Public Education Funding: Property Taxes vs Equal Distribution

[jamil]

Property tax on one’s home is bad.
Change my mind.

You'll get no argument from me. I'd rather a sales tax than that.

 

[JettaKnight]

One thought on the matter: (not my only one, so don't try and pin me down.)

A tide raises all ships. If a well educated populace increases productivity, reduces crime, and leads to prosperity for all, then it can be argued that it is a public good best funded by taxpayers. (See "lighthouses and autopsies")

And if anyone thinks that more money somehow automatically means a better education....

That's like saying a more expensive guitar will make be a better player.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

This is why I referenced education funding from all sources...because that's what I think the issue really was.

...but people who pay more income taxes have a tendency to pay more property taxes too. So the discussion is more wealthy (or average) income areas versus poor areas for education funding.

And if anyone thinks that more money somehow automatically means a better education....

And does a better education automatically mean better quality of life? Higher income/lower crime rate/etc. I would assume there’s a correlation.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Do all public schools use the same curriculum?

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm kinda torn on how to fund schools. I think it's a problem that poor school districts under-fund schools, and then under educate kids, and then they grow up to be poor adults, and then they send their kids to the same ****ty schools they went to, and the cycle continues. I'd like to see the education system become more consistent across school districts. I lived in Missippi for 8 years and I'll tell you their public schools are ****. They're one of the poorest states in the nation and they have one of the worst public school systems. It's not the kids fault that they have ****ty schools. They don't have a lot of choice but to grow up under-educated.

What? I was told on INGO they just need to think more positive about themselves.

That sounds like something that really needs fixed. But how do you fix that? As you move the financial responsibility up the government levels, you cede more control over what your kids are taught to those higher levels. Do we want those decisions left to federal, state, or local governments? There's something to be said for nationwide consistency, but then that comes at the expense of local sensibilities. I think it's a hard problem to solve.

I want the state to take control when the district does a ****ty job, and the state to butt out when the district does good.


Yeah, that's a helluva lot easy to say than do.


I know that "local sensibilities" can turn into a cesspool of incompetence, and if you try and pull the drain plug, you're bound to have twenty bureaucrats fight you.

 

[HoughMade]

And does a better education automatically mean better quality of life? Higher income/lower crime rate/etc. I would assume there’s a correlation.

Correlated? Probably....but the violence, chaos at home, illegitimacy and everything else that goes into making a place poor probably have more to do with outcomes than education budgets.

 

[JettaKnight]

Do all public schools use the same curriculum?

No.


The district sets them. 'Round here, that's done by a handful of administrators and a lot of teachers looking for part time summer employment.


The State sets a list of standards, i.e. a things they deem important that students learn. This is what's meant by, "teaching to the test".

Correlated? Probably....but the violence, chaos at home, illegitimacy and everything else that goes into making a place poor probably have more to do with outcomes than education budgets.

THIS.

When a kid has behavior problems, worried that dad will come home drunk, or mom won't come home at all, and hasn't eaten since the school lunch the day before, it's damn hard to get the rugrat to focus.

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure that is true across the board. I believe Indianapolis Public Schools spends more per student than any other school district in the state, and compared to the township schools, it has lower per-capita income/home values. It also has a lower academic performance rate.

I think that may have something to do with diseconomies of scale. For example, part of that added cost per student might be the higher cost of maintaining aging infrastructure. They can't afford newer more efficient buildings, but they can afford to pay more over time to maintain the old dilapidated ones, and then add on top of that the higher number of kids they have to try to educate. Anyway, I think it would be a facile exercise to assume that higher cost per student means they're misusing the funds they have, and that if they could just manage their money better they could improve things.

But also, it is more than just funding, at least a little. The student body and their parents have at least something to do with the success of the school. It seems that the ****ty schools tend to have the ****tiest buildings in the ****tiest neighborhoods, and maybe even have the ****tiest teachers (no offense if you're a teacher teaching in such conditions, I'm just saying it seems the best teachers would tend to teach at the best schools). So it's a multifaceted problem. Poor community probably means ****ty resources, which impacts education value. And then in a poor community, the parents are mostly not well educated, and may not have the best upbringing, and may not be the best parents, and may not produce the best students.

 

[JettaKnight]

I'm not sure that is true across the board. I believe Indianapolis Public Schools spends more per student than any other school district in the state, and compared to the township schools, it has lower per-capita income/home values. It also has a lower academic performance rate.

I wonder how their salaries compare against Ft. Wayne. Cost of living in Indy is more than elsewhere.



gotta remember to ask my wife...

 

[jamil]

This is why I referenced education funding from all sources...because that's what I think the issue really was.

...but people who pay more income taxes have a tendency to pay more property taxes too. So the discussion is more wealthy (or average) income areas versus poor areas for education funding.

And if anyone thinks that more money somehow automatically means a better education....

If we did an experiment, where we moved all the poor kids into the wealthiest schools, I think the outcome of that would be more poor kids will do better in those schools than in the schools they attended. Of course not all, or maybe even not most. But I'll say many would. I also think the opposite would be true. If you put the students from the affluent schools into the ****ty schools, I think many of those student's would become worst students.

But I do agree with you that throwing money at it isn't a solution. Maybe the best option, but certainly not the most politically correct option, would be to sort it by aptitude and ability. The best students get to go to the best schools, regardless of socioeconomic status. My son's high school was pretty good. More affluent area. Top notch facilities. Mostly great teachers. But he said there were a lot of slackers who didn't take advantage. Okay, so in those better schools, why spend that money more efficiently? Put the best students in the best schools. Put the worst students in the ****ty schools, where it kinda doesn't matter, because those resources are not helping.

 

[jamil]

One thought on the matter: (not my only one, so don't try and pin me down.)

A tide raises all ships. If a well educated populace increases productivity, reduces crime, and leads to prosperity for all, then it can be argued that it is a public good best funded by taxpayers. (See "lighthouses and autopsies")




That's like saying a more expensive guitar will make be a better player.

It's not just the guitar though. Who is the teacher? How much time is devoted in practice? How much do parents support the learning? And it is at least a little the guitar. It takes a very devoted player to learn to play well on an utter piece of ****. You don't need the most expensive guitar to learn, but there is a minimum standard.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This is why I referenced education funding from all sources...because that's what I think the issue really was.

...but people who pay more income taxes have a tendency to pay more property taxes too. So the discussion is more wealthy (or average) income areas versus poor areas for education funding.

And if anyone thinks that more money somehow automatically means a better education....

There seem to be a lot of people down here that believe that. That's why they keep throwing money at the problem.

 

[jamil]

There seem to be a lot of people down here that believe that. That's why they keep throwing money at the problem.

****ty schools have more than one cause. Money is at least a little part of it. But there's only so much more money can do. All those other things matter too. And then when you solve all of those, how do you fix the last and possibly the most important one: apathetic parents who don't take an interest in their kid's school, and probably don't instill a work ethic that helps them succeed?

 

[HoughMade]

If we did an experiment, where we moved all the poor kids into the wealthiest schools, I think the outcome of that would be more poor kids will do better in those schools than in the schools they attended. Of course not all, or maybe even not most. But I'll say many would. I also think the opposite would be true. If you put the students from the affluent schools into the ****ty schools, I think many of those student's would become worst students.

Living in the same neighborhood, with the same parent(s) the same home life, the same everything else?

Better, perhaps...but probably a lot less improvement than you might think. Maybe none.

 

[JettaKnight]

There seem to be a lot of people down here that believe that. That's why they keep throwing money at the problem.

Yeah, it's two-fold: Superindents begging, and legislators wanting to do something easy and pad their resume.

If we did an experiment, where we moved all the poor kids into the wealthiest schools, I think the outcome of that would be more poor kids will do better in those schools than in the schools they attended. Of course not all, or maybe even not most. But I'll say many would. I also think the opposite would be true. If you put the students from the affluent schools into the ****ty schools, I think many of those student's would become worst students.

I have to look it up, but I think there was a Freaknomics episode about an experiment that did just that.


There was a Clinton era project that gave income families money, but stipulated where they could live.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

****ty schools have more than one cause. Money is at least a little part of it. But there's only so much more money can do. All those other things matter too. And then when you solve all of those, how do you fix the last and possibly the most important one: apathetic parents who don't take an interest in their kid's school, and probably don't instill a work ethic that helps them succeed?

That's the biggest thing I think - probably a lot more single parent households in the city schools, and probably a lot of those single parents are pretty apathetic. Not all of course.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Bussing was an attempt at putting the poorer kids into better schools (under the pretense of racial diversity). It failed miserably.

 

[jamil]

Living in the same neighborhood, with the same parent(s) the same home life, the same everything else?

Better, perhaps...but probably a lot less improvement than you might think. Maybe none.

Not every student in poor school districts is a bad student, and probably would be better students if they had better teachers and better resources. Like I said, not all, not most, but many. I'd like to see as many of those be able to break the cycle as possible.

 

[indyartisan]

Judge S Hugh Dillion ordered the bussing of poor inner city kids to my school in the 70s.
It did not increase my quality of
education to say the least.

 

[jamil]

Bussing was an attempt at putting the poorer kids into better schools (under the pretense of racial diversity). It failed miserably.

And it's failing in Louisville. And that's why many of the middle class people move over here when they start having families. They don't want their kids bused all over town, and they don't want to take the chance that their kid will have to go to a ****ty school.