When will we realize that schools should not be funded by property taxes?

A school in a wealthy district has an Olympic sized pool and a planetarium. The school around the corner in a poor district doesn't have chalk or books. The poor kids get a second-rate education. There has GOT to be a more equitable why to fund schools.

would help a lot. It would spread the monies from the rich and poor districts to all the schools in the county. The original reason for local funding in districts is so local people have some control as to how their money is spent and how the children are taught.

because states like Mississippi and (ahem) New Mexico are incredibly poor states and would only share the misery state wide.

But your're right about states like NY and Md. and IL and quite a few others with well heeled suburbs outside crumbling inner cities. They desperately need state wide funding.

Counties are too small. Inner cities are often their own counties and wouldn't share in the bonanza from rich counties.

I once lived in a state with a zillion little school districts. Each little district, even if it had just one elementary, one middle and one high school STILL had a bloated administration, Superintendent, etc. so that a whole lot of the school dollars got eaten up in unnecessary overhead. Do you think any of these rink-dink districts would ever consider unifying for the benefit of the kids and having reduced overhead? No, because any suggestions along that line were always fought off with the bogus argument that the locals would lose "control". Bang head bang head bang head.

and the results are mixed. MD has heavy state administration, to the point where elected local boards and parents are routinely ignored.

Not sure what the right answer is, but I dont see it out there yet.

or just institute a flat 'education' tax. Seems to me that Thomas Jefferson thought something along that line was the way to go - a split between government and citizen to pay for universal education (the basics for all; higher levels for those who excelled).

The student sitting in a classroom seat for interminiable years--continuing ed now--is the school's cash.

Seems like a model of tyranny.

:-)

I teach college history, so you could say I'm kind of invested in the system . . .!

I do think we could do a much better job with all the years we have available.

"invested" in the system, that says it all! Of course teachers are invested in that.

My point is simply that the current school system, especially K-12 (which I extended to make the point), slows 'some' children down. It slowed me down to the point that I can't even relate to people I otherwise admire (because they're smart), and they refuse to relate to what I say.

The longer it takes to educate, the more money they make. It causes all sorts of problems, and some claim it's deliberately designed to do precisly that. If so, how smart is that?

And by 'invested' I meant emotionally -- I guarantee you my salary keeps me in the lower 10%, NOT the upper. I teach because I love teaching, not because it's making me rich! I'm not sure who you think makes money on the public education system, but it isn't the teachers.

I would have to know more about you to comment on your statement beyond that. You seem pretty much on top of things from what little I can see in a conversation of this type.

I agree that the system needs revision, although I'm not sure that reducing the amount of time children spend in school is the answer. I have felt for some time, though, that we should offer different 'tracks' for students, once they have achieved the basic skills of civilization (reading, writing, basic maths, basic science and at least some exposure to the arts and literature).

Would you mind sharing how school 'slowed' you down? In what sense? Please PM me, if you like -- and don't feel obliged to answer the question. I realize it is intrusive and perhaps a bit rude; if I have offended you, please forgive me.

It is not my intent to turn this into an about me, as the thread is supposedly about funding of schools through property taxes.

"I'm not sure who you think makes money on the public education system, but it isn't the teachers."

I agree that teachers are poorly paid compared to other professionals based upon income statistics I've seen. I'm not convinced, with the minimum wage where it is for people who have only spent 13 years in school (K-12), that teachers need more income as much as income differentials between various professional groups of similar education should converge to the levels that teachers are forced to live with. For example, doctors and dentists seem to be paid excessively based upon a time spent in a classroom seat model. CEOs seem to be the top of the greed pile, far above any middle class pay inequities; generations of wealth and investment income are likely a much larger issue versus quibbling over the relative pay of middle class professionals.

Evidently there is or has been a huge problem between poor real estate markets versus rich markets when it comes to funding schools. Generally, I don't mind paying property taxes for the schools (except when some educational advocate on DU decides to say that my views are worthless while they simultaneously want me to keep paying taxes for schools), but it seems that a child is a child no matter what income level their parents may come from: it seems every child should have a somewhat equal opportunity for education near their home neighborhoods no matter where that neighborhood happens to be.

The main reason I responded to you is that in any discussion of schooling and school income, which is obviously related to taxation for the public school system, it seems the students and their plight is never mentioned, even while the financial structure of schools is based upon the numbers of pupils in attendance; this appears to reduce children to a de facto 'physical monetary unit' when considering the schools vested financial interest. Since U.S. culture seems to have perpetual greed issues that have brought us severe long-term problems, among them an acceleration of global warming and the continuing of an oil economy after the scientists of the 70s raised the alarm bells, reducing children to a monetary unit would seem to start the indoctrination in requisite thinking needed for perpetuating a greed-based society.

Money, while it can buy a CEO or other wealthy citizen much independence, seems each of us is more equal than income disparities reinforce, and issues of quality of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness don't seem to be well addressed by our monetary system in any way that can be considered just or equal. Therefore, among other issues, I question that portion of the educational system that reduces a child to a monetary unit and thereby seems to help perpetuate and strengthen a greater cultural illness that will likely result in the downfall of another civilization.

others it is also the fact that property taxes are so unfair. Many elderly people are screwed by them and often don't have kids in the system.

who don't have kids on average harder than those with kids.

As a group they are both the richest and the most needy in our society. At the every least means testing would be required, and that is in place in some areas. If you are worried about ability to pay, consider that property taxes are figured in to rent as well. If a truly progressive system is what is wanted, it means some sort of income or consumption tax to support schools.

I do agree that virtually any other tax would be more progressive but this one has the added problem of creating a class of people who are incapable of paying more taxes and thus vote against school levies with regularity.

who had access to free education when they were young?

I'd just like to interject: I have a 3 year old great-grandchild. I'm happy to know some of my taxes go to educate her and all the other little ones. Elderly who resent funding education are short-sighted, greedy old coots as far as I'm concerned.

Cornerstones of this country are/should be: Healthcare; Education;Living Wages. Those are the tools for a decent life and have to be available for all.

Property taxes are inherintly unfair as a basis for School financing. We all know the problems. The solution has to come from higher up, at the state level. Even that is unfair with rich states having an advantage. But it has to be the state because of the distribution of powers in the Constitution. Anything lowerr than the state is biased.

I RECALL THEY SAID BECAUSE EVERYONE CHARGES THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE IT WAS AGAINST THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. ORIGINALLY I THINK EVERYONE COULD USE THE PROPERTY TAX AS AN AUXILIARY TAX TO BOLSTER THE SCHOOL TAXES, BUT WHEN EVERYONE TAXED AT THE MAXIMUM RATE ALLOWED BY LAW THEY HAD THE PROBLEM AGAIN WITH SOME DISTRICTS HAVING MORE REVENUE AND THEREFORE BETTER SCHOOL SUPPORT. IT WAS RETURNED TO BE ALTERED SOMEHOW BUT IN IT'S CURRENT FORM IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I DON'T HAVE A LINK BUT I REMEMBER IT BECAUSE I STILL HAVE PROPERTY IN TEXAS AND IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT ME, AND MAYBE WHERE I RETIRE.

equally distributed.
After all, the wealthy districts' argument that they shouldn't support poorer ones is as specious as childless people claiming thay shouldn't support schools at all.