Challenging the Rhetoric in the War on Charter Schools – Part II
Democratic Leader: '[School choice] is a choice in theory but it really doesn't exist'
House Democrats want to place a moratorium on opening any new charter public schools in Michigan. They have introduced House Bill 5852 to do so.
Legislation such as this bill, offered by the minority party in the House amid election campaigning, has little chance of moving and isn’t likely to even get a hearing. But from a larger perspective, the call for a moratorium on new charters is seen by some as part of an overall war on charter public schools.
This “war” is backed by a coalition of interests, most notably teachers unions, and involves attacks on various fronts, including from the State Board of Education and some elements of the news media.
In practical terms House Bill 5852 is an expression of the position held by the House Democratic caucus regarding charter schools. The introduction of the bill gave the party the chance to publicize and provide rhetorical support for that position at a Capitol press conference Sept. 18.
At that press conference, Capitol Confidential asked several questions. The first of those questions and the response to it were featured in a previous article. The following centers on the second question Capitol Confidential asked and the response it received, which was given by Rep. Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods, who is the ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee.
This question and response is followed by an observation on that response from Gary Naeyaert, executive director of the Great Lakes Education Project.
Rep. Lipton had just argued in favor of the moratorium based on the claim that some charter schools are not transparent in areas such as financial disclosure. Capitol Confidential asked the following:
“But if the parents were unhappy, [they could] just remove their child from the school — whereas if they didn’t have the choice of a charter they’d be stuck with the school assigned to them by their ZIP code?”
Rep. Lipton’s response:
Well, if poverty wasn’t an issue; where there was a universal transportation system [and] where parents were completely in control of the means by which they got their child to school, you know, choice is interesting; right?You can say that, yes philosophically, all parents can do that but then you have to look at the reality of that. Does that parent have the means to actually transport that child to another school, if they even have a working, functional car? Is there a bus system that exists? There are so many areas in which the choice is really a Hobson’s choice; it’s a choice of theory but it really doesn’t exist and so it’s nice to talk about choice in a philosophic sense but we really have to deal with the reality and for most parents, that choice doesn’t exist.
Here is Naeyaert’s observation:
“Following Rep. Lipton’s twisted logic is difficult, especially when she asserts that we can’t tell if students are learning unless we have more detailed financial reporting. In any event, the availability of transportation is sometimes an issue for families planning to exercise school choice via traditional public or charter public schools. But to suggest that school choice doesn’t exist for ‘most’ parents is completely contrary to the data proving the majority of Detroit parents don’t currently choose to send their children to a DPS (Detroit Public Schools) school.
“And rather than continuing to trap students in chronically failing traditional public schools, it is the very existence of choice which provides students and families with options and it serves as a major incentive for traditional schools to improve themselves and become more responsive to student needs," Naeyaert continued. "The House Democrat bill co-sponsored by Rep. Lipton would actually eliminate all charter public schools within the next 10 years. This is a bitter, partisan attack on parental choice and is a dramatic move backwards for students and families in Michigan.”
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Follow us on social media!
Push back on big government “solutions” by becoming
Trump administration sues Michigan over climate litigation against oil and gas companies
Michigan Democrats will lose House majority but hold speakership
Member of state ed board called for ending charter schools
October 3, 2014, MichiganVotes Weekly Report
Drugged driving, automatic police pay hikes, "right to try"
House Bill 5785, Expand permissible criminal court cost levies: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate
To expand the costs that can be imposed on an individual convicted in a criminal case. The bill would authorize imposing assessments covering a share of court employee salaries and benefits, of “goods and services” used in operating the court, and of court building “operation and maintenance" costs. In addition, it would establish that a court has no duty to provide a “calculation of the costs involved in a particular case.” The bill reverses a state Supreme Court case that limited charges to those specifically allowed in a particular statute; its provisions would expire in 36 months, presumably to allow the legislature to rationalize these impositions for all courts across the state.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 1074, Eliminate debt cap on business job training subsidy program: Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate
To eliminate the $50 million debt cap in a 2008 law that authorized state job training subsidies for particular employers, provided through community colleges. The bill would also eliminate a 2018 sunset on these subsidies, which according to the Senate Fiscal Agency have added up to $10.7 million since the law was passed.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
House Bill 5097, Exempt public safety employees from ban on certain automatic pay hikes: Passed 25 to 12 in the Senate
To exempt law enforcement and fire department employees from a 2011 law that banned automatic seniority-based pay hikes for individual government employees (“step increases”) when a union contract has expired and no new one signed.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
House Bill 4624, Allow multi-department firefighter employment: Passed 21 to 17 in the Senate
To prohibit a fire department from prohibiting its firefighters from also working as a volunteer, part-time or paid on-call firefighter with another department, if this does not conflict with the original employment. Also, to make this issue a prohibited subject of collective bargaining between a fire department and a government employee union.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
House Bill 5385, Expand drunk driving provisions to include illegal drugs: Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate
To expand the law that requires a person stopped for drunk driving to take a breathalyzer or field sobriety test so that it instead refers to "a preliminary roadside analysis," expanding this law to suspected driving while drugged cases. The bill would not explicitly authorize the use of a roadside saliva test for marijuana, which has been challenged as inaccurate. This is part of a package extending the same or similar procedures to both drunk and drugged driving cases.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
House Bill 5606, Expand "protectionist" auto dealer provision: Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate
To prohibit vehicle makers from preventing a dealer from tacking on extra fees that are permitted by a law that empowers the state to enforce exclusive new car dealer “territories” and regulate the terms of commercial relationships between dealers and manufacturers.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Senate Bill 991, Let terminal patients try non-FDA approved treatments: Passed 109 to 0 in the House
To establish that a person diagnosed with a terminal illness has a “right to try” experimental drugs or therapies not approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, subject to various conditions specified in the bill. The bill would prohibit state officials from interfering, and ban licensing boards from sanctioning health care providers who participate, subject to specified conditions. Drug makers who comply with the specified conditions would be immune from liability if the patient is harmed. The bill responds to criticism that FDA “safe and effective” standards are not appropriate in these cases.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
SOURCE: MichiganVotes.org, a free, non-partisan website created by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, providing concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill and vote in the Michigan House and Senate. Please visit https://www.michiganvotes.org.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Love CapCon?
The best way you can help support our work is to become a donor. Give monthly or one-time. What do you say — buy our reporters a cup of coffee?
Have a coffee on me! Already a supporter