Superintendents Spread Inaccurate Information on Education Reform Bills

Michigan Capitol Confidential ^ | 12/20/2012 | Tom Gantert

[MichCapCon]

Superintendents across the state are coming out against the proposed education reform legislation, and many are making inaccurate claims about the impact of House Bill 6004 and Senate Bill 1358.

Among the recent inaccurate attacks is a letter printed in the Tuscola Today news site that was signed by 10 area superintendents.

The letter said: "For example, any company could open a school for the children of its employees and collect state education funding for it."

However, the specific school that was created would receive the money, not the corporation, said Michael Van Beek, education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

"It's disappointing that superintendents continue to spread misleading information to their constituents about these legislative proposals," Van Beek said. "While they’re free to speak their minds about them, they should give these proposed policies more thought than is required to just repeat talking points or copy false information from news stories."

That corporations could open a school for children of its employees and receive state money for it was a claim put forward by The Bridge, a news site published by The Center For Michigan.

The Bridge’s article said the following about House Bill 5923: "For example, Compuware could open a school for the children of its employees and receive per-pupil funding for it."

When asked about that statement, Bridge Editor Derek Melot denied that the article suggested companies could get direct funding.

"We are not implying that Compuware, as a corporate entity, would somehow receive/profit from per pupil operational funds to run a school," Melot said in November. "The sentence is self-explanatory."

For a corporation to open a school, the employer must enter into an agreement with a public school authorizer. There are several other requirements: The corporation would have to assist in meeting the capital requirements for the school building; provide continual financial support for the school; provide space for educational services to be provided on the site of the employer; provide substantial employment in the area in which the school is located; not enroll more than 75 percent of the student body from the children of the employer’s employees and contractors (the other 25 percent must be enrolled via random selection); and not have affiliation with more than 1/3 of the governing board of the school.

Superintendents Randy Middlin of Reese Public Schools located in Tuscola and Saginaw Counties; George Rierson of Unionville-Sebewaing Area Schools in Huron County; and Steve Ley of Akron-Fairgrove Schools in Tuscola County didn’t return requests for comment.

[cripplecreek]

We have two choices. We can either seize control of our schools or dismantle them.

If anyone wants to be added to the Michigan Cap Con ping list, let me know.

[17th Miss Regt]

There is a possibility that some students may escape the pubic school system. The proper way to keep the students in school is to build a double fence around the school with the fences about 5 yards apart. In between the two fences is completely clear - no trees or scrub. The inner fence may optionally be electrified.

Students that are recaptured after escaping should be brought back in front of the entire student body, reviled as an oreo and sellout, and then suspended from a gibbet in the school courtyard. To provide an example for the others, of course. (/liberal)

[wintertime]

“For example, any company could open a school for the children of its employees and collect state education funding for it.”
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Seems like a good idea to me. Parents are close by for conferences and might even be able to have lunch with their children. Wouldn’t that be special for the child and the parent?