News Story

Teacher Pay Data Part of Public Discussion Of School Finance

Here’s why we request data on teacher pay

For the last four years, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy has submitted an open records request to the Michigan Office of Retirement Services (ORS) for the salaries of public school teachers, principals and administrators.

This year, ORS sent out an email alerting thousands of teachers about that Freedom of Information Act request. That triggered a response from many teachers who contacted the Mackinac Center with their concerns.

One teacher from a suburban Detroit school district sent an email making these statements:

“My wife and I both work as teachers and have for 27 years.”

“Every year of our lives we have worked paycheck to paycheck.”

“We knew teaching wouldn’t make us rich, but this is not what we signed up for.”

“Excuse me - I have to go do my second job now so that I can pay my mortgage.”

That teacher made more than $91,000 in 2016-17. His wife made more than $95,000. Michigan Capitol Confidential is not publishing the name of the teachers.

That email exchange highlights the importance of educating the public in the ongoing debate about school funding in Michigan. “Instructional expenditures,” which includes teacher pay, account for about 60 percent of a typical public school’s operating expenses.

Salary information also gives important context to stories that could be misleading if it’s absent.

In June 2017, the Ann Arbor News published a story titled, “Ann Arbor teacher says pay so low he has to deliver pizzas.”

Ann Arbor Public Schools teacher Jeff Kass showed up at a school board meeting to complain about his salary wearing a Cottage Inn Pizza uniform he wears for a second job. The Ann Arbor News did not report his teacher's salary. It was $81,240 in 2016-17.

On Feb. 10, Michigan Capitol Confidential published a story about many teachers in Flint Community Schools suffering salary reductions due to the district’s plummeting enrollment. That story was based on salary information obtained from an open records request to the state as well as OpenTheBooks.com. The nonprofit has posted public salary data of nearly every government worker in Michigan and other states for years, allowing for a direct year-over-year comparison of pay and giving citizens the ability to see what cities are paying for services.

Teacher salary information is also important because the mainstream media have historically not challenged compensation assertions made by teachers, union administrators or academic experts.

For example, the Oakland Press ran a story in 2015 written by Rochester Community Schools teacher Julia Satterthwaite. The story carried the title “Oakland County teachers work second jobs to make ends meet.” Satterthwaite was working at the newspaper as an intern.

The article mentioned a 37-year-old Rochester teacher who worked a second job. The story failed to mention that the teacher earned $88,980 that year.

Michigan Capitol Confidential’s policy has been to not identify teachers when reporting on their salaries unless they are in the news or make public mention of teacher compensation.

Caleb Buhs, director of communications for the state's Department of Technology, Management and Budget, said they started notifying state employees in March of 2017 whenever they release personal information such as salaries.

"This is done for any request that releases this type of information, regardless of the requestor," Buhs said in an email.

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.

Commentary

State’s MBDP Job Creation Claims an Inconvenient Fiction

Just because government says its effective doesn’t mean it is

As state budget discussions are underway, now may be a good time to revisit the state’s corporate welfare complex to search for scarce dollars that could be redirected to higher priorities. One area that could be examined involve subsidies that support the Michigan Business Development Program. This program takes money away from lots of people and business and gives it to a few in the hope it may create more jobs than might otherwise occur.

The Mackinac Center just yesterday released a study about the MBDP and it finds it does not, on balance, create new jobs. The state of Michigan thinks differently. It claimed last year that so many jobs will be created by the program that $10 in new personal income tax revenue will flow back to the state economy for every dollar it gave to companies in fiscal 2016.

The program gives subsidies, loans and other handouts to a favored few firms in exchange for promises to create jobs or make certain investments. It has offered up $300 million in 319 deals through fiscal 2016, though only about half of that amount has actually been disbursed. As part of state law, the agencies managing this program must produce return-on-investment analyses to help justify the program. They do this by using a software program known as REMI, which helps them measure the economic and fiscal impact.

Here’s out it works. The analyst plugs the pledged inputs — new jobs, compensation and investment, for instance — into the REMI software, which generates a report on expected outcomes. These estimates are done for each MBDP deal, summed up and averaged for the relevant state agencies (the Michigan Strategic Fund and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation) and the report they present to the Legislature each year.

The bad news is that companies often don’t live up to their pledges. Companies that get deals in one year may fail, and in the next year see their agreement terminated. That means the agencies’ annual report to the Legislature shows the effects of successes that turn out to be failures. Yet when that next year’s report comes around, it doesn’t mention that the previous ROI estimates were too high. Such an omission may lead lawmakers and others to believe the program is more successful than it really is.

It’s fairly common for companies to fail to live up the terms of their deal. In the previous three legislative reports 34 companies are shown to have had their deals revoked. A spokesperson for the MEDC said that at least eight more revocations will be included in the 2018 report. Not all failures are due to company performance short comings, but many are. The fiscal 2016 report detailed nine revocations, and eight involved a company’s failure to meet some milestone or parameter of its agreements with the state.

That’s only a portion of the problem. Around a third of MBDP deals have been or are in some stage of default and dismissal (revocation). Sometimes the company may turn it around and at other times, it will not. Even then, some companies on the fringe of failing to meet some stipulation in their agreement with the state may ask for their deals to be amended. In the MSF-MEDC fiscal 2016 report to the Legislature, 38 amendments are offered up and 28 of them appear to lower some performance standard such as the expected number of jobs to be created.

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s new study, titled “An Assessment of the Michigan Business Development Program,” eschews projections for historical fact. We built a statistical model based on workforce data at the county level and reports from state agencies from 2012 through 2016 in an attempt to isolate the impact of this program on the number of jobs. We find that for every $500,000 in disbursed funds, there was a loss of more than 600 jobs in the county in which MBDP projects were located.

Our economic analysis shows that this state program doesn’t create jobs but rather costs them. It should be eliminated.

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.