Twelve Indictments of the U.S Education System (Series)
Number Two — Property Taxes
This article follows on from an article I published last week, titled “Twelve Indictments of the U.S Education System: Number One — Teach to the test mentality”, where I discussed the first of twelve indictments, here is the second.
Demographics of districts —
Just like everything else in this country, our schools run on funds. Funding for schools is done through each districts’ property taxes. This might not sound like an issue on the surface, but let’s break it down. The amount of property taxes brought in is dependent on the price of the property because our taxes are a percentage of property value. Every city’s local government chooses the percentage based on the amount needed for each service that needs funding. Generally, the cities near each other attempt to stay in the same range as each other, but it’s unlikely that they will be exactly the same.
For comparison’s sake, let’s look at Green Bay, Wisconsin — a generally wealthy area, compared to Milwaukee, Wisconsin — a larger city but poorer in comparison to Green Bay. In Green Bay, 76.7% of their population is Caucasian, and they have an owner-occupied housing rate of 55.6%. Therefore, the majority of their demographic is white, and more than half of Green Bay’s population owns their own homes. On top of that rate, their median housing value is $131,100, and as mentioned before, housing value is what will be used to calculate property taxes for the city. Green Bay’s schools received 39.4% of their total property tax of $154,524,809 back in 2017 (please see picture below). 24.7% of Green Bay’s population is under 18, for simplicity we will assume every person under the age of 18 is in school, that’s about $2,340.44 funding per student for the year.
In Milwaukee, 44.6% of their population is Caucasian, and they have an owner-occupied housing rate of 41.8%. So Milwaukee has a 32.1% difference in their caucasian population and a 13.8% difference in their homeowner population. On top of that, their median housing value is $118,000 which is $13,100 less than Green Bay. Milwaukee’s schools received 34.8% of their property tax of $793,979,947 back in 2017 (please see picture below). Compared with Green Bay, Milwaukee has 26.1% of its population under the age of 18. Which works out to be about $1,793.26 per student for the year.
Impact of funding —
That $547.18 might not seem like that much in comparison, but $547.18 can buy a Chromebook, or pay for a child’s entire school supply list, it could even be used to give all the teachers and staff raises — PER STUDENT. In the education world, $547.18 makes a huge difference. Milwaukee has 5.6 times the population that Green Bay has, and their funding should be proportionate to that amount, but it isn’t. This doesn’t just create an immediate concern, but a long-lasting one.
Funding doesn’t only affect what supplies a school has, or what repairs it can make to their buildings, it also dictates what faculty they can bring in, the extracurricular activities it can provide, the alumni connections to help graduating students get assistance applying for schools, and scholarships, and it can limit the type of college students can get into. Education is the root of our society. If the roots are bad, the tree isn’t going to grow to its full potential.
Every student in every school should have an equal opportunity and equal access to the education they deserve. Underfunded schools are trying their best, but there’s only so much they can do with what they are given. Poor funding doesn’t just mean that they have fewer pencils around for kids to borrow. Poor funding also means fewer teachers and staff and lower wages than the better-funded schools, and fewer resources for students and staff alike. This can lead to schools losing teachers and students to other districts because if they have the means to leave, they will.
As students leave, funds diminish even farther. Furthermore, schools have to pay for losing the student, and they no longer receive that student’s fees for the year. This perpetuates the decline of the schools’ financial system, and as it decreases, every child who can’t leave is deprived more and more of a quality education.
Government participation —
With all of that in mind, I realize it would be unrealistic to completely dismantle the financial setup of our governmental bodies and their taxing system, however, we need to work to balance out the gaps in school funding. Local government sets the base budget, but state and federal government could be sending grants to schools and districts that have the lowest funding.
To be clear, this isn’t a new idea. Our state and federal governments have given schools significant grants to help supplement the funds from local governments in the past. They would look at the districts as a whole and allocate the money accordingly. Sadly, grants are getting directed more towards schools that are succeeding than ones that are failing. The Bush Administration back in 2001 started the precedent with his No Child Left Behind policy that linked funding to test scores. The policy focused on rewarding good scores with more money and punished bad scores with pulling funds. This was the start of the downslide.
What we need to be doing is focusing grants on poorly funded schools. Supplementing local education funding with grants will even the playing field and allow all schools to grow and flourish. Once districts are given a chance with the proper funding, they can start to become more independent.
Access and equal opportunity to education is possible. It doesn’t even have to be a discussion about where to get the money because the allocations are already out there, we just have to direct them to the right places.
