3 ms·
California tried that. In the 1970s, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serano v. Priest that funding schools based on local property taxes was unequal, and
by apsec112 12y ago
California tried that. In the 1970s, the California Supreme Court ruled in Serano v. Priest that funding schools based on local property taxes was unequal, and therefore unconstitutional.
In response, a few years later, California passed Prop. 13, cutting property tax levels to almost nothing. This had untold negative consequences on local and state government, on the housing market, and on education (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)#Negative_effects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978... for a summary).
- judk 12y agoWhat were the consequences for education? The court said that rich kids and poor kids must have equal education, and rich californians decided to take their kids' education private to avoid paying toneducate poor kids. It exposed the selfishness of wealthy folk, but didn't make anyone's education worse
- MisterBastahrd 12y agoWhile school systems are usually funded by millages, schools themselves are usually funded by the number of students enrolled. Administrative costs don't necessarily go down when there are less students, but the total amount of money the school gets to spend on education certainly does. Personally, I would welcome a complete ban of private schools at the K-12 level. Force those people to send their kids to public schools and they'll suddenly be screaming from the rooftops for the school systems to improve.