Hi gytax!
To answer your question: no, it does not.
When 'spin' was first suggested by George Uhlenbeck and Samuel Goudsmit in 1925, the name was chosen because, as I am sure you've learned, moving charges produce magnetic fields. When orbitals and energy levels of atoms (such as hydrogen and helium) were being studied, scientists observed what has become known as the Zeeman effect. There was a splitting of spectral lines occurring whenever an external magnetic field was applied on the atom. Moreover, more splitting occurred than expected, which led Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit to suggest that there is another quantum number which is responsible for hyperfine splitting to occur. They asserted that electrons in the orbitals (and ultimately other subatomic particles) have an intrinsic magnetic moment to them. It was well understood by then that current, or moving charges, induce a magnetic field. They ascertained that these electrons must be in some sort of motion, so they gave it a cute little name to convey the concept.
However, we know that an electron cannot be spinning on its axis because the velocity at which it would have to be spinning to produce the magnitude of the magnetic moment measured would have to be faster than the speed of light!
Subatomic particles are strange indeed, and there isn't a clear model for visualizing what spin actually looks like.
Schools do not mislead students. They teach students. A big part of physics is the idea of models. We try to come up with analogies or mathematical formulas to describe behavior. This is why the word 'spin' works fairly well. It trains you to associate the motion of a charge with magnetism.
When you get down to it, an electron isn't even a solid, negatively charged little ball, like most people visualize it to be. However, the picture helps in our learning process.