4 ms·

What the small town gets out of it is property values going up because families want to live there because they have good schools that set children on a path to

by raldi 4y ago

What the small town gets out of it is property values going up because families want to live there because they have good schools that set children on a path to go to a good college, learn a lot, and then move to a city and make a bunch of money.

newswasboring 4y ago
I don't think that's how that works. It's evident by the fact that there are no school towns like there are college towns. Once the people earning the money move out, there is no taxes left to fund education. Unless we nationalize education, which is not going to happen (at least in America).
- raldi 4y ago
  School quality is one of the most important criteria people use when deciding where to buy a house.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    Maybe within a city, but people are not moving to another town/city to get access to a good school. The primary factor for people moving somewhere is still jobs. If that wasn't the case why will these people move out of the place which made them this capable?
    - smelendez 4y ago
      Are you in the US? People here absolutely move to get access to what they perceive as good schools for their kids' needs. That can include leaving a major city for a suburb or choosing between multiple suburbs/small towns based on schools. Work-from-home ads more flexibility, but even with a traditional commute there are typically multiple towns/school districts within an easy range of any given workplace assuming you can afford good transportation.
      - aflag 4y ago
        I think the point was that they would move somewhere for work and then look for school in a given radius from work. That may fall into a different city/town than they work or not. But they are not moving to a new city or town because of the school and then looking for work within a radius of that school.
    - theshrike79 4y ago
      The only reason we DIDN'T move during Covid was because of the school, otherwise we'd be living in the sticks in a huge house that's 50% cheaper and 200% bigger.
      - newswasboring 4y ago
        Yes, but we all accept covid times were exceptions right? But it can become the norm if remote work becomes the norm. The reason you moved to wherever you were during covid was probably because you had a good job there.
    - matwood 4y ago
      In the US schools are hyperlocal. So a job might bring someone to the general area, but the school system makes them buy in given locality in the area.
      - newswasboring 4y ago
        That is what I was trying to say. Schools are the second priority. This leads to more taxes for places with better jobs. Sure you will maybe choose a given area for the schools, but that area is limited to drivable distance from work. Work comes first, schools second.
- chii 4y ago
  > no taxes left to fund education which is why it's really a stupid policy decision to fund schooling via local taxation. There should be federally funded schools.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    It is probably stupid, but I don't think that can ever change. The US political system is not set up to encourage nationalization, or even state based control, of anything. edit: It also rewards the wrong people. The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. In fact with people moving out they get less and less money to improve themselves. Even in the most individualistic view of the system, the wrong individual is being rewarded.
    - chii 4y ago
      > The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. as it should be - the school should not be able to capture the output of its students, while at the same time, getting "free" funding. If the school would capture some of the output of the students in the future (aka, the successful ones), then the school would need to invest in the students via equity (aka, pay the students while they're being taught!). The school _could_ get reputational reward for producing great students. That's about as far as a return a school can get.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think this is the exact wrong direction. California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. This lead directly to capping property taxes in the state.
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      > California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. Was there a reason given by these people for this? Or was it just "I don't want to pay for someone else". Because that is the core issue with US politics. Everything will improve if that goes away.
tfehring 4y ago
Is that common in practice? The only example I can think of of a smallish town with excellent public schools is West Lafayette, IN. (It looks like Jackson, WY, and Aspen, CO, also have good schools, but I don't think those are very good examples given that they're so far out of reach for typical families.) Other than that, all of the great school districts I know of are in suburbs of big cities, and the small towns I'm familiar with have decent schools at best. Maybe it will be more common in the future as a result of remote work. But today it seems hard to create the conditions that result in great school districts - i.e., a relatively high concentration of relatively high-income parents who value education - in a small town that's not within commuting distance of a city with good jobs.

by raldi 4y ago

newswasboring 4y ago

I don't think that's how that works. It's evident by the fact that there are no school towns like there are college towns. Once the people earning the money move out, there is no taxes left to fund education. Unless we nationalize education, which is not going to happen (at least in America).

raldi 4y ago
School quality is one of the most important criteria people use when deciding where to buy a house.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  Maybe within a city, but people are not moving to another town/city to get access to a good school. The primary factor for people moving somewhere is still jobs. If that wasn't the case why will these people move out of the place which made them this capable?
  - smelendez 4y ago
    Are you in the US? People here absolutely move to get access to what they perceive as good schools for their kids' needs. That can include leaving a major city for a suburb or choosing between multiple suburbs/small towns based on schools. Work-from-home ads more flexibility, but even with a traditional commute there are typically multiple towns/school districts within an easy range of any given workplace assuming you can afford good transportation.
    - aflag 4y ago
      I think the point was that they would move somewhere for work and then look for school in a given radius from work. That may fall into a different city/town than they work or not. But they are not moving to a new city or town because of the school and then looking for work within a radius of that school.
  - theshrike79 4y ago
    The only reason we DIDN'T move during Covid was because of the school, otherwise we'd be living in the sticks in a huge house that's 50% cheaper and 200% bigger.
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      Yes, but we all accept covid times were exceptions right? But it can become the norm if remote work becomes the norm. The reason you moved to wherever you were during covid was probably because you had a good job there.
  - matwood 4y ago
    In the US schools are hyperlocal. So a job might bring someone to the general area, but the school system makes them buy in given locality in the area.
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      That is what I was trying to say. Schools are the second priority. This leads to more taxes for places with better jobs. Sure you will maybe choose a given area for the schools, but that area is limited to drivable distance from work. Work comes first, schools second.
chii 4y ago
> no taxes left to fund education which is why it's really a stupid policy decision to fund schooling via local taxation. There should be federally funded schools.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  It is probably stupid, but I don't think that can ever change. The US political system is not set up to encourage nationalization, or even state based control, of anything. edit: It also rewards the wrong people. The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. In fact with people moving out they get less and less money to improve themselves. Even in the most individualistic view of the system, the wrong individual is being rewarded.
  - chii 4y ago
    > The schools which made someone capable of getting a high paying job does not get anything in return. as it should be - the school should not be able to capture the output of its students, while at the same time, getting "free" funding. If the school would capture some of the output of the students in the future (aka, the successful ones), then the school would need to invest in the students via equity (aka, pay the students while they're being taught!). The school _could_ get reputational reward for producing great students. That's about as far as a return a school can get.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think this is the exact wrong direction. California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. This lead directly to capping property taxes in the state.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    > California moved to statewide funding parity for schools and voters simply decided they don't want to pay taxes that aren't local. Was there a reason given by these people for this? Or was it just "I don't want to pay for someone else". Because that is the core issue with US politics. Everything will improve if that goes away.

tfehring 4y ago

Is that common in practice? The only example I can think of of a smallish town with excellent public schools is West Lafayette, IN. (It looks like Jackson, WY, and Aspen, CO, also have good schools, but I don't think those are very good examples given that they're so far out of reach for typical families.) Other than that, all of the great school districts I know of are in suburbs of big cities, and the small towns I'm familiar with have decent schools at best. Maybe it will be more common in the future as a result of remote work. But today it seems hard to create the conditions that result in great school districts - i.e., a relatively high concentration of relatively high-income parents who value education - in a small town that's not within commuting distance of a city with good jobs.