3 ms·

Impact is huge, but they don't generate revenue for the organization which pays them. Therefore - their pay is a function of the budget that is available. Pub

by RajT88 4y ago

Impact is huge, but they don't generate revenue for the organization which pays them. Therefore - their pay is a function of the budget that is available. Public school budgets are set of course by property taxes. If you teach in a rich district, you get paid more. If you teach in a poor district, you get paid less. The way public schools are funded helps keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. Unfortunately, the political clout is held by the rich who want their tax money to go only to their children and not those other children (or "those othered children" if you like). Even though, if we switched to a more equal funding model for public schools, we'd see improvements in the wealth gap and society in general within a generation or two.

toast0 4y ago
> Public school budgets are set of course by property taxes. If you teach in a rich district, you get paid more. If you teach in a poor district, you get paid less. The way public schools are funded helps keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. That depends on the state. In California, most school districts have their budgets set by the state funding formula which provides state funding above the local property tax revenues. There are a handful of school districts where local property tax revenue provides more than the state formula, although I haven't been able to find a list of those districts recently. The California funding system was in place since 1972 (with major changes in 2013). Have we seen improvements in the wealth gap and society in general?
- RajT88 4y ago
  I wasn't aware of this funding system, so I had to look it up. The (quite prolific) literature suggest that the funding system was severely limited in 1978 by Prop 13.
  - toast0 4y ago
    Sure, school funding has been limited; but the point is that excluding the basic aid school districts (which are mostly smaller districts, afaik, the largest is Newport-Mesa Unified), all of the school districts across the state have been subject to the same funding formulas. Your comment was that equalizing funding would make society better; my question is, given that funding has been mostly equalized in California, is society better? In Washington state, funding for basic education is apportioned from state revenues; local districts can raise taxes for enrichment, but there's a cap, and state funds are provided if local taxes don't meet a minimum. I'm not familiar with other states, but there have been several court cases where states were forced to reform systems that relied on local property tax [1]; and I'd imagine many states would have changed their systems after seeing those results, rather than waiting for their own case. [1] https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landmark-us-cases-related-equality-opportunity-k-12-education https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landma...

by RajT88 4y ago

toast0 4y ago

> Public school budgets are set of course by property taxes. If you teach in a rich district, you get paid more. If you teach in a poor district, you get paid less. The way public schools are funded helps keep the rich rich, and the poor poor. That depends on the state. In California, most school districts have their budgets set by the state funding formula which provides state funding above the local property tax revenues. There are a handful of school districts where local property tax revenue provides more than the state formula, although I haven't been able to find a list of those districts recently. The California funding system was in place since 1972 (with major changes in 2013). Have we seen improvements in the wealth gap and society in general?

RajT88 4y ago
I wasn't aware of this funding system, so I had to look it up. The (quite prolific) literature suggest that the funding system was severely limited in 1978 by Prop 13.
- toast0 4y ago
  Sure, school funding has been limited; but the point is that excluding the basic aid school districts (which are mostly smaller districts, afaik, the largest is Newport-Mesa Unified), all of the school districts across the state have been subject to the same funding formulas. Your comment was that equalizing funding would make society better; my question is, given that funding has been mostly equalized in California, is society better? In Washington state, funding for basic education is apportioned from state revenues; local districts can raise taxes for enrichment, but there's a cap, and state funds are provided if local taxes don't meet a minimum. I'm not familiar with other states, but there have been several court cases where states were forced to reform systems that relied on local property tax [1]; and I'd imagine many states would have changed their systems after seeing those results, rather than waiting for their own case. [1] https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landmark-us-cases-related-equality-opportunity-k-12-education https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landma...