The fundamental inequality problem in America

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Week 1: Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem

Why is it that one Chicago-area district has $9,794 to spend on each of its students, while another, nearby district has three times that?

Two words: property tax.

An old article, but one which highlights a massive problem. In my opinion, as long as America uses a system whereby property and business taxes fund local governments, and while those local governments are responsible for school funding, you will never fix inequality in the US. The system itself is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be suburbs that are nicer and thus cost more to live in than otters, there will always be some areas able to attract more businesses than others. That in itself is not a huge problem.

However, when the provision of fundamental services is localised and linked to taxes based on property value, you create a huge problem. Because not only do you create inherent inequality, but you create an incentive for people living in one area to fight any measure to spend “their” taxes anywhere BUT their local area (for example by bringing in children from another poorer school district to attend better resourced local schools).

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

 

[HTacianas]

Week 1: Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem



An old article, but one which highlights a massive problem. In my opinion, as long as America uses a system whereby property and business taxes fund local governments, and while those local governments are responsible for school funding, you will never fix inequality in the US. The system itself is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be suburbs that are nicer and thus cost more to live in than otters, there will always be some areas able to attract more businesses than others. That in itself is not a huge problem.

However, when the provision of fundamental services is localised and linked to taxes based on property value, you create a huge problem. Because not only do you create inherent inequality, but you create an incentive for people living in one area to fight any measure to spend “their” taxes anywhere BUT their local area (for example by bringing in children from another poorer school district to attend better resourced local schools).

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

"America" does not fund its schools that way. State and local school boards do. And to take that control away from the local level and turn it over to the national level is simply wrong. It takes power away from the people and hands it over to government. And in your example of 9000 dollars a year per student, funding is not the problem.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Week 1: Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem

An old article, but one which highlights a massive problem. In my opinion, as long as America uses a system whereby property and business taxes fund local governments, and while those local governments are responsible for school funding, you will never fix inequality in the US. The system itself is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be suburbs that are nicer and thus cost more to live in than otters, there will always be some areas able to attract more businesses than others. That in itself is not a huge problem.

However, when the provision of fundamental services is localised and linked to taxes based on property value, you create a huge problem. Because not only do you create inherent inequality, but you create an incentive for people living in one area to fight any measure to spend “their” taxes anywhere BUT their local area (for example by bringing in children from another poorer school district to attend better resourced local schools).

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

There's pros and cons in this situation.

Taken to their extremes, both scenarios have the potential to result in some pretty concerning outcomes.

With a "100% local funding model", you have scenarios where you have one school that doesn't even have air conditioning yet, meanwhile a school 8 miles away has so much excess revenue that it's putting in a gourmet coffee shop (I use that example because it actually happened in a city that's only 20 minutes away from me here in Ohio)

The downside of driving it off a state/federal model is that it's much less stable than property tax, and the notion of "sending local property taxes outside the district" is going to all but guarantee that just about everyone votes against any new local levies or taxes.

Is It Time to Stop Funding Schools With Local Property Taxes?
(while this reads as an opinion piece, it provides some good points on both sides)

And the glaring flaw with handling it at a state/national level is the differences in costs by locality...

Simply allocating $X per student is going to fail miserably when one considers that things cost more in San Francisco (including the cost of labor) than they do in rural Kansas.

Simply allocating the same amount per student is still going to end in some form of inequality.

Let's pretend it was federalized, and it was determined that the US was going to ensure that every school was to receive $7500 per student.

A school with 400 students in rural Kanas is still going to make out better than a school with 400 in San Fransisco. It's a lot cheaper to hire a janitor, teachers, etc...

The average teacher in San Fran makes an average of $75k/year, in Wichita it's $49k. (due to the differences in cost of living)

The only way you could adjust for that is to adjust the amount per student based on cost of living in the area they live in, and that's going to rightfully ruffle some feathers...a person living in a rural midwestern city is going to (justifiably) say "Why should I be paying more because this other family wants to live in an area where the cost of living/labor is higher???"

Unless you're willing to say "if the amount per student is the same, then the amount of pay per faculty member should be the same across all districts as well"? ...but that would be tricky, as it's more expensive to live in some areas than others, and to expect teachers in NYC to work for the same salary as teachers in a rural midwestern town is unrealistic.


Many states employ a hybrid model between local/state/federal funding...it seems like perhaps a tweak in those ratios would be a better approach than simply replacing it with a state/federal model.

 

[Occams Barber]

"America" does not fund its schools that way. State and local school boards do. And to take that control away from the local level and turn it over to the national level is simply wrong. It takes power away from the people and hands it over to government. And in your example of 9000 dollars a year per student, funding is not the problem.

In Australia public and private schools receive funds through a mix of State and Federal Government funding. The States are responsible for actually running public schools. There is no local funding and no such thing as a 'local school board"

To say this is "simply wrong" represents a cultural difference rather than something which is objectively incorrect. The impact of a mix of State/Federal funding means that individual schools are less disadvantaged by local economic factors.

OB

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

And to take that control away from the local level and turn it over to the national level is simply wrong. It takes power away from the people and hands it over to government.

But that basically proves my point. Local taxes paying for local schools with local input guarantees inequality, poor outcomes in poor areas and incentivises people in wealthy areas to do everything they can to protect "their" patch.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

And the glaring flaw with handling it at a state/national level is the differences in costs by locality...

Simply allocating $X per student is going to fail miserably when one considers that things cost more in San Francisco (including the cost of labor) than they do in rural Kansas.

Same issue in my state, and yet they manage to work around the problem. And I's argue that the current model is "failing miserably" anyway.

Simply allocating the same amount per student is still going to end in some form of inequality.

Let's pretend it was federalized, and it was determined that the US was going to ensure that every school was to receive $7500 per student.
.

I don't think a "per student" funding model is the way to go. You specify what a school needs (maintenance, cleaners etc.) and you hire them as per the conditions, not based on per-student funding. the fact that cleaners cost more in city areas than country towns is balanced out in the funding models.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Beverly Hills Unified School District: The school district's spending/student of $30,903 is higher than the state median of $14,597.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think a "per student" funding model is the way to go. You specify what a school needs (maintenance, cleaners etc.) and you hire them as per the conditions, not based on per-student funding. the fact that cleaners cost more in city areas than country towns is balanced out in the funding models.

...but that ties in with the issue I mentioned before.

How do you get people in areas where the cost of living is lower to sign off on a tax hike on themselves because another locality does something that raises the cost of labor or implements a regulatory policy that makes building maintenance or other functions of the school more expensive?

From a national level, if another state raises their state minimum wage, and thus, it's now more expensive to hire janitors, food service employees, etc...

If a state teachers' union negotiates higher teacher salaries for their particular state (and another state does not), now the "need" in that locality is larger (which means everyone has to chip in more), but the other localities see no benefit from that.

From a state level, how do you handle the situation where School A is in a city where they decide to ban GMO foods or use of plastic straws, or some less expensive cleaning supplies (making them use more expensive alternatives) and School B is in a city that does not? Or localities that have more expensive building/construction regulations than others?

Now we have a sticky situation where local laws can impact school operational costs (which everyone in the state would have to pay for), but only the people in those localities get to vote on those local laws.

 

[Albion]

But that basically proves my point. Local taxes paying for local schools with local input guarantees inequality, poor outcomes in poor areas and incentivises people in wealthy areas to do everything they can to protect "their" patch.

But most, if not every state, finances its schools with a local property tax AND ALSO with grants from the state which, in turn, partially are passed through to the local districts from the federal government.

Therefore, you're right that not every school district is funded to the same level as every other one, but it's not true that this owes exclusively to property taxes being unequal.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

...but that ties in with the issue I mentioned before.

How do you get people in areas where the cost of living is lower to sign off on a tax hike on themselves because another locality does something that raises the cost of labor or implements a regulatory policy that makes building maintenance or other functions of the school more expensive?

You don't necessarily have to change how much tax people pay, more how and by whom it is collected. Right now, federal taxes go to help the poor more than the rich, but (generally) people accept this as part of any modern society.

From a national level, if another state raises their state minimum wage, and thus, it's now more expensive to hire janitors, food service employees, etc...

We have a national minimum wage here - problem solved.

If a state teachers' union negotiates higher teacher salaries for their particular state (and another state does not), now the "need" in that locality is larger (which means everyone has to chip in more), but the other localities see no benefit from that.

Not necessarily. The problem is where the tax comes from, not how much is paid.

From a state level, how do you handle the situation where School A is in a city where they decide to ban GMO foods or use of plastic straws, or some less expensive cleaning supplies (making them use more expensive alternatives) and School B is in a city that does not? Or localities that have more expensive building/construction regulations than others?

Now we have a sticky situation where local laws can impact school operational costs (which everyone in the state would have to pay for), but only the people in those localities get to vote on those local laws.

I think you're still looking at the issue from the POV of the current model. Anything that is federally or state funded in the US could have the same issue, but I don't hear people complaining about state roads or federal highways being built, despite the fact that they are funded from state and federal taxes, and inevitably benefit some people more than others.

In my state, it is inevitable that the cost to build a school is much higher in the capital (one of the most expensive in the world) versus rural areas. Yet I've never heard a protest about building new schools, because people accept the need for them, and the funding comes from state and federal taxes.

When you tie so much funding to local (property value) taxes, then you get people fighting for "their" patch. Personally I would dump them - at least for private owner-occupied dwellings - in favour of federal taxes (like a GST) which are then distributed to schools on an as-needed basis.

The problem is not the level of tax paid, but what the taxes are, where those taxes end up and where they're distributed to. Property taxes encourage "localised" thinking - plus they're a problem in other ways too.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We have a national minimum wage here - problem solved.

...but states have the power to set their own...unless what you're prescribing here is that we scrap all state minimum wage laws and replace them with one uniform federal minimum wage?

I think it goes without saying that it could present some serious challenges.

I think you're still looking at the issue from the POV of the current model. Anything that is federally or state funded in the US could have the same issue, but I don't hear people complaining about state roads or federal highways being built, despite the fact that they are funded from state and federal taxes, and inevitably benefit some people more than others.

In my state, it is inevitable that the cost to build a school is much higher in the capital (one of the most expensive in the world) versus rural areas. Yet I've never heard a protest about building new schools, because people accept the need for them, and the funding comes from state and federal taxes.

When you tie so much funding to local (property value) taxes, then you get people fighting for "their" patch. Personally I would dump them - at least for private owner-occupied dwellings - in favour of federal taxes (like a GST) which are then distributed to schools on an as-needed basis.

The problem is not the level of tax paid, but what the taxes are, where those taxes end up and where they're distributed to. Property taxes encourage "localised" thinking - plus they're a problem in other ways too.

The process for building/maintaining roads is a little more uniform than public education in our country...and roads are a little bit less of a "political football"

The reason why there's is localized thinking, is because there are localized values.

Localities are much better suited at determining their own needs for the area than higher levels of government, and it's only a matter of time before bickering starts.

When "District A" (which has a local culture focused on athletic programs in schools) says "We need some new equipment for our team", who assesses if they really "need" it? And when a district that doesn't care much about sports gets wind that the other school just got a check from the central government, the first thing they're going to do is show up knocking with their hand out saying "you just gave them $10,000, where's ours??? We're a science focused community and we need $10,000 for our science programs"

The other major drawback is that putting that in the hands of a higher level of government (be it state or federal) is that you're putting all of your eggs in one basket. Right now, people have the option of going somewhere else if they don't like what their current district is doing. In fact "seeking out better schools" is one of the top reasons people move according to various surveys.

In the hands of the federal government, that option goes away.

When all of the eggs are in one basket, and that basket is being carried by the likes of a Betsy DeVos, there's "nowhere to hide" so to speak...and we'd could end up in a cycle where the direction of public education swings like a pendulum every 4-8 years with the "changing of the guard".

Like with my previous example of differing values per district, if left in the hands of the federal government, it's all but guaranteed that politicians will appoint people that will approve funding for things that align with their political talking points, and deny funding for things that their voters don't like.

 

[98cwitr]

Week 1: Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem



An old article, but one which highlights a massive problem. In my opinion, as long as America uses a system whereby property and business taxes fund local governments, and while those local governments are responsible for school funding, you will never fix inequality in the US. The system itself is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be suburbs that are nicer and thus cost more to live in than otters, there will always be some areas able to attract more businesses than others. That in itself is not a huge problem.

However, when the provision of fundamental services is localised and linked to taxes based on property value, you create a huge problem. Because not only do you create inherent inequality, but you create an incentive for people living in one area to fight any measure to spend “their” taxes anywhere BUT their local area (for example by bringing in children from another poorer school district to attend better resourced local schools).

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

Down South, we provide a quality education for children in public schools at the rate of $2k/head...tell me, has Chicago solved anything at 9.7k per head, or many money isn't the real issue after all? I'm sure whoever's pockets those dollars ends up in sure wants a bigger budget, while decrying the "lack of funding."

 

[essentialsaltes]

Down South, we provide a quality education for children in public schools

Are you really, though?

at the rate of $2k/head...

Are you really, though?

 

[98cwitr]

Are you really, though?

Bad apples need not spoil the bunch:

NC: NAEP State Profiles

IL: NAEP State Profiles

Are you really, though?

From a local perspective, yes:

NC: Per pupil expenditures | KIDS COUNT Data Center

IL: Per-pupil educational expenditures adjusted for regional cost differences | KIDS COUNT Data Center

If you need any proof that throwing money at schools does little to actually improve student performance when the root causes of failure go ignored and just blamed on funding (ie: funding is the scapegoat, not the problem), then here it is.


As the data shows, it's ALMOST as if throwing more money at the issues HURTS the students, BUT as we parents know all too well, it's the lack of parental involvement in a child's education that is the real crux at of the issue.

So question, can you PAY a parent to care? Or should that come naturally without financial compensation?

To the point of the OP's suggestion of funding coming from federal and state, rather than local, I have two points:

1. We're already doing that and it's not working

2. The further you remove the regulatory source from the local people receiving the service, the more out of touch you become, and thus the localities suffer while the authority pats itself on the back for a job well done (in their eyes).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Week 1: Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem



An old article, but one which highlights a massive problem. In my opinion, as long as America uses a system whereby property and business taxes fund local governments, and while those local governments are responsible for school funding, you will never fix inequality in the US. The system itself is fundamentally flawed.

There will always be suburbs that are nicer and thus cost more to live in than otters, there will always be some areas able to attract more businesses than others. That in itself is not a huge problem.

However, when the provision of fundamental services is localised and linked to taxes based on property value, you create a huge problem. Because not only do you create inherent inequality, but you create an incentive for people living in one area to fight any measure to spend “their” taxes anywhere BUT their local area (for example by bringing in children from another poorer school district to attend better resourced local schools).

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

Even if you did that....there would still be inequality.

Inequality is a fundamental aspect of literally any conceivable economic system that can possibly work.

Here's why...

1. A person needs a motive to work. Generally speaking, improving one's lot in life is a powerful motive for otherwise undesirable jobs.

2. The removal of the ability to improve one's life and by extension....their family....removes the motive.

3. Some will inevitably do better than others, regardless of what the basis of the economy is. These people will be the successful ones.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Beverly Hills Unified School District: The school district's spending/student of $30,903 is higher than the state median of $14,597.

Wealthy people paying more in taxes and reaping the benefit of their tax dollars. What is the problem with that?

 

[Always in His Presence]

IMO the only way you can truly fix a lot of inequality in the US is by moving to the same funding model at most other countries – whereby schools (and police, and hospitals, etc.) are funded by state or federal governments, NOT by local councils.

Questions:

1. Do we make everybody have the same per person funding, regardless of location?
2. What does that look like? Is there a median per person valuation?
3. While that would benefit lower per pupil areas - what programs would be cut in higher paying regions. Example. Beverly Hills spends 30k per student - Tulsa OK spends 9k per student. The national average is 11k. Tulsa gets a 2k raise in funding and Beverly Hills gets a 19K drop in funding.
4. How much would the total program Nationwide be to bring every student up to a national average?
5. Where would that increase come from?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Wealthy people paying more in taxes and reaping the benefit of their tax dollars. What is the problem with that?

Glad we've torn down the false conservative facade of 'level playing fields' and 'equal opportunity exists for everyone in America'. Scratch the surface and it's "I got mine".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Glad we've torn down the false conservative facade of 'level playing fields' and 'equal opportunity exists for everyone in America'. Scratch the surface and it's "I got mine".

I don't recall "level playing fields" ever being a conservative talking point.

It doesn't even make any sense, there is no such thing as fairness in life.

 

[SummerMadness]

At the end of the day, the US system will not change because race underlies the continued inequality we see. There is a misguided belief that poverty is a moral failing, so some people do not deserve a better education.

We have no further to look than how white communities simply revolt over the idea of the idea of desegregation efforts. I remember one community was planning on adjusting the makeup of their elementary schools so each school would more accurately reflect the demographics of the town (although a small community, many of the black kids ended up in one school while many of the white kids ended up in another school). Once this plan was unveiled, you suddenly had some parents up in arms over bussing; a rather odd statement because how can you "bus" within your own community (all kids eventually go to the same high school).

It's really all about desegregation and the opposition to those efforts.

It Was Never About Busing

That we even use the word “busing” to describe what was in fact court-ordered school desegregation, and that Americans of all stripes believe that the brief period in which we actually tried to desegregate our schools was a failure, speaks to one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of the last half century. Further, it explains how we have come to be largely silent — and accepting — of the fact that 65 years after the Supreme Court struck down school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, black children are as segregated from white students as they were in the mid-1970s when Mr. Biden was working with Southern white supremacist legislators to curtail court-ordered busing.

The term “busing” is a race-neutral euphemism that allows people to pretend white opposition was not about integration but simply about a desire for their children to attend neighborhood schools. But the fact is that American children have ridden buses to schools since the 1920s. There is a reason the cheery yellow school bus is the most ubiquitous symbol of American education. Buses eased the burden of transportation on families and allowed larger comprehensive schools to replace one-room schoolhouses. Millions of kids still ride school buses every day, and rarely do so for integration.