The geometry teacher is a recording. The chemistry students often teach themselves.

[mrjurrs]

If not property taxes, how do you suggest public education be funded?

Why do you think property taxes are the right method? Should we use property taxes to fund other infrastructure? Good streets in rich neighborhoods and potholes everywhere in the poorer neighborhoods?

I suggest that public education be funded equitably.

 

[MamboDervish]

Why do you think property taxes are the right method?

? Where did I say that? I never said so. Read my post #20. It's a simple question addressed to BirdinHand in response to their post.

Should we use property taxes to fund other infrastructure? Good streets in rich neighborhoods and potholes everywhere in the poorer neighborhoods?

Now you're off and running, I know not where.

I suggest that public education be funded equitably.

OK - how do you propose we fund it "equitably" ??

 

[mrjurrs]

? Where did I say that? I never said so. Read my post #20. It's a simple question addressed to BirdinHand in response to their post.

Now you're off and running, I know not where.

OK - how do you propose we fund it "equitably" ??

You didn't say it, you did say this "If not property taxes, how do you suggest public education be funded? Seems like a reasonable interpretation on my part.

Shows absurdity of using property taxes for something everyone uses (and puts it in the same category as education)

Like other government programs. We see how much it costs and put it in the budget.

 

[BirdinHand]

If not property taxes, how do you suggest public education be funded?

The problem with funding based on property taxes is that area A is poor and has lower value properties, so they collect less $.

I’ve always said that *if* you want to have truly fair public education funding, that a tax rate should be set at a state level and distributed back to districts on a per capita basis.

It won’t happen, because wealthier areas won’t want their funding to go to other districts, they’ll want to keep it in their district.

So what we have is a system where “good schools” drive property values and maintain property values in one area - because those high values support a good district.

Meanwhile, lower property value area schools fall further and further behind…because the worse they do, the lower values fall and the less $ there is.


My suggestion would be to have a portion of property taxes that are allocated for “general education funding” to be sent directly to each state capital - collected as a “state tax” vs. local property tax. And then “general education” funding provided on a per capita basis from the state for each student. (So let’s say 50% of the portion of property taxes that is used for funding education goes to the state, 50% remains local)

This would allow still local control of funding to an extent - if town A wants to build a new football stadium or wants to invest in new playgrounds, etc - fine. They can. If town B values arts more than sports - they can fund more drama and music programs then sports, etc.

But pulling out that % for “general education funding” would assure that EVERY STUDENT in each state receives a minimum level of funding towards general education. And then each district should be able to compensate teachers at an equal level because their salaries could be funded via the “general education fund” vs. individual districts.

I’d also move the contract negotiation from individual districts to the state. Simply because there shouldn’t be a discrepancy in teacher contracts from one district to another. If you are a teacher in NJ, your starting salary should be X. Not variable based on districts. This would eliminate teachers being “stolen” from lower income districts by higher income districts by leveling salary, benefits, etc across the board.

Districts still retain hiring and staffing decisions - but the compensation is handled at a state level for the purpose of equalizing public education across the state.

 

[MamboDervish]

You didn't say it, you did say this "If not property taxes, how do you suggest public education be funded? Seems like a reasonable interpretation on my part.

No. It wasn't.

Shows absurdity of using property taxes for something everyone uses (and puts it in the same category as education)

?? Since when does everyone use public education? Or any education, public or private, for that matter.

Here in the good'ol USof'Murrika, one can imagine large segments of the electorate - those with no children - balking at the prospect. Of course, in this country, large segments of the electorate balk at any taxes whatsoever. The word alone makes them twitch and convulse apoplectically. It probably accounts for why so many people don't object to their last president being a tax cheat. They actually admire that attribute in the man.

Not my feelings on the subject, mind you. I'm a product of a public education system, and believe and support it, despite not having any kids of my own. In my mind, I always substitute the word "taxes" with "services" to keep things in perspective. I like having the roads plowed, and the garbage collected.

Like other government programs. We see how much it costs and put it in the budget.

Okay. But aren't property taxes the bulk of the money in the budget?
What am I missing here?

 

[MamboDervish]

The problem with funding based on property taxes is that area A is poor and has lower value properties, so they collect less $.

I’ve always said that *if* you want to have truly fair public education funding, that a tax rate should be set at a state level and distributed back to districts on a per capita basis.

Point taken.

It won’t happen, because wealthier areas won’t want their funding to go to other districts, they’ll want to keep it in their district.

So what we have is a system where “good schools” drive property values and maintain property values in one area - because those high values support a good district.

Meanwhile, lower property value area schools fall further and further behind…because the worse they do, the lower values fall and the less $ there is.

And again ...

My suggestion would be to have a portion of property taxes that are allocated for “general education funding” to be sent directly to each state capital - collected as a “state tax” vs. local property tax. And then “general education” funding provided on a per capita basis from the state for each student. (So let’s say 50% of the portion of property taxes that is used for funding education goes to the state, 50% remains local)

This would allow still local control of funding to an extent - if town A wants to build a new football stadium or wants to invest in new playgrounds, etc - fine. They can. If town B values arts more than sports - they can fund more drama and music programs then sports, etc.

Sounds reasonable.

But pulling out that % for “general education funding” would assure that EVERY STUDENT in each state receives a minimum level of funding towards general education. And then each district should be able to compensate teachers at an equal level because their salaries could be funded via the “general education fund” vs. individual districts.

I’d also move the contract negotiation from individual districts to the state. Simply because there shouldn’t be a discrepancy in teacher contracts from one district to another. If you are a teacher in NJ, your starting salary should be X. Not variable based on districts. This would eliminate teachers being “stolen” from lower income districts by higher income districts by leveling salary, benefits, etc across the board.

OK. If the teacher's compensation is the same throughout the state - from the most rural to the inner cities - what the inducement for teachers to work in the inner cities? Might the same pay scale not result in inner city staffing shortages? I live in a very expensive city. The cost of housing alone is disproportionate to the rest of my state, so I suspect the salaries would have to be adjusted to compensate.

Districts still retain hiring and staffing decisions - but the compensation is handled at a state level for the purpose of equalizing public education across the state.

 

[The Mark]

Teacher shortages are getting renewed attention this year. But in Mississippi and other Southern states, this crisis dates back more than a decade.​

"The nature and the severity of the teacher crisis differ radically from state to state, district to district and even school to school. Some districts have only recently started experiencing teacher shortages, but in many Southern states, the problem has been long-standing and only gotten worse. It doesn’t help either that the state has shortchanged districts like West Bolivar Consolidated by millions of dollars, failing to fund a program that would send more money to poor districts.

Researchers have found that schools that serve high percentages of minority students and students in poverty have more difficulty finding and retaining qualified educators than Whiter, more affluent schools. The West Bolivar Consolidated School District is 98 percent Black, and 100 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals.

...When public schools were compelled to integrate here, White students moved to private schools that came to be known as segregation academies — institutions that still stand today and serve a largely White student body. The desegregation fight in the county is hardly history: In 2016, a federal judge ordered two high schools in Cleveland, the county’s largest city, to consolidate into one to better integrate the student body. But at the schools that make up the West Bolivar district, there is nothing to integrate. White students left in the 1970s after courts told schools to open their doors to children of any race."

Link

Hmmm...

"Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

Link

Ya think?

So why are they having difficulty finding teachers?
I'm assuming some combination of people not wanting to live there and not being offered enough pay to do so anyway.

But there is probably more to it.

I've heard stories about how teachers in some areas have been buying classroom/teaching supplies with their own money because the allocated supplies are insufficient.
And yet I've also heard people say we've been throwing money at schools for years with no improvement.

These two things are contradicting each other, so I assume there are more factors.


Seems like school quality is too closely tied to the affluence of the local area.

 

[Helix]

Teachers generally don't like being paid shit wages for difficult work. Many also don't enjoy taking shit from parents every time faux reminds its rage potatoes to hate teachers.

 

[BirdinHand]

the teacher's compensation is the same throughout the state - from the most rural to the inner cities - what the inducement for teachers to work in the inner cities? Might the same pay scale not result in inner city staffing shortages? I live in a very expensive city. The cost of housing alone is disproportionate to the rest of my state, so I suspect the salaries would have to be adjusted to compensate.

You would adjust based on the cost of living in each area, or requirements of each district.

The point being that District A wouldn’t be able to “steal” teachers from another district because they could lure them with higher compensation or benefits…you create a central “contract” with standard salary and benefits for teachers state wide in the public school district.

I watch around me how the “better” districts can get the better teachers because even a 5 mile difference can mean the difference of $10K or more in salary, different benefits, etc because each district negotiates union contracts, benefits, etc individually.

The formula has to be changed. A fresh out of college teacher with a bachelor’s degree should be “banded” at $X and then receive additional compensation based on what district they’re going to be at - if it is a district with a higher cost of living, if it is a struggling district with low test scores where that teacher will have more expectations set on them, if it a district that is plagued by a reputation of difficult students or uninvolved families, etc.

This also leverages numbers in order to attain better costs regarding benefits, etc - and you wouldnt have teachers in XYZ district striking, because the district isn’t responsible for union negotiations, the state is. And there is ONE overarching contract, not hundreds of individual independent contracts.

 

[Felis Leo]

If not property taxes, how do you suggest public education be funded?

As they are in California. Through both property taxes AND a general fund that utilizes state income taxes. There is little benefit in school funding being tied to the relative wealth and property values of the ZIP Code where the school is located.

 

[bomberfox]

As they are in California. Through both property taxes AND a general fund that utilizes state income taxes. There is little benefit in school funding being tied to the relative wealth and property values of the ZIP Code where the school is located.

In fact this form of funding through property taxes has created nearly 100years of racial, class, and well a whole bunch of conflict that used to break out into violence on a larger scale.

 

[mrjurrs]

The problem with funding based on property taxes is that area A is poor and has lower value properties, so they collect less $.

I’ve always said that *if* you want to have truly fair public education funding, that a tax rate should be set at a state level and distributed back to districts on a per capita basis.

It won’t happen, because wealthier areas won’t want their funding to go to other districts, they’ll want to keep it in their district.

So what we have is a system where “good schools” drive property values and maintain property values in one area - because those high values support a good district.

Meanwhile, lower property value area schools fall further and further behind…because the worse they do, the lower values fall and the less $ there is.


My suggestion would be to have a portion of property taxes that are allocated for “general education funding” to be sent directly to each state capital - collected as a “state tax” vs. local property tax. And then “general education” funding provided on a per capita basis from the state for each student. (So let’s say 50% of the portion of property taxes that is used for funding education goes to the state, 50% remains local)

This would allow still local control of funding to an extent - if town A wants to build a new football stadium or wants to invest in new playgrounds, etc - fine. They can. If town B values arts more than sports - they can fund more drama and music programs then sports, etc.

But pulling out that % for “general education funding” would assure that EVERY STUDENT in each state receives a minimum level of funding towards general education. And then each district should be able to compensate teachers at an equal level because their salaries could be funded via the “general education fund” vs. individual districts.

I’d also move the contract negotiation from individual districts to the state. Simply because there shouldn’t be a discrepancy in teacher contracts from one district to another. If you are a teacher in NJ, your starting salary should be X. Not variable based on districts. This would eliminate teachers being “stolen” from lower income districts by higher income districts by leveling salary, benefits, etc across the board.

Districts still retain hiring and staffing decisions - but the compensation is handled at a state level for the purpose of equalizing public education across the state.

One thing that you didn't bring up was the addition of parent funding mechanisms in richer schools. Not only does my school benefit from high property taxes locally, we also have a very active parent funding mechanism. This year they paid for two additional teachers on our campus.

I am unaware of any 'poor' school being able to access this type of 'off-the-book' funding.

 

[MamboDervish]

You would adjust based on the cost of living in each area, or requirements of each district.

 

[justabubba]

One thing that you didn't bring up was the addition of parent funding mechanisms in richer schools. Not only does my school benefit from high property taxes locally, we also have a very active parent funding mechanism. This year they paid for two additional teachers on our campus.

I am unaware of any 'poor' school being able to access this type of 'off-the-book' funding.

in my wife's last school assignment, where between 14-17% of the students tested as achieving average academic attainment for their grade level, the teachers were expected to join the PTA
because there were no parent members
this school is located in one of the MSAs (metropolitan statistical area) having one of the lowest living standards in the nation
poverty, limited transportation, single-parent families, 2nd/3rd shift work, inability to speak english, low education expectations for asian, black, and hispanic populations were among the many things that 'inspired' low parental involvement in their childrens' educations

to help the child, the parent is needed. in large part, the students came from broken homes
many, MANY extra $millions in funding from title 9, the gates foundation, and local supplements, did not move the needle toward better academic attainment

 

[BirdinHand]

One thing that you didn't bring up was the addition of parent funding mechanisms in richer schools. Not only does my school benefit from high property taxes locally, we also have a very active parent funding mechanism. This year they paid for two additional teachers on our campus.

I am unaware of any 'poor' school being able to access this type of 'off-the-book' funding.

Oh, I agree completely.

I was focusing on just general educational funding - there are SO many more disparities that go into the puzzle.

 

[BirdinHand]

in my wife's last school assignment, where between 14-17% of the students tested as achieving average academic attainment for their grade level, the teachers were expected to join the PTA
because there were no parent members
this school is located in one of the MSAs (metropolitan statistical area) having one of the lowest living standards in the nation
poverty, limited transportation, single-parent families, 2nd/3rd shift work, inability to speak english, low education expectations for asian, black, and hispanic populations were among the many things that 'inspired' low parental involvement in their childrens' educations

to help the child, the parent is needed. in large part, the students came from broken homes
many, MANY extra $millions in funding from title 9, the gates foundation, and local supplements, did not move the needle toward better academic attainment

The PTA at the public school my son was at was good…but man, the PTO at his private is next level.

And he was in a good district in a rather affluent public district. But it was still a struggle to get parents involved whereas now, there are ALWAYS parents involved. From literal volunteers in the building to extra tutoring, extra curriculars and fundraising like crazy. They cover tuition costs for a portion of the student population that wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise (tuition is north of $20K annually in elementary)

 

[Callen]

Not sure what it takes for everyone to understand the value of a well educated population to society. Having a poorly educated underclass serves no one well. A well educated, healthy , productive populace benefits everyone in so many ways. Two concepts a lot of Americans can't seem to get their head around.

 

[justabubba]

The PTA at the public school my son was at was good…but man, the PTO at his private is next level.

And he was in a good district in a rather affluent public district. But it was still a struggle to get parents involved whereas now, there are ALWAYS parents involved. From literal volunteers in the building to extra tutoring, extra curriculars and fundraising like crazy. They cover tuition costs for a portion of the student population that wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise (tuition is north of $20K annually in elementary)

which speaks to what is essential to high achieving school attainment: parents active in their childrens' education

without that, you will infrequently see self-motivated students rise from their inferior school, but they will be the exception

 

[mrjurrs]

in my wife's last school assignment, where between 14-17% of the students tested as achieving average academic attainment for their grade level, the teachers were expected to join the PTA
because there were no parent members
this school is located in one of the MSAs (metropolitan statistical area) having one of the lowest living standards in the nation
poverty, limited transportation, single-parent families, 2nd/3rd shift work, inability to speak english, low education expectations for asian, black, and hispanic populations were among the many things that 'inspired' low parental involvement in their childrens' educations

to help the child, the parent is needed. in large part, the students came from broken homes
many, MANY extra $millions in funding from title 9, the gates foundation, and local supplements, did not move the needle toward better academic attainment

In those areas particularly, I like the idea of moving the school to a more community based education. Put in healthcare, dental, and vision care. Include food pantry and a 'Goodwill' type clothing operation. Set up childcare options and employment (and other institution assistance like legal and tax) assistance.

Children need their parents (or parent in many cases) to be successful in school. Changing the dynamic of these lower performing schools to include aid to the parents raising those kids would go a great deal in altering the perception of what education can do for these children.

 

[mrjurrs]

which speaks to what is essential to high achieving school attainment: parents active in their childrens' education

without that, you will infrequently see self-motivated students rise from their inferior school, but they will be the exception

You know what else makes it hard to see self-motivation at those schools? Hungry kids and hot/cold classrooms. Then we look at these schools and denigrate the students, their parents, and their communities.
#sad

 

[BirdinHand]

which speaks to what is essential to high achieving school attainment: parents active in their childrens' education

without that, you will infrequently see self-motivated students rise from their inferior school, but they will be the exception

Oh I don’t disagree.

The formula for public schools has been fundamentally flawed and really needs to be changed. It is incredibly antiquated and rooted in biases and inequalities - and disparities will continue to get larger and larger.

I fully support vouchers for that reason - to allow parents in the poorer performing areas to get their kids out of the broken. At least until we can change the system.

It’s a LOT of changes - sometimes literally requiring knocking down antiquated buildings and starting from the physical foundations of buildings and rebuilding.

We are slapping bandaids on broken foundations and wondering why it won’t work.

It’s like putting a skin graft on a festering, infected wound and wondering why it doesn’t work.

 

[Citizen]

Teacher shortages are getting renewed attention this year. But in Mississippi and other Southern states, this crisis dates back more than a decade.​

"The nature and the severity of the teacher crisis differ radically from state to state, district to district and even school to school. Some districts have only recently started experiencing teacher shortages, but in many Southern states, the problem has been long-standing and only gotten worse. It doesn’t help either that the state has shortchanged districts like West Bolivar Consolidated by millions of dollars, failing to fund a program that would send more money to poor districts.

Researchers have found that schools that serve high percentages of minority students and students in poverty have more difficulty finding and retaining qualified educators than Whiter, more affluent schools. The West Bolivar Consolidated School District is 98 percent Black, and 100 percent of children qualify for free or reduced-price meals.

...When public schools were compelled to integrate here, White students moved to private schools that came to be known as segregation academies — institutions that still stand today and serve a largely White student body. The desegregation fight in the county is hardly history: In 2016, a federal judge ordered two high schools in Cleveland, the county’s largest city, to consolidate into one to better integrate the student body. But at the schools that make up the West Bolivar district, there is nothing to integrate. White students left in the 1970s after courts told schools to open their doors to children of any race."

Link

Hmmm...

"Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies."

Link

Ya think?

I think the GOP have been running teachers away for decades. Pay off college debt for teachers and send anyone who wants to teach to college for free as long as they teach 10 or more years in a public school.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Apparently the main reason:

"White students moved to private schools that came to be known as segregation academies..."

Another leap to the wrong reason. White students and black students as well as brown and asian students move to private schools to get away from problems in public schools. Violence, discipline issues, low academic performance in the school, teacher shortages, not enough upper level and advanced courses, outdated facilities, and some who want a religious based education. These are the reasons most kids leave public schools.

 

[Super Chief]

Researchers have found that schools that serve high percentages of minority students and students in poverty have more difficulty finding and retaining qualified educators than Whiter, more affluent schools.

Do you blame anyone from wanting to work where there is less crime, where students are better behaved, where parents of students are partners in helping to teach and to discipline their children so that the learning enviroment for all is more conducive to learning?

My sister used to be a teacher in an mostly Black inner city school when she first started out. The constant disruptions in the classroom made it impossible to teach even the willing students. My sister was abused and physically and sexually assaulted by male students on multiple occasions. Even when those students were expelled, her car was then vandalized, she was followed home, and continually terrorized. Then she transferred to school in the suburbs which was mostly White and Hispanic and it was a world of difference. Children eager to learn, and parents being certain their kids were respectful.

Don't blame teachers for not wanting to be in a war zone. Poverty is not the issue. Poverty does not cause somebody to be a criminal, there is something else going on for a student to be a criminal.

 

[justabubba]

Another leap to the wrong reason. White students and black students as well as brown and asian students move to private schools to get away from problems in public schools. Violence, discipline issues, low academic performance in the school, teacher shortages, not enough upper level and advanced courses, outdated facilities, and some who want a religious based education. These are the reasons most kids leave public schools.

let's see what the historic indicators might tell us:

... In the 1964-65 school year, fewer than 9,500 students attended 83 private schools. But beginning in that year, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare began aggressively to enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibited segregation in any program that accepted federal funds. As desegregation progressed, white private schools sprang up across the state, especially in eastern North Carolina's Black Belt, where blacks constituted a majority or near-majority of the population. In the three years between 1968 (when the U.S. Supreme Court demanded immediate public school integration) and 1971, the number of students attending private schools in the state more than doubled, from less than 20,000 to more than 47,000; the number of private schools ballooned from 108 to 235. ...

Private Education- Part 4: Decline, Desegregation, and the Private School Boom | NCpedia

www.ncpedia.org