Why? What happens when a school is filled up? What happens to the students who have to attend the schools that other don't want to attend? On what basis should one child whose parents believe they will get a better education at one school get that over another? How about they push to ensure that all schools are staffed with the best teachers they can find?
To me this solves nothing. There will still be schools that are worse.
State aid amounts to slightly under half the revenue funding public schools. Collectively, everyone has a tangible investment in ALL public schools, so why shouldn't enrollment be open? There are many reasons that parents and students might choose a school other than the local school. Disparities in academic achievement is just one; there are also disparities in program offerings and interscholastic athletics. Students with aspirations in art, athletics, drama, music or intending to enter a highly competitive college should be able to enroll in a public school system with offerings conducive to such aims. A student who wants to compete in lacrosse should be able to attend a school with a lacrosse team. A student who wants to be a cabinetmaker should be able to attend a school with a woodworking program. A student who wants to play cello should be able to attend a school with an orchestra. A dyslexic student should be able to attend a school with the strongest LD support staff. A student who excels in math should be able to attend a school with advanced math offerings and AP classes.
The time for change is past due; school quality should not reflect the value of surrounding real estate. ...Nor should real estate value determine one's tax obligation.
CM, I agreed with most of what you said - until the comment about real estate value not determining the owner's tax obligation. As a flat tax is unlikely, just what SHOULD determine property taxes?
There are (at least) three problems with real property-based taxes. If I lose my job and my income tanks, I still owe tax bills based on the value of my house. The value of my house bears no relationship to my drain on public money or my ability to support the services that money provides for.
If I decide to maintain my house, give it a fresh coat of paint; my assessment goes up- as do my taxes. For some, this factor discourages upkeep.
Renters (who pay taxes indirectly as a portion of rent) are absolved from a direct relationship between their income and the public services they partake of.
The current system may have been fair when houses were valued at $10,000 and tax bills were 2 or 3 hundred dollars (or less) annually, but hitting up home owners for thousands of dollars every four months in this economy is brutal.
Somehow income should come into play when determining tax obligation- or change the base from real estate to how many vehicles one owns. At least there is a relationship between vehicles and public expenditure.
Why? What happens when a
Why? What happens when a school is filled up? What happens to the students who have to attend the schools that other don't want to attend? On what basis should one child whose parents believe they will get a better education at one school get that over another? How about they push to ensure that all schools are staffed with the best teachers they can find?
To me this solves nothing. There will still be schools that are worse.
State aid amounts to slightly
State aid amounts to slightly under half the revenue funding public schools. Collectively, everyone has a tangible investment in ALL public schools, so why shouldn't enrollment be open? There are many reasons that parents and students might choose a school other than the local school. Disparities in academic achievement is just one; there are also disparities in program offerings and interscholastic athletics. Students with aspirations in art, athletics, drama, music or intending to enter a highly competitive college should be able to enroll in a public school system with offerings conducive to such aims. A student who wants to compete in lacrosse should be able to attend a school with a lacrosse team. A student who wants to be a cabinetmaker should be able to attend a school with a woodworking program. A student who wants to play cello should be able to attend a school with an orchestra. A dyslexic student should be able to attend a school with the strongest LD support staff. A student who excels in math should be able to attend a school with advanced math offerings and AP classes.
The time for change is past due; school quality should not reflect the value of surrounding real estate. ...Nor should real estate value determine one's tax obligation.
CM, I agreed with most of
CM, I agreed with most of what you said - until the comment about real estate value not determining the owner's tax obligation. As a flat tax is unlikely, just what SHOULD determine property taxes?
There are (at least) three
There are (at least) three problems with real property-based taxes. If I lose my job and my income tanks, I still owe tax bills based on the value of my house. The value of my house bears no relationship to my drain on public money or my ability to support the services that money provides for.
If I decide to maintain my house, give it a fresh coat of paint; my assessment goes up- as do my taxes. For some, this factor discourages upkeep.
Renters (who pay taxes indirectly as a portion of rent) are absolved from a direct relationship between their income and the public services they partake of.
The current system may have been fair when houses were valued at $10,000 and tax bills were 2 or 3 hundred dollars (or less) annually, but hitting up home owners for thousands of dollars every four months in this economy is brutal.
Somehow income should come into play when determining tax obligation- or change the base from real estate to how many vehicles one owns. At least there is a relationship between vehicles and public expenditure.