My questioning of the credibility of the Utah Foundation’s conclusion is not really an “attack” on the messenger.  Rather, it is a reasonable concern about the conflict of interest that the Utah Foundation has created for itself on the issue of public education finance.  Over the years, they have chosen to accept public funds from the Utah State Office of Education to do research on education issues – that’s just a plain statement of fact, not an “attack” of any sort. 

I think most reasonable people would understand that this organizational decision on the part of the Utah Foundation creates a conflict of interest for them when it comes to drawing conclusions on the efforts of the state to fund the public education system, which includes the Utah State Office of Education.  What they are doing, in part, is drawing conclusions on the willingness of the state to fund an office that has been a source of revenue for them.

In that context, it is completely reasonable and logical, and not an “attack,” to be skeptical when the Utah Foundation concludes that the state could put more effort into funding public education.  By the way, it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.  It simply means that they are not the most credible spokesman on the issue.  They are concluding what you’d expect them to conclude given the circumstances.  I think that most fair-minded people with knowledge of the facts would have similar concerns about the credibility of the Utah Foundation’s conclusion (though, like you, they might in the end agree with that conclusion).

Diverting Income Tax to Higher Ed (Report I) – This policy change was a constitutional amendment, meaning it passed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of the Utah Legislature AND a majority of the voting public backed it in a general election.  Overturning that would require jumping those same high political hurdles, and would amount to the legislature basically saying that both they and the public were wrong to support the idea in the first place.  Combine that with the opposition this amendment would draw from the higher education system, and I would say that the political viability of this idea is questionable, if not completely unrealistic.

Corporate Sales and Property Tax Reductions (Report II) – In both cases, what they’re advocating for amounts to a tax increase (either eliminating sales tax exemptions or raising property taxes).  Both of those policies would have as many negative social and economic impacts on the state there would be benefits for public schools (tax increases getting passed onto consumers, decreased economic activity and fewer jobs produced, etc.).  The exception to this, in my opinion, would be doing away with corporate property tax incentive packages that businesses sometimes get.  But, ironically, the school districts themselves agree to these special property tax deals.  IOW, the public school system is in part inflicting this aspect of the funding problem on itself!

Property Tax Rate Reductions (Report III) – Again, the possible benefits for public schools are offset by the negative economic and social impacts of a general property tax increase.  Further, EVERYONE hates property taxes, so this idea is politically D.O.A.  So this really doesn’t have much value as a serious policy idea.

Income Tax Reform (Report IV) – Just like report III, this report is basically calling for a tax increase by arguing that public schools would be better off under the old income tax system, in which income taxes were higher.  Just like sales and property tax increases, there will be similar negative economic and social impacts from raising income taxes, and the politics of tax increases make this idea unrealistic politically.

In sum, three of the four positive policy “changes” implied by the Utahns for Public Schools’ reports are tax hikes, which are bad economic policies and are politically unrealistic.  The fourth policy change (repealing the constitutional change), is at best
politically questionable, and politically impossible at worst.  These reports reinforce the point of my blog post: the policy “solutions” of the left are not serious policy ideas, though they may make good sound bytes.

So while I have no dispute with the data they report, I can’t simply accept their conclusion on the effort that Utah is putting into funding public schools at face value.  What are they supposed to say, that Utah is adequately funding public education and they don’t need to give more money to one of their significant sources of revenue?  Not likely.

The Utah Foundation does some good work, but when you choose to accept funding from the government education agencies, any conclusion you make about education funding is questionable.

I did not imply that those who advocate for more public school funding are all on the left.  I simply targeted my blog post to the “give schools more money” position of education advocates on the left.  In other words, I wanted to talk about how un-serious the left’s policy ideas are on public education, but that doesn’t imply that I think people on the left are the only ones who want more money in public schools. 

Everyone wants more money in public schools, but we have to be serious about how that can go in a state with large families, high public school participation, and an aversion to tax increases.  If we don’t accept the policy and political realities that we face, we’ll never arrive at any substantive solutions to education funding issues, regardless of our good intentions and desires.