A new study claims Michigan was among a number of states to have K-12 public school funding cut, but it didn't factor in about half of the state's overall funding for schools.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study claimed Michigan's per-pupil state funding from 2007-08 to 2012-13 had been reduced by 8.8 percent. However, the study from the Washington, D.C., research and policy institute didn’t include all revenue in its analysis, leaving out local, federal and some state funding.

The study ignored about $10 billion of the total public school budget of $19.6 billion in 2007-08, said Michael Van Beek, the education policy director at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

If all funding is included, K-12 schools in Michigan are getting about the same amount per-pupil. The National Center for Education Statistics shows that in 2007-08 per student funding was $12,825. When adjusted for inflation, that increases to $13,399, which is $7 per student less than the $13,406 spent per student in Michigan in 2010-11. The NCES figures include all revenue — state, federal and local.

Left out of the study's analysis of school funding for 2007-08 was $1.4 billion Michigan got in state and federal money for special education; $81 million in state money for Intermediate School Districts; $310 million in state grants for at-risk youth; $232 million in federal money for school lunch programs and $6 billion in local revenue from property taxes.

"The study does not accurately reflect what has happened to overall funding for schools in Michigan over the past several years, and it would be inappropriate to use it to say much of anything about the amount of resources taxpayers have supplied school districts," Van Beek said.

Shannon Spillane, spokeswoman for The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in an email that the report focused on just state funding "because state aid makes up a very large share of overall school district funding."

"Reductions in state funding leave local school districts with very few options: they must either scale back the educational services they provide; raise property taxes and other local revenues; or some combination of the two," Spillane said. "Our analysis specifically focuses on state formula funding both because it is the dominant stream of state funding for local school districts and because concentrating on formula funding allowed us to make consistent comparisons across states. The numbers in our paper were developed in consultation with an in-state budget expert, and are an accurate reflection of the trend in state formula funding in Michigan during the years covered by our analysis."

The company the Michigan Legislature choose to do an independent study on teacher pension costs concluded previously that closing defined benefit pensions plans is a bad idea.

That's what the Segal Co. said in a study about the Nevada public employee retirement system.

"While many find the stable cost structure of a defined contribution plan attractive, the closure of a defined benefit plan to new members would make the cost of the defined benefit plan increase significantly," the company wrote in its report for Nevada.

Legislators passed a teacher pension reform bill this summer that kept the defined benefit system in place but required a study be done on switching to a defined-contribution 401(k)-style system that more closely mirrors the private sector. 

Michigan's teacher pension program is underfunded by more than $22 billion.

Sen. Phil Pavlov, R-St Clair, chairman of the Senate Education Committee who wants to close the defined benefit pension plan, said he's still looking forward to seeing the results of the Segal study, which is due Nov. 15.

"I'll be very interested in what they say in the study," Sen. Pavlov said. "I hope it isn't a study that's based on any foregone conclusions. If that is the case, we will have wasted the $140,000 the taxpayers are paying to have the study done."

Senate Bill 1040 was the legislation in question. Sen. Pavlov and Sen. Mark Jansen, R- Grand Rapids, championed a version of the bill that would have switched all teachers into defined contribution plans. House Appropriations Chair Chuck Moss, R-Birmingham, and the administration of Gov. Rick Snyder disagreed. They said the switch would be too expensive for the state to immediately make the change.

This argument is based on so-called "transition costs." Pension funds often switch assumptions about how government will pay for the unfunded liabilities of a system. Typically, this accounting change suggests that once the old plan has been closed, government would pay down these liabilities with more cash up front.

However, those who favor closing the system point out that these costs aren't really due to the transition. Regardless of when the change takes place, the cost of the current underfunded plan will have to be addressed.

"Basically the discussions we've had were divided along philosophical lines," Sen. Pavlov said. "Our position was that once we change to a defined contribution system nobody is left on the hook for the costs going forward."

Making the change forces officials to address the gap between the inadequate funding and actual costs. Delaying the change simply allows officials to delay the day when the costs must be addressed. As long as the current defined benefit system is open to new members the underfunded liabilities continue to increase.

Segal was one of three consulting firms that submitted bids to do the study.