| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
mac said: | Quote: | | Absolutely clueless on the right. In California, the right pushed through Proposition 13 which capped local property taxes, delivering a windfall to old farts like me that stay in their houses--and crippling public education |
No more clueless than you are regarding how other states fund their schools.
And you say the right created this issue?:
| Quote: | The state provides the majority of K–12 funding.
California’s public schools receive funding from three sources: the state (57%), property taxes and other local sources (29%), and the federal government (14%). The proportion of funding from each source varies across school districts. The majority of revenue (almost 70%) is unrestricted general purpose funding. The remainder is restricted categorical state and federal funding earmarked for special programs and purposes such as special education, class size reduction, and the National School Lunch Program.
In recent decades, the courts and voters have shifted school funding from the local to the state level.
For most of their history, California’s school districts financed their operations largely through local property taxes, with limited state and federal supplemental aid. This created large differences in per pupil funding across districts because of varying property values and tax rates. In 1971, the California Supreme Court ruled this system unconstitutional and ordered the state to equalize funding across districts. In 1978, Proposition 13 reduced the local property tax revenues available to schools, and the state had to provide even more financial support to maintain similar funding levels across districts. In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98, mandating that a minimum of roughly 40% of the state’s general fund be dedicated to education each year.
However, state support has declined, and options for increasing revenue at the local level are limited.
The recession and a slow economic recovery have led to declining state revenue and a corresponding reduction in the state’s funding of K–12 schools. In other states, residents can increase their property tax rates to provide additional funding for local schools. Although Proposition 13 limits such property tax increases in California, some other options are available. With 66% voter approval, local residents can levy a parcel tax—a flat fee per parcel of land. Other sources of local revenue include interest on investments, limited student fees, and private donations.
The school finance system is considered unfair and complex …
Many studies have found California’s school finance system inequitable, with wide variation in per pupil funding; and the system is governed by such a complex array of laws and formulas that only a few experts understand how it works. Furthermore, critics charge that the large number of restrictions and categorical programs make it the most centralized and highly regulated school finance system in the country. In 2009, the state addressed its overregulation by removing the spending restrictions on 40 state categorical programs: Districts may now spend those program funds for any educational purpose through 2014–15. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2014 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Still clueless. Proposition 13 shifted school funding to the State. proposition 98 established a policy to spend a certain amount--in response to proposition 13. As Santayana said, those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The point you missed is that many states, counties and cities DO use property taxes to fund schools. Calif. seems to go their own way quite often which is no surprise. The fact that you don't acknowledge what else is going on in the rest of the nation suggests that maybe you are the clueless one. Calif. is not the only state in the country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Techno
I read your response regarding how some states allow local funding for schools. I wonder to what extent.
Colorado counties levy and collect property taxes for schools which are sent to the State to be placed in a large "pot" for redistribution to individual school districts. The State funds a set amount to each school (including Charter schools BTW) that is adjusted based on school size and a number of other factors.
If a local school district wishes to provide additional funding for local schools they are limited in the total per student amount. The reason is to provide (mostly) equality in funding for publicly funded education. The local school districts, however, are responsible for construction of the facilities.
A little research indicates this is a common funding method used in a number of states. Do you have any examples where a school district is allowed unlimited funding according to the desire of the local taxpayer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keycocker
Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The huge rise in property taxes in Hawaii was caused by the huge run up in home values, not higher taxes.
I thought Cal was the same and that was the reason for Prop. 13.
Hawaii dealt with by giving a $200,000 deduction. It your house is worth around that you only pay a min tax.
Our school funding works as co board describes in Colo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most states use a combination of funding sources--see this link: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/finance/how-do-we-fund-our-schools/197/
Only a bit dated. California had, as Hawaii, a run-up in property values that increased local property taxes unfairly. Proposition 13 was the result when the legislature failed to act. While some property tax relief was clearly called for, the results have been terrible for roads, police and fire, and particularly schools, with tax funding going up more slowly than costs for all of these things. But you have a tremendous lag in adjusting taxes--I probably pay 1/3 of the taxes that my neighbor--with three kids that I have taught--who moved in next door does. Taxes will go up when the property sells, but only very slowly if you stay in your home. This measure was imitated in a number of states, not to mention Grover Norquist.
Two things happened as a result. First, control over funding passed largely to the legislature, and between legislation and litigation, it now takes more administrators to account for the funding streams. Second, funding, adjusted for inflation, has dropped. The move for private schools and charter schools, under the illusion that this will provide better opportunity, has exacerbated these trends.
California has now dropped to 49th in the Country in funding : http://edsource.org/today/2013/california-drops-to-49th-in-school-spending-in-annual-ed-week-report/25379#.Uub1QxDTlD8
It was not always so:
| Quote: | It's difficult to believe now, but there was a time -- through the eras of flower children, bell bottoms and disco -- when the Golden State was widely seen as the gold standard on education spending.
Class sizes were low. Schools were well maintained. Textbooks and other instructional materials were new.
Back then, California ranked in the top 10 nationwide in per pupil education spending.
The abundance made an impression on Michael Kirst, now the president of the California State Board of Education, when he moved to California from Virginia in 1969.
"There was free summer school for every kid that wanted it," he said. "I'd never heard of such a thing."
A multitude of factors has caused California's relative standing in school spending to sink like a gold coin in a swimming pool.
The state now ranks 35th in per pupil spending, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau. Factor in cost-of-living considerations and California's place in the pecking order among all 50 states and the District of Columbia is a dismal 49. That's ahead of only Nevada and Utah, according to a widely cited annual January report by Education Week. (Per-pupil spending figures from Education Week include state and local funds, but not federal money, or funds for capital improvements. Census figures include federal dollars but also exclude capital outlay.)
However, the needle is poised to begin moving in the other direction, thanks to two big game-changers. One is the November passage of Proposition 30, the temporary tax hike that will primarily benefit public education. The other, which was signed into law in late June, is the Local Control Funding Formula -- Gov. Jerry Brown's successful attempt to revolutionize the way school dollars are distributed.
The first wave of replenishment will hit the coffers of local school districts this fall, mostly in modest fashion. The infusion is expected to increase year by year for a time, but specific numbers are tough to come by.
The Governor's Office has projected that, by 2016-17, California will boost its per-pupil spending by $2,800 over the 2011-12 amount, bringing it to somewhere near the current national average in raw dollars. That would be quite a bump, but that projection is questioned in some education circles.
In any event, the approaching relief raises an intriguing question: to what extent -- if at all -- will more money lead to better academic performance? It's a question that the brightest minds in education have been debating for years.
"Some would argue there is very little correlation," said Maggie Weston, a research fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California. "Others would say we probably should be spending more money, but it's about wise investment. So, just spending more money in exactly the same way probably won't lead to better student outcome."
As it happens, California's level of its funding lines up pretty neatly with the performance of its students.
Much as it ranks 49th on cost-adjusted per-pupil spending, its nationwide standing in academic performance on math and English tests among fourth- and eighth-graders ranges from 46th to 49th, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress -- the most authoritative source of interstate comparison on academic performance.
Similarly, Vermont, which occupies the No. 1 spot nationwide on per-pupil spending by Education Week's measure, ranks an impressive 6th in fourth-grade mathematics.
But on the other hand, test scores in California have risen steadily over the past half-decade, even though that stretch of time marks one of the worst five-year periods for school finance in state history. |
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130727/california-national-rank-on-per-pupil-spending-abysmal-but-tide-is-poised-to-change
It is not easy to find trends over time adjusted for inflation. This shows a slight increase--and shows overall that about half the funding is local and half state:
http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find it interesting how topics get sidetracked, maybe intentionally, maybe not. The school funding topic originated simply by me saying that people pay school taxes via property taxes even if they don't have children, and if someone does have children and they choose to send them to a private school, they remove one warm body from the public school classroom, but still pay school taxes, which should provide more dollars per remaining student.
While it is now clear that states, counties and cities fund schools in a variety of ways, IT ALL COMES FROM SOME SORT OF TAXATION.
Acknowledging that my theory may not be 100% correct, the only reasonable question is - If a child is pulled from a public school and enrolled in a private school, would that have a negative or positive impact on that particular schools funding, thus hindering rather than helping that school?
At some point, education funding is based on enrollment, but at which point does it becomes a factor? I don't know. I am not necessarily looking for an answer, just getting the train back on its original track. As far as I am concerned, the train has stopped at its destination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Techno
In Colorado, school funding is based on a per pupil system with adjustments for size of school etc. In the small town in the mountains where I live, we have a K-12 school with a total of 60 to 70 students. A couple of friends of mine thought the school was not up to their standards, so they sent their kids to a school in Durango (liberal college town...very good schools). The Durango school gets the money from the State for those kids.
So, the small school took a hit. Pretty big really. If a dozen parents did the same, the school would not survive.
This is good and bad. It forces the school to try a little harder to keep students....competition. However, it does allow a system where schools in rural areas or with high drop out rates lose funding when parents send kids to other schools or home school. So, yes, private schools can affect public schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Techno
In Colorado, school funding is based on a per pupil system with adjustments for size of school etc. In the small town in the mountains where I live, we have a K-12 school with a total of 60 to 70 students. A couple of friends of mine thought the school was not up to their standards, so they sent their kids to a school in Durango (liberal college town...very good schools). The Durango school gets the money from the State for those kids.
So, the small school took a hit. Pretty big really. If a dozen parents did the same, the school would not survive.
This is good and bad. It forces the school to try a little harder to keep students....competition. However, it does allow a system where schools in rural areas or with high drop out rates lose funding when parents send kids to other schools or home school. So, yes, private schools can affect public schools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
In Texas, property taxes support public education, but what may be described as a liberal solution came to be from a conservative state. Wealthy cities/districts collecting lots of property taxes must give some to the State, which then re-distributes the "extra" money to poorer cities/districts in an attempt to equalize the quality of education.
I have mixed feelings about the concept, but it seems to work. What has happened in some districts that are wealthy, the community supports the school system with private donations for projects since there aren't enough tax dollars for some of the things the community perceives as needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
