.
That is one of several metrics showing what students with disabilities are up against in Michigan: They score below their peers in Michigan and across the nation in several areas, according to the first-ever Michigan Special Education Benchmarks Report released Dec. 3 by the Autism Alliance of Michigan.
The group found 77 percent of disabled students are secluded or restrained, 40 percent miss more than 18 or more days or school per year and 60 percent of their parents report their schools do not “facilitate meaningful involvement.”
The report is a call for more funding and inclusion in Michigan, noting that state and federal money covers 44 percent of special education costs, forcing local districts to cover the remainder.
“Students with disabilities can be educated, can be contributors to society,” said Heather Eckner, director of statewide education with the Autism Alliance of Michigan.
“But if our public school system, where the majority of them are educated, is not fulfilling their obligation to prepare them for future education and prepare them for independent living, then we are not doing our jobs to get them to be ready to be citizens in our state.”
The report also found that disabled students have a dropout rate of 21 percent, twice their nondisabled peers. The disparities widen for disabled students of color or from lower-income homes.
The 92-page benchmarks report was unveiled during a three-day summit last week in Lansing to observe the 50th anniversary of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, federal legislation guaranteeing an education for students with disabilities.
It was presented to lawmakers in tandem with a recently-released report, MI Special Education Finance Reform Blueprint, which calls for $1.28 billion more in special education funding atop the state’s annual budget of $2.8 billion.
After a year of research and $500,000 in state funding, the reform report notes that the funding model reimburses districts for only 28.6 percent of student services, leading to inequities based on student addresses.
In addition to more money, the plan calls for funding based on student needs.
Advocates say the need for change is urgent: Nearly 15 percent of the state’s K-12 population, 223,100, have disabilities and the share is expected to rise.
“This isn’t something that is going to mitigate itself or go away,” said Eckner. “We are going to have to have real leadership in the state of Michigan. We are going to have to have real, robust solutions.”
Advocates say the report, which will be released annually, comes amid longtime frustrations among parents.
State Rep. Regina Weiss, D-Oak Park, said funding is not as high a priority “as it should be” but lawmakers may support changes.
“It’s definitely possible,” said Weiss, a former school teacher who has two children with IEPs.
“There’s more awareness and (continued) public pressure on the Legislature and governor’s office will actually get it done.”
Dozens of parents, educators and researchers attended the special education summit, primarily from the grassroots coalition, Michigan Parent, Advocate & Attorney Coalition, affiliated with the Autism Alliance for Michigan.
Among them was Cass County resident Christina Beuschel, whose 11-year-old daughter relies on a device to assist with her limited speech.
Beuschel said that her daughter spent two days in the least restrictive school environment in first grade until school staff members told Beuschel that her daughter would need to be placed in a secluded learning center outside of the general student population, and switch her from a costly communication program that her daughter had used since she was four years old.
This was done without a meeting, written notice or exploring any other options, Beuschel said.
“It was a classic case of lacking resources to educate staff on (my daughter’s) mode of communication, and it felt as if they assumed that because she cannot speak, that she cannot learn,” Beuschel told reporters during a Tuesday briefing. “Our current special education funding structure in Michigan does not match the unique needs of somebody like my daughter.”
Waterford Township resident Elyse Swenson agreed. She said she grew up with dyslexia, didn’t have the supports she needed and vowed to do better for her children.
But when her daughter was diagnosed with dyslexia in second grade, she had to advocate and fight for what she needed and pay for outside services including tutoring.
Swenson said Michigan needs to act now and embrace the special education funding reform plan.
“It finally gives Michigan … a system that stops depending on which parents can fight the hardest, a system that stops leading districts to go broke and families burned out, a system that protects kids instead of failing them,” Swenson said.
“This blueprint is not just a policy document. It is the first real path to preventing another generation from slipping through the cracks the way I did.”
By Kim Kozlowski
Bridge Michigan
When Michigan officials this year lauded a record-high 82.8 percent high school graduation rate in 2024, special education advocates pointed out a vastly different outcome: only 61 percent of students with disabilities graduated.
That is one of several metrics showing what students with disabilities are up against in Michigan: They score below their peers in Michigan and across the nation in several areas, according to the first-ever Michigan Special Education Benchmarks Report released Dec. 3 by the Autism Alliance of Michigan.
The group found 77 percent of disabled students are secluded or restrained, 40 percent miss more than 18 or more days or school per year and 60 percent of their parents report their schools do not “facilitate meaningful involvement.”
The report is a call for more funding and inclusion in Michigan, noting that state and federal money covers 44 percent of special education costs, forcing local districts to cover the remainder.
“Students with disabilities can be educated, can be contributors to society,” said Heather Eckner, director of statewide education with the Autism Alliance of Michigan.
“But if our public school system, where the majority of them are educated, is not fulfilling their obligation to prepare them for future education and prepare them for independent living, then we are not doing our jobs to get them to be ready to be citizens in our state.”
The report also found that disabled students have a dropout rate of 21 percent, twice their nondisabled peers. The disparities widen for disabled students of color or from lower-income homes.
The 92-page benchmarks report was unveiled during a three-day summit last week in Lansing to observe the 50th anniversary of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, federal legislation guaranteeing an education for students with disabilities.
It was presented to lawmakers in tandem with a recently-released report, MI Special Education Finance Reform Blueprint, which calls for $1.28 billion more in special education funding atop the state’s annual budget of $2.8 billion.
After a year of research and $500,000 in state funding, the reform report notes that the funding model reimburses districts for only 28.6 percent of student services, leading to inequities based on student addresses.
In addition to more money, the plan calls for funding based on student needs.
Advocates say the need for change is urgent: Nearly 15 percent of the state’s K-12 population, 223,100, have disabilities and the share is expected to rise.
“This isn’t something that is going to mitigate itself or go away,” said Eckner. “We are going to have to have real leadership in the state of Michigan. We are going to have to have real, robust solutions.”
Advocates say the report, which will be released annually, comes amid longtime frustrations among parents.
State Rep. Regina Weiss, D-Oak Park, said funding is not as high a priority “as it should be” but lawmakers may support changes.
“It’s definitely possible,” said Weiss, a former school teacher who has two children with IEPs.
“There’s more awareness and (continued) public pressure on the Legislature and governor’s office will actually get it done.”
Dozens of parents, educators and researchers attended the special education summit, primarily from the grassroots coalition, Michigan Parent, Advocate & Attorney Coalition, affiliated with the Autism Alliance for Michigan.
Among them was Cass County resident Christina Beuschel, whose 11-year-old daughter relies on a device to assist with her limited speech.
Beuschel said that her daughter spent two days in the least restrictive school environment in first grade until school staff members told Beuschel that her daughter would need to be placed in a secluded learning center outside of the general student population, and switch her from a costly communication program that her daughter had used since she was four years old.
This was done without a meeting, written notice or exploring any other options, Beuschel said.
“It was a classic case of lacking resources to educate staff on (my daughter’s) mode of communication, and it felt as if they assumed that because she cannot speak, that she cannot learn,” Beuschel told reporters during a Tuesday briefing. “Our current special education funding structure in Michigan does not match the unique needs of somebody like my daughter.”
Waterford Township resident Elyse Swenson agreed. She said she grew up with dyslexia, didn’t have the supports she needed and vowed to do better for her children.
But when her daughter was diagnosed with dyslexia in second grade, she had to advocate and fight for what she needed and pay for outside services including tutoring.
Swenson said Michigan needs to act now and embrace the special education funding reform plan.
“It finally gives Michigan … a system that stops depending on which parents can fight the hardest, a system that stops leading districts to go broke and families burned out, a system that protects kids instead of failing them,” Swenson said.
“This blueprint is not just a policy document. It is the first real path to preventing another generation from slipping through the cracks the way I did.”
Senate Approves Victory Bill to Expand Farmland Tax Credit
The Michigan Senate has approved a bill sponsored by Sen. Roger Victory as part of a legislative package to clarify eligibility for the state’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program, commonly known as PA 116.
Victory’s bill, Senate Bill 690, would expand the tax credit for agricultural conservation easements and development rights agreements to conservation easements and to open space preservation programs. It would also require the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) to maintain a record of each development rights agreement, agricultural conservation easement or purchase of development rights for which a tax credit was claimed.
Under the bill, a landowner would be required to submit a recorded copy of a permanent conservation easement to MDARD by Nov. 1 annually to obtain the tax credit.
“This bipartisan effort is about preserving this vital program for hardworking family farmers throughout our state,” said Victory, R-Hudsonville. “Unfortunately, recent actions by state bureaucrats changed the rules and resulted in some farmers losing this important tax credit — at a time when many of them are still struggling with increased costs.
“I have heard from folks who are upset and worried about losing their family farms. These reforms would protect our local farmers, restore consistency in the program and ensure this credit is available for generations to come.”
A Michigan Department of Treasury review of tax credit eligibility resulted in tax returns of several landowners being withheld. MDARD used consent agreements filed with local registers of deeds to waive the state’s interests for certain purchases of development rights under the PA 116 program, resulting in a loss of eligibility.
Senate Bills 685-690 and 699 would grandfather in existing agreements by specifically allowing landowners with both a conservation easement and either an agricultural conservation easement or a development rights agreement to claim a tax credit.
Among the groups supporting the bills in committee were the Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Environmental Council and multiple county preservation boards. The bills have been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Victory’s bill, Senate Bill 690, would expand the tax credit for agricultural conservation easements and development rights agreements to conservation easements and to open space preservation programs. It would also require the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) to maintain a record of each development rights agreement, agricultural conservation easement or purchase of development rights for which a tax credit was claimed.
Under the bill, a landowner would be required to submit a recorded copy of a permanent conservation easement to MDARD by Nov. 1 annually to obtain the tax credit.
“This bipartisan effort is about preserving this vital program for hardworking family farmers throughout our state,” said Victory, R-Hudsonville. “Unfortunately, recent actions by state bureaucrats changed the rules and resulted in some farmers losing this important tax credit — at a time when many of them are still struggling with increased costs.
“I have heard from folks who are upset and worried about losing their family farms. These reforms would protect our local farmers, restore consistency in the program and ensure this credit is available for generations to come.”
A Michigan Department of Treasury review of tax credit eligibility resulted in tax returns of several landowners being withheld. MDARD used consent agreements filed with local registers of deeds to waive the state’s interests for certain purchases of development rights under the PA 116 program, resulting in a loss of eligibility.
Senate Bills 685-690 and 699 would grandfather in existing agreements by specifically allowing landowners with both a conservation easement and either an agricultural conservation easement or a development rights agreement to claim a tax credit.
Among the groups supporting the bills in committee were the Michigan Farm Bureau, Michigan Environmental Council and multiple county preservation boards. The bills have been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Michigan Ranks 11th Nationally in Family-Owned Farm Share
By Hannah Patterson Hill
Farm Flavor
Now more than ever, people want to know where their food comes from. National conversations often center on “Big Ag” and corporate takeover of the food sector, but the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows a more nuanced reality on the ground: most American farms are still run by families.
Nearly 95 percent of U.S. farms are family-owned, and a large majority are small operations with modest annual revenue. Across the U.S., family farms anchor local economies, preserve working lands and sustain community food systems – and in many states, capture the biggest share of sales.
With this in mind, researchers at Farm Flavor – a company that provides news and information about the agriculture industry – analyzed the latest USDA data to understand how many U.S. farms are family-owned, how much they produce and which states rely most on family-run farms.
Michigan ranks 11th among U.S. states in the share of farms that are family owned. Of the state’s 45,581 farms, 95.5 percent of them (43,529 in number) are family-owned. Family-owned farms accounted for more than $11.7 billion in sales in 2022, representing 86.7 percent of all agriculture sales in Michigan, according to USDA data.
According to the USDA, a family farm is one in which the majority of the business is owned by the principal operator and individuals related to them. Encompassing everything from small, sole proprietorships to large corporate-structured operations driving industry consolidation, family operations make up 94.7 percent of all U.S. farms and are responsible for 80.7 percent of total agricultural output, according to the USDA.
Together, small and midsize family farms – those with less than $1 million in annual gross income – account for 90.8 percent of farms and nearly one-third (30.2 percent) of total agricultural output. These farms are vital to rural economies, providing local employment and sustaining communities across every region of the country.
At the same time, large family farms – those earning $1 million or more annually – represent a much smaller share of total farms but contribute over half (50.6 percent) of the nation’s agricultural output. These larger family operations reflect the increasing efficiency and scale of modern production agriculture, especially in commodity crop and livestock sectors.
Farms not owned by the principal operator and his or her family make up only about 5 percent of all farms and contribute 19.1 percent of agricultural output. Altogether, these figures underscore that American agriculture remains overwhelmingly a family-run enterprise – from small, diversified farms to large, multi-generational operations.
Family ownership is the overwhelming norm in American agriculture, but the extent to which states rely on family-run farms – and the share of agricultural output they produce – differs significantly across the country. The share of farms that are family-owned ranges from about 90 to 98 percent, while the share of total agricultural output generated by those farms varies much more widely, from roughly 47 percent in some states to more than 93 percent in others.
Broadly, family farm ownership is highest in the Appalachian, Southern and Midwest regions, where agriculture tends to remain local, generational and community-driven. States such as West Virginia (97.6 percent), Tennessee (97.5 percent) and Kentucky (96.8 percent) lead the nation in family-farm ownership, and their output shares closely mirror these figures – 93.3 percent, 89.0 percent and 88.1 percent, respectively. In much of the Southeast and Midwest, the same pattern holds.
Still, there are some notable outliers where the connection between family ownership and sales is weaker. Texas and Oklahoma, for example, each have around 96 percent of farms classified as family-owned, yet only 70.2 percent and 73.5 percent of farm sales come from those operations.
These discrepancies suggest that while family ownership is nearly universal, non-family operations are disproportionately more productive in certain regions due to either scale or specialization in high-value commodities.
The data in the Farm Flavor analysis came from the USDA 2022 Census of Agriculture, the most recent such release. To identify the states with the most family-owned farms, researchers calculated the share of farms in each state that meet the USDA’s definition of a family farm. The analysis also compared agricultural output – measured as the market value of products sold – across different farm types, including small, midsize and large family operations as well as non-family farms.
Farm Flavor
Now more than ever, people want to know where their food comes from. National conversations often center on “Big Ag” and corporate takeover of the food sector, but the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows a more nuanced reality on the ground: most American farms are still run by families.
Nearly 95 percent of U.S. farms are family-owned, and a large majority are small operations with modest annual revenue. Across the U.S., family farms anchor local economies, preserve working lands and sustain community food systems – and in many states, capture the biggest share of sales.
With this in mind, researchers at Farm Flavor – a company that provides news and information about the agriculture industry – analyzed the latest USDA data to understand how many U.S. farms are family-owned, how much they produce and which states rely most on family-run farms.
Michigan ranks 11th among U.S. states in the share of farms that are family owned. Of the state’s 45,581 farms, 95.5 percent of them (43,529 in number) are family-owned. Family-owned farms accounted for more than $11.7 billion in sales in 2022, representing 86.7 percent of all agriculture sales in Michigan, according to USDA data.
According to the USDA, a family farm is one in which the majority of the business is owned by the principal operator and individuals related to them. Encompassing everything from small, sole proprietorships to large corporate-structured operations driving industry consolidation, family operations make up 94.7 percent of all U.S. farms and are responsible for 80.7 percent of total agricultural output, according to the USDA.
Together, small and midsize family farms – those with less than $1 million in annual gross income – account for 90.8 percent of farms and nearly one-third (30.2 percent) of total agricultural output. These farms are vital to rural economies, providing local employment and sustaining communities across every region of the country.
At the same time, large family farms – those earning $1 million or more annually – represent a much smaller share of total farms but contribute over half (50.6 percent) of the nation’s agricultural output. These larger family operations reflect the increasing efficiency and scale of modern production agriculture, especially in commodity crop and livestock sectors.
Farms not owned by the principal operator and his or her family make up only about 5 percent of all farms and contribute 19.1 percent of agricultural output. Altogether, these figures underscore that American agriculture remains overwhelmingly a family-run enterprise – from small, diversified farms to large, multi-generational operations.
Family ownership is the overwhelming norm in American agriculture, but the extent to which states rely on family-run farms – and the share of agricultural output they produce – differs significantly across the country. The share of farms that are family-owned ranges from about 90 to 98 percent, while the share of total agricultural output generated by those farms varies much more widely, from roughly 47 percent in some states to more than 93 percent in others.
Broadly, family farm ownership is highest in the Appalachian, Southern and Midwest regions, where agriculture tends to remain local, generational and community-driven. States such as West Virginia (97.6 percent), Tennessee (97.5 percent) and Kentucky (96.8 percent) lead the nation in family-farm ownership, and their output shares closely mirror these figures – 93.3 percent, 89.0 percent and 88.1 percent, respectively. In much of the Southeast and Midwest, the same pattern holds.
Still, there are some notable outliers where the connection between family ownership and sales is weaker. Texas and Oklahoma, for example, each have around 96 percent of farms classified as family-owned, yet only 70.2 percent and 73.5 percent of farm sales come from those operations.
These discrepancies suggest that while family ownership is nearly universal, non-family operations are disproportionately more productive in certain regions due to either scale or specialization in high-value commodities.
The data in the Farm Flavor analysis came from the USDA 2022 Census of Agriculture, the most recent such release. To identify the states with the most family-owned farms, researchers calculated the share of farms in each state that meet the USDA’s definition of a family farm. The analysis also compared agricultural output – measured as the market value of products sold – across different farm types, including small, midsize and large family operations as well as non-family farms.
