Respected Michigan Research Group Finds School Spending Up Since 1995
Citizens Research Council paints very different picture than recent MSU report
A new study from the Citizens Research Council of Michigan paints a more positive picture of public school funding than a study released by Michigan State University in January.
While the two publications use similar sets of data, they approach it differently, resulting in very different impressions of the financial status of Michigan’s K-12 public schools.
The CRC study, called Michigan’s Leaky Teacher Pipeline, uses figures from the state’s Senate Fiscal Agency to calculate changes in funding since the 1994-95 school year. The authors found that school funding in 1994-95 was the equivalent of $7,790 per student when stated in 2018 dollars. As of the 2017-18 school year, per-student funding had risen to $8,724, an 11.9 percent increase.
In other words, per-pupil funding in the state has increased faster than the rate of inflation, which the study credits to school funding levels going up even as the number of K-12 students here has gone down. That is, public schools are getting more dollars to educate a smaller number of students.
The study also shows that the state of Michigan’s two main budget accounts, the General Fund and the School Aid Fund, are up from a combined $18.5 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $24.2 billion in fiscal year 2018. It then notes:
“Michigan budget writers have dedicated some of these additional resources to public education. With fewer public school students each year, per-pupil funding has increased at a faster clip than the increase in state resources following the Great Recession. Per-pupil revenue growth has exceeded inflation since.”
The Citizens Research Council describes itself as a nonprofit public affairs research organization, founded in 1916, that provides factual, unbiased, independent information on significant issues concerning state and local government organization and finance. Its studies and reports are widely read by policy analysts inside state government and elsewhere.
Craig Thiel, research director at the council, suggested that his organization’s assessment of K-12 school finance differs from that of the recent MSU study because each study is looking at different aspects of the budget.
“It’s likely the fact that I’m looking at a different school funding data set, excluding revenue that does not roll through the state budget, whether it’s revenue raised at the district level or the ISD level,” Thiel said. “The other key difference would be how we’ve made the [dollar figure] adjustment. We use the Detroit Consumer Price Index as a benchmark.”
The MSU authors did not base their inflation adjustments on the familiar CPI, which is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Labor Department. They instead used an inflation benchmark called the “GDP price deflator for state and local government purchases.”
Thiel continued: “We are trying to paint a picture of what’s going on with the dollars that are rolling through the school budget. ... I should also mention, our numbers are scaled to a per- pupil basis and not total.”
According to Thiel, the CPI and GDP price deflator are both appropriate tools, and he added that the research council has no position regarding the use of the price index in the MSU study.
The study that was released in January by Michigan State University’s College of Education, titled “Michigan School Finance At the Crossroads,” looks at total education funding in Michigan, instead of just the funding influenced by legislators in Lansing.
“There is no doubt that total [non-inflation adjusted] revenues to support Michigan’s K-12 school have increased substantially since 1994,” the MSU study reads. “The relevant question, however, is how much schools can purchase with that money. That is, how have real revenues changed?”
The MSU study goes on to state that, using an inflation index based on changes in prices paid by government, between 2002 and 2015, total revenue for Michigan public schools fell from $28.1 billion to $19.7 billion.
This conclusion is based on inflation adjustments made using the GDP price deflator, an index produced by the U.S. Commerce Department. (The CPI is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the U.S. Labor Department.) Had the MSU authors used the much more common CPI to measure inflation, they would have come up with a figure that shows modest gains in inflation-adjusted school revenue, not a decline, according to the Mackinac Center's analysis.
David Arsen, lead author of the MSU study, did not respond to an email and phone call requesting comment.
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.
Don’t Confuse Cold Weather Snap for Climate Change
Swings in temperatures have always happened in Michigan
In her Feb. 12 State of the State speech, Gov. Whitmer claimed that climate change-induced extreme temperature swings were already endangering the health and well-being of Michigan residents. But a quick look at the science and at past temperature records indicates the governor’s warning may not be a cause for concern.
In her State of the State speech, Gov. Whitmer highlighted the drastic changes in temperatures that Michigan and other Midwest states experienced in late January and early February:
Figure 1: 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment - Climate Change Indicators - U.S. Heat Waves
Unfortunately, the governor’s commitment to act misses the mark because her example confuses weather for climate and ignores the fact these extreme weather events are actually trending downward in both frequency and intensity.
Some will protest, claiming — as the governor did — that climate science absolutely proves that climate change-induced extreme weather events are an increasing threat.
To help readers better understand where some of those claims come from, the Fourth National Climate Assessment's “Climate Change Indicators” page contained a graph of U.S. heat waves showing how, from 1960 to the 2010s, heat waves have increased in number.
Figure 2: 2017 Climate Science Special Report, Chapter 6: Temperature Changes in the U.S. - Warmest Temperatures
But a Feb. 14 post on The Deplorable Climate Science Blog notes the value of choosing 1960 as a starting point in the 2018 study graph. It seems the authors and editors of the Fourth National Climate Assessment may have overlooked information from their earlier work.
The blog’s author, noted climate change skeptic and blogger, Tony Heller, pointed to the 2017 edition of the Climate Science Special Report, which included a similar set of graphs, showing temperature records all the way back to 1900. Those graphs are worth revisiting because they reveal that heat waves, or using the less exciting term, “warm spells,” seen in the 1930s were warmer and extended over longer periods than those experienced since 1960. Looking at these two studies — from the same government website — it seems that the dates you pick can make a world of difference in what your findings suggest.
Dr. Judith Curry, president of Climate Forecast Applications Network and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, supported the notion that weather extremes are on a decreasing trend. In her Feb. 6 testimony to the House Committee on Natural Resources, Dr. Curry noted, “Many extreme weather events have documented relationships with natural climate variability; in the U.S., extreme weather events (e.g., droughts, heat waves and hurricanes) were significantly worse in the 1930s and 1950s.”
The remaining graph from the 2017 CSSR, depicting a higher number of cold spells in the early-to-mid 1900s, fits well with observations made by Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. In his post, Dr. Spencer asks, “If the polar vortex is due to global warming, why are U.S. cold waves decreasing?”
Dr. Spencer throws cold water on the idea that climate change is increasing the number and severity of cold waves, like the recent polar vortex event. He provides another graph from his coworker Dr. John Christy showing a significant decline in cold waves from the late 19th century to today. He also helpfully identifies the lack of evidence "supporting the claim that decreasing Arctic sea ice in recent decades is causing more frequent displacement of cold winter air masses into the eastern U.S., at least through the winter of 2017-18.” Spencer points out that the trend in the number and duration of these cold weather events is “markedly downward in the most recent 40 years.”
Figure 3: Average number of Nov-Mar Cold Waves
So, Gov. Whitmer correctly noted an extreme swing in the temperatures that Michigan experienced from the closing days of January to the opening days of February. But, as is clear from historical data, the nation used to experience even worse extremes. So, contrary to Gov. Whitmer’s remarks, if there’s a connection between climate change and extreme temperature swings, it’s one that goes in the opposite direction of what she implied. In other words, based on the historical record, it’s not at all clear how “act[ing]” on climate change would produce fewer extreme temperature swings.
Gov. Whitmer deserves commendation for her concerns about the impacts extreme temperatures may have on the state. But her confusion of weather for climate cannot be disregarded. Basing the state’s energy and environmental policies in that confusion would be a mistake.
The cold weather and strained electricity and natural gas infrastructure across the Midwest indicate that the best course of action to respond to temperature swings is to ensure that competitively sourced, consistent energy supplies are ready and available for Michigan residents. A steady supply of affordable, reliable energy is the best way to properly prepare Michiganders for future cold snaps, even if they occur less frequently these days.
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
More From CapCon