Public schooling is funded by the property tax of that school district, so the more expensive the houses are in that district, the more money gets invested into the school. Therefore lower-income communities have less money to fund the schools and some debate whether this puts lower-income communities at an unfair disadvantage. Some think that there should be a way where lower-income districts could get more funding that does not rely on income tax so that they can get the same new supplies and chance at a better and more in-depth education, just like the higher-income school zones.
Property taxes fund schools because of how public education developed in America. The United States was one of the first countries in the world to offer public education, but it did not begin at the federal level. Initially, local governments made efforts to provide free public or community elementary schools (Bruce et al., 2019). Eventually, in the mid-to-late 1800s, some states, especially in the northern and northeastern United States, began passing state laws requiring that all children be offered or required to attend school up to a certain level but leaving it up to local communities to fund and manage appropriate facilities and staff based on local needs.
Property taxes have always been a critical source of revenue for local governments. Most people understand that income taxes are inherently regressive, forcing the poorest to pay too much of their cost of living to maintain the system. Property owners have demonstrated that they have excess wealth, so they are used. In the old days, it was not just real estate that was taxed; even household goods, antiques, cars, boats, and other possessions were taxed (Frisch, 2017). Since the property tax has a state and local component, it works well to create a base level of funding. The state portion guarantees a certain level of revenue, and the municipality can increase it as it sees fit. The suburbs that have good schools have them because they regularly vote for property tax increases. Of course, this creates serious problems with unequal educational opportunities, often related to income.
In today’s more complex, technological, and globalized world, even primary education requires far more resources than it once did. With the decline of decently paid but relatively simple industrial jobs, most American students will need at least a college degree, as well as college or some other form of work-oriented post-secondary education (Kelly, 2020). Some localities today can fund adequate public education systems mainly through local property taxes. Many others, huge, older cities with large numbers of low-income residents who rent, do not own their homes, or live in public housing, as well as many rural communities and less affluent suburban areas, cannot operate schools at nearly the same level.
Local public assistance and some federal aid are expected to help close the gap. However, available aid tends to be woefully inadequate, especially recently. The federal government has cut taxes significantly for high-income taxpayers and has shifted much of the burden for many government services to states that are poorly supplied (Frisch, 2017). They can manage state government finances independently, not to mention providing additional aid to local cities and towns in need. As a result, educational opportunities in the United States vary greatly depending on where you live, and children must be born happy to get a decent education (Kelly, 2020). If some child about to be born has made the wrong decision about which parents and in which municipality they will be born, that “wrong decision” about where and how to start life could very well reduce their educational and career opportunities, as well as their potential for human development for the rest of their lives.
Until educational opportunities are equally funded throughout our country, it is ridiculous to claim that America offers “equal opportunity” to reinforce this unequal treatment. Better-off parents have the means to live in more expensive communities with well-funded public schools that offer their children super-rich educational experiences and resources. At the same time, low-income families are forced to send their children to schools in disrepair, to crumbling buildings, without even the most essential resources, such as enough modern textbooks for each student.
Looking at other developed countries that far outperform American students in academic achievement, almost all have far more robust education systems managed and funded at the national level. The problem is that too many American adults today don’t even value a good education enough, period. Among those who do, far fewer believe that their public tax dollars should be used to benefit the education of any child but their own. There is a widespread misunderstanding of “enlightened self-interest” versus purely knee-jerk, simple, stupid, and selfish self-interest.
Perhaps parents only care about their children’s education or the children of your community. How extraordinary their lives would be if they lived in a country filled with poorly educated, ignorant, and poorly socialized fellow citizens. Allowing other people’s children to languish in dysfunctional schools simply because they have less money and live in poorer or even just stingier communities when it comes to education funding is a barrier. It keeps our nation from becoming more prosperous and better governed, with an electorate better equipped to vote more effectively. Thus, in the long run, virtually every American citizen-except the super-rich, who can afford to live their entire lives in protected private areas of exclusive privilege-will end up living poorer because of a lack of nationwide public investment. Funding is not the reason why schools in wealthier cities tend to do better than schools in poorer cities (Bruce et al., 2019). It may be a minor contributing factor, but the real reason for high graduation rates and college readiness in one area and high dropout rates in another area lies in the surrounding community and students’ homes.
References
Bruce, M. D., Ermasova, N., & Mattox, L. (2019). The fiscal disparity and achievement gap between extremely wealthy and poor school districts in Illinois. Public Organization Review, 19(4), 541-565.
Kelly, M. G. (2020). Theoretically, all children are equal. Practically this can never be so: The history of the district property tax in California and the choice of inequality. Teachers College Record, 122(2), 1-32.
Frisch, A. M. (2017). The class is greener on the other side: How private donations to public schools play into fair funding. Duke LJ, 67, 427-479.