Moratorium or Mortuary? School Choice Proponents Claim Bill Would Kill Charters

Bill sponsor disagrees

By Jack Spencer | October 9, 2014

House Democrats have introduced legislation as a measure to place a moratorium on any new charter public schools opening in Michigan. However, the pro-school choice Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP) reads the bill differently.

According to GLEP Executive Director Gary Naeyaert, as drafted, House Bill 5852 would eventually spell doom for all of the charter public schools in the state.

“What we have uncovered is that the legislation they claim would just push the pause button on increasing the number of charter schools would, in reality, close every charter school in the state over time,” Naeyaert told Capitol Confidential. “Language in this legislation would prevent the authorization of new contracts for charter schools. Because charter schools operate on fixed contracts, that would mean that when those contracts expire the schools would have to close.

“If this legislation were in place, roughly 50 of Michigan’s charter schools would close every year over the first five years and the rest would ultimately close in the following years,” Naeyaert added. “This is further proof that the Democrats don’t really want better charter schools, they just want charter schools to go away.”

Rep. Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores, the sponsor of House Bill 5852, insists that Naeyaert has it wrong.

“The bill says that no new charter schools could be authorized,” Rep. Roberts said. “I think the language is clear; but if anyone wants to help us work on amending it to make that true intent clearer during a committee hearing, we would be happy to work with them.

“If parents choose to send their kids to a charter school, that’s fine,” Rep. Roberts continued. “We are not saying that all charter schools are bad. But as we’ve seen recently there have been problems with some for-profit management companies. Our intent is to put a pause on opening any new charter schools until there is assurance they will be operated in a transparent, accountable and ethical manner.”

HB 5852 was introduced Sept. 18. Typically, when a minority party in the House introduces legislation in the midst of an election campaign, the measure has little or no chance of getting a hearing, let alone moving. Generally such measures end up being no more than an expression of a caucus position, rather than a serious attempt at passage.

“If the true intent of the legislation was really what they claim, then — at best — the bill was hastily and not very carefully drafted,” Naeyaert said. “Anyone who knows how charter school contracts work should be able to see that, as written, this bill would be more than just a moratorium on opening new ones.”

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

Gubernatorial Campaign Should be About Things That Matter

Not false claims and things that don't

By James M. Hohman | October 9, 2014

Editor's Note: This article first appeared at PublicSectorInc.org.

The 2014 Michigan gubernatorial election should be a referendum on the major changes to Michigan made by Governor Rick Snyder’s administration. Unfortunately, the debate is saturated instead with false claims of education cuts.

Snyder’s opponent, former congressman Mark Schauer, centered his campaign around the allegation that Snyder “cut $1 billion from the schools.”

Most school revenue in Michigan is channeled through the state. So the annual budget is closely followed. Overall spending on education is up over Snyder’s term. From the fiscal year 2011 budget — the last budget passed prior to the Snyder administration — to the fiscal 2015 budget, education funding is up $888.6 million, a 7 percent increase.

This increase is somewhat smaller than it might have been due to phased-out federal stimulus money appropriated to schools through the state budget. Just looking at state funding for education yields a $1.26 billion increase, an 11 percent gain.

A case could be made that education funding has not increased as much as Schauer or others wanted. But that is different from a factual assertion that funding has been cut.

If opponents wanted to criticize Snyder for spending reductions, there are other areas that experienced greater declines. The revenue that the state shares with local governments was cut by $100 million in Snyder’s first approved budget and higher education was cut by $216 million.

Of course, these areas were also targeted for reductions under the previous administration as well. It is also worth discussing whether the state taxpayers should have been required to keep spending as much in these areas, especially when revenues were not available without increasing taxes.

While the Schauer campaign remains critical of Gov. Snyder for phantom education cuts, the Snyder campaign’s assertions are vague. Ads are about the state’s general economic comeback and promise further “reinvention.” They also include lines that most campaigns would have shied away from like, “You might not feel it yet.”

The state passed a right-to-work law, cut business taxes, eliminated some broadly-applicable income tax credits and exemptions, expanded charter schools, strengthened teacher evaluation requirements, cut public employee benefits, reduced the window of eligibility for state assistance, expanded Medicaid, and brought Detroit under emergency management. Few people will agree with all of these policies, but a discussion about their impact is absent from this election.

There are some issues being discussed in the background of the campaign. Schauer’s job’s plan calls for rolling back some of these reforms, like changes to the tax treatment of retirement income. But outside of its initial roll-out, the policies he supports has taken a back seat to false claims of education cuts.

A good discussion about policies is important for predictive purposes. Governors attempt to accomplish what they tell voters. It allows voters to steer candidates to some policies and away from others. It also provides accountability over the policies that the candidates have supported.

But a discussion about the effects of Michigan’s reforms has largely been missing from the gubernatorial campaign. What we’ve got instead is a long discussion about a simple matter — is education spending up or down during Gov. Snyder’s term —and one that is not even accurate.