Grand Rapids School Board narrowly passes 2025-2026 Budget, with unanimous opposition during public comment

“For the first time in recent memory, executive contracts were not rubber stamped by the GRPS Board of Education! Instead we saw the board ask good questions, name gaps, and look for ways to better prioritize students.”

The above comments are from community efforts to pressure the GRPS to adopt a more just budget, one that centers teachers and students. The Grand Rapids Educators Association (GREA), supported by the Urban Core Collective, hosted a picnic prior to the GRPS Budget hearing. The event was design to building community and solidarity with teachers in the district and to push for several demands that the teacher’s union presented during the Budget Hearing.

Some of the information and demands from the GREA included:

• GRPS spends only 48.35% of its budget on instruction, which is nearly 10% less than the average of similar sized districts.
• Among the 32 largest districts in Michigan, only Lansing spends less on instruction than GRPS. 
• 91% of all Michigan districts spend more of their resources on instruction than GRPS
• Teachers dropped from 47.7% to 38.4% of total staff between 2016 – 2025
• GRPS is reducing teacher positions faster than the state average
• The district is hiring more non-instructional staff while reducing teacher positions, the positions that directly impact student learning.
• GRPS teachers earn $3,623 less annually than the Kent County average
• Master’s degree teachers lose $5,096 per year compared to county pears
• There is $17 million sitting in capital projects fund while claiming budget constraints.

During the Public Comment portion Budget Hearing, the GRPS Board President decided to limit people to two minutes instead of three, since there were several dozen people who had filled out cards to speak. It always amazes me how elected officials can arbitrarily reduce the length of time for public comment, just because there are lots of people who want to speak. It seems like they should be welcoming as much public input as possible.

Throughout the public comment, there were students, teachers, parents, alumni and community members who spoke out against the proposed budget. There were lots of GRPS teachers who spoke, with some of them using the talking points listed above. One recent Physical Education (PE) hire spoke about how difficult it was to get hired and how long they had to wait until a GRPS representative got back with them regarding their application. The PE teacher also talked about how understaffed they were, even though many of their friends had also applied for similar positions. 

A Special Education teacher also spoke forcefully about how the GRPS was violating state law, with too many Special Education students in a class room per teacher. This GRPS teacher talked about how they were also understaffed and how moral in their department was low, because people felt overworked and under appreciated.

Another public comment came from a GRPS alumni, who had organized an online petition campaign to prioritize the GRPS budget for students and teachers. This community member stated that over 600 people had signed the petition.

However, the overriding theme of the public comment during the Budget Hearing was that no one support the existing budget proposal, since it did not prioritize teachers and students. There was unanimous opposition to the budget proposal.

When it came time for the School Board to vote on the budget, Dr. Roby read a statement suggesting that the budget outcome is the result of outside forces that were out of the control of her office. Dr. Roby also made it clear that board members who are pushing back on the budget have been “negligent” in their demands and that if the budget isn’t adopted it will impact families and scholars.

The Board President followed Dr. Roby’s comments stating that it would be a vote of no confidence of Dr. Roby to not adopt the budget. The Board President then pushed to immediately go to a vote. Several Board members stated the need to have a discussion on the proposed budget before it went to a vote. GRPS Board members all spoke up and several of them talked about how they would not be voting out of fear or that they would not be intimidated to vote a certain way. 

Dr. Roby spoke again in response to the push back from some board members. I took Dr. Roby’s comments as a form of gaslighting that was directed at Board members who were challenging the proposed budget. At one point Dr. Roby also said that the community needed to do their own homework to understand the budget. There were several people in the audience were were taken back by this statement, especially since the proposed budget had only been available to the public for one week. I personally felt insulted by this comment and based on the reactions of those who spoke during the Budget Hearing, they too were somewhat disgusted.

The School Board finally voted on the General Operating Budget, a vote that was 5 in favor and 4 against. Those voting against were Melton, Moreno, Rodriguez and Kilpatrick.