The Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB) and the Michigan Association of School Administrators (MASA) have sent out several “action alerts” to their members in order to warn about possible cuts to the state’s school aid fund in order to balance the state budget.

Below are some select excerpts, sent out as emails to members of the groups:

• “In the coming week the Senate will take action on the Community College Budget. MASA oposes (sic) this budget as it raids $43.9 million from the School Aid Fund to subsidize Community Colleges … Please send a letter to your senator and ask them to oppose this bill!”
• One email alert refers to the discussed funding cut as “unconscionable” and says the group “will not stand for this lack of support for public education."
• “The K-16 Coalition for Michigan’s Future wants a reasonable legislative solution to fully fund Michigan’s K-16 public schools, but we are ready to put our proposal for adequate K-16 school funding on the November ballot if for whatever reason the legislature fails to resolve the issue.”
• “It would be great to pack the Lansing Center with school board members and superintendents that are interested in holding their legislators accountable for this revenue crisis.”
• “[The MASB] cannot just sit idly by while public education is being dismantled across the State."

But these alerts are not referencing the current school funding discussion in Lansing; these warnings are from the budget fight for the 2006-2007 school year. For that school aid budget, the Legislature increased per-pupil funding by $233. It later took back $34 per-pupil mid-year.

Mike Reno is a former school board member from Rochester Community Schools. He says this shows how these types of groups operate.

“These organizations bombard school administrators and school boards with these sorts of emails,” said Reno. “Boards and administrators hear time and time again from their professional organizations that schools are not responsible for any of the financial problem, that it’s all Lansing’s fault.”

But Don Wotruba, deputy director of the MASB, said that the big difference between now and the past is the proposed overall cut. “Districts have less flexibility with money because of the cuts they’ve made over the years.”

“There is less changes [they] can make.”

The alerts also repeatedly mention support for tax increases, or “revenue votes.” One email says, “The positive move of last night was to send the income tax increase bill to conference committee for further discussion.”

Another email has an attachment from the MASB listing their “legislative issues paper.” In the paper, the group urges its members to contact their legislators over House Bill 4359 of 2007. The group said more lobbying was needed because “Legislators still need to know that people support increased revenue. … Without your lobbying for revenue increases quickly [schools] can expect a proration near $100 for the current year and no increases in the foundation or categoricals for next year.” The bill eventually passed.

“No matter how large or small the cut — or increase, for that matter — the public school establishment responds the same way,” said Michael Van Beek, the education policy director for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “If history is any guide, it appears that no amount of money will ever be enough according to the special interest groups that represent schools. They’ll always just call for more.”

Wotruba said his group does support some of the reforms being discussed in Lansing. “[The] 80/20 [health care bill], the step increase bill, tenure reform … we all support. But I still think there are going to be districts who will really have trouble … The problem is the uncertainty.”

“The school boards and school administrators simply parrot the rhetoric back to local papers, who then reprint it without any scrutiny, analysis or fact checking,” Reno said. “Repeat these messages often enough, without any rebuttal, and they seem to go from myth to fact.”

Reno believes that the public school system will never be satisfied, no matter how much funding it receives.

“It is a ‘crisis’ that never ends.”

The Michigan Education Association is incorrect when it says a school district could fire unmarried, pregnant teachers, gay teachers, unpopular employees or veteran teachers for less expensive alternatives under proposed tenure reform bills, according to a GOP legislator and a Republican labor attorney.

The MEA made its claims about House Bills 4625, 4627 and 4628 on its website. The bills were considered by a Legislative committee shortly after a teacher in the Swartz Creek school district was ordered by the state to be reinstated despite claims by the district she was “mentally unfit” and “unstable.”

The Flint Journal reports that the legal saga over her fitness to work began after workplace altercations led to a psychological evaluation. This resulted in a recommendation that she not return to the classroom pending treatment, followed by her agreement to a voluntary leave of absence. The leave later became involuntary when the teacher and district disagreed over whether the alleged psychological concerns had been resolved.

State Rep. Paul Scott, R-Grand Blanc, wrote in an email that the MEA has “delved into bigoted wedge politics based on total fabrications. The public is with us. This package signifies a culture change where student growth and performance trump special interests.”

Scott’s office pointed to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act as protection from being discriminated against because of pregnancy or childbirth or related issues. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Also, Scott’s office stated that Michigan is one of four states that have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces.

Tom Fredericks, a labor attorney who served for 10 years with the Office of the State Employer for the State of Michigan, said employer’s actions are governed by state and federal law. Fredericks, vice chair of the Ingham County Republican Party, called the MEA’s claims “unsupported” and “untrue.”

"... teachers, and other employees — both union and non-union — are already protected under Michigan and federal law from unlawful discrimination,” Fredericks wrote in an email.

Nathalie Iden, a spokeswoman for Scott, said in an email the bills state that teachers can’t be let go for political reasons or reasons that are “arbitrary and capricious.” She said “arbitrary and capricious” is the current standard for administrators.

MEA Spokesman Doug Pratt declined to comment.