Would Residents Favor School Spending Hike If It Meant 21 Percent Income Tax Hike?

Pollsters didn’t ask; a 62 percent cut to road repairs would also free up the $2.3 billion specified

By Tom Gantert | August 24, 2018

A Washington, D.C., consulting firm released survey results that its sponsors claim show strong support among Michigan residents for a $1,500 per-pupil increase in funding for Michigan’s public schools. Although that amount was mentioned, the survey did not explicitly ask respondents — who were also told that current funding is inadequate — whether they supported such an increase.

The increase would amount to a $2.3 billion rise in spending on K-12 public schools. Paying for such an increase would require the equivalent of a 21 percent increase in the state income tax rate, from 4.25 percent to 5.15 percent.

While respondents weren’t asked if they favored such an increase in school spending, the $1,500 per student figure was mentioned in a 116-word preface leading up to the question.

A question in the poll states, “Changing gears a bit, I am going to read you some details about a proposal about changing the way schools are funded in Michigan by establishing a standard, per pupil funding formula?”

“Business leaders and education experts from across the state came together last year to address inadequate funding for public and charter schools in Michigan. This diverse and nonpartisan group commissioned a one-of-a-kind study to determine the base cost of educating a student. The amount excludes transportation like bussing, food service, like lunches, and capital costs, like building construction and upkeep. It recommends a $1,500 increase in current funding levels, from $8,000 per student per year to $9,590 per student per year. Some people are proposing to use the findings of this study to change the way we fun schools and establish a standard, per pupil funding baseline amount for all Michigan public and charter school students.”

“Would you favor or oppose this proposal to change the way schools are funded in Michigan by establishing a standard, per pupil funding formula?”

To that question, 60 percent of the people either stated they “somewhat favor” or “strongly favor.”

The survey was commissioned by a group largely comprised of school spending interests. Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner, the research firm which conducted the survey, didn’t respond to an email seeking comment.

If $2.3 billion more for schools were funded with spending cuts rather than a tax hike, the amount required would be the equivalent of a 62 percent cut in funding for road repairs. Alternately, it would be equivalent to closing all the state’s prisons and eliminating 75 percent of the state’s funding for community colleges.

Ari Adler, spokesman for Gov. Rick Snyder, said that school funding has increased over the years.

“If talking strictly funding, it’s important to note that total state taxpayer spending on education now stands at nearly $13 billion annually,” he said in an email. “Since fiscal year 2011, K-12 funding has increased by $2.1 billion. In addition, the fiscal year 2019 budget provides the largest per-pupil increase in more than 15 years and significantly reduce the equity gap among districts.”

State-only funding for all public schools was $10.80 billion in 2010-11. It is $12.86 billion in 2017-18. In 2010-11, the state spent the equivalent of $11.87 billion when stated in 2018 dollars, meaning that after inflation, state spending on schools has increased by $1 billion since then.

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.

Spending Interests Want Spending

Yet spending interests won’t say where the money should come from

By James M. Hohman | August 23, 2018

The Michigan School Finance Research Collaborative — a group of school interests that want more money for schools — released a poll indicating that Michigan voters also want more school funding. Without listing where the money would come from, the poll tells politicians little about popular budget priorities.

Michigan levies taxes, and lawmakers decide where that money should go in annual budgets. If lawmakers want to spend more on schools, the money has to come from somewhere — tax increases, spending decreases elsewhere, or economic growth that generates higher tax revenue. The statement that people want more school money needs to be followed with a recommendation for where it should come from.

Of course, schools have been getting more money already. School revenue is up 4.6 percent above inflation since the 2009-10 fiscal year, even as there are 184,000 fewer students (7.3 percent) in the system. Economic growth drove the state budget to increase, and school funding with it, though not as much. This means that schools have been less of a priority than, say, disbursements to local governments, which are up 13 percent above inflation. Or spending on roads, which is up 50 percent above inflation and bolstered by recent tax hikes.

If voters supported an increase in, say, the sales tax to go to schools, it would provide stronger evidence that there is popular support for more school funding.

Yet through the common tactic of the trough truce, spending interests ignore the question of where extra money for their cause should come from. If they are all in it together to get more money, then it’s difficult for them to single out an area to spend less on. To cite one example, even if business subsidies are ineffective, and money on them could be spent elsewhere, it is rare for the recipients of other government spending to complain about them.

The reluctance to criticize other areas of government spending may explain why the school finance poll hides the important question of where the money should come from. The question the collaborative asked voters obfuscates the issue of whether there are costs for more school spending. In the results of the survey that the group shared, 60 percent of voters said that they would favor “this proposal to change the way schools are funded in Michigan by establishing a standard, per pupil funding formula.” This is a question about per-pupil funding, not funding increases. It was interpreted as an endorsement of funding increases because the description of the proposed funding formula noted that it would increase funding. But the question itself tells little about whether voters want more funding.

The polling firm further asked whether schools receive too much, too little, or just about the right amount of funding, and most respondents said that it was too little. This again provides little information about where the money should come from.

Until there is broad consensus about where schools stand in relation to spending on other things or letting taxpayers keep more of their own money, state lawmakers are going to have to trust their guts when establishing a budget. Polls that leave out other spending priorities won’t reveal whether extra school funding has popular support.