Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The taxes for education shouldn't be per area, they should just be federal and distributed evenly throughout the school system. Equality for children should commence.
If a rich parent wants more then their luxury is a private school option. Otherwise, we are in a family wealth system and that's a bit archaic. In America its a bit of an embarrassment.
Why should they have it all? Most rich off a poor man’s back
Most? How do they get rich off the poor man's back?
Why are school districts in rich neighborhoods better? The tax base to be sure, but also the mentality of the people within the school district. Professional parents enable their children to reach their potential. You don't have to be rich to do that, but it helps. It's also the mindset of the parents who teach their children from an early age the value of education.
Lets not forget and I love this one, the left uses it a lot in regards to illegals. Those rich people pay a lot in state taxes which go to all school district. Add to this sales taxes and property taxes.
I can't speak for all states, but in mine, school taxes on property foots the bill for the majority of the costs of our local schools.
Wrong question. Right question: Why shouldn’t poor people have better school districts? After all, if you’re rich you can afford to be stupid.
Well, there's a fallacy at work here.
First off, there's a notion that people with wealth haven't earned it. Oh, to be sure, there are those lazy trust fund babies out there. But they are a decided minority among the people who go to school, work hard, and slowly amass wealth over time. So there aren't many dummies out there in the wealthy enclaves. In the same way that water seeks the lowest possible level, the dumb ones squander whatever they earn or inherit.
Second, the thing that people don't seem to get in this debate is that those in well-funded schools voluntarily pay for it from their own pockets by voting for higher property taxes.
Third, it is becoming clear that there isn't a clear correlation between the amount spent per student and that student's academic achievement. My kids, as one example, attended the state's best school system. The high school is ranked by various ratings as among the top 100 public school systems in the country. The schools in our district get straight 10s from one online service.
We also have the highest dollar-per-student funding in the state. However, the school system with the second highest dollar-per-student funding? Gets 2 and 3 ratings across the board. In fact, the top ten schools in my state when it comes to funding are a decidedly mixed bag. You have a couple of high-achieving schools, but you also have some absolutely terrible ones.
And this is a nationwide trend. Camden, Newark, and East Orange, New Jersey, all have the country's highest expenditures per student. Yet they are seriously mediocre schools.
That's because the problem isn't about funding. It's allocation and culture. How a school system chooses to spend its money is a big part of the equation. But the culture in which the children grow up is an even larger consideration. My city is filled to the rafters with doctors, lawyers, professors, executives and other successful professionals, people who emphasize education in their daily life and work. People who read as a daily avocation (The #1 predictor of educational success, by the way) and people who insist on achievement from their kids. I would argue that has a lot more to do with the attainment of the kids than what's on the curriculum.
Last edited by MinivanDriver; 11-11-2017 at 08:45 AM..
First off, there's a notion that people with wealth haven't earned it. Oh, to be sure, there are those lazy trust fund babies out there. But they are a decided minority among the people who go to school, work hard, and slowly amass wealth over time. So there aren't many dummies out there in the wealthy enclaves. The dumb ones squander whatever they earn.
Second, the thing that people don't seem to get in this debate is that those in well-funded schools voluntarily pay for it from their own pockets by voting for higher property taxes.
Third, it is becoming clear that there isn't a clear correlation between the amount spent per student and that student's academic achievement. My kids, as one example, attended the state's best school system. The high school is ranked by various ratings as among the top 100 public school systems in the country. The schools in our district get straight 10s from one online service.
We also have the highest dollar-per-student funding in the state. However, the school system with the second highest dollar-per-student funding? Gets 2 and 3 ratings across the board. In fact, the top ten schools in my state when it comes to funding are a decidedly mixed bag. You have a couple of high-achieving schools, but you also have some absolutely terrible ones.
And this is a nationwide trend. Camden, Newark, and East Orange, New Jersey, all have the country's highest expenditures per student. Yet they are seriously mediocre schools.
That's because the problem isn't about funding. It's allocation and culture. How a school system chooses to spend its money is a big part of the equation. But the culture in which the children grow up is an even larger consideration. My city is filled to the rafters with doctors, lawyers, professors, executives and other successful professionals, people who emphasize education in their daily life and work. People who read as a daily avocation (The #1 predictor of educational success, by the way) and people who insist on achievement from their kids. I would argue that has a lot more to do with the attainment of the kids than what's on the curriculum.
Mediocre?
They are some of the worst performing school systems in the state.
The most successful school system in the world is in Finland where both rich and poor attend classes together in public schools.
America is so segregated in comparison and it's no wonder why poverty is so persistent here, because class mobility ranks low among developed countries. They don't have the opportunities to get out of poverty like they have in other countries.
If you want to have two separate societies then continue with the philosophy that the rush deserve better. Let poor districts fund themselves, that should work out well.
What is it with this concern for the rich, are they in danger.
Multiple societies already exist. Take a walk through a public school in Baltimore and then go through one in a Minneapolis suburb. Same funding. I think Maryland is even more generous than Minnesota.
If we are going to solve the education problem we have to face all facts, especially the ones we don’t like.
The only answer is to get babies out of bad homes.
The taxes for education shouldn't be per area, they should just be federal and distributed evenly throughout the school system. Equality for children should commence.
If a rich parent wants more then their luxury is a private school option. Otherwise, we are in a family wealth system and that's a bit archaic. In America its a bit of an embarrassment.
I agree with this. Even at a statewide level it would be better than the system we have now in most places.
To those who have suggested the wealthy deserve better schools because they pay more in taxes- it is to an extent proportional.
People in a poor district may pay less property tax on their cheaper home, but it may be the same percentage of their household income than those in a wealthy, affluent school district. I'm even tempted to say that in some poor districts, people may pay proprtionally more.
To those who have suggested it is not fair to the wealthy- and that it is the poor's fault that they are poor; you really need to adjust your way of thinking.
To allow upward mobility, we need to ensure that resources and a better education are given to those who need it most.
The most successful school system in the world is in Finland where both rich and poor attend classes together in public schools.
America is so segregated in comparison and it's no wonder why poverty is so persistent here, because class mobility ranks low among developed countries. They don't have the opportunities to get out of poverty like they have in other countries.
As admirable as Finland's achievements are and as much as we can learn from them, your argument doesn't have a lot of bearing on the debate at hand. Finland is a homogenous country of five million people spread over an area the size of Montana. Because of this remarkable homogeneity, there is very much a shared value system at work in that country. The other thing? Finland has the lowest income disparity in the entirety of the EU. So the notion of 'poor' and 'rich' isn't really applicable.
Meanwhile, the United States is a sprawling country of 323 million embracing a wide variety of ethnicities, cultures, and regions with different economic priorities. The United States also deals with a much larger immigrant population. Finland's immigrants constitute less than 3% of that country's population while something like 13% of the US population is foreign-born. This also creates challenges for educators.
All that is to say that using Finland as the yardstick by which to measure American schools is simplistic and, in many cases, isn't relevant to the problem we are trying to tackle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
