As is becoming usual today, you'll get two posts, one that is about something I've been thinking about and one that's about what my life is like. Joy!
Here is a quote from my textbook on "The Economics of Poverty and Discrimination."
"In California, for example, the poorest elementary school district had only $15,500 of assessed property per pupil in 1997. The richest district had over $47 million of property per pupil!"
The thing that makes this particularly troublesome is the fact that schools in California are funded in a large part by local property taxes. The Federal government supplied 8%, the State supplied 48% and the rest of school funding is from the local government. If you are a child in a rich school district, you will have better education. Schools also tend to be built around neighborhoods... which for the most part means around income levels. If you're rich, you live in a nice neighborhood with other rich people. If you are poor, you live among other poor people. This means that a poor child is likely to get a lower quality of education, when that is the child that needs it the most!
Those who are in rich school districts though are not likely to want to have the poor in their district! It dilutes the benefit that their children receive from someone who can't contribute their 'own share.'
I think that one of the better solutions would be to take funding of schools away from the local governments. Property taxes should be paid to the state for the most part rather than the local. The money can then be divided equally up between all students and schools in the state. The ones who will protest the most? The rich who are probably sending their kids to expensive private schools anyways. I lucked out and got a pretty well off school district. But this fact is just staggering. Is a rich child worth more than a poor? This information seems to say so!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hmm, vi har liknande problem i Sverige också. Jag tror att din lösning kan fungera.
Post a Comment