Comment by forgetfreeman
Comment by forgetfreeman 4 days ago
Lol what? I've never heard that adage and it seems like really bad advice. Your neighbors aren't going to cut you a check at any point so what even is this.
Comment by forgetfreeman 4 days ago
Lol what? I've never heard that adage and it seems like really bad advice. Your neighbors aren't going to cut you a check at any point so what even is this.
> Property taxes pay for schools.
Are there any other countries that use a local-tax funding model for public schools? Most other nations that I know use a national funding model.
This is not true. Only half of public school spending comes from local taxes. The other half comes from state funds and offsets the local property tax differences.
Here is the breakdown for Maryland: https://dls.maryland.gov/pubs/prod/NoPblTabPDF/2024PubSchool.... My county, Anne Arundel, received half the state funding of poorer counties. In terms of total funding, it’s below the median, but has above average schools for the state because school quality is more a function of the types of kids in the school moreso than funding.
My country uses a national funding model but most people would still strongly prefer to go to a public school in an affluent neighborhood. Even if the funding is exactly the same, you are still much more likely to get more "desirable" classmates (fewer chance of migrants, drug use, etc. as well higher overall academic motivation, more involved parents who contribute to the school community, etc.).
I went to public schools near the city center and/or with a good reputation and I got a retrospectively insane proportion of wealthy schoolmates mixed with a few lower class ones. And an even more insane number of serious crimes: bribery (multiples), manslaughter, contraband, murder.
Baltimore is famous for its high per student funding of public schools ($21,000 per student in 2023). It's also famous for the terrible outcomes of its public school students.
This is a common misconception. The high per capita funding is partially due to required emergency funding of repairs resulting from deferred maintenance - both in the literal sense, and in reference to the hollowing out of the city's industry and, therefore, capacity for stable community and family life. Baltimore is a Rust Belt city smack dab in the middle of a region that happily moved on to the service economy; poorer Baltimore residents are surrounded by people who can bid up the rates of goods in the area (and they do).
Other jurisdictions don't have to put so much into student funding directly.
Yeah but how is that funding actually applied?
You could throw an extreme amount of money at schools but require it be spent on specific initiatives. Things like resource officers, hiring someone with specific qualifications, and boatloads of staff training.
You can average that out to a per student basis and say "look we're spending so much on education" but if the money is going to train teachers how to deal with crisis situations like school shooters, it's not really being spent on educating the student. How that money actually gets allocated matters.
> Are there any other countries that use a local-tax funding model for public schools?
Doubt it. In my province of Canada (Alberta), school is paid for by provincial taxes and money is distributed based on the amount of students.
That being said, since kids are assigned to schools based on proximity, it's still worthwhile being in a nicer neighbourhood since the kids will come from more affluent families...
Your local private school also isn't going to cut you a check, and I've yet to meet anyone with money that had a hard time sniffing out aspirational neighbors. Not buying it.
The assumption is that upper class kids are more likely to have the types of behaviors and attitudes that you'd like your kids to adopt (e.g. getting a C or even a B is embarrassing/shameful, AP classes are table stakes, drug use bad, video games/tv limited, more likely to have intact households, expected to be polite/treat others respectfully) while lower class kids are more likely to have the types of behaviors and attitudes you'd like your kids to avoid (e.g. no point in applying yourself, parents have no idea what you're up to or how you're doing in school anyway, drug use normal or cool, kids raised by tv/computer/phone, family tree is more of a chain with random links sticking out, family yells at each other so loud the neighbors hear it). It's an attempt to manipulate the Overton window that your kid will encounter interacting with peers.
A related adage to present this succinctly, "you are the company you keep".
100% of the individuals that I've known who ended up either shot dead in the street or caught serious charges were from upper middle class, outright wealthy neighborhoods, or were keeping company with rich kids. Maybe my sample is badly skewed but around these parts all the wealthy are known for is buying their lunatic children out of trouble.
This is the kind of contemptuous skepticism of facts from, and lack of trust for, folks trying to help you understand something that permeates neglected communities and interferes with the educational process.
That attitude is prevalent in poor schools, but rare in rich schools and is properly dealt with by better educators that prefer wealthy schools with good salaries.
That sort of antagonism toward authority is incredibly disruptive in a community of People who want to achieve something.
Parents want to get their kids away from it for a reason. It's unhealthy. You're an example of the point. I don't mean any offense by it, just that it's easy to sniff out that you haven't experienced both sides of the coin so you reveal stubborn ignorance.
It inhibits learning and communicating. It's repulsive.
it’s to make sure your kids go to the best school possible, and are surrounded by as many future successful people as possible. considering schools are funded based on tax revenue, it’s not the worst idea
Tax revenue is spread across all schools, at least in California.
Poor schools actually get more government funding per student.
This is why good school districts California usually have ties to non-governmental chairty parents associations that parents contribute directly.
It is also a huge part of why California passed prop 13. After property taxes we're separated from funding local schools, homeowners were simply much less willing to pay for taxes that won't go to their kid or community.
i doubt the adage is california specific, and likely came about before prop 13.
as an outsider, i think cali’s schooling system is beyond fucked, mostly due to the focus on the bottom 25% of students. the middle and high achieving students are being neglected and leaving. positive feedback loop.
I frequently hear people, mostly online, arguing that we should eliminate opportunities for smart children as a means to close the performance gap.
It's about exposure to the way richer people think and access to the same community resources. Property taxes pay for schools. The best schools are in the richest communities.