6 ms·

> To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so

> To balance it out, you would need some sort of region wide tax on private school attendance. If you want to opt out, you gotta pay. That would never happen so...back to the drawing board. I don't understand this. That tax already exists; everyone [0] pays for public schools regardless of whether they have children in the system. If you send your children to private school, you are paying for both public and private school. If you don't have children at all, you are still paying for public school. [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes.

analog31 10y ago
Indeed, but if you send your kids to private school (or your social peer group does), then you have a counter incentive against supporting the public schools with your tax money and your political empowerment.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  This happens with daycare (which is mostly private) and higher education (with private universities having a massive presence), and the society has yet to collapse. The idea that it's perfectly fine to go to a a private institution years 0-6 and years 18-22+, but the 6-18 range is categorically and unequivocally better served by public institutions has not really been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  - analog31 10y ago
    I don't think that I made any such claims. But to note a difference between those age groups, 6-18 is the only one for which we've declared a right to access for everybody at the present time. (At the very least, it's in the constitution of some states). The only way I can think of to ensure available capacity is to provide a public option. So I'm interested in how the public schools are managed.
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      I agree access is important, and it's interesting to see public school unions fight against charter, magnet and private schools in order to restrict that access. With that said, notice how the distribution of private schools per capita drops significantly in highly-rated public school districts. There's simply no demand for them. The private-vs-public battle only plays out in low-rated school districts, with one party holding the distinct advantage of being un-fireable.
      - analog31 10y ago
        I'm not sure how this is related to my comment. With that said, I suspect that religion dwarfs any other factor driving the demand for private schools. In my state, the union definitely does not oppose private schools, and the magnet high school in my district is a union shop. The union opposes the state's growing voucher school program, but proponents of vouchers talk in "access" terms while promoting a barely concealed sectarian agenda. So once again, religion is a driving factor. Meanwhile, the union has been barred from collective bargaining on "working conditions" that include things like tenure. So, the ways that public school teachers can be fired, is at the mercy of the state legislature right now. So far the voucher schools have under-performed public schools in the same districts, despite being given advantages such as more latitude in hiring and firing, and the ability to reject handicapped kids.
Cerium 10y ago
Which is why we need to fight the concept of "school vouchers" - the idea that if you don't go to public school you should get your share of the public school cash to help pay for private school.
- nitrogen 10y ago
  It seems like a great way to guarantee corruption in the public schools if they are still paid for services not rendered.
- zeveb 10y ago
  Why fight it? It seems only fair that poor people get the same option to choose good schools for their children that rich people get. I honestly don't see what possible argument there is against it.
  - Cerium 10y ago
    There are plenty of good public schools. If everyone deserves a good school, then we need to make all schools good, not drain everyone away from one system and into another.
    - zeveb 10y ago
      It wouldn't be draining money, since public schools would get money per-student just like private schools do (conversely, why does the local public school get to count private-school students in its catchment area?). And you're assuming that it's possible to make all public schools good, which from what I can tell is roughly impossible to do given American political realities.
  - ericd 10y ago
    The idea is that public schools should be made good, the government should not be reducing the use of public schools. A good public schooling system is incredibly important for a functioning democracy, because a functioning democracy relies on a well educated citizenry.
akiselev 10y ago
Money isn't the problem (sans disastrous allocation policies like No Child Left Behind). There are dozens of compounding network effects that can make or break a school district and having students with wealthy families is an important one that benefits all students. Wealthy families have more money and time to get involved with the teachers, district governance, PTAs, fund raisers, and extracurricular activities that benefit all students, rich or poor. A large number (maybe even majority) of Catholic private schools, for example, make less per student than public schools but they're often leaps and bounds better than most public schools. When my public high school in a wealthy LA suburb faced steep budget cuts in the million of dollars during 2009-10, the booster club diverted more than half of the $5 million dollars that they had just raised from donors (families and alumni) for a new fake grass football and baseball field. This saved dozens of teachers, extracurriculars, and even some AP/IB programs. When the music program was cut district wide, dozens of stay at home and working parents got together and saved it by writing grants and running fundraisers (which they have to do every year now). Despite being low-middle class and having single parents who worked all the time, many of my classmates and I were able to participate in anything we wanted to because we could get second hand sports equipment and donations to cover expenses from team members' families. We always had a classmate who had a car or a parent with free time to drive us around, take us to college visits, and help us with science fair projects or model rocketry competitions. Even a few wealthy students can drastically change the support and infrastructure poorer students have access to and it makes a big differences (it certainly did for me).
epistasis 10y ago
And property taxes are hugely distorted by Prop 13 in California.
- prostoalex 10y ago
  How come? The tax base rate resets at the time of the transaction, and California real estate market is very robust with both new construction and resales. Many California markets have not (or have barely) recovered to pre-2008 levels, if you look at San Bernardino, Modesto or Fresno counties, also anywhere east of Sacramento and parts of Central California where property value is derived from agricultural land value, which did not do well under drought. The only people who are freeloading under Prop 13 are those who owned their property for 20+ years, and they are freeloading in a very special way where they have been paying those property taxes for 20+ years to build those neighborhoods into desirable areas.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    Yes, residential real estate mostly keeps up, but commercial real estate almost never gets reset due to minority ownership schemes: https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-finally-had-enough-of-prop-13/ https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-fin...
    - prostoalex 10y ago
      The answer is not as clear-cut as the article makes it to be, as commercial real estate is divided into roughly three groups - residential, commercial proper (e.g. shopping centers, office buildings, entertainment parks, hospitals) and industrial. The residential owners probably would have no problem with losing Prop 13 protections, as any increases can be passed on to the willing renters. They are likely to lobby for small things, such as delaying assessments by a few months in order to raise rents and process vacancies properly. (Current California law stipulates 30- and 60-day notices for rent increases, so the timing on property tax increases and rent increases needs to be synchronized in some manner). Things get trickier with commercial and industrial tenants. The big guys know of their power to change the attractiveness and commercial viability of entire plazas and neighborhoods. Therefore if you come out to Costco or Whole Foods or Simon Malls or Wal-Mart and ask them to build out presence in a major way, they would not want to be victims of their own success. From their point of view the value of the area increased only due to a significant long-term investment from their wallet, and they should not be penalized for it. If the municipality doesn't like it, they're welcome to either build out the facilities themselves or just attempt to raise property taxes on the gas station, laundromat and a liquor store that are the current active tenants of the blighted area.
sigstoat 10y ago
> [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes. everyone pays property taxes, but only property owners pay it directly. for everyone else it is hidden in the costs of goods and services that required real estate.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  The winning bid for a house is from someone who can afford to pay $1000/mo, and there are no property taxes. The house sells at whatever mortgage $1000/mo buys. Now, add $200/mo of property taxes. The winning bidder now pays whatever mortgage $800/mo buys, since there's nobody who wants to pay $1001/mo overall for it (otherwise they'd have won the other bid). Taxes on the unimproved value of land are pretty much equivalent to seizing ground rents. That doesn't really make things more expensive.

analog31 10y ago

Indeed, but if you send your kids to private school (or your social peer group does), then you have a counter incentive against supporting the public schools with your tax money and your political empowerment.

prostoalex 10y ago
This happens with daycare (which is mostly private) and higher education (with private universities having a massive presence), and the society has yet to collapse. The idea that it's perfectly fine to go to a a private institution years 0-6 and years 18-22+, but the 6-18 range is categorically and unequivocally better served by public institutions has not really been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- analog31 10y ago
  I don't think that I made any such claims. But to note a difference between those age groups, 6-18 is the only one for which we've declared a right to access for everybody at the present time. (At the very least, it's in the constitution of some states). The only way I can think of to ensure available capacity is to provide a public option. So I'm interested in how the public schools are managed.
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    I agree access is important, and it's interesting to see public school unions fight against charter, magnet and private schools in order to restrict that access. With that said, notice how the distribution of private schools per capita drops significantly in highly-rated public school districts. There's simply no demand for them. The private-vs-public battle only plays out in low-rated school districts, with one party holding the distinct advantage of being un-fireable.
    - analog31 10y ago
      I'm not sure how this is related to my comment. With that said, I suspect that religion dwarfs any other factor driving the demand for private schools. In my state, the union definitely does not oppose private schools, and the magnet high school in my district is a union shop. The union opposes the state's growing voucher school program, but proponents of vouchers talk in "access" terms while promoting a barely concealed sectarian agenda. So once again, religion is a driving factor. Meanwhile, the union has been barred from collective bargaining on "working conditions" that include things like tenure. So, the ways that public school teachers can be fired, is at the mercy of the state legislature right now. So far the voucher schools have under-performed public schools in the same districts, despite being given advantages such as more latitude in hiring and firing, and the ability to reject handicapped kids.

Cerium 10y ago

Which is why we need to fight the concept of "school vouchers" - the idea that if you don't go to public school you should get your share of the public school cash to help pay for private school.

nitrogen 10y ago
It seems like a great way to guarantee corruption in the public schools if they are still paid for services not rendered.
zeveb 10y ago
Why fight it? It seems only fair that poor people get the same option to choose good schools for their children that rich people get. I honestly don't see what possible argument there is against it.
- Cerium 10y ago
  There are plenty of good public schools. If everyone deserves a good school, then we need to make all schools good, not drain everyone away from one system and into another.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    It wouldn't be draining money, since public schools would get money per-student just like private schools do (conversely, why does the local public school get to count private-school students in its catchment area?). And you're assuming that it's possible to make all public schools good, which from what I can tell is roughly impossible to do given American political realities.
- ericd 10y ago
  The idea is that public schools should be made good, the government should not be reducing the use of public schools. A good public schooling system is incredibly important for a functioning democracy, because a functioning democracy relies on a well educated citizenry.

akiselev 10y ago

Money isn't the problem (sans disastrous allocation policies like No Child Left Behind). There are dozens of compounding network effects that can make or break a school district and having students with wealthy families is an important one that benefits all students. Wealthy families have more money and time to get involved with the teachers, district governance, PTAs, fund raisers, and extracurricular activities that benefit all students, rich or poor. A large number (maybe even majority) of Catholic private schools, for example, make less per student than public schools but they're often leaps and bounds better than most public schools. When my public high school in a wealthy LA suburb faced steep budget cuts in the million of dollars during 2009-10, the booster club diverted more than half of the $5 million dollars that they had just raised from donors (families and alumni) for a new fake grass football and baseball field. This saved dozens of teachers, extracurriculars, and even some AP/IB programs. When the music program was cut district wide, dozens of stay at home and working parents got together and saved it by writing grants and running fundraisers (which they have to do every year now). Despite being low-middle class and having single parents who worked all the time, many of my classmates and I were able to participate in anything we wanted to because we could get second hand sports equipment and donations to cover expenses from team members' families. We always had a classmate who had a car or a parent with free time to drive us around, take us to college visits, and help us with science fair projects or model rocketry competitions. Even a few wealthy students can drastically change the support and infrastructure poorer students have access to and it makes a big differences (it certainly did for me).

epistasis 10y ago

And property taxes are hugely distorted by Prop 13 in California.

prostoalex 10y ago
How come? The tax base rate resets at the time of the transaction, and California real estate market is very robust with both new construction and resales. Many California markets have not (or have barely) recovered to pre-2008 levels, if you look at San Bernardino, Modesto or Fresno counties, also anywhere east of Sacramento and parts of Central California where property value is derived from agricultural land value, which did not do well under drought. The only people who are freeloading under Prop 13 are those who owned their property for 20+ years, and they are freeloading in a very special way where they have been paying those property taxes for 20+ years to build those neighborhoods into desirable areas.
- epistasis 10y ago
  Yes, residential real estate mostly keeps up, but commercial real estate almost never gets reset due to minority ownership schemes: https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-finally-had-enough-of-prop-13/ https://www.thenation.com/article/have-california-voters-fin...
  - prostoalex 10y ago
    The answer is not as clear-cut as the article makes it to be, as commercial real estate is divided into roughly three groups - residential, commercial proper (e.g. shopping centers, office buildings, entertainment parks, hospitals) and industrial. The residential owners probably would have no problem with losing Prop 13 protections, as any increases can be passed on to the willing renters. They are likely to lobby for small things, such as delaying assessments by a few months in order to raise rents and process vacancies properly. (Current California law stipulates 30- and 60-day notices for rent increases, so the timing on property tax increases and rent increases needs to be synchronized in some manner). Things get trickier with commercial and industrial tenants. The big guys know of their power to change the attractiveness and commercial viability of entire plazas and neighborhoods. Therefore if you come out to Costco or Whole Foods or Simon Malls or Wal-Mart and ask them to build out presence in a major way, they would not want to be victims of their own success. From their point of view the value of the area increased only due to a significant long-term investment from their wallet, and they should not be penalized for it. If the municipality doesn't like it, they're welcome to either build out the facilities themselves or just attempt to raise property taxes on the gas station, laundromat and a liquor store that are the current active tenants of the blighted area.

sigstoat 10y ago

> [0] Of course, "everyone" likely means "every property owner", as school taxes are usually property taxes. everyone pays property taxes, but only property owners pay it directly. for everyone else it is hidden in the costs of goods and services that required real estate.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago
The winning bid for a house is from someone who can afford to pay $1000/mo, and there are no property taxes. The house sells at whatever mortgage $1000/mo buys. Now, add $200/mo of property taxes. The winning bidder now pays whatever mortgage $800/mo buys, since there's nobody who wants to pay $1001/mo overall for it (otherwise they'd have won the other bid). Taxes on the unimproved value of land are pretty much equivalent to seizing ground rents. That doesn't really make things more expensive.